"As for Petrine primacy, I am glad we agree that the capacity for binding and loosing fails to secure anything unique for Peter, being owned by all apostles equally."------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, no, I never said they did it "equally"! That's a little like saying that the protestant pastor and his congregants are all exactly the same in a protestant church service. You can say it, but it just isn't true! (One of them is preaching, and the rest ain't.) (And Jesus definitely singled out Peter as the rock He would build His Church on.) Just because there is great disagreement about that teaching, that does not invalidate it. There was a great disagreement about ALL of the teachings of Jesus Christ, even between many people and Jesus Himself oftentimes.
=============================================================
"Moot. We don't have any record of what he taught."
------------------------------------------------------------
No it is not moot. It helps to teach us that none of the other individual apostles were promised that same kind of individual infallibility like Peter was by our Lord. And we most certainly DO have a record of what Judas Iscariot taught by his actions (including his teaching of "betrayal", "selling out a friend for money", "hypocritical phony view on using ointment money for the poor instead", "stealing money from the apostles' money bag", "a warped view, understanding, and belief in what Jesus taught about being the 'Messiah'", and "suicide").
You don't believe (like some gnostics) that those are infallible teachings, do you?
=============================================================
"The Greek term is ecclesia, which has a range of usage that can be examined in the Old Testament through the Greek lens of the Septuagint."
------------------------------------------------------------
No, Jesus was talking about building His one NEW Church, not reshuffling an old one.
His promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against us requires that there be an infallible earthly authority to (among other things) make judgment on new heresies that began to arise after all the apostles were dead.
If you don't believe Jesus was guaranteeing that infallible guidance for His Church and the authority of the successors of the apostles, you would have to believe/accept that the Holy Spirit teaches mutually exclusive contradictory things, such as the ability to lose one's salvation (the Methodist view, for instance) vs. the view held by Calvinists and other "persistence" or "once saved, always saved" based denominations. The Holy Spirit does NOT teach mutually exclusive contradictory things, in opposition to the "Truth".
=============================================================
ARTICLE QUOTE: "He intended it to be absolutely universal and imposed upon all men a solemn obligation actually to belong to it, unless inculpable ignorance should excuse them;"
YOUR RESPONSE: "This is false on its face. The ecclesia are the sheep of God. If God intended everyone to be His sheep, we would have to become universalists, and abandon any concept of perdition.
------------------------------------------------------------
You are missing his point. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the "universalists", who say that everyone is going to be saved, but just refers to there being only ONE universal Church that Jesus Christ founded, not thousands of them, and not every person will be saved. His statement is 100% true.
=============================================================
As for your discussion of Peter and "the rock", I don't buy all those ridiculous contortions they go through to try to preserve the myth of Jesus calling Peter a little pebble. Quite frankly, that's a crock. I believe the Gospel writer (when translating the word from the Aramaic) didn't want to call Peter by an effeminate name in Greek (like some kind of girly-man or cross-dresser or something). He wanted to use the masculine name, not a lady-man name.
Here is a clip that might help you with getting to the truth of that Gospel passage:
"Is St. Peter the Rock on which Jesus built his Church? (Petros...Petra controversy)"
Oh, no, I never said they did it "equally"!
No distinction is made. Peter doesn't actually receive the power of loosing and binding until the other disciples receive it. That happens over in Matthew 18:18. But back in Matthew 16:19, Jesus says He
will give Peter the keys, then defines those keys in terms of the loosing and binding. However, it isn't until Matthew 18 that this power is actually given, and it is not given to just Peter, but all the disciples. There is simply no warrant for seeing the loosing and binding as unequally distributed. Jesus didn't say, "and Peter here's a little more for you." Didn't happen.
That's a little like saying that the protestant pastor and his congregants are all exactly the same in a protestant church service.
I never said they were the same. The Holy Spirit distributes gifts as He sees fit. Some teach, some evangelize, some serve congregational needs, etc. But as between the apostles, no distinction was made with respect to the binding and loosing. Deny it if you wish. Anyone can read it in Matthew 18:18.
And Jesus definitely singled out Peter as the rock He would build His Church on.
We'll address that in a moment ...
Just because there is great disagreement about that teaching, that does not invalidate it.
It's not just that there's a disagreement about it. It's that the entire edifice of the Petrine supremacy rests on a passage which even such learned men as Augustine did not see Peter, but Peter's confession of Christ, as the Rock foundation of the ecclesia. Yet no one who accepts Scripture denies that Jesus is the Son of God, or that He died and rose again for our sins, and so many other basic, essential doctrines. Indeed, there are for all doctrines essential to the faith a multitude of unambiguous Scriptural witnesses. Yet here, in this one place, where rests the entire superstructure of Roman claims to a supervening authority, there is profound uncertainty whether the Roman interpretation is anything but a self-serving miscue. You are free to believe whatever you like, no matter how thin the evidence. I can commit my life to Jesus as the crucified and risen Lord of glory, because the Scriptures teach that without room for doubt. But it is not reasonable to commit oneself to the self-professed authority of one particular early schism on such frightfully fragile evidence.
Regarding Judas ...
No it is not moot. It helps to teach us that none of the other individual apostles were promised that same kind of individual infallibility like Peter was by our Lord.
Yes it is moot. Times a million. That'll save us both some wasted posts. :) But seriously, it's moot because Jesus did give that power of binding and loosing to all twelve without distinction. I have provided textual evidence of this and you have not refuted it. If you wish to infer infallibility of office from that, you must logically extend it to all twelve. If you cannot bring yourself to extend it to all twelve, due to Judas, then you must withdraw the claim of infallibility from all twelve. In which case we might expect Judas to lapse catastrophically and permanently, Peter to lapse catastrophically but NOT permanently, John to be faithful throughout, etc., because none of them were encumbered with infallibility as a matter of office; only as a matter of providence.
Consider a comparison between Caiaphas and Judas and Balaam. We know that Caiaphas was given to prophesy concerning the substitutionary death of Jesus here:
John 11:49-52 And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, (50) Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. (51) And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; (52) And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.
Yet he was not gifted with official infallibility that could be invoked on demand. This was a direct function of divine sovereignty. God wanted that prophecy on the books from the mouth of the high priest, and that's what happened. Similarly, Balaam was no part of the people of God at all. And he would have cursed the children of Israel if he could have. But God intervened and compelled him to give his blessing instead. And this was more intrusive than with Caiaphas. It was clear even to Balaam that he was being pushed to do what he did.
So then why not for Judas the same sort of providence? Like Balaam, like Caiaphas, profoundly opposed to God and God's good plan, but put in a position where God was perfectly able to ensure that whatever he said during the tenure of his discipleship with Jesus would be exactly as God intended. This is providence, though, and not a gift to be exercised at the option of the one so gifted. Thus there is no need for an official capacity to invoke infallibility. Only a need to rely on God to work through His apostles just as He promised He would. And thus the gift of binding and loosing could be given to all twelve disciples without partiality to any one above another, as is exactly what is recorded in Matthew 18:18.
SR: The Greek term is ecclesia, which has a range of usage that can be examined in the Old Testament through the Greek lens of the Septuagint.
HR: No, Jesus was talking about building His one NEW Church, not reshuffling an old one.
It looks as though you missed my point. I am using the Septuagint to show how ecclesia is used to speak of a kind of person, and a kind of assembly, which is not defined by visible metrics per se, but by spiritual qualities. Does Jesus' mean to build His ecclesia out of dead stones, or living?
1 Peter 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
And if we ourselves as living stones make a spiritual house, we need a foundation. And who does Peter say that foundation is? Peter? Or ...
1 Peter 2:6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
Hmmm. Not Peter, but Jesus. And this according to Peter. Has he forgotten he, Peter, was the Rock? Or maybe he never thought that for a second.
His promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against us requires that there be an infallible earthly authority to (among other things) make judgment on new heresies that began to arise after all the apostles were dead.
This is pure surmise on your part. We have three infallible authorities keeping company with us during our sojourn on this earth:
1. We have the Scriptures, which Paul says are sufficient to lead us to Christ, and sufficient as a means of becoming equipped for every good work, which Paul specifically mentions includes dealing with questions of doctrine.
2. We have the Holy Spirit, who is given to every believer without distinction, albeit with different gifts, as God wills, but all working together as the several members of the body of Christ.
3. And we have Jesus, who promised,
promised He would be with us until the end of the age.
Each of these resources is infallible, free of error, but not merely error-free, but they are the power of God made available to every believer. As stated above, there simply is no need to add to that by creating a human office for Chief Dogma Generator. We have our Bibles, we have our Holy Spirit, and we have Jesus. I realize that seems not enough to some, but it's enough for us. We'll muddle through somehow. :)
If you don't believe Jesus was guaranteeing that infallible guidance for His Church and the authority of the successors of the apostles, you would have to believe/accept that the Holy Spirit teaches mutually exclusive contradictory things, such as the ability to lose one's salvation (the Methodist view, for instance) vs. the view held by Calvinists and other "persistence" or "once saved, always saved" based denominations. The Holy Spirit does NOT teach mutually exclusive contradictory things, in opposition to the "Truth".
This is not a Scriptural argument. It is a consequentialist argument. Something bad will happen if we don't do X. But did God say to do X? Well, no, but it's obvious, because if we don't do X, the bad thing will happen.
Remember Uzzah? Also a consequentialist. David is bring the ark of the covenant back to it's rightful place, but the cart is shaken and it looks like the ark will fall and possibly be damaged. What does Uzzah do? He tries to help God by defying the command of God, which was not to touch the ark. It was a fatal mistake. Our job is not to worry about what might happen to the ark. God can take care of Himself. Our job is to obey the instructions He has given us. He has given no instruction that there be an infallible earthly office. He has promised to be with us, to guide us with His word, faithfully taught by those so gifted, and to enlighten our understanding by His Holy Spirit. Sometimes it's hard to trust God. He will sort out all the superficial discrepancies. He knows His own sheep, and they will hear his voice, and follow only Him. Jesus said that. Do you believe it? I do. I can't solve all the discrepancies. But I can trust Him.. So that's what I've got to do. Even when it's scary.
(HR's) ARTICLE QUOTE: "He intended it to be absolutely universal and imposed upon all men a solemn obligation actually to belong to it, unless inculpable ignorance should excuse them;"
YOUR (SR's) RESPONSE: "This is false on its face. The ecclesia are the sheep of God. If God intended everyone to be His sheep, we would have to become universalists, and abandon any concept of perdition.
HR: You are missing his point. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the "universalists", who say that everyone is going to be saved, but just refers to there being only ONE universal Church that Jesus Christ founded, not thousands of them, and not every person will be saved. His statement is 100% true.
No, the "it" in his statement is referencing back to the visible church, the motley mix of wheats and tares. But as he makes no beneficial distinction between visible church and invisible ecclesia, it does lead one to think God intends everyone to be in it. If you are saying here that his "all men" does not really mean "all men," that is a possible way to avoid an inference of universalism. But the premise of "absolutely universal" membership in one visible human institution is not taught anywhere in Scripture, because the ecclesia Jesus promised to build is a spiritual house, and not everyone has a place in it.
As for your discussion of Peter and "the rock", I don't buy all those ridiculous contortions they go through to try to preserve the myth of Jesus calling Peter a little pebble. Quite frankly, that's a crock. I believe the Gospel writer (when translating the word from the Aramaic) didn't want to call Peter by an effeminate name in Greek (like some kind of girly-man or cross-dresser or something). He wanted to use the masculine name, not a lady-man name.
You apparently didn't pick up on some things I said last time. I don't disagree that the big rock/little rock distinction is not as important as some would make it. However, the center of the argument isn't there. The RC hypothesis that the two terms are different solely due to gender alignment is false. According to recent scholarship, Petros was already serviceable as a proper name, meaning it was NOT Petra being adjusted to masculine to avoid a feminine effect. The name in it's own right already conformed to the masculine pattern.
Furthermore, the fact that it shares a root with Petra does not demonstrate they are the same word. Many distinguishable words share common roots. If I said, "You are Rocky, and on this Rock I will build an indestructible spiritual family," are you thinking those are both referring to the same thing? No, of course not. And rock size has nothing to do with it. It runs deeper than that. There's the simple fact that Petros could have been used in both places, and with much grater clarity: "You are Rocky, and on you, Rocky, I will build an indestructible spiritual family." That would have kept the second person form of address in tact.
But instead, Jesus introduces the demonstrative pronoun "this" (ταύτῃ), jarring the listener out of the address to Peter, and signaling a new referent. Or if Jesus had wanted He could have called Peter Petra, because contrary to what you may have heard, some masculine Greek names do have the feminine ending. Example you say? Sure. Zorba the Greek. Feminine ending on a masculine name. Go figure. So if the alleged underlying Aramaic was really Kepha/Kepha, that could be rendered with equally symmetry into the Greek without fussing about gender endings.
Bottom line? Those two Greek words bolded below are
two different words, not the same word adjusted for gender setting:
Matthew 16:18 Κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω, ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι ᾍδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς.
And all the more significant a difference when you've got Peter himself identifying Jesus as the principle stone in the foundation of the ecclesia that Jesus is building, and Paul concurring on the identity of Petra, the Rock:
1 Corinthians 10:1-4 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; (2) And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; (3) And did all eat the same spiritual meat; (4) And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
In the mouth of two or three witnesses, a thing is confirmed ...
Peace,
SR