Posted on 06/19/2015 12:01:57 PM PDT by RnMomof7
For those who don't have much familiarity with the dispute between Protestants and Catholics over the doctrine of the papacy, I want to post two introductory articles on the subject today and tomorrow. The first article, this one, will be about the Biblical evidence, and tomorrow's article will be about the early post-Biblical evidence.
Roman Catholicism claims the papacy as its foundation. According to the Catholic Church, the doctrine of the papacy was understood and universally accepted as early as the time of Peter:
"At open variance with this clear doctrine of Holy Scripture as it has been ever understood by the Catholic Church are the perverse opinions of those who, while they distort the form of government established by Christ the Lord in his Church, deny that Peter in his single person, preferably to all the other Apostles, whether taken separately or together, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction; or of those who assert that the same primacy was not bestowed immediately and directly upon blessed Peter himself, but upon the Church, and through the Church on Peter as her minister....For none can doubt, and it is known to all ages, that the holy and blessed Peter, the Prince and Chief of the Apostles, the pillar of the faith and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of mankind, and lives presides and judges, to this day and always, in his successors the Bishops of the Holy See of Rome" (First Vatican Council, session 4, chapters 1-2)
Different Catholics interpret these claims of the First Vatican Council in different ways. Some Catholics will argue that the concept of the papacy that was understood and accepted in the earliest generations involved universal jurisdiction, so that the differences between how modern Catholics and the most ancient Catholics viewed Peter and the bishops of Rome would be minor. Other Catholics claim, instead, that the earliest Christians wouldn't have associated a concept like universal jurisdiction with Peter and the earliest Roman bishops, and they maintain that the modern view of the papacy developed more gradually. Some Catholics even go as far as to claim that there's no need to show that a concept like universal jurisdiction was intended by Jesus and the apostles. They may argue for the papacy on the basis of philosophical speculation or personal preference, or they may claim that no argument is needed for the doctrine.
Catholics who take that last sort of approach are abandoning the battlefield without admitting defeat. Any belief could be maintained on such a basis. If we're going to accept the papacy just because it seems to produce more denominational unity than other systems of church government, because our parents were Catholic, or for some other such inconclusive reason, then we have no publicly verifiable case to make for the doctrine. My intention in these posts is to address some of the popular arguments of those who attempt to make a more objective case for the papacy.
Those who argue that a seed form of the papacy existed early on, one that wasn't initially associated with universal jurisdiction, would need to demonstrate that such a seed form of the doctrine did exist. And they would need to demonstrate that the concept of universal jurisdiction would eventually develop from that seed. It wouldn't be enough to show that the development of universal jurisdiction is possible. We don't believe that something is true just because it's possible. If we're supposed to accept a papacy with universal jurisdiction on some other basis, such as the alleged authority of the Catholic hierarchy that teaches the concept, then an objective case will have to be made for the supposed authority of that hierarchy.
If there had been a papacy in the first century that was recognized as a distinct office, we would expect it to be mentioned in much the same way that offices such as bishop and deacon are mentioned. We wouldn't expect Roman Catholics to have to go to passages like Matthew 16 and John 21 to find alleged references to a papacy if such an office of universal jurisdiction existed and was recognized during the New Testament era. Instead, we would expect explicit and frequent references to the office, such as in the pastoral epistles and other passages on church government.
That's what we see with the offices of bishop and deacon. Not only are the offices mentioned (Acts 20:17, Philippians 1:1), but we also see repeated references to their appointment (Acts 14:23, Ephesians 4:11, Titus 1:5), their qualifications (1 Timothy 3:1-13, Titus 1:5-9), their discipline (1 Timothy 5:19-20), their responsibilities (Ephesians 4:12-13, Titus 1:10-11, James 5:14, 1 Peter 5:1-3), their reward (1 Timothy 5:17-18, 1 Peter 5:4), their rank (1 Corinthians 12:28), the submission due them (1 Timothy 2:11-12), etc. If there was an office that was to have jurisdictional primacy and infallibility throughout church history, an office that could be called the foundation of the church, wouldn't we expect it to be mentioned explicitly and often? But it isn't mentioned at all, even when the early sources are discussing Peter or the Roman church. In the New Testament, which covers about the first 60 years of church history (the prophecies in Revelation and elsewhere cover much more), there isn't a single Roman bishop mentioned or named, nor are there any admonitions to submit to the papacy or any references to appointing Popes, determining whether he's exercising his infallibility, appealing to him to settle disputes, etc. When speaking about the post-apostolic future, the apostles are concerned with bishops and teachers in general (Acts 20:28-31, 2 Timothy 2:2) and submission to scripture (2 Timothy 3:15-17, 2 Peter 3:1-2, Revelation 22:18-19), but don't say a word about any papacy.
Craig Keener, citing Jaroslav Pelikan, comments that "most scholars, both Roman Catholic and Protestant, concur that Peter died in Rome but doubt that Mt 16:18 intended the authority later claimed by the papacy (Pelikan 1980: 60)" (A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew [Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999], n. 74 on p. 425). The Roman Catholic scholar Klaus Schatz comments:
"There appears at the present time to be increasing consensus among Catholic and non-Catholic exegetes regarding the Petrine office in the New Testament….The further question whether there was any notion of an enduring office beyond Peter’s lifetime, if posed in purely historical terms, should probably be answered in the negative. That is, if we ask whether the historical Jesus, in commissioning Peter, expected him to have successors, or whether the author of the Gospel of Matthew, writing after Peter’s death, was aware that Peter and his commission survived in the leaders of the Roman community who succeeded him, the answer in both cases is probably 'no.'…If we ask in addition whether the primitive Church was aware, after Peter’s death, that his authority had passed to the next bishop of Rome, or in other words that the head of the community at Rome was now the successor of Peter, the Church’s rock and hence the subject of the promise in Matthew 16:18-19, the question, put in those terms, must certainly be given a negative answer." (Papal Primacy [Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1996], pp. 1-2)
What's said of Peter in Matthew 16 and John 21 is said of other people in other passages. Other people are rocks upon whom the church is built (Ephesians 2:20), other people have the keys of the kingdom that let them bind and loose and open and shut (Matthew 18:18, 23:13), and other people are shepherds of the church (Acts 20:28, 1 Peter 5:2). Just as Peter is given a second name, so are other people (Mark 3:17). Peter is called "Peter" prior to the events of Matthew 16 (John 1:42), and we can't know whether he was given the name as a result of Matthew 16 or, instead, Jesus' choice of imagery in Matthew 16 was shaped by a name Peter was already given for another reason.
Peter is singled out in Matthew 16 and John 21, but his being singled out doesn't suggest jurisdictional primacy. We could speculate that Peter is singled out in these passages because he's supposed to fulfill the roles in these passages in a greater way than other people, but such a speculation can't be proven. Other people are singled out in other passages, but we don't conclude that those people were Popes. Even if Peter was singled out because he was to fulfill these roles (rock and shepherd) in a greater way than anybody else, he wouldn't need to be a Pope in order to fulfill these roles in a greater way than other people. And he wouldn't need to have successors in that role.
So, if Peter isn't singled out in Matthew 16 and John 21 because he was being made a Pope, then why was he singled out?
In Matthew 16, he's probably singled out because he singles himself out. He's the one who answered Jesus' question. Similarly, John and James are singled out in Mark 10:35-40 because they were the ones who initiated the discussion with Jesus, not because they were being given some sort of primacy.
In John 21, Peter probably is singled out because he was the one in need of restoration. Peter was the one who denied Jesus three times and thus needed to reaffirm his love for Jesus three times. Since the other apostles didn't deny Jesus as Peter did, it would make no sense for Jesus to approach them the way He approached Peter. Similarly, Jesus treats Thomas (John 20:26-29), John (John 21:20-23), and Paul (Acts 9:1-15) differently than He treats the other apostles. But nobody would assume that Thomas, John, or Paul therefore has jurisdictional primacy or that such a primacy was passed on to a succession of bishops.
Catholics sometimes argue for a papacy by interpreting Matthew 16 in light of Isaiah 22:20-22. But whatever relevance Isaiah 22 would have to Matthew 16, it would have relevance for Matthew 23, Luke 11, and other passages that use such imagery as well. And any Catholic appeal to Isaiah 22 would have to be a partial appeal, not a complete parallel, since a complete parallel wouldn't favor the claims of Roman Catholicism. God is the one who gives the key in Isaiah 22, so an exact parallel would put Jesus in the place of God, not in the place of the king. So, if Jesus is God and Peter is the prime minister, then who is the king? Some church official with more authority than Peter? What about Isaiah 22:25? Should we assume that Popes can "break off and fall", and that the keys of Matthew 16 can eventually pass to God Himself (Revelation 3:7) rather than to a human successor? If Catholics only want to make a general appeal to Isaiah 22, without making an exact parallel, then how can they claim that papal authority is implied by the parallel? Why can't the Isaiah 22 background convey a general theme of authority without that authority being of a papal nature?
Paul refers to "apostles" (plural) as the highest rank in the church (1 Corinthians 12:28, Ephesians 2:20), and he names Peter second among three reputed pillars of the church (Galatians 2:9). The most natural reading of the Biblical evidence is to see Peter as a highly reputed pillar of the church who had equal rank, equal jurisdiction, with the other apostles. He could be said to have had some types of primacy in some contexts, and the same could be said of other apostles and early church leaders, but there's no reason to think that papal authority was one of those types of primacy or that such authority was passed on exclusively to a succession of Roman bishops.
There is no papacy in the New Testament. It's not there explicitly or implicitly. This "clear doctrine of Holy Scripture" that the First Vatican Council refers to isn't even Biblical, much less clearly Biblical. Roman Catholics assume that a papacy is implied in some New Testament passages, but that assumption can't be proven and is unlikely.
If it was worth posting once, and it was, it was worth posting twice!
>>>That you would write a book promoting this tangential error is revealing, yet it remains that the idea that the extent of the binding and loosing that Peter had with the keys given was to bind and loose the Law on the Church is absurd. For it depends upon restricting that power to a doctrinal decision, contrary to Scripture, and presumes that Peter is the one who provided the final judgment as to this and what should be done in Acts 15, which is not the case.<<<
I already explained this - I will not do it again.
>>>As explained, binding and loosing (both in judicial and spiritual application) was not new, and Peter exercised such in preaching the gospel in Acts 2 etc., before Acts 15. In addition he did so in binding Ananias and Saphira to their sins and unto the death in Acts 5.<<<
I also already accounted for other binding and loosing. Do you actually read what I post before responding, or do you just skim over it looking for things you can object to?
>>>Moreover, Peter did not judicially loose anything in Acts 15, as it was James who provided the conclusive judgment, with Scriptural substantiation, in Acts 15, confirmatory of Peter's exhortation and testimony and that of Paul and Barbabas, who prior to this were also preaching salvation by faith, without needing to obey the ceremonial law.<<<
James' and the council's decision was based on Peter's testimony.
>>>And which has been said and dismissed, and instead comes verbiage from your book which utterly fails to show or warrant the conclusion that the extent of the binding and loosing that Peter had with the keys was to bind and loose the Law on the Church.<<<
The quote was to illustrate that the disciples kept the law - the elephant in the room.
Peter alone was given the "keys". Christ addressed Him directly and in the singular. The Law binds and removing the Law looses. Peter was instrumental in both.
Unless you have something new to say, don't bother repeating the same old stuff. I have already explained your objections, even though you keep bringing them up over and over again. I will no longer respond to your posts to me if you continue with the same repetitions.
LOL, roger that.
I practice the MACRO kind!
Hahaha I’m sorry, but, I saw that the last post was #666 and I just new it had to be a post from you and, whadaya know!
Uh, hahahahaha!
I’m sorry. I’m not sure if you would consider this “micro” or “macro” aggression. I prefer to see it as a little comic relief for myself, and I’m sure a few others.
Oh and the comedic photo of “the devil” was just the icing on the cake.
Thanks and have a nice day!
Dropped a dead tree (about 50 foot tall) a couple of hours ago and am burning the little stuff as I type.
Indeed you did not. I pasted that in the wrong tab/box as it was to a post that was in my inbox from am RC just before yours. Sorry.
I already explained this - I will not do it again.
Your "explanation" does not warrant your conclusion, as will be further explained.
I also already accounted for other binding and loosing. Do you actually read what I post before responding, or do you just skim over it looking for things you can object to?
And I explained that you cannot restrict binding and loosing to simply being loosed from the Law, or make that Peter's only use of the keys, or uniquely so. Do you actually read what I post.... What you think you "accounted for" is one thing, but its remains that as your premise is false so is your conclusion.
Your premise is that since Scripture says that the Law was bondage, and since Peter presumed disciples were bound to obey all the Law ("binding" them), and later exhorted the elders to see that God was not requiring obedience to all the law (loosing them) as part of obedience to Christ (but which he never preached justified a soul), then that was his only use of the keys. Which is absurd.
For what Scripture reveals is that the key to the kingdom is the gospel, which gospel all the church preached, and is one form of binding and loosing, with healing, church discipline and certain judgments being others.
For Scripture teaches that one can be bound by sickness and thus Christ, who came to loose captives, (Lk. 4:18) set such free, (Lk. 13:11-16) as did Peter and John in Acts 3.
And as the OT mag. could judicially bind or loose one to his transgression, disobedience to which was a capital crime, likewise Peter judged Ananias and Sapphira to their guilt of disobedience in Acts 5, resulting in death.
Similarly, Peter judged Simon as having not part nor lot in ministry due to being in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity, which Simon was left in, thus Simon asked Peter to pray for deliverance from judgment. (Acts 8:21-23)
To the contrary, Peter preached liberty from sin in Acts 2 and 3, being set free from sins by faith in the crucified and risen Lord Jesus, with unbelief leaving souls bound. At no time did Peter preach justification by the Law, though it was yet presumed that obedience to the ceremonial law was yet enjoined. And which, in part, Paul was engaging in by taking a vow which required a Jewish sacrifice in Acts 21, and becoming as one under the law in other times. But which was not that of justification by the Law which the Judaizers of Galatians were doing.
And thus Peter engaged in binding and loosing before Acts 15, nor did he then bind the church to his judgment, nor was he alone preaching salvation apart from obeying all the law.
Paul received his gospel "not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." (Galatians 1:11-12) And before Acts 15 he preached
And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses. (Acts 13:39)
In other church discipline, Paul together with the church bound an incestuous man in 1Co. 5 to chastisement by the devil.
The elders (primarily) of the church as well as other holy intercessors can also obtain the loosing of deliverance of sins for which one may be chastened for. (Ja, 5:14-18)
In addition, Elijah bound and loosed the heavens, which James invokes as an example of what holy believers may do.
James' and the council's decision was based on Peter's testimony. And not his alone, but that of Paul and Barnabas, who certainly did not seem bound by Peter to preach the Law. Nor did Peter bind anyone to his judgment, but merely exhorted the church not to yoke the Gentiles into having to keep all the Law (though the moral law was reinforced as manifesting obedient saving faith).
Instead, the final conclusive sentence awaited the judgment of James, which provided it as being Scripturally substantiated, which the elder collectively bound the churches to accept.
Thus your premise that Peter's only use of the keys (or key) was that of binding the Law upon the church and loosing it is false, as binding/loosing pertains to more than salvation, and while Peter did not bind the church any more than they presumed they were bound, (to keep the burdensome Law as part of the obedience to Christ who saved them by grace - not by the merit of Law-keeping, contrary to the Judaizers of Galatians);
yet Peter did not loose the church from keeping the Law (nor forbid them from doing as Paul did in Acts 21), but only exhorted them to not place this yoke upon the Gentiles, affirming salvation was by grace for both Jews and Gentiles. Which Paul and Barnabas were already preaching, and with the conclusive judgment being provided by James, which all the elders bound the church do.
Peter alone was given the "keys". Christ addressed Him directly and in the singular. The Law binds and removing the Law looses. Peter was instrumental in both.
Wrong continually, as while Peter was addressed singularly as regards the keys, this is manifest as being the gospel which all the church preached, and in no place is Peter shown doing anything uniquely. Peter was also addressed singularly as regards binding and loosing, but which is also shown to apply to all believers.
Unless you have something new to say, don't bother repeating the same old stuff.
Unless you have something new to say, don't bother repeating the same old stuff as it simply get refuted again.
I will no longer respond to your posts to me if you continue with the same repetitions.
That would be wisdom, as the more you do then the more the fallacious nature of your fringe beliefs are exposed. Even though i have been so busy i takes my days to respond. Have to go now.
Again you have just regurgitated the same-old, same-old (and just expanded it), none of which is pertinent. I have said from the beginning that there are other bindings and loosings - why you think you have to provide example after example is beyond me. Who are you arguing with?
But there is only one binding and loosing with “keys”, given to Peter by Christ, directed at him with singular grammar. In Mt.18.18-19 Christ addressed binding and loosing in the plural, indicating that there were other bindings and loosings, but without mention of the “keys”, because, of course, they were for Peter alone, for a specific purpose - to bind and loose the Law.
By the way, Christ’s and Paul’s beliefs were considered “fringe” as well. I’ll take your accusation as a compliment.
I’m done.
>>>That you would write a book promoting this tangential error is revealing<<<
I'd be curious what it reveals, if this wasn't such a pathetic example of how you don't actually read what I post, but only skip through my posts looking for something to get upset about. I never said that I included the "keys" doctrine in my book. The only reason I brought up my book is because you veered off the road into the ditch with the two-Gospels controversy of Mid Acts Dispensationalism, despite that I never in any way talked about the two-Gospels controversy of Mid Acts Dispensationalism. In fact, the "keys" are only significant to Roman Catholic doctrine and add nothing to a discussion of Mid Acts Dispensationalism.
But by all means, just go ahead and write reams of objections to what I have not addressed, and continue to ignore what I have. It is all you have done so far anyway...
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Which is required reading preparatory to your tangential absurdity, as it is similar to it, both ascribing a fundamental difference to Peter as to what he preached before Acts 15 as relates to the Law. You both have him preaching a different gospel early on, whether you admit it or not, while you make him as alone as having the "keys," erroneously teaching this refers to binding/loosing obedience to the Law, and only that.
But by all means, just go ahead and write reams of objections to what I have not addressed, and continue to ignore what I have. It is all you have done so far anyway...
Charging others with what you example and thus warrant reiteration is only damage control due to the specious nature of your polemic being exposed.
Same-old, same-old...
God is just a little smarter than you are. His official teaching in the Scripture and the Doctrine of the Church is inspired and you are not. Scripture says, All we, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to our own way (Is 55:8). Or again, Can the pot say to the potter, “You know nothing”? (Is 29:16) Or yet again, Woe to those who quarrel with their Maker, those who are nothing but potsherds among the potsherds on the ground. Does the clay say to the potter, “What are you making?” (Is 45:9) But still many go on with their own opinions and will not abide even the clear correction of God.
From Msgr Pope.
Read the whole article:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3304070/posts
Why Is the Road to Destruction Wide and the Road to Salvation Narrow? A Meditation on a Teaching by Jesus
That's more like it.
And God did not leave us to our own devices. He freely gives the Holy Spirit to all believers to guide them into all truth.
Say, who's going to interpret the magisterium and the *sacred tradition* for y'all?
And who's going to interpret the interpretation?
Can't have any risk of mistakes, you know. If someone can't interpret God breathed, Holy Spirit inspired Scripture correctly, then supposing that *sacred tradition* is also inspired, they will also be incapable of correctly interpreting the so-called sacred tradition that allegedly comes from God through men.
So where are all the infallible interpretations of all the supposedly Spirit given pronouncements of the Catholic church throughout the last about 2,000 years?
Hmmm, starting with a pompous condescending (it seems to be the Catholic way) comment. Does it make you feel good? The superior attitude of Catholic posters always perplexes me because I think of them as Christians and then they don't act like it. Oh well.
His [God's] official teaching in the Scripture and the Doctrine of the Church is inspired and you are not.
Gee, no kidding. Another personal attack/dig, feel better now?
Notice the striking out of the erroneous part of your statement.
If you can quote me any words of God outside of scripture that he spoke to the Catholic church by all means to so.
Also a retraction is in order unless you can show a quote with a link to the post where I said I was inspired.
Your assumptions stated as facts are ludicrous.
All we, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to our own way (Is 55:8).Well, when you prayerfully through the Holy Spirit apply those scriptures to your attitude you will be ready for this:Or again, Can the pot say to the potter, “You know nothing”? (Is 29:16)
Or yet again, Woe to those who quarrel with their Maker, those who are nothing but potsherds among the potsherds on the ground. Does the clay say to the potter, “What are you making?” (Is 45:9)
But still many go on with their own opinions and will not abide even the clear correction of God.
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.--Romans 10:9Read the whole articleJust pray to Jesus calling on the Holy Spirit and confess like in the Romans verse above and you will be saved. It's that simple.
Thanks but no thanks. Why subscribe to Catholicism when simple Biblical Christianity is the best path?
Metmom put it best on that thread:
You seem to be ignoring the simple road to salvation and instead would prefer to be a Catholic.To: SalvationBecause Jesus is the only way and everything else isn’t.
If people refuse to come to Jesus, they’re done for.
Like I said before, I am just about through casting pearls of Biblical Holy Spirit inspired Biblical wisdom your way.
I certainly hope and pray your eyes and ears are opened to the Truth that Jesus taught in His Word.
Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not? and do ye not remember?--Mark 8:16
The hearing ear, and the seeing eye, the LORD hath made even both of them.---Proverbs 10:12
My best to you on your journey to Eternal Life in the Kingdom of God!
And God did not leave us to our own devices. He freely gives the Holy Spirit to all believers to guide them into all truth.Amen, the Biblical Truth!
Not by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit would NEVER inspire the incorporation of paganism such as the Catholic Church has.
It’s crystal clear that they put their faith in man rather than the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
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.