MAJOR COUNCILS OF THE CHURCH - 1st Council of Nicaea

... besides if James had authority, why does Paul go to Peter? Clearly it’s James’ people who are influencing people to eat as Jews. Paul doesn’t go to James or his people to tell them not to eat as Jews, but rather goes to Peter, for going along with James.

Why?

Unless Peter has authority over James, Peter could be simply said to be going along to getting along, obeying the passage about not letting any differences cause discord. Paul doesn’t go to James, but instead criticizes Peter for being a hypocrite. A hypocrite, mind you, is someone who proclaims one thing, and behaves in a contrary manner. So in that one word we learn that Peter has proclaimed a doctrine against what would later be called “Judaizing,” and that his offense was his ACTIONS, not heresy (which is the proclamation of false doctrine.)

So Paul sees PETER as the one who is responsible for going along with JAMES, rather than seeing James as responsible. If Peter is responsible, than it is Peter who has authority.

Notice also that Paul doesn’t chastise James’ people, either. It’s not Paul’s place. Paul, instead, urges Peter to do the chastising, because Peter is in charge; Paul is merely serving as an informal advisor to Peter.

I never said that I believed James had authority beyond possibly being an elder in the church of Jerusalem (BTW, we're not even sure that this is the same James who was an Apostle. However, I personally believe it is).

Let's not mix our history. There are two stories to consider. The first one was when Paul, Barnabas and Luke were in Antioch, And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” (Acts 15:1). The dispute became so great that a bunch of them (including Paul and Barnabas) went to Jerusalem (not Rome) to the Apostles and elders to sort the matter out. It was there that all sides gave their testimony, including corroborating testimony from Peter. James offered a recommendation, and the apostles and elders took it.

The incident between Paul and Peter mentioned by Paul in Galatians is an entirely different story. Peter succumbed to the peer pressure of the Jews who still clung to their old ways. He behaved one way when these folks were around, and another when they weren't. He was a hypocrite. Paul confronted him directly, as the Lord advised in Matthew 18. It has nothing to do with Peter as an authority figure, but with Peter as a fellow believer in error.

Still no pope! However, I've quite enjoyed dialog. You've really brought forth some excellent Scripture.

>> However, I’ve quite enjoyed dialog. <<
Thanks. I have, too. In fact, you’ve inspired a Vanity/FAQ.
>> Peter as a fellow believer in error. <<
But Peter wasn’t a believer in the error! Paul calls him a “hypocrite” and “self-condemned” because Peter had promulgated the very doctrine Paul was asserting to him. Peter was just being weak-willed... again. He knew better, and that’s why Paul upbraids him, not James.
>> The incident between Paul and Peter mentioned by Paul in Galatians is an entirely different story. <<
I’m not sure whether it’s entirely different or not. They both are Peter going along with James’ judaizing. Whether they are two separate incidents, or merely different highlights of the same incident, I believe is unknowable. The point stands, however.

>> The dispute became so great that a bunch of them (including Paul and Barnabas) went to Jerusalem (not Rome) to the Apostles and elders to sort the matter out. <<

Did I slip and say Rome?

>> I never said that I believed James had authority beyond possibly being an elder in the church of Jerusalem (BTW, we’re not even sure that this is the same James who was an Apostle. However, I personally believe it is). <<

It would appear to be James the Lesser, brother of Juda (Luke 6:16), brother of John (Matthew 10:2), son of Zebedee (Matthew 10:2, Mathew 27:56) and of Mary (Matthew 27:56, Mark 15:40), and therefore also brother of Joses/Joseph (Matthew 27:56, Mark 15:40). This Mary was Jesus’ aunt. John says, “Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.” (John 19:25) (King James added in “the wife of,” which does not appear in any ancient text.)

So, this James the Lesser, was therefore a cousin of Jesus.

(Yes, Jesus did have cousins named James, Juda, Joses, and Simon, who also had an aunt named Mary.)

And that makes him also, likely, the “adelphos” of Jesus who wrote the Letter of James.

Given the immediate, universal acceptance of Nicea, including in areas beyond the reach of Constantine, it isn’t up to me to assert Rome’s approval of the Council, it’s up to you to cast doubt on it. Far from sowing discord with the imposition of novel doctrines, Nicea settled nearly any and all disagreement, and Aryanism, adventism, quattrodecennialism, all quickly and, in contrast to the pre-Nicene situation, peacefully waned.

You cite no hard historical evidence that Rome played any particularly significant role in the Council Of Nicea.

The non-imposing invitations of Constantine

I have not seen a copy of this "invitation". Have you?

The universal nature of the council, including cultures beyond the influence of the Emperor

* The lack of contest over the assertions of the council, and eventual universal acceptance, with only two dissident Bishops

* The domination of the council by non-Latins, whom Constantine would have less influence over

Actually, this is why it's called the FIRST Ecumenical Council.

How much influence did Rome have?

Canon VI

"Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail."

(Philip Schaff's Translation of Nice, Canon VI, The First Ecumenical Council; The First Council of Nice, Canon VI, 325 AD

This Canon establishes conclusively that the "Primacy" of the Bishop Of Rome is limited to a specific territory. Certainly not universal.

Constantine called. They came, all except the Bishop of Rome. Hmmmmmmmm?

The second "Rock" word Jesus uses refers to Peter's statement, which was revealed to him by the Father. The first "rock" word Jesus used in renaming Simon. The second is the foundation stone -- the boulder. The first is a pebble.

There is no basis for this. Unless you take into account the literary conventions of the Greek (the proper name "Peter" - masculine - is transliterated to the Greek "pebble" - masculine - instead of "rock" - feminine). Since Jesus was speaking in a language that had one word for "rock" and one word for "pebble" (Aramaic), and clearly used the word "rock" in both circumstances, that "pebble" dog won't hunt.

As to the "three blessings" you dig up; Scripture only shows a single blessing.

Blessing #1: Peter is assigned Wisdom.
Blessing #2: Peter is assigned a new name (see Abraham, Sarah, Israel, Joshua)
Blessing #3: Peter is assigned authority on earth.

I'm surely not going to change your view, I truly hope you will seek the truth, and allow God to shape you into His image rather than continue shaping a god into yours.

What arrogance! But -- you're my brother, so I don't wish to foster any further acrimony. I'll think of you while I'm rotting in hell for my "papistry" (sic).

But Peter wasn’t a believer in the error!

Are you saying Peter wasn't a believer, or that he wasn't in error? Me thinks we are not on the same train, and clarifications are needed.

I’m not sure whether it’s entirely different or not.

With this one, I'm pretty sure we're on different trains. I was merely pointing out that the two stories are different incidents. Although, now that you've mentioned it, I don't think there's a parallel lesson.

They both are Peter going along with James’ judaizing.

I don't get where you're finding James at fault. In the story from Acts, James demonstrates wisdom in his advice. He is to be commended and respected.

In the second story from Galatians it was the "men who came from James" whom Peter withdrew from the Gentiles to eat with in the manner of a Jew. There is no mention that they acted badly on the order of James. Paul doesn't point a finger at James, he merely mentions the origin of these men. Paul doesn't even point a finger at these "men from James". He blames Peter. Later, he mentions that Peter's (Apostolic) influence spread to the "rest of the Jews". Clearly Peter and these "rest of the Jews" were in error. We might surmise that thes "men from James" were also in error, and that James, himself, is in error. Both of these are inference-based assumptions that might be true, but might be wrong, too. The Scripture just doesn't say.

Paul's inclusion of this matter in his letter to the Galatians certainly lends credibility to Peter's prominent standing with the early believers, but we already knew that. It also demonstrates that even a man as prominent as Peter is capable of sin.

The story demonstrates a third piece of information about Peter. Even though Peter has been empowered by and with the Holy Spirit, walked with the Lord, and was capable of great miracles, he still had the same problems as before (to a lesser extent to be sure). Remember when Peter was warming himself by the fire in the high priest's courtyard and denied the Lord three times? Didn't he also succumb to the pressure he felt from those around him?

One of Peter's basic human flaws was a lack of personal confidence to take a firm stand, come what may. Praise God for His continual work within each of us. And for Peter, that meant the development of the faith and courage to take a stand so firm that he would rather be crucified upside down than to be moved.

Did I slip and say Rome?

I just couldn't resist demonstrating that the core of the early believers was Jerusalem, and not Rome. God's still working with me, too.

It would appear to be James the Lesser, brother of...

We know of three individual Jameses mentioned in the New Testament. It's been a while for me, but I believe that James son of Zebedee had already been martyred. I admit that I don't know which one this is.

Also, I'll refrain from taking the dialog down the "James was Jesus' brother not cousin" road. We're not likely to settle the "Peter wasn't a pope" issue that we started; I see no reason to dive into the whole Mary thing, too.

Allow me to cite one smarter than myself. I've certainly learned much in my investigation of this passage. In fact, I've now got to study even more in reconsideration.

BARNES' NOTES ON THE NEW TESTAMENT

Verse 18. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter. The word Peter, in Greek, means a rock. It was given to Simon by Christ when he called him to be a disciple, John 1:42. Cephas is a Syriac word, meaning the same as Peter--a rock, or stone. The meaning of this phrase may be thus expressed: "Thou, in saying that I am the Son of God, hast called me by a name expressive of my true character. I, also, have given to thee a name expressive of your character. I have called you Peter, a rock, denoting firmness, solidity; and your confession has shown that the name is appropriate. I see that you are worthy of the name, and will be a distinguished support of my religion.

And upon this rock, etc. This passage has given rise to many different interpretations. Some have supposed that the word ROCK refers to Peter's confession; and that he meant to say, upon this rock-- this truth that thou hast confessed, that I am the Messiah--and upon confessions of this from all believers, I will build my church. Confessions like this shall be the test of piety; and in such confessions shall my church stand amidst the flames of persecution--the fury of the gates of hell. Others have thought that he referred to himself. Christ is called a rock, Isaiah 28:16; 1 Peter 2:8. And it has been thought that he turned from Peter to himself, and said: "Upon this rock, this truth that I am the Messiah--upon myself as the Messiah--I will build my church." Both these interpretations, though plausible, seem forced upon the passage to avoid the main difficulty in it. Another interpretation is, that the word rock refers to Peter himself. This is the obvious meaning of the passage; and had it not been that the church of Rome has abused it, and applied it to what was never intended, no other would have been sought for. "Thou art a rock. Thou hast shown thyself firm in and fit for the work of laying the foundation of the church. Upon thee will I build it. Thou shalt be highly honoured; thou shalt be first in making known the gospel to both Jews and Gentiles." This was accomplished. See Acts 2:14-36, where he first preached to the Jews, and Acts 10:1 and following, where he preached the gospel to Cornelius and his neighbours, who were Gentiles. Peter had thus the honour of laying the foundation of the church among the Jews and Gentiles. And this is the plain meaning of this passage. See also Galatians 2:9. But Christ did not mean, as the Roman Catholics say he did, to exalt Peter to supreme authority above all the other apostles, or to say that he was the only one on whom he would rear his church. See Acts 15, where the advice of James, and not of Peter, was followed. See also Galatians 2:11, where Paul withstood Peter to his face, because he was to be blamed--a thing which could not have happened if Christ, as the Roman Catholics say, meant that Peter should be absolute and infallible. More than all, it is not said here or anywhere else in the Bible, that Peter should have infallible successors who should be the vicegerents of Christ, and the head of the church. The whole meaning of the passage is this:

"I will make you the honoured instrument of making known my gospel first to Jews and Gentiles, and will make you a firm and distinguished preacher in building my church."

Will build my Church. This refers to the custom of building, in Judea, on a rock or other very firm foundation. See Barnes "Matthew 7:24". The word church means, literally, those called out, and often means an assembly or congregation. See Acts 19:32; Gr.; Acts 7:38. It is applied to Christians as being called out from the world. It means, sometimes, the whole body of believers, 1:22; 1 Corinthians 10:32. This is its meaning in this place. It means, also, a particular society of believers, worshipping in one place, Acts 8:1; 9:31; 1 Corinthians 1:2, etc. Sometimes, also, a society in a single house, as Romans 16:5. In common language, it means the church visible--ie. all who profess religion; or invisible, i.e. all who are real Christians, professors or not.

And the gates of hell, etc. Ancient cities were surrounded by walls. In the gates, by which they were entered, were the principal places for holding courts, transacting business, and deliberating on public matters. See Barnes "Matthew 7:13". The word gates, therefore, is used for counsels, designs, machinations, evil purposes. Hell means, here, the place of departed spirits, particularly evil spirits. And the meaning of the passage is, that all the plots, stratagems, and machinations, of the enemies of the church, should not be able to overcome it--a promise that has been remarkably fulfilled.

Another interpretation is, that the word rock refers to Peter himself. This is the obvious meaning of the passage; and had it not been that the church of Rome has abused it, and applied it to what was never intended, no other would have been sought for. "Thou art a rock. Thou hast shown thyself firm in and fit for the work of laying the foundation of the church. Upon thee will I build it. Thou shalt be highly honoured; thou shalt be first in making known the gospel to both Jews and Gentiles." This was accomplished. See Acts 2:14-36, where he first preached to the Jews, and Acts 10:1 and following, where he preached the gospel to Cornelius and his neighbours, who were Gentiles. Peter had thus the honour of laying the foundation of the church among the Jews and Gentiles. And this is the plain meaning of this passage

oy vey. Peter had thus the honour of laying the foundation of the church among the Jews and Gentiles.

Unfortunately, Barnes puts on the brakes before he gets to the part about Peter receiving the keys to the kingdom of heaven. That's indisputably an office of power given to Peter. Leave that out, and sure, Peter looks like some kind of ecclesial wedding planner going out and setting the stage for Paul and James. But included in the scope of Jesus' calling Peter "Rock", receiving the keys to the kingdom is clearly an appointment of power. Peter is the man at the gate. Jesus literally relinquishes his decision-making authority to Peter ("because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.") It's a verse which is ignored at the peril of those who wish to fit Peter into the crowd of other apostles instead of recognizing the very words of Christ as evidence par excellence of his anointed mission ("feed my sheep").

More than all, it is not said here or anywhere else in the Bible, that Peter should have infallible successors who should be the vicegerents of Christ, and the head of the church.

An incredible statement. Barnes' thus believes that the will of God was to establish a Church that would be prone to error following the life of Peter? If he can extrapolate that, one could also extrapolate that Jesus only wanted the Apostles to make disciples of "all nations" that existed during their lifetime and just stop there.

God cannot create anything which is privated, except he who suffers the transmission of Original Sin from his parents upon conception. If the Church is truly the body of Christ, there can be ZERO error. Any privation in the establishment of the Church is a declaration that God created something evil (deprived of goodness in some way). Therein lies the infallibility of the Church in teaching on faith and morals.

"I will make you the honoured instrument of making known my gospel first to Jews and Gentiles, and will make you a firm and distinguished preacher in building my church."

Yes - if the "keys to the kingdom" were not explicitly given over to Peter. But they were, and thus, authority over all others. That verse cannot be simply tossed aside. It is indisputably a handing over of power which is guarded by that which the Father reveals to Peter. So, in essence that power is entitled to Peter, but with the guidance of heaven. Why was this necessary? Because Christ willed for a visible Church that would make present His incorporeal Trinitarian life to us lowly humans whose "eyes have not seen" the actual nature (substance) of God.

And if it can be agreed that Peter received wisdom and authority at the outset of the Christian faith - theoretically - in order to guard the Church from error, why would God suddenly pull the rug out from His own people when many articles of faith had yet to be defined? (Triune God, the hypostatic union, the very divinity of Christ) The battle of the Church against the Gnostics, the Montanists, the Aryans, etc. is either proof that the Church was given infallible authority, or the world has been consigned to theological error for almost two thousand years. (Really - it's the word of the Church versus the word of the heretics. If the imbued authority of the Church in the matters of faith and morals is not evident, the possibility exists that the Gnostics were right.)

Unfortunately, Barnes puts on the brakes before he gets to the part about Peter receiving the keys to the kingdom of heaven.

Barnes' Notes on the New Testament

Verse 19. And I will give unto thee, etc. A key is an instrument for opening a door. He that is in possession of it has the power of access, and has a general care and administration of a house. Hence, in the Bible, a key is used as a symbol of superintendence, an emblem of power and authority. See Isaiah 22:22;; Revelation 1:18; 3:7. The kingdom of heaven here means, doubtless, the church on earth, See Barnes "Matthew 3:2". When he says, therefore, he will give him the keys of the kingdom of heaven, he means that he will make him the instrument of opening the door of faith to the world--the first to preach the gospel to both Jews and Gentiles. This was done, Acts 2:14-36,; 10:1. The "power of the keys" was given to Peter alone solely for this reason; the power of "binding and loosing" on earth was given to the other apostles with him. See Matthew 18:18. The only pre-eminence, then, that Peter had, was the honour of first opening the doors of the gospel to the world.

Whatsoever thou shalt bind, etc. The phrase to bind and to loose was often used by the Jews. It meant to prohibit and to permit. To bind a thing was to forbid it; to loose it, to allow it to be done. Thus they said about gathering wood on the sabbath day. "The school of Shammei binds it"--i, e. forbids it; "the school of Hillel looses it"--i. e. allows it. When Jesus gave this power to the apostles, he meant that whatsoever they forbid in the church should have Divine authority; whatever they permitted, or commanded, should also have Divine authority--that is, should be bound or loosed in heaven, or meet the approbation of God. They were to be guided infallibly in the organization of the church,

(1.) by the teaching of Christ, and

(2.) by the teaching of the Holy Spirit.

This does not refer to persons, but to things--"whatsoever," not whosoever. It refers to rites and ceremonies in the church. Such of the Jewish customs as they should forbid were to be forbidden; and such as they thought proper to permit were to be allowed. Such rites as they should appoint in the church were to have the force of Divine authority. Accordingly, they forbid circumcision and the eating of things offered to idols, and strangled, and blood, Acts 15:20. They founded the church, and ordained its rites, as of Divine authority.

The kingdom of heaven here means, doubtless, the church on earth,

He can't be serious. There are numerous interpretations for "kingdom of heaven" (or, Kingdom of God), one of which is, simply, "kingdom of heaven". Barnes simply cherry-picks an alternate notion that "kingdom of heaven" refers to the Church on earth, and then calls it "doubtless"? The Kingdom of Heaven is the heavenly domain of God, as well as the Church on earth, as well as Jesus Christ Himself. All three interpretations apply, but Barnes picks the one that supports his opposition to the papacy. This is part and parcel of the evangelical mindset which can only compartmentalize Scripture as an instrument to defend a particular view, instead of embracing the entirety of Scripture as an instrument of Revelation.

When he says, therefore, he will give him the keys of the kingdom of heaven, he means that he will make him the instrument of opening the door of faith to the world--the first to preach the gospel to both Jews and Gentiles.

Absolutely - at one level, this is true. But the interpretation of "kingdom of heaven", as I pointed out above, is represented in a number of equally appropriate ways - the most commonly accepted being, "the heavenly realm" itself.

The "power of the keys" was given to Peter alone solely for this reason;

Fact not in evidence. Author's opinion presented as 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.