Posted on 05/01/2014 3:25:30 AM PDT by GonzoII
The Papacy in Scripture – More Than Matthew 16
In an earlier blog post, I made the point that the role of St. Peter and his successors is made remarkably clear in Matthew 16:18-19 and its immediate context:
And I tell you, you are Peter (Gr.—petros—‘rock’), and on this rock (Gr.—petra—‘rock’) I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Jesus here promises infallible authority to Peter that would empower him to speak in the place of Christ, or as his vicar on earth. Catholics believe just what the text says. When St. Peter (and his successors) “binds” something on earth, it is “bound” in heaven. That’s definitive authority–infallible authority–with the power of heaven to back it up!
A response I get fairly regularly in response to this is to claim the Church is using “this one text” to try and establish a dogma.
My first thought in response is always to say, ”How many times does God have to tell you something before you will believe and obey it?” After all, Jesus only gave us the proper form for baptism one time in Matthew 28:19, and yet all Christians believe it to be the proper form nonetheless.
Nevertheless, I do think this is a valid question that deserves an answer: Is Matthew 16 the only text that demonstrates the truth of Peter’s primacy and of the papacy in Scripture?
The answer is a resounding no!
The List Goes On and On
Below is a list of biblical texts all related to the primacy of St. Peter and the Papacy. Word count limitations prevent me from quoting all of them; you’ll have to do some homework and look up some of these texts yourself. But when you do, you’ll notice there is not a single “rock” to be found among them.
Mind you, this is not an exhaustive list. There are more biblical texts we could take a look at. Consider this my top 18 list:
1. Matt. 14:23-27: St. Peter is uniquely and miraculously empowered by Jesus to walk on water, and when his faith begins to falter, our Lord does not allow him to go under. This is a prelude to Jesus promising to communicate his authority that can never fail to Peter in Matt. 16. The gift of the papacy is here assured not to depend upon the person of St. Peter or of his successors, but on the promise and power of Christ.
2. Matt. 17:24-27: After receiving the promise of authority in Matt. 16, St. Peter is once again given supernatural power, and this time to provide for both himself and Jesus when the first-century equivalent of the I.R.S. comes calling. Peter acts as Christ’s “vicar,” or, in the place of Jesus, in miraculous fashion, once again, guaranteed by Jesus not to fail. He “pays the tax” for both Jesus and himself. If you don’t think this is miraculous, it’s almost April 15 right now. God ahead down to the closest fishin’ hole, cast a line in, catch a fish, and let’s see if there’s enough money in the fish’s mouth to pay your taxes, let alone yours and someone else’s.
3. Luke 5:1-10: The multitudes that gather to hear Jesus at the shore of Lake Gennesaret press in on him so that he has to step off shore into one of two boats that are there docked. The boat he steps into just happens to be Peter’s boat. Hmmmm. Jesus then proclaims the gospel from the barque of Peter (5:1-3)! Sound familiar? Then, Jesus tells Peter to put out into the deep and let down his nets for a catch. Can you imagine the people present? They must have been thinking that Jesus was nuts! Multitudes have to just stand there and watch St. Peter go fishing? St. Peter then says, “We have toiled all night and caught nothing” (vs. 5), yet he lets down the nets at the command of Jesus. When they catch so many fish they need to bring out the other boat to haul in the load, Peter realizes that Jesus is calling him to more than just catching catfish! These fish are metaphors for Christians. Peter says, “Depart from me, for I am a sinful man” (vs.8)! But Jesus responds, “Do not be afraid; henceforth you will be catching men.”
Thus, St. Peter receives a unique and singular calling from Christ to be the fisher of men. And once again, Peter receives supernatural power that cannot fail to fulfill his unique calling.
4. Luke 22:24-32: In this text, Jesus teaches the apostles the true nature of authority, especially in verses 24-28. True authority in the New Covenant is commanded to be servant of all. He will speak with infallible authority just as Christ did, but he must also wash the feet of his brothers just as Christ did. In this context, Jesus said to the apostles:
[A]s my Father appointed a kingdom for me, so do I appoint for you that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you (Gr.—humas, plural—“you all”), that he might sift you (Gr.—plural again) like wheat, but I have prayed for you (Gr.—sou, singular—Peter alone) that your faith (Gr.—singular again) may not fail; and when you (Gr.—singular) have turned again, strengthen your brethren.
In the context of committing his kingdom authority to the apostles to govern the church (the “Israel of God”—see Gal. 6:16), Jesus especially prays for Peter so that he may be the source of strength and unity for the rest of the apostles. If the apostles want to be protected from the devil’s attempts to divide and destroy them and the Church, they must be in communion with Peter. And notice, Jesus says specifically to Peter, that, literally from the Greek text, “the faith of you [Peter] will not fail.” This is precisely what the Catholic Church has been teaching for 2,000 years!
5. John 10:16: Jesus prophesied:
And I have other sheep that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, and one shepherd (emphasis added).
Who is this prophetic shepherd? The answer seems simple. And on one level it is. Jesus declared himself to be “the good shepherd” (Gr.—poimein—“shepherd” or “pastor”) in John 10:14. Yet, if we dig deeper into the text we discover another meaning as well. In the context of prophesying about this “one flock” and “one shepherd,” Jesus says he must gather “other sheep” referring to the gentiles. Who does our Lord use as the shepherd to bring this prophecy to pass? The answer is found in our next two texts.
6. John 21:1-17: Here, we find another example of Jesus aiding the fishing of the apostles who “caught nothing” all night long (vs. 3). At the command of Jesus they let down their nets and catch an astonishing 153 “large fish” (vs. 11). When Jesus commands the net to be hauled ashore, St. Peter heaves the entire net of fish to shore by himself. No man can lift that size of a catch out of the water and on to the shore by himself. If you take these words literally to mean Peter actually did this, it seems Peter was given supernatural strength to do what no man could naturally accomplish. Fish are symbols representing the faithful (recall Luke 5:8-10). And the symbol of “the net” is used elsewhere in the New Testament for the Church (see Matt. 13:47). Not only is Peter’s ability to carry these “fish” (all the faithful) a miracle, but the fact that the “net” is not broken is also extraordinary. The message seems to be that the Church Jesus establishes containing all of God’s faithful with Peter packing the power will never be destroyed!
It is in this context that Jesus then asks St. Peter three times, “Do you love me… Do you love me… Do you love me?” When Peter responds in the affirmative the second time, Jesus responds by commanding Peter to “tend (Gr.–poimaine—’shepherd’) my sheep” (vs. 16). Jesus the shepherd here commissions Peter to be the prophetic shepherd of John 10:16 to shepherd the entire people of God!
How do we know Peter was called to shepherd the entire flock? I would only ask this: How many of the sheep belong to Jesus? Answer? All of them. So how many of his sheep did Jesus entrust to St. Peter to shepherd? Answer? All of them.
7. Matt. 10:2: In the context of the calling and listing of the twelve apostles, Peter is referred to as “the first” apostle. We know he was not the “first apostle” chronologically. John 1:37-41 tells us Andrew believed Jesus was the Messiah first and told his brother Peter about him. Andrew would be the “first” chronologically. Peter was “first” in primacy.
Though the Greek word, protos (first), can certainly mean “first” chronologically, it can also denote “chief,” “superior” or “the first in rank.” In Acts 28:7, for example, protos is used to describe “the chief man of the Island, Publius.” In Matthew 20:27, we discover, “Whoever would be first among you must be your slave.” Luke 15:22 adds: “Bring forth the best robe…” And I Tim. 1:15 provides: “And I am the foremost of sinners.” All of these texts use protos in the sense of “chief” or “superior.”
Moreover, Christ is referred to as prototokos, or “first-begotten” in Col. 1:15. Here St. Paul uses protos in order to teach us about Christ’s eternal generation, which has been accomplished outside of time. He is; therefore, the creator and the one who has “preeminence” over all things, according to the text. Colossians 1:15-18 reads:
[Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the first-born (Gr.—prototokos) of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth…He is before all things…He is the head of the body, the church…that in everything he might be pre-eminent (Gr.—proteuon, a verb with the same root as protos and prototokos).
Thus, in a notably direct and overt manner, by referring to St. Peter as the “first” apostle, St. Matthew presents Peter (and his successors) just as we see him represented in the rest of the New Testament; he is revealed to be “chief” of the apostles, or to have a primacy of authority over all the apostles and, by extension, over the entire church.
8. Acts 1:15-26:
During those days Peter stood up in the midst of the brothers (there was a group of about one hundred and twenty persons in the one place). He said, “My brothers, the scripture had to be fulfilled which the holy Spirit spoke beforehand through the mouth of David, concerning Judas, who was the guide for those who arrested Jesus … For it is written in the Book of Psalms: “Let his encampment become desolate, and may no one dwell in it” (citing Psalm 69:25). And: “May another take his office” (citing Psalm 109:8). Therefore it is necessary that one of the men who accompanied us the whole time the Lord Jesus came and went among us … become with us a witness to his resurrection. So they proposed two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also known as Justus, and Matthias. Then they prayed, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which of these two you have chosen …” Then they gave lots … and the lots fell upon Matthias, and he was counted with the eleven apostles.
It is St. Peter who is clearly in charge in choosing and ordaining a new apostle to replace Judas. He stands in the midst of the apostles and gives an authoritative interpretation of Psalm 69:25 and Psalm 109:8. And mind you, these are not exactly obvious interpretations of these texts. Psalm 69:25 uses the plural, yet Peter applies it singularly to Peter. The context of Psalm 109:8 also uses the plural (see verse 20). This is not exactly self-evident. Yet, St. Peter then declares the apostles must choose a successor of Judas based upon these two texts. And there is nary a question from the rest of the apostles like, “Hey, Peter, that’s a pretty shaky interpretation of those two texts. What hermeneutical principles are you using, anyway?”
In the case of St. Peter, the old saying is true, “It is my (Peter’s) way or the highway.”
9. Acts 2:14-41:
It is St. Peter who is in charge at Pentecost and preaches the first sermon whereby 3,000 are baptized. And you’ll notice a theme we are going to often see in the Book of Acts (and in the Gospels as well). Peter is listed as a category all by himself. Acts 2 says, “But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them.” There’s Peter alone, and then there is “the eleven.”
10. Acts 3:1-10:
Peter and John are “about to go into the temple,” when a man who was “lame from birth” called out to them begging alms. We note that it is Peter who speaks and it is Peter who performs the first miracle in the Acts of the Apostles. Another “first” for St. Peter. We will see more.
11. Acts 4:3-12:
When St. Peter and St. John are arrested and called before the Sanhedrin, it is St. Peter in verse 8, who speaks for both and preaches boldly of Christ and the name of Jesus.
12. Acts 5:1-15: It is St. Peter who clearly depicted as in charge of the Church in collecting funds for world evangelism. And it is St. Peter who pronounces God’s judgment on Ananias and Sapphira, speaking for God in the process. And it is then, in verse 15, that after seeing “more than ever” numbers of converts flood into the Church, that the sick were brought to him in hope that even his shadow might pass over them so that they may be healed.
13. Acts 5:29: After the apostles were arrested and then miraculously set free by the angel of the Lord, they are before the Sanhedrin for the second time. St. Luke records:
Peter and the apostles said in reply, “We must obey God rather then men.”
Once again, St. Peter is set apart from the rest of the apostles. If he was just one of the apostles with no special position St. Luke would not set him apart like he does. Why does he do this? Because St. Peter has the keys of the kingdom (cf. Matthew 16:15-19). He is the Shepherd over the whole flock of God’s people (cf. John 10:11-16, 21:15-17).
In fact, every time St. Peter is mentioned in sacred Scripture with the other apostles, he is either listed first (see Matthew 10:2, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:13-16 and Acts 1:13, etc.), or given a special place apart from the other apostles (see I Cor. 9:5, Mark 1:36, Mark 16:7 and Luke 9:32) except for one example in Galatians 2:9. This one example is often used by non-Catholics to demonstrate absolute equality among the apostles or even to prove St. James to have been the true leader of the early Church rather than St. Peter.
And when they perceived the grace that was given to me (St. Paul), James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the gentiles and they to the circumcised.
A closer look at the context clears up this apparent difficulty. In Galatians 2, St. Paul is speaking in the context of the church at Jerusalem. We know from Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History …) that James was the first bishop of Jerusalem after the apostles dispersed throughout the world. It would not be surprising to list James first in the context of the diocese (or city, as it were then) over which he presides. Even today, if there were a Council held in a diocese other than Rome, the local bishop would normally be given a special place of honor in some distinct manner. This, in fact, has been the case many times in the history of the Church. James should be given a place of honor because he is the head of local Church there in Jerusalem.
This is the context of Galatians 2. However, notice the difference between this second visit St. Paul made to Jerusalem and his first visit fourteen years earlier (cf. Galatians 2:1).
Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother (Gal. 1:18-19)… Then, after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas… and when they perceived the grace of God was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship (Gal. 1:18-2:9).
St. Paul originally went to Jerusalem not to see James, though he did see James. He went to confer with St. Peter. After receiving revelation from God, St. Peter is the first man St. Paul wants to see. This was not just a casual meeting. It lasted fifteen days. It was fourteen years later (cf. Gal. 2:1), after St. Peter had gone and established his see in Antioch (cf. Gal. 2:11, Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History), that St. Paul lists James first in the context of the Church of Jerusalem.
An interesting not: There are four lists of apostles given in Scripture. Matthew 10:2-4 (which we saw before), Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:13-16 and Acts 1:13. In every case St. Peter is first and Judas is last (except in Acts, Judas is not listed at all because he had committed suicide). In oriental culture, the listing of names is important. It connotes position and honor. Notice in all the lists the order is generally identical. There is a bit of juxtaposition in St. Mark’s list, but St. Peter’s place is always the same. This is reminiscient of the early Church. There was some juxtaposition in the early Church when it came to the second and third place of honor in the Church, but never a doubt who was at the helm: The Bishop of Rome.
14. Acts 8:14-23:
In this text we see St. Peter leading when he and St. John confirm the new converts in Samaria because of the evangelistic efforts of St. Phillip. And once again it is St. Peter who takes the helm in pronouncing judgment on Simon the sorcerer who wanted to buy the power to confirm or convey the Holy Spirit (verses 18-23).
15. Acts 9:32:
Here we have an interesting little passage in verse 32 most pass over too quickly.
As Peter was passing through every region, he went down to the holy ones living in Lydda (NAB).
Here we have St. Peter making his pastoral rounds. To what part of the Church? All of it! Why? St. Peter is the shepherd of the whole world. He then proceeds to do another first. He raises Tabitha from the dead in Joppa (cf. 9:40-43).
16. Acts 10:1-48:
In this chapter from the Acts of the Apostles, Jesus personally sees to the fulfillment of the prophecy of John 10:16, which we saw above. He appears to St. Peter and commands him to bring the gospel to the gentiles by way of Cornelius, the centurion. When Peter then “commanded [Cornelius and his household] to be baptized” in Acts 10:48, the prophecy of John 10:16 was fulfilled. There was now one fold and one shepherd for Jews and Gentiles. That ministry has continued to this day in the successors of St. Peter, the bishops of Rome.
It would be easy to pass over this text and miss its importance. It is most significant that it is St. Peter to whom God gives a vision to allow the gentiles to be baptized and enjoy full membership in the Church. This was a radical move! If you think we have a problem with racism in the 21st century, we have nothing on first century opinion of the gentiles!
If we read further, into Acts 11:18, after the other apostles and other disciples heard Peter declare what God had done, they say, in chapter 11:18:
When they heard this they were silenced. And they glorified God, saying, “Then to the gentiles also God has granted repentance unto life.”
They heard St. Peter speak and the question was settled. The question would continue to plague the Church with reference to how the gentiles and Jews were to harmonize in the Church. But the question of Gentiles being in the Church was settled by St. Peter and the question would not be raised again. Peter had spoken, the rest of the Church “held their peace.” Would to God we today would do the same!
17. Acts 12: 3-11:
In this text, St. Peter is arrested again. Notice that the entire Church then goes to ‘round the clock prayer for him until he is released miraculously. This is not recorded to have been the case when St. James or any others were arrested. When the head of a fledgling Church struggling for its existence is put in jail, you better believe everyone is praying!
18. Acts 15: 1-12:
The ministry of St. Peter as “the shepherd” of the Universal Church continues. When there was a heresy spreading in the church at Antioch (and elsewhere) so widespread and problematic that Paul and Barnabas could not quell the resulting confusion, the church there decided to “go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders about this question” (vss. 1-2). The question concerned salvation and the Old Covenant law in relation to the gospel. Some among “believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up, and said, ‘It is necessary to circumcise…and…to keep the law of Moses’ (vs. 5) or else you ‘cannot be saved’” (vs. 1). In particular, they spoke of the gentiles who were converting to Christ, but the same would apply to all. The real question was: Are Christians saved by the grace of Christ in the New Covenant or must they obey the Old Covenant as well for salvation? The first Church Council (of Jerusalem) was convened and the theological question was put to rest by the pronouncement of St. Peter.
The apostles and elders were gathered together to consider this matter. And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice…that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe…we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.” And all the assembly kept silence… (Vs. 6-12, emphasis added)
Like we saw in Acts 11:18, when the Pope finally speaks on a matter, the rest are silent. And so it should be.
If you like this and you would like to learn more, click here.
You miss the fact that Yeshua denounced the idea of an assembly controlled by men. He despised that nicolaitan tyranny more than any other sin.
There are no apostles on Earth today. The apostolic age ended when John completed penning the Revelation of Yeshua. There were 12 apostles, no more, no less, and the name of each will be on one of the 12 foundation stones of the New Jerusalem.
There is no “apostolic” assembly in existence. Yeshua’s assembly is a mystic, spiritual body of his remnant, the “few” that will find his narrow gate.
Yeshua saw the very nonsense you propose and prohibited it.
The original says that he took archo, not matzo.
That is the very nature of the blessing (vs 26) of the Melek Zadek, who broke that bread that day before his disciples.
.
If something is in conflict with all else, and with the ancient scriptures which Yeshua said would prevail as long as Earth exists, it is error, added in by men.
As you see the history of Protestantism as testifying against Sola Scriptura, so Rome invokes her claimed unbroken succession and stewardship of Divine revelation as testifying to her being that Divinely instituted assuredly infallible magisterium.
The Bible testifies to the establishment by Jesus Christ of a visible and hierarchical church vested with the authority to teach. If this church is not in the Catholic (or Orthodox) Church, where is it? One thing is clear is that is not any any of the Protestant churches which date from only the 16th century.
Rather, what is most manifestly and unequivocally clear is that the One True Church® simply cannot be the church of Rome, as its very foundational premise for its authority is contrary to Scripture, as is its gospel and many of its teachings.
Moreover, the Lord first established the one true church as being that is built as upon faith in the Lord Jesus, and by extension the Lord Jesus. For in contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8) Rome's current catechism attempts to have Peter himself as the rock as well, but also affirms: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424) which understanding some of the ancients concur with.
After that, the household of God is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, meaning their faith and testimony, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone (Ephesians 2:20) — all of which were rebels against those, who like Rome, presumed of themselves a veracity above that which is written.
This church gained its members by true conversions by evangelical conviction “of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment,” (Jn. 16:9) and faith, expressed in baptism, (Acts, 2:14-38; 10:36-47) God “purifying their hearts by faith,” (Acts 15:9) and which faith justified the unGodly, (Rm. 4:4-6) not because the act itself effected regeneration (even for morally incognizant souls who cannot fulfill the stated requirements for baptism that of repentant wholehearted faith: Act 2:38; 8:36,37).
Nor did baptism effect formal justification by infused inner holiness, making one justified by one's “own personal justice and holiness (causa formalis),” (Catholic Encyclopedia>Sanctifying Grace). And which under this false gospel begins the salvation process, and which thus typically ends with the soul becoming good enough (and atoning for sins) in Rome's mythical purgatory.
Nor did it preach or manifest the Lord's supper as being the source and summit of their faith around which all revolved, with NT ministers distinctively titled “priests” turning bread and wine into human flesh as the means of gaining spiritual and eternal life by physically eating, all of which is demonstrably foreign to Scripture.
Nor did it preach a distinction between brethren and “saints,” with non-saints going to suffer in purgatory commencing at death, and the latter in Heaven being able to hear multitudinous mental prayers from earth addressed to them, beseeching them for supernatural aid — an ability and office only God is shown as possessing.
Nor did it have leadership which gains their seat by employing murderous men (as Damasus 1), or were more like Judas than Peter.
And nowhere did it preach a perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium as the basis for determination and assurance of Truth, versus Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.
And while it upheld ordination, its authenticity was based on manifest Scriptural faith, not upon formal descent of office or professions, as it began in dissent from those who claimed it.
Nor was it a church in which the majority are liberals, as they are treated as members in life and in death.
This church certainly did have a visible and hierarchical manifestation, vested with the authority to teach, with a centralized magisterium of the apostles at Jerusalem in the beginning, which corporately dealt with basic controversies by elders coming to them, as they were readily available and accessible. Which office Westminster affirms, but not as assuredly infallible, which disqualifies Rome, but with the veracity of their judgments resting upon Scriptural substantiation as was the case in Acts 15.
The NT church was foundationally different church than that of Rome, and today the One True Church remains as being “the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the [Scriptural] apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone,” (Eph. 2:20) which refers to the body of Christ, made up of all believers, not one particular church.
And since its foundation was the faith and testimony of Scriptural apostles and prophets, which dissented from those who sat in the seat of Moses, and what they preached is manifestly contrary to much of what Rome autocratically presumes and decrees as Truth thus those of this faith and body are compelled to dissent from Rome, as the early church did from the presumptions of the Jewish magisterium.
These believe the apostolic gospel of justification by faith, whereby all are accepted in the Beloved by imputed righteousness, and do directly to be with the Lord upon death, or upon the Lord's return. (Luke 23:43; Acts 7:59; 1Cor. 15:52; 2 Cor. 5:8; Phil. 1:23; 1 Th 4:17; 1Jn. 3:2)
By which they have their members, (1Cor. 12:13) and in obedient faith exist in visible churches which worship God and preach the word at length, uphold ordination, and discipline, baptism, the Lord's supper, anointing with oil, etc. but not after the perversions of Rome.
It does lack a universal centralized magisterium of the manifestly God-ordained apostles, who were readily accessible and available in Jerusalem, and under whose virtue and supernatural power the church had its limited unity, but this exists nowhere today in any place.
First, despite its cardinal importance for Catholicism, the warranted and needed support for apostolic succession is simply not seen in Scripture. There is zero evidence for any apostolic successors after Judas, though James was martyred: Acts 12:1,2, and who was chosen to maintain the original 12 apostles, (Rv. 21:14) and thus only one was elected, but which 12 apostles Rome does not have. Paul did not have his apostleship or gospel via the magisterium, and his affirmation by those “who seemed to be somewhat,” James, Cephas and John (Gal. 2, in the order the Holy Spirit listed them) was not to confer apostleship, but shows voluntary accountability.
The successor to Judas was even elected by the non-political method of casting lots, (Josh. 18:6; Prov. 16:33) not voting. (Acts 1:15ff) by which men were elected who were not even fit to be church members, and were to be disfellowshipped as such. (1Cor. 5:11-13)
Nor is there any manifest preparation for a successor to Peter, but in the light of his impending demise he directed them to Scripture as the more sure word of prophecy. (2Pt. 1:14-21)
Secondly, the requirement for an apostolic successor was that of a literal personal encounter and discipleship with the Lord. (Acts 1:21-22; 1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:11,12,17)
Moreover, the Peter of the NT was not that of a pope whom the church corporate looked to as its supreme assuredly infallible head, and in fact submission to him as the corporate head of the church is never enjoined or even mentioned as a solution in any of the epistles to the churches, or in the Lord's critique of the churches in Rv. 2+3, despite the many issues and problems these deal with. Nor is he even mentioned in the epistle to the church at Rome, among the many notable acquaintances of Paul.
In addition, without taking away from Peter's street-level leadership among brethren, and who as the first chosen to use the keys to the kingdom, that of the gospel by which souls enter the kingdom of Christ, (Col. 1:13) and judging those who denied it, (Acts 5) gave counsel in Acts 15 which Paul and Barnabas obviously also held, but it was not Peter who provided the definitive counsel on the matter, but James in Acts 15.
Thirdly, these apostles were manifest as being so by an extreme degree of tested virtue, and unmistakable overt and consistent supernatural attestation:
“But in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses, In stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labours, in watchings, in fastings; By pureness, by knowledge, by longsuffering, by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned, By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left, (2 Corinthians 6:4-7)
But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. (2 Corinthians 4:2)
“Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.” (2Cor. 4:2; 6:4-10; 12)
Liars in the church could be supernaturally executed under Peter, (Acts 5:1-10) not by the sword of men as so-called successors to Peter employed (and early Prots had to unlearn from her), while electing manifestly immoral men as Ananias as popes.
Paul could threaten “if I come again, I will not spare,” (2Cor. 13:2) and that “I will know, not the speech of them which are puffed up, but the power For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power, coming to the Corinthian church with a rod, (1 Corinthians 4:19-21) which was not the rod of men as the incestuous man in 1Cor. 5 grievously found out. And who could make opposition blind by the power of God. (Acts 13:11) And who thus could attest, “Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.” (Romans 15:19)
It was under this manner of apostles the NT church had its unity, and as the former is not seen today neither is the latter in the same degree and quality. As this is how the church was designed to operate, and with its claim to be the church of the living God requiring continued Scriptural “manifestation of the Truth” as the NT did, so its existence as a type of divided kingdom and tribalism is both a judgment due to our spiritual declension, as well as being necessary since commitment to truth requires separation from error.
Meanwhile, only one time do we see an ecumenical council, and which was in Jerusalem, not Rome, and they would later be separated, nor was it called by a pope, while it was Paul himself who called the elders to a regional convention, (Acts 20:17ff) which can be realized today.
Unity under sola ecclesia, which Rome operates from, is more easily obtained, thus cults have the greatest degree of unity but is a counterfeit unity. It is those who are most strongly committed to the supremacy and authority of Scripture and virtue are the ones who would welcome true apostles today, while if any came back they would feel most at home in some small remnant type holiness church, not Rome (or most Protestant churches) whose elitist pretensions and inventions they would expose. As the foremost example of the progressive deformation of the NT church. Rome is not even in the running for being the One True (visible) Church which she arrogantly “infallibly” asserts she is.
I can go to a Southern Baptist church or Calvary Chapel, or many other such like, and be part of about 45 minutes of heartfelt worship and prayer, and an equal amount of preaching, followed occasionally by the Lords Supper. Plus Bible study and prayer meeting during the week. And enjoy “fellowship of the Spirit” (Phil. 2:1) with souls who realized manifest regeneration with its profound changes, and the Lord working to change lives, as part of the most conservative religious group in America. And which is the most visible manifestation of the church of the living God.
Or I can go to a Catholic church and be part of a ritualized 50 minute static liturgy, with a 10 minute sermonette by a mandatory celibate “priest,” but centered on consuming purportedly life-giving human flesh and blood, and see the usual perfunctory professions and display of spiritual deadness, and traditions of men taught as doctrines of God.
For i did so for over 30 years, 6 of which was even after i became manifestly born again through tearful repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus to save me as a damned and destitute sinner by His blood and righteousness, and i wondered why i was so different (though very much seeing my own faults), and sought some fellowship in the marginalized Catholic charismatics. Which were roped in so they did not become too evangelical.
Thus it is not Rome that is the one true visible church of the living God, but despite the propaganda about “superstantial bread,” it is overall the church of an institutionalized God with its deadness.
For, as per the Roman premise, if assurance of Truth cannot be obtained upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation, but requires an infallible magisterium, then it simply would have been impossible for anyone to have had assurance that Moses for instance, and his writings were of God, and that John the Baptist was as well, and ultimately the Lord Jesus.
Not at all. The authority of Moses is based firstly on the historical witness of the events of the Exodus. It is because of this witness that we can accept that what he wrote is divinely inspired.
The “historical witness” was not a claim to authenticity via historical descent, but supernatural substantiation. God supernaturally and unmistakably attested to the authority of Moses, which in turn affirmed the faith of Abraham. And through Moses God provided the Law (and i think most of the Pentateuch), and which became the transcendent standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the assured Word of God, and as is abundantly evidenced. And upon which further writings and men of God were established as being so.
And so it was Scripture that provided the historical witness of the events of the Exodus. Unless you believe in the liberal discredited JEDP source theory, as RC liberal scholarship.
The same is true of Jesus Christ. We do not, at first, believe in the Resurrection because we find an account of it in divinely inspired Scripture but because of the reliable witness of the Apostles which was first preached orally.
True, but you are missing the basis by which the apostles had any credibility. Like a faithful defender to Rome, you set forth the apostles as basis for assurance of faith, as you extrapolate from them the magisterium of Rome as being assuredly credible.
However, Christ and the apostles established their credibility upon Scriptural substantiation, by which souls obtained assurance of Truth. This oral preaching was dependent upon Scriptural being the supreme standard, thus the approx 275 references to it in the NT.
And as said, Divinely inspired apostles preaching the revealed word of God is not the same as presuming perpetual assured infallibility of office and teaching ancient legends as the word of God.
It is only because the Church first accepted this oral preaching that we can accept that the written accounts of this (by both apostles and non-apostles) can be credited as being divinely inspired.
Again, the Scriptural basis for this oral preaching testifies to the supremacy of Scripture. Meanwhile, we can go back and say that it was only because Israel accepted the oral and subsequently written tradition that souls had assurance that Isaiah 53 was of God, and over which was the Jewish magisterium, but which did not render them perpetually infallible and worthy of implicit assent, much less do the claims of Rome.
Otherwise we would have to accept the Scriptures as divinely inspired on no other basis than they seem so to me.
Rather, it is only because both men and writings were established as being of God without an assuredly infallible magisterium that we have a church, as Scripture was not essentially established as being divinely inspired by any magisterium of men, but like true men of God it was due to their unique Divine qualities and attestation, as conformity with what had prior been established.
You need to argue for oral tradition, for due to its nebulous nature it is inchoate and requires a supreme infallible authority if some oral teaching will be defined as equal to Scripture.
However, the oral tradition of the NT, though being a minority of it, was dependent upon the established written word of God as being the supreme transcendent standard by which all is judged. Thus the Lord Jesus did not appeals to Tradition as authoritative to substantiate His claims in providing the disciples the foundation for their faith, but,
he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, (Luke 24:44-45)
And the evidence shows, any oral revelation called the Word of God/the Lord can be expected to have been written, as a study of that phrase will evidence.
Since both men and writings of God were established as being so without an assuredly infallible magisterium, and the church began in dissent from the magisterium of the historical organic witness to Moses by descent, then assurance of Truth can be realized without the infallible magisterium of Rome, and which is not the supreme authority.
In contrast, assurance of Truth for a RC is not the weight of evidence, but having submitted to Rome, it is the premise of the assured veracity of Rome. Thus as said, “All that we do [as must be patent enough now] is to submit our judgment and conform our beliefs to the authority Almighty God has set up on earth to teach us; this, and nothing else.” “The Vicar of Christ is the Vicar of God; to us the voice of the Pope is the voice of God. This, too, is why Catholics would never dream of calling in question the utterance of a priest in expounding Christian doctrine according to the teaching of the Church “Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means."
You are also confusing two things, what the Scriptures proclaim and what they mean. What they proclaim is only their ipsissima verb, their actual words. The meaning and significance of these words have been open to many interpretations, as the countless debates through history clearly show.
I am not confusing two things. The comparison is between what Rome says as being the supreme authority, which things are both interpretive and subject to interpretation, versus what Scripture says, which is likewise both interpretive and subject to interpretation.
And the interpretive aspect did not and does not mean shared consent to core truths was not realized overall, as in the Apostle's Creed and other basic Truth, while allowing varying degrees of disagreement in other things. What Rome herself wrote has seen different interpretations by her, and her subjects.
In the Old Testament there was indeed no divinely established authority for their interpretation. Thus arose the role of the Scribes and Pharisees. But their attempts, like those of Protestant commentators, was only private. Then their came Pentecost in which the Holy Spirit guides and protects the visible and hierarchical church established by Jesus Christ. Thus the situation between the Old and New Testaments is radically different.
This is simply absurd and so much propaganda. The OT certainty did have divinely established authority for the interpretation of Scripture, and which parallels that given to the NT, both in application in civil matters and in doctrinal. (Lv. 10:10,11; Dt. 16:18; 17:8-13; 33:10; Neh. 8:8; 2Ch 19:8-10; Mal. 2:7)
And to Israel were also given promises of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation, (Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34)
Attempting to relegate all this authoritative judging to being simply “private opinion” versus Rome, since it was not infallible, while disobedience sometimes could be a capital crime, (Dt. 17:12) and the Lord enjoined general obedience to the Jewish magisterium, stating the sat in the seat of Moses, (Mt. 23:2) is simply untenable, and testifies to Scripture being compelled to conform to support Rome.
The fact remains that men and writings were established as being of God, and assurance of Truth realized, without an assuredly infallible magisterium, and which is nowhere seen or promised, despite the claims of Rome and attempts to extrapolate it.
Not so. Since there was no Magisterium in the Old Testament--Pentecost not yet having occurred--there was nothing to reprove. The teachings of the Scribes and Pharisees was purely private, like that of the Protestants.
That is absurd. It was no more private than Rome is, as it was official and authoritative even like the US supreme court is, but it was not infallible, nor is Rome.
And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the Lord thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die: and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12)
Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. (Matthew 23:2-3)
This clearly refers to a magisterium (from Latin magister, which originally meant the office of a chief, director, superintendent, etc.) Other Roman Catholic apologists actually invoke them as official and authoritative in order to (erroneously) lay a foundation for the RC magisterium.
The English word "priest" is a corruption and translations of the Greek "presbyters".
Which is due to the RC priesthood being a s a corruption of the NT presbuteros. The use of presbuteros for priests is etymologically due to imposed functional equivalence, based upon the erroneous premise that NT pastors engaged in a uniquely sacrificial practice as their primary function, but which manifestly is not the case. NT pastors are never even noted as dispensing any physical food as part of their office, let alone turning it into human flesh and blood. Nor is 1Cor. 11:13-34 referring to that as being the body of Christ, but refers to not recognizing the unity of the body for which Christ died, which was to “shame them that have not,” by neglecting others while supposedly showing, declaring, the Lord's death by their communal meal.
Presbuteros means elder, while "hiereus" is the distinctive word which means "priest," and is NEVER used by the Holy Spirit for NT pastors. Instead, hiereus is ONLY used for Jewish or pagan priests, making a distinction btwn NT pastors and them, whose primary function is different and not unique.
The only sense in which pastors are priests is by being part of the general priesthood of all believers, as all are called to sacrifice. (1Pt. 2:5,9; Rm. 12:1; 15:16; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:15,16; cf. 9:9)
"Priesthood as we know it in the Catholic church was unheard of during the first generation of Christianity, because at that time priesthood was still associated with animal sacrifices in both the Jewish and pagan religions." — Catholic Greg Dues in “Catholic Customs & Traditions
"So far as i know, it was only ca. 200 that the term “priest” started to be applied to the bishop and only still later was it applied to the presbyter... When the eucharist began to be thought of as a sacrifice, the person assigned to preside at the eucharist (bishop and later presbyter) would soon be called a priest, since priests were involved with sacrifice." — Raymond Brown (Sulpician Father and a prominent Biblical scholar), Q 95 Questions and Answers on the Bible, p. 125, with Imprimatur.
In the end, the Protestant claim that they teach the true Word of God fails because, without a divinely established Magisterium, the only thing that we can have assurance of is the ipsissima verbra of Scripture. Anything else to to add to Scripture.
That is absurd, for it remains that according to this logic, no one could have assurance of any Truth prior to the church, including that a prophet of God really was so, including John the Baptist, and that the Scriptures that the Lord invoked in substantiating His claims were Scripture, and consequently that the church was true!
Instead, since both writings and men of God were given and established as being so, and held as authoritative, and Truth preserved — all without a perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium, but upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power — then the premise upon which the church of Rome presumes this status is false, as is her claim to be so.
That would be because if anything is provided which impugns Rome, it is to be dismissed under the following rules for RCs (which one RC actually affirmed works for him):
1. Such are driven by hatred of the Catholic church (meaning Roman), The principle goes back to the Immaculate Conception conceived of by Rome: “(The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.” — Catholicism and Fundamentalism, p. 275;
2. Any Catholic scholars you cite are liberal and thus cannot ever possibly represent true Scriptural or historical analysis. The very fact that they do not uphold the historical picture of the past that we have come to know and love means they are liberal.
3. If it is true that the Vatican appointed some of these to positions of influence without censure, that is not a negative reflection on the Church. Its the fault of Protestantism, the root of all evil, which must always be broadly defined (and includes FreeMasons). But the goodness of Rome leads to repentance.
4. In contrast, any and all manner of evil can be attributed Martin Luther, the devil incarnate, and is only denied by biased anti-Catholics who are not to be believed due to reason #1.
Jesus here promises infallible authority to Peter that would empower him to speak in the place of Christ, or as his vicar on earth. Catholics believe just what the text says. When St. Peter (and his successors) “binds” something on earth, it is “bound” in heaven. That’s definitive authority–infallible authority–with the power of heaven to back it up!
This gets more absurd the longer it is asserted. Catholics simply do not believe just what the text says, but must believe whatever Rome says it means. For besides the interpretive nature of "Rock," and the fact that nowhere is Peter said to be the Rock or stone upon which the church is built, while that Christ that rock is one of the most substantiated teachings in Scripture (Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) , the text nowhere means or requires infallible authority.
In the OT Moses was a god to Pharaoh, (Ex. 7:1) and the judges over Israel were called gods, (Ps. 82:6) as there was divinely established authority for the interpretation and enforcement of Scripture, both in application in civil matters and in doctrinal, (Lv. 10:10,11; Dt. 16:18; 17:8-13; 33:10; Neh. 8:8; 2Ch 19:8-10; Mal. 2:7)
And disobedience to which was binding, and could even could be a capital crime. (Dt. 17:12)
Yet this neither required or inferred perpetual assured infallibility of office.
It seems to me that the RC argument is that the use of fallible human reasoning cannot obtain valid assurance of Truth based upon Scriptural substantiation, but that an infallible magisterium is necessary for this and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith. (Jn. 14:16; 16:13; Mt. 16:18) And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation means that Rome is the assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus those who dissent from the latter are in rebellion to God.
A common mistake. Church teachings do not originate with the declarations of church councils. These declarations--an exercise of the Extraordinary Magisterium--are only made to clarify what the Church has always believed and taught--the Ordinary Magisterium.
Meaning universally believed, or that some believed based on amorphous oral tradition, but which Rome makes unanimous consent, even if the tradition-based EOs reject the same, as with Papal infallibility and unhindered power? Try to keep the spin to a minimum.
Moreover, where do we see the NT or early church always believing the Assumption in the 1st or 2nd centuries?
Jesus here promises infallible authority to Peter that would empower him to speak in the place of Christ, or as his vicar on earth. Catholics believe just what the text says. When St. Peter (and his successors) “binds” something on earth, it is “bound” in heaven. That’s definitive authority–infallible authority–with the power of heaven to back it up!
This gets more absurd the longer it is asserted. Catholics simply do not believe just what the text says, but must believe whatever Rome says it means. For besides the interpretive nature of "Rock," and the fact that nowhere is Peter said to be the Rock or stone upon which the church is built, while that Christ that rock is one of the most substantiated teachings in Scripture (Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) , the text nowhere means or requires infallible authority.
In the OT Moses was a god to Pharaoh, (Ex. 7:1) and the judges over Israel were called gods, (Ps. 82:6) as there was divinely established authority for the interpretation and enforcement of Scripture, both in application in civil matters and in doctrinal, (Lv. 10:10,11; Dt. 16:18; 17:8-13; 33:10; Neh. 8:8; 2Ch 19:8-10; Mal. 2:7)
And disobedience to which was binding, and could even could be a capital crime. (Dt. 17:12)
Yet this neither required or inferred perpetual assured infallibility of office.
I'm going to reuse the name (Christian; at Antioch) and pretend KNOW that I'm part of a vast crowd; that makes up the BODY of Christ.
Let me try again...
Could you show ME the original; please?
That is your position, but it requires a basis. It seems to me that the RC argument is that the use of fallible human reasoning cannot obtain valid assurance of Truth based upon Scriptural substantiation, but that an infallible magisterium is necessary for this and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith. (Jn. 14:16; 16:13; Mt. 16:18)
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation means that Rome is the assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus those who dissent from the latter are in rebellion to God. Do you think this is the basis for your assertion, or how would you differ?
Henry was hardly the 'father' of any reform, as he was late getting started and was only interested in getting back at the Pope for his non-annulments. No interest in scriptural truth, just secular power. In that way he was a mirror image of the Pope, but a 'father' of reform? I guess Catholics will call anyone father.
Jesus said, “You shall be called Peter.”
When the Gospels were written, Simon had been called Peter since Jesus gave him the name in Mark 3.
The writers of the New Testament used Simon and Peter at different times. In the instance which you cite, the writer is clarifying who Simon is, as in letting the reader know that Simon is called Peter, in other words, the same man.
For your exegesis to make sense, Jesus would have said, “You are called Peter.”
That catechism training must have infected Strong’s for if one looks under the dictionary tab under the name Peter, it clearly says that Jesus gave Simon the name Peter. In fact, every major Biblical commentary admits that Jesus gave him the name.
It is beyond ridiculous,in fact, just silly, to say that Jesus did not give that name to Simon and to pretend that Kephas means pebble and not rock or that Petros is anything other than the masculine version in the Greek translation.
It seems to me you are an assembly of one. I think that course is fraught with peril.
Who cares how you “interpret” anything?
You are a catholic, and as such reject the entirety of the scriptures, except as they can be twisted to support pagan practices.
Yeshua left no man over his assembly. He is the head of it, and speaks to us through his Holy Spirit, not through nicolaitans.
Well, he wanted to be a father, the Catholic Church said no, and so he started his own Church (1533/1534). He became an unholy father of an unholy church. Yes, he trailed Luther by some years (Luther's theses in 1517, Luther declared a heretic in 1521, Luther unable to agree with Zwingli on Eucharist in 1529, Luther starts his own religion in 1530 with Augsburg Confession). It appears that the norm of the Protestant model is to continually re-form their religions. They obviously are not the holy catholic apostolic Church. Do you share the view that such a Church has not existed on this earth since the death of the Apostle John ?
Hello; I posted SCRIPTURE that SHOWS Simon being called Peter BEFORE your 'proof text' that's taken out of context.
How can you HONESTLY ignore this fact?
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.