Posted on 12/13/2013 11:31:40 AM PST by Gamecock
Copyright Dr Joe Mizzi. Permission to copy and distribute this article without textual changes.
Question: Jesus installed Peter as the chief steward or prime minister under the King of kings by giving him the keys to the kingdom. As can be seen from Isaiah 22:22, kings appointed a chief steward to serve under them in a position of great authority to rule over the inhabitants of the kingdom. Jesus quotes almost verbatim from this passage in Isaiah, and so it is clear what he has in mind. Christ appointed Peter to lead them and guide the flock (John 21:15-17).
Answer: Christ gave Peter authority in the church and he was certainly a prominent leader. Peter is consistently mentioned first in the list of the apostles; he is often their spokesman; and he had the privilege of first preaching the Gospel to the Jews at Pentecost and then to the Gentiles at Cornelius' house.
Peter was prominent, yet that is not sufficient to prove that he was pope. The bishop of New York is more prominent than the bishop of Malta, yet the former does not exercise authority over the latter. Prominence is different from primacy and predominance.
To prove the papacy, you must show that Peter was the head of the apostles and that he exercised full, immediate and universal power in the Church. For that is exactly what is claimed by Rome:
"The office uniquely committed by the Lord to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, abides in the Bishop of the Church of Rome. He is the head of the College of Bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the Pastor of the universal Church here on earth. Consequently, by virtue of his office, he has supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church, and he can always freely exercise this power" (The canon law, 331).
It is evident that Christ gave authority to the apostle Peter. "And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 16:19). At issue is whether this authority was unique to Peter. Evidently it was not, for soon afterwards Jesus gave exactly the same authority to all the apostles, "Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 18:18). Hence Peter had an authority similar to the other apostles, and not an authority over them.
The apostles did not understand Jesus' words in Matthew 16 as Roman Catholics interpret them. If He made him 'chief steward' and 'prime minister' and 'the head of the college of bishops', why is it that even up to the day before Christ suffered, they were still arguing among themselves who should be considered the greatest? (Luke 22:24-26). Jesus' reply is very significant. He did not remind them what He told Peter at Caesarea Philippi, but simply scolded them for their pagan-like reasoning. "The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them...but not so among you." Peter knew nothing of the "supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power" over the other apostles and the church. Ironically, later on in history, the bishops of Rome - who were supposedly the successors of Peter - strove and fought to gain lordship over the universal church.
Again, it is true that Jesus commissioned Peter to feed the sheep (John 21:15-17). However, this was not a unique office committed to Peter alone. The apostle Paul tells the elders of Ephesus, "Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood" (Acts 20:28). The apostle Peter himself says, "The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed: shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, not by compulsion but willingly, not for dishonest gain but eagerly; nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock; and when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that does not fade away." (1 Peter 5:1-4). The elders are called to feed the sheep too.
You refer to Isaiah 22:22. "The key of the house of David I will lay on his shoulder; so he shall open, and no one shall shut; and he shall shut, and no one shall open." As a matter of fact this verse is quoted "almost verbatim" in the New Testament, specifically in Revelation 3:7 and not in Matthew 16. "These things says He who is holy, He who is true, He who has the key of David, He who opens and no one shuts, and shuts and no one opens" The key of the house of David is in the hand of Christ, not Peter!
Rome would make Peter the "supreme pastor" or chief shepherd of the church (Catechism, para. 857). Peter himself would never usurp the title of His Master. Jesus Christ alone is "the Chief Shepherd" of the church (1 Peter 5:4).
No one said he was the first...But Jesus said Paul was picked to sent to the Gentiles while Peter would go to the Jews...
The church hierarchy was ‘created’ by man through the extrapolation of things in the Word of God. ‘Pope’ is a man-made ‘office’. All religion is man-made. Jesus did not come to create a religion. He came to reconcile us to God, the Father. He came to us as a Brother, that we might become as He is.
This does not require a ‘Pope’. It requires a personal relationship with Yeshua, Jesus Christ the Messiah, the Son of God, God. It requires a relationship with God, the Father. And it requires nuturing and leading by the Holy Spirit in our lives.
Jesus the Christ, Son of the Almighty God, God, is our mediator. “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” 1 Timothy 2:5.
All else is man-made. All things man-made will collapse.
So Paul, immediately upon his conversion desires to go to Jerusalem to share his testimony. But Christ does not allow that, sending him instead to Arabia for three years. Important years, in the time frame of the beginnings of Christianity.
Which brings up another fascinating topic: Why was Peter sent to Cornelius? Remember Paul had just been saved, and sent not to Jerusalem,but to Arabia, per Christ's instructions. Was Peter following the "great commission" when he went to Cornelius? The Bible says no. This was a special commission, given to Peter by special revelation in a vision. IF the gospel of the kingdom was in order, then why the need for a special revelation? It would have been the logical step to go to a Gentile with the word of God. No, it's so much more than that which was going on.
Mt 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, . . .
Mar 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
Lk 24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
Ac 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
I don't think your scenario will hold up. Many apostles were still in Jerusalem 14+ years after Jesus gave the command, not to "stay" (except until they were endued with power), but to "GO!" They were disobedient, thinking this megachurch in Jerusalem (some 8,000 or more souls) could not do without them, thus overriding His command and disobeying. IMHO Did He not tell them that they had no idea when He would be returning to set up His rule? God just had to finally hose them out by Roman intervention, eh?
Was Peter a Pope i.e. the bishop i.e elder of Rome? Yes.
God chose Peter. and just as Paul wrote about wisely chosing successors to the bishop, Peter chose his successor, under God’s grace and will, he chose Linus
well, they worked hard to preach people away from the indo-european religion and the fact of the triumph of Christianity would have pleased, not horrified them
It isn’t that Peter was more of a man than others or had unshakeable faith (clearly)... he was given a special commission by Christ to feed His flock. He was chosen to be servant of the others just as the Pope is called the “servant of the servants of God.”
This line of reasoning is circular. Protestants walk away from the Church and then look back at us as just a denomination, as they are. It isn't so. The term "Catholic" means universal. It is in all places at all times. It is the union of Heaven and Earth. As Peter was told, what is bound on Earth is bound in Heaven... it is One Kingdom. This is not so in denominational Protestantism.
It's not that simple. In this, Simon again denied placing Christ above self and others, three times.
Reparation for his triple denial, . . .
Going over the text in the four gospels, you will find that Simon denies knowing Jesus six times, not three.
. . . and a preeminence in assuming the Shepherd's role.
The risen Christ was offering no such role. He was only offering to restore Simon to the role of a disciple, who would agree to do the duties expected of the other faithful confessing disciples. Peter had placed himself out of the role of disciple by denying Jesus before other humans. He knew what he had done.
And strengthening the brethren.
Not as a leader (as clearly understood from other associated Scripture showing Simon's attempt to exercise leadership over the other disciples, and refused by Jesus), but simple as another member of the group of conjoint disciples, supporting one another, holding other's needs above those of oneself, and willing to participate in the normal duties of every disciple/apostle.
But he has it as an explicit charge.
Most certainly not at all. Your assumption here is quite confused as to what was going on in the John 21 passages.
No evidence of that...In fact, plenty of evidence to the contrary...Jesus said Peter would die of old age, not hanging on a cross...And if Jesus said it, it happened...And not in Rome....
Simon Peter Magus however, a bishop of a very large church in Rome died on a cross at the time it is claimed that the apostle Peter was there...
You got the wrong Peter, bro...
All the overseers of the churches were told to 'feed the flock'...You'll have to find something else for your proof...
Here is something you may find interesting to discuss: -——————————————————————————
It is kind of confusing to me ( but most everything is )
17 And it came to pass, that, when I was come again to Jerusalem, even while I prayed in the temple, I was in a trance;
Paul says when he came again to Jerusalem, which would have been 14 to 17 years after his conversion, so the scripture is kind of hard for me to really get the straight of.
So it is kind of hard to tell if Paul ended the explanation of his conversion in verse 16 and goes to the present in 17 or just what.
But Paul was warned not to go to Jerusalem.
ch 21
14 And when he would not be persuaded, we ceased, saying, The will of the Lord be done.
15 And after those days we took up our carriages, and went up to Jerusalem.
ch 22
21 And he said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles.
After that Paul ended up in Rome and there he is said to have been killed.
PLease explain...
Thank you.
I am going through it, comparing Scripture with Scripture.
No one said he was the first...But Jesus said Paul was picked to sent to the Gentiles while Peter would go to the Jews...
I will be glad to; howecer, today is not the day I can do it. But I will not push it too far back.
YEP, that’s just what I’m studying right now! I’ll get back to you when I can come to some kind of understanding of the time line going on! Regards, smvoice
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.