Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Papacy in Scripture More Than Matthew 16
Tim Staples' Blog ^ | March 26, 2014 | Tim Staples

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.



TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; History; Theology
KEYWORDS: acts; actsoftheapostles; bible; gogdsword; papacy; pope; scripture; scriptures; stpeter; timstaples
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 451-480 next last
"when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said...But we believe...Then all the multitude kept silence"

1 posted on 05/01/2014 3:25:30 AM PDT by GonzoII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

OK, how do we reconcile Papal infallibility with some of the “bad” Popes through the ages?


2 posted on 05/01/2014 3:49:40 AM PDT by NY.SS-Bar9 (Those that vote for a living outnumber those that work for one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NY.SS-Bar9

You don’t because the doctrine of papal infallibility only came about in the middle of the 19th century.

CC


3 posted on 05/01/2014 4:02:22 AM PDT by Celtic Conservative (tease not the dragon for thou art crunchy when roasted and taste good with ketchup)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Celtic Conservative

Convenient.


4 posted on 05/01/2014 4:12:33 AM PDT by Manly Warrior (US ARMY (Ret), "No Free Lunches for the Dogs of War")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

Each time the word ROCK is used in the Bible in reference to any providing of the people, it is used as God being the one provided. Here is the first verse in the Bible in the KJV showing just that.
(Exo 17:6 KJV) Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock in Horeb; and thou shalt smite the rock, and there shall come water out of it, that the people may drink. And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel.
Who pointed out where the ROCK was? God did. What came out of the ROCK? Water, water to drink. Who is referred to as LIVING WATER, water that must be drunk to live eternally? Jesus.
(John 7:38 KJV) He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
Each time the word ROCK is used, where God provides the ROCK, it is either a literal ROCK, like just above, where WATER came out of, water to allow the Isralites to live, it came from GOD, not a man.
When it refers to a spiritual meaning, the word ROCK is used to describe God as creator or Saviour! IT IS NEVER USED TO DESCRIBE A MAN!
(Deu 32:1 KJV) Give ear, O ye heavens, and I will speak; and hear, O earth, the words of my mouth.
(Deu 32:2 KJV) My doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech shall distil as the dew, as the small rain upon the tender herb, and as the showers upon the grass:
(Deu 32:3 KJV) Because I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto our God.
(Deu 32:4 KJV) He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.
Who is the ROCK? God is, He is our support, our Saviour, our Creator.NOT A MAN.
(Deu 32:18 KJV) Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that formed thee.
GOD is the ROCK, the Creator, not a man.
(Deu 32:30 KJV) How should one chase a thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight, except their Rock had sold them, and the LORD had shut them up?
(Deu 32:31 KJV) For their rock is not as our Rock, even our enemies themselves being judges.
Who is the ROCK? It is GOD, not a man!
(1 Sam 2:2 KJV) There is none holy as the LORD: for there is none beside thee: neither is there any rock like our God.
Who is the ROCK? It is not a man, it is GOD!
(2 Sam 22:2 KJV) And he said, The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer;
(2 Sam 22:3 KJV) The God of my rock; in him will I trust: he is my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my high tower, and my refuge, my saviour; thou savest me from violence.
Who is the ROCK? It is GOD. NOT a sinful man who denied his God, but GOD Himself.
Peter is NO ONE’S shield.
Peter is NO ONE’S high tower.
Peter is NO ONE’S refuge.
and Peter is NO ONE’S Saviour! To say anything like those statements are true of a sinful man is blasphemy.
Most Catholics never read the section before or after this part:

(Mat 16:18 KJV) And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

That is one reason some people do not find it obvious.

Here is what it says::

(Mat 16:13 KJV) When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

(Mat 16:14 KJV) And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

(Mat 16:15 KJV) He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

(Mat 16:16 KJV) And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

(Mat 16:17 KJV) And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

What was the original topic of discussion?

(Mat 16:13 KJV) When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

Jesus asked,

That was the topic of discussion.

What was the response?

(Mat 16:14 KJV) And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

They were all over the place, it seems that there was not many who were catching on to exactly who Jesus was.

So, what was the next sentence?

(Mat 16:15 KJV) He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

(Mat 16:16 KJV) And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Jesus asked the disciples themselves what THEY thought, not just one disciple, but ALL of them.

Peter gave the best answer, that Jesus IS the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Right from there, many people ignore what was just said, and only concentrate on what comes next.

However, that is where the error lies, in ignoring what was just said.

It is like explaining to someone that people put sodas in the soda machine first, then act surprised when soda comes out of the machine when you put money into it. People forget what happened first: someone loaded the machine.

In the same respect, Jesus set the tone for the conversation: WHO IS HE?

Peter had it right: Jesus IS the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

That was the point of what Jesus was saying. That He was the Christ.

That was what He just said!

We all know what comes next, and it is because people ignore what was just said, that they get this part wrong:The Context of the ongoing conversation is important:

(Mat 16:17 KJV) And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

(Mat 16:18 KJV) And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Jesus explains that Peter’s revelation did not come from His logic, it came from God the Father Himself. This type of instruction was done on a spiritual level, not fleshly, it was something that Peter would have never figured out for himself.

What did Jesus say next? Peter is blessed because he was BLESSED with this information.

What information?

That Jesus IS the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

That is the point.

What Jesus said next is the most misused verse in the entire New Testament.

(Mat 16:18 KJV) And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Peter and Rock. Is Peter the rock spoken of here, or is the IMPORTANT POINT THAT GOD REVEALED TO PETER the rock?

17 And [ 2532] Jesus [2424] answered [ 611] (5679) and said [ 2036] (5627) unto him [846], Blessed [ 3107] art thou [ 1488] (5748), Simon [ 4613] Barjona [ 920]: for [ 3754] flesh [ 4561] and [ 2532] blood [ 129] hath [ 601] [0] not [3756] revealed [601] (5656) it unto thee [4671], but [ 235] my [ 3450] Father [ 3962] which [ 3588] is in [ 1722] heaven [ 3772].

18 And [ 1161] I say [ 3004] (5719) also [ 2504] unto thee [ 4671], That [ 3754] thou [ 4771] art [ 1488] (5748) Peter [ 4074], and [ 2532] upon [ 1909] this [ 5026] rock [ 4073] I will build [ 3618] (5692) my [ 3450] church [ 1577]; and [ 2532] the gates [ 4439] of hell [ 86] shall [ 2729] [0] not [ 3756] prevail against [ 2729] (5692) it [ 846].

18 kagw [ 2504] de [ 1161] soi [ 4671] legw [ 3004] (5719) oti [ 3754] su [ 4771] ei [ 1488] (5748) petroj [ 4074] kai [ 2532] epi [ 1909] tauth [ 3778] th [ 3588] petra [ 4073] oikodomhsw [ 3618] (5692) mou [ 3450] thn [ 3588] ekklhsian [ 1577] kai [ 2532] pulai [ 4439] adou [ 86] ou [ 3756] katiscusousin [ 2729] (5692) authj [ 846]

Peter =
4074 petroj Petros pet’-ros
apparently a primary word; TDNT - 6:100,835; n pr m
AV - Peter 161, stone 1; 162
Peter = “a rock or a stone”
1) one of the twelve disciples of Jesus

rock =
4073 petra petra pet’-ra
from the same as 4074; TDNT - 6:95,834; n f
AV - rock 16; 16
1) a rock, cliff or ledge
1a) a projecting rock, crag, rocky ground
1b) a rock, a large stone
1c) metaph. a man like a rock, by reason of his firmness and strength of soul

Due to what Jesus was talking about, the ROCK had to be the truth Peter had revealed to him from God the Father, that JESUS IS THE CHRIST, THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD.

There is no other sensible explanation of the verse unless it is twisted to make someone believe what is not there in the text.
Because of all the previous uses of the word ROCK to describe the attributes of God as Creator, Deliverer, Saviour, to ascribe those attributes to a man, that is a total misunderstanding of Scripture.

Too many people form what they believe around their doctrine, and then interpret the Bible in the light of that doctrine.

That is wrong. Doctrine should come from what the Bible clearly says, and then base their doctrine on what it clearly says!

The Bible nowhere grants Peter any authority that is not also given to the other disciples.

Jesus is also called the ROCK or CORNER STONE in many other verses, but PETER IS NOT!

Notice what is said in this passage::

(Mat 7:24 KJV) Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

(Mat 7:25 KJV) And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.

(Mat 7:26 KJV) And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:

(Mat 7:27 KJV) And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

What is it that a person built their house upon and survived? A ROCK.

If a person is foolish, what does a person build their house upon? SAND. What did Jesus say that those who rejected his words built upon? SAND.

If the foolish reject Jesus and build upon SAND, then those who BELIEVE and RECEIVE what Jesus said, which of the two men is Jesus comparing them to, the SAND builder or the ROCK builder?

It is CLEAR that Jesus is referring to those who BELIEVE on HIM and trust HIM as one who builds their house UPON A ROCK.

That is JESUS own words several chapters before Peter’s declaration.

This is repeated in more detail in Luke::
(Luke 6:47 KJV) Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will show you to whom he is like:

(Luke 6:48 KJV) He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock.

(Luke 6:49 KJV) But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that without a foundation built an house upon the earth; against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell; and the ruin of that house was great.

Note again, the PERSON who believes on the WORD OF GOD, is likened to someone building their house UPON A ROCK.

So, what does the reference to A ROCK in ALL these cases refer to?

Is it a MAN or is it the WORD OF GOD revealed?

This is not difficult to read, but too many people have been taught to interpret the passage in Matthew in such a way to twist what is actually being said, and these alternate passages repeat the same basic message: THAT GOD is what matters, not men or a single man.

Paul wrote in Romans 9::
(Rom 9:33 KJV) As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

Who is Paul speaking of when he SAYS A ROCK of offense? A Stumbling stone? It is Jesus, and refers to those who refuse to believe.

(1 Cor 10:4 KJV) And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Who is the ROCK?
It plainly says the ROCK WAS JESUS, not Peter.

There is no other place where Peter is praised or given any authority, in fact Peter is rebuked for his actions by other persons.

(Gal 2:11 KJV) But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

(Gal 2:12 KJV) For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

(Gal 2:13 KJV) And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.

(Gal 2:14 KJV) But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

If PETER is the ROCK of the Church, then WHO IS PAUL to REBUKE PETER?

Paul clearly rebuked Peter in this passage because PETER was WRONG and at FAULT!

The ROCK of the Church CANNOT HAVE ANY FAULT, or else there is NO FOUNDATION to stand upon but error!!

Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles, not Peter, also. While the book of Acts clearly tells Peter to witness to a Gentile first, Peter is NOWHERE granted any position or title that PETER is the Apostle to the Gentiles, but PAUL clearly IS named as SUCH!

(Rom 15:15 KJV) Nevertheless, brethren, I have written the more boldly unto you in some sort, as putting you in mind, because of the grace that is given to me of God,

(Rom 15:16 KJV) That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.

The Book of Galatians is the clearest refutation to many false doctrines concerning this::

(Gal 2:1 KJV) Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.

(Gal 2:2 KJV) And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.

Now, read the next passage carefully:: WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY??

(Gal 2:7 KJV) But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

(Gal 2:8 KJV) (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)

THE GOSPEL OF THE UNCIRCUMCISION WAS GIVEN TO PAUL, NOT PETER.

PETER WAS TO BE THE APOSTLE TO THE JEWS.

(Eph 3:1 KJV) For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,

WHO WAS? PAUL was, not Peter.

(Eph 3:8 KJV) Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;

WHO WAS?? Paul was!!

(1 Tim 2:7 KJV) Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.

WHO IS A TEACHER OF THE GENTILES?

Paul is! NOT Peter, every time Peter is mentioned as to WHAT PEOPLE Peter is to be associated with it is the JEWS, WITH ONLY ONE EXCEPTION, and that is Acts chapter 10.

Only ONCE, while PAUL is repeatedly and openly called or referred to as the Apostle of the Gentiles.

In fact, there might even be more references to PAUL witnessing to Jews then there are references to PETER witnessing to Gentiles! And this from the man who is KNOWN as THE APOSTLE OF THE GENTILES!
(Acts 9:19 KJV) And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus.
(Acts 9:20 KJV) And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.
(Acts 9:21 KJV) But all that heard him were amazed, and said; Is not this he that destroyed them which called on this name in Jerusalem, and came hither for that intent, that he might bring them bound unto the chief priests?
(Acts 9:22 KJV) But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ.
Acts 13:1 Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. 2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. 3 And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. 4 So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed unto Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus. 5 And when they were at Salamis, they preached the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews: and they had also John to their minister.
Acts 14:1 And it came to pass in Iconium, that they went both together into the synagogue of the Jews, and so spake, that a great multitude both of the Jews and also of the Greeks believed. 2 But the unbelieving Jews stirred up the Gentiles, and made their minds evil affected against the brethren.
Acts 17:1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews: 2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
Acts 17:(Acts 17:10 KJV) And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
(Acts 18:4 KJV) And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.
(Acts 18:5 KJV) And when Silas and Timotheus were come from Macedonia, Paul was pressed in the spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ.
(Acts 20:21 KJV) Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.

(2 Tim 1:11 KJV) Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.

(2 Tim 4:17 KJV) Notwithstanding the Lord stood with me, and strengthened me; that by me the preaching might be fully known, and that all the Gentiles might hear: and I was delivered out of the mouth of the lion.

Strengthened who? PETER?? NO!
Paul!

The doctrines of Peter being the ROCK are clearly not supported by Scripture.

That cannot be denied by anyone who knows how to read for themselves.

(Acts 17:10 KJV) And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.

(Acts 17:11 KJV) These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

(Acts 17:12 KJV) Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.

Neither did Jesus rename Peter, he clearly called Peter a stone. To believe otherwise means you believe Jesus changed the subject of His being the Messiah. Jesus entire passage was n the Church, His founding of it being the Messiah, and the fact that HIS church would have no end.

It had NOTHING to do with a sinful man being any sort of a foundation. The only foundation for the Church was Jesus Christ Himself.

Luke 6:46 And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?
47 Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will show you to whom he is like:
48 He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock.

Jesus clearly says HE is the rock that the man built his house upon, not Peter.

What did Paul say about building upon a MAN’S foundational work?

(Rom 15:20 KJV) Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man’s foundation:

Paul said he would NOT go anywhere another man had alreayd preached. Since we KNOW Peter was in Rome after Paul, and they may have met there, Peter surely would have known this verse and this course of action and would NOT have built upon Paul’s work in Rome.

(1 Cor 3:10 KJV) According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Paul makes it clear: The FOUNDATION of the Church is JESUS CHRIST, not Peter.

(Eph 2:20 KJV) And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

In that last passage, ALL the Apostles are called foundations, NOT JUST PETER, and it is CLEAR:: Jesus Christ is the Chief Cornerstone, NOT PETER, and ALL the Apostles are given the same rank and status, and PETER is NOT NAMED ONCE.

(Gal 2:7 KJV) But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

(Gal 2:8 KJV) (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)

(Gal 2:9 KJV) And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

And Again, Paul clearly states PAUL is the Apostle to the Uncircumcision, and also noteworthy, in Gal 2:9, Look again what PAUL said::

(Gal 2:9 KJV) And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

Paul called 3 men, 3 Apostles the pillars of the Church, 3 men, not just Peter!!

Like I said before: Doctrine needs to be based on the Bible and what it says. People who read the Bible and interpret the Bible in light of their doctrine are in error. The Bible should tell you what your doctrine is, instead of your doctrine telling you what the Bible clearly says.

There are just too many ways to Biblically defeat the doctrine of Peter’s supremacy in the Church. He WAS an Apostle, and that is greater than I ever will be, but as far as the FOUNDER or LEADER ALONE of the Church, someone who is considered the foundation of the Christian Church in Europe or something, that is just not Biblical.
You also just showed you do not know your Bible when you said this:
Christ did NOT state to refer to or consult Scripture for disputes and correction. He said to go to the Church as It is the final authority in Christianity.
Well, just what was Jesus doing here in this collection of verses then, if not using SCRIPTURE as the final authority on faith and morals?
(Mat 12:3 KJV) But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;
(Mat 12:5 KJV) Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?
(Mat 19:4 KJV) And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
(Mat 21:16 KJV) And said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?
(Mat 21:42 KJV) Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
(Mat 22:31 KJV) But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,
(Mark 2:25 KJV) And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?
(Mark 12:10 KJV) And have ye not read this scripture; The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner:
(Mark 12:26 KJV) And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?
(Luke 4:16 KJV) And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.
(Luke 6:3 KJV) And Jesus answering them said, Have ye not read so much as this, what David did, when himself was an hungered, and they which were with him;
Jesus used Scriptue to defeat Satan, not the teachings of the Synagogue, nor the teachings of a future Church that we are disputing about:
(Mat 4:4 KJV) But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
(Mat 4:7 KJV) Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
(Mat 4:10 KJV) Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
Paul’s statement of the Church being the pillar and ground of the truth in 1 Timothy 3:15 is NOT the subject of what you claimed, either:
(1 Tim 3:15 KJV) But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
IT IS GOD that is the Pillar and ground of truth, and it is the SPIRITUAL Church that it is referring to, not any physical building, nor a any sinful man’s creation of a denomination.


5 posted on 05/01/2014 4:16:47 AM PDT by RaceBannon (Lk 16:31 And he said unto him If they hear not Moses and the prophets neither will theybe persuaded)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NY.SS-Bar9

Papal infallibility isn’t about personal holiness.


6 posted on 05/01/2014 4:20:03 AM PDT by JPX2011
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon

if the bible was as clear as you state there wouldn’t be so many interpretations. Appreciate the effort though.


7 posted on 05/01/2014 4:25:17 AM PDT by JPX2011
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: NY.SS-Bar9

You’re confusing infallibility with impeccability.

What was promised to Peter was doctrinal authority: “Whatever you declare bound on Earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatever you declare loosed on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven.”

St. Peter was NOT promised that he would not sin, and he did sin, and St. Paul confronted him about it. St. Peter established the correct doctrine that gentiles shall not be bound by kosher laws, yet he allowed Judaizers to impose kosher on them anyway. Those who see this episode as showng St. Paul with authority aren’t paying attention: it’s St. Peter’s doctrine, and St. Paul doesn’t correct the Judaizers; he reminds St. Peter of his duty to.


8 posted on 05/01/2014 5:08:52 AM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JPX2011; Gamecock; metmom
if the bible was as clear as you state there wouldn’t be so many interpretations.

The Catholic Church (or at least it's FRoman Catholic adherents) claims to have written the Bible, and claims that the Catholic Church preceded the Bible. Why would the Catholic Church write for itself an "unclear" book capable of "so many interpretations"? Did they write it in code?

9 posted on 05/01/2014 5:12:09 AM PDT by Alex Murphy ("the defacto Leader of the FR Calvinist Prohttp://fraangelicoinstitute.files.wordprtestant Brigades")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: NY.SS-Bar9

“OK, how do we reconcile Papal infallibility with some of the “bad” Popes through the ages?”

No reconciliation is necessary because those are two different things. Papal infallibility is about the office not the man. “Bad” popes is all about the man and not the office.


10 posted on 05/01/2014 5:13:19 AM PDT by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NY.SS-Bar9

Papal Infallibility is a term that applies to the teachings of the Church.

It has nothing to do with the nature of the men leading the Church.

As for bad Popes and sinful clergy, Jesus himself prepared us for this when
in he brought Judas into his inner circle.

Every Pope is and will continue to be a sinner. None of the Popes, even the “bad” Popes, (less than 4% of the 265) ever changed the original teachings of the Church. The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains the teachings of the Church. You will not find the abuses of power of the few bad popes reaffirmed in any manner in the Catechism.


11 posted on 05/01/2014 5:14:44 AM PDT by motoman (")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Celtic Conservative

“You don’t because the doctrine of papal infallibility only came about in the middle of the 19th century.”

Papal infallibility was openly debated already in the 13th century.


12 posted on 05/01/2014 5:14:50 AM PDT by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NY.SS-Bar9
OK, how do we reconcile Papal infallibility with some of the “bad” Popes through the ages?

Infallibility is not the same as impeccability. We do acknowledge that there have been sinful popes, yet we see that even these did not teach error. Even Peter had to be corrected by Paul in his personal conduct but we still accept his letters as the infallible word of God. Unlike how Protestant teaching has been constantly changing from the beginning, Catholic teaching has remained the same for two thousand years despite the bad popes.

13 posted on 05/01/2014 5:15:30 AM PDT by Petrosius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

“Why would the Catholic Church write for itself an “unclear” book capable of “so many interpretations”?”

For the Church, on all essential points, it isn’t unclear.


14 posted on 05/01/2014 5:17:05 AM PDT by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Manly Warrior

Absolutely false. In the 19th century, Vatican I defined more clearly than ever the conditions which must exist for papal authority to be infallible. It was not a new doctrine, however.


15 posted on 05/01/2014 5:17:53 AM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NY.SS-Bar9
OK, how do we reconcile Papal infallibility with some of the “bad” Popes through the ages?

Sitting in the Chair of St Peter somehow magically makes you a better person, rendering you incapable of speaking falsely on the subjects of faith and morals.

You know, like Pope Francis.

16 posted on 05/01/2014 5:23:24 AM PDT by Alex Murphy ("the defacto Leader of the FR Calvinist Prohttp://fraangelicoinstitute.files.wordprtestant Brigades")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon

Jesus did not name Peter, “Petros!” He named him “Cephas!” (John 1:42, Galatians 2:7-14, I Cor. 1:11-13, I Cor. 3:21, I Cor. 9:5 and I Cor. 15:5). The bible is abundantly clear on that Peter was actually named Cephas. “Petros” is a male form of “Petra,” the Greek translation of Cephas, which means “rock,” and never “stone.” EVERY SINGLE time the word “Cephas” in translated from the Hebrew bible into Greek, it is translated as “Petra,” except when it refers to Peter. The Hebrew word for “stone” is translated consistently as “Lithos.”

I love these bible “experts” who don’t know a blessed thing about Greek or Hebrew except what they read from Protestant apologists’ translations.


17 posted on 05/01/2014 5:29:55 AM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

Therefore,
faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the christian faith,
to the glory of God our saviour,
for the exaltation of the catholic religion and
for the salvation of the christian people,
with the approval of the sacred council,
we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
that is, when,
in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
he possesses,
by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.


18 posted on 05/01/2014 5:31:42 AM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: All

Popcorn.gif


19 posted on 05/01/2014 5:34:04 AM PDT by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

Ok, so let us say that you have convinced me that Peter was the head of the Church which I already believed.

How does that make him a Pope?

How does it make the Pope his successor?

Where is Peter ever called Pope?.

Why did Jesus command us not to call no one on earth pope?.


20 posted on 05/01/2014 5:36:59 AM PDT by ravenwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NY.SS-Bar9

The doctrine of papal infallibility is very much misunderstood. It does not mean that a given pope never makes a mistake, never sins, or never loses his car keys; it means that when laying out a particular article of faith, a doctrine that Catholics are told to believe in, he is speaking with God’s authority on the given matter.

If I was not in a hurry this morning, I would look it up, but IIRC, papal infallibility has been invoked only once or twice within the last 100 years.


21 posted on 05/01/2014 5:37:06 AM PDT by Bigg Red (1 Pt 1: As he who called you is holy, be holy yourselves in every aspect of your conduct.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: motoman

Excellent explanation. I should have read yours before posting my attempt at an answer.


22 posted on 05/01/2014 5:39:52 AM PDT by Bigg Red (1 Pt 1: As he who called you is holy, be holy yourselves in every aspect of your conduct.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: dangus

Memo to self: Interesting how the premise of whether Christ actually appointed Peter as the first Pope got hijack over to whether popes, in general, are infallible. Christ didn’t call Peter “The Rock.” Christ called him Cephas, a “little stone.” The “ROCK” upon which Christ said He would build his Church was the REPLY Peter gave to Christ’s question, “Whom do YOU say that I am?” And Peter replied, “I say that you are The Christ; the Son of The Living God.” And Self, don’t buy any “cut and pasted” “PROOF” scriptures that purport to “prove” that Peter was the first Pope. Scripture warns us to call no man on Earth “Father.”
Remember that, Self! Don’t you forget it!


23 posted on 05/01/2014 5:43:49 AM PDT by Tucker39 (Welcome to America! Now speak English; and keep to the right....In driving, in Faith, and in politic)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Petrosius
"Unlike how Protestant teaching has been constantly changing from the beginning....."

NO... some Protestant churches have not been changing as you said.

Stated below is the doctrine that my "Protestant" church teaches. It is the same as it has taught since the reformation, when the Protestant church was separated from the Catholic church. And I challenge you to find one word of it that is not supported by God's word in the Holy Bible!

1. I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth:
2. And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord:
3. Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary:
4. Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried: He descended into hell:
5. The third day he rose again from the dead:
6. He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty:
7. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead:
8. I believe in the Holy Ghost:
9. I believe in the holy catholic church: the communion of saints:
10. The forgiveness of sins:
1l. The resurrection of the body:
12. And the life everlasting. Amen.

24 posted on 05/01/2014 5:48:04 AM PDT by Apple Pan Dowdy (... as American as Apple Pie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Apple Pan Dowdy

Identify your Protestant denomination and let us see if it teaches today the same as the original reformers. Of course then we would have to ask, which reformer: Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc.? The teaching of Protestantism, as a movement, has been anything but stable.


25 posted on 05/01/2014 5:56:39 AM PDT by Petrosius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Tucker39

Your translation of Cephas is purely invented. Cephas (Or Kepa) is Aramaic for Petra.

Petros (as a common noun) appears nowhere in the Koine (biblical) dialect of Greek prior to Christ, only in Attic Greek revival.

Word endings in Greek do not delineate substantive changes in what is being described. Petra, petrai, petrais, petran, and petras all describe the same substance, but are all feminine. Petros (or Petrws) is merely the masculinization. Rocks don’t typically have masculine or feminine qualities, but when Greek words have both masculine and feminine versions, the substance isn’t different when the endings are different, only the masculine and feminine characteristics.

(NOTE: in some post-Christian Attic-Greek revival poetry, [Imagine a modern poet using King James English], Petra was used for a mother lode, and Petros for the stone hewn from the mother lode. Given the origin from Cephas, this could not have been Jesus’ intent.)


26 posted on 05/01/2014 6:13:35 AM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII
Acts 15:8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the holy Spirit just as he did us. 9 He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts.

Acts 11:17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?

27 posted on 05/01/2014 6:19:31 AM PDT by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

For the record, that’s the precise definition of papal infallibility from Vatican I.

Now that you know that definition, any further attempts to confuse infallibility with impeccability or clairvoyance shall be known to be deceit.


28 posted on 05/01/2014 6:19:33 AM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; redleghunter; CynicalBear; mitch5501; ...
"when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said...But we believe...Then all the multitude kept silence"

What blatant wresting of Scripture to compel it to submit to Rome! What the passage actually says is that they kept silence at Barnabas and Paul, and that James provided the definitive sentence:

And all the multitude held their peace: and they heard Barnabas and Paul telling what great signs and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying: Men, brethren, hear me. (Acts 15:12,13) [DRB]

Moreover, Mat. 16:18 did not even enjoy unanimous consent of the father's

it does sometimes happen that some Fathers understood a passage in a way which does not agree with later Church teaching. One example: the interpretation of Peter’s confession in Matthew 16.16-19. Except at Rome, this passage was not applied by the Fathers to the papal primacy; they worked out exegesis at the level of their own ecclesiasiological thought, more anthropological and spiritual than juridical. - Yves M.-J. Congar, Tradition and Traditions: An Historical and a Theological Essay (London: Burns & Oats, 1966), pp. 399.

And thus even the CCC provides an alternative interpretation:

“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.

The R.C. exaltation of Peter is foundationally based upon Mt. 16:13-19, wherein there is a play on the word "rock" by the Lord, in which the immovable "Rock" upon which Christ would build His church is the confession that Christ was the Son of God, and thus by implication it is Christ himself. The verse at issue, v.18, cannot be divorced from that which preceded it, in which the identity of Jesus Christ is the main subject. In the next verse (17) that is what Jesus refers to in telling blessed Peter thatflesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee,and in v. 18 that truth is what the “this rock” refers to, with a distinction being made between the person of Peter and this rock. This is the only interpretation that is confirmed, as it must be, in the rest of the New Testament. 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)

Moreover all the texts Staples provides simply attest to initial Peter being the street-level leader among brethren, and who exercised a general pastoral role, but which does not testify to the Roman papacy, that of Peter being the first of a succession of exalted Roman popes which the church looked as its supreme infallible head, with unlimited, incalculable (Dollinger), holding upon this earth the place of God Almighty, which power he can exercise unhindered.

Married Peter fades from view after Acts 15, and Paul himself called all the Ephesian pastors to conference, as well as doing many other things that RCs would invoke as testifying to the papacy if said of Peter.

Nowhere in any of the epistle are the churches even exhorted to pray specially for Peter (though they certainly did as for other leaders, and as needed) as the supreme head. And in Gal. 2:1ff Peter is mentioned as the second among 3 pillars of the church, “who seemed to be somewhat,” and who provided public affirmation of of Paul, but who publicly reproved Peter for his duplicity, consistent with Paul's statement that “God accepteth no man's person.”

In addition, the power of binding and loosing was also given to all the disciples, (Mt. 18:15-19) and exercised contrary to Rome's presumption.(1Cor. 5; James 5) And who was the first to use the keys to the kingdom of God, the gospel, by faith in which souls are translated into it. (Col. 1:13)

Not once in the Lord's own letters to the 7 representative churches in Rv. 2 and 3 is the pope mentioned, not as a solution to their needs nor as fidelity to as a commendation, which at least is evidence that Rome did change the Bible to support here, but which lack of testimony is why Rome employed the use forgeries to support her pretensions.

Nowhere did Peter refer to himself as anything more than “a servant,” “an apostle,” “an elder,” (1Pt. 1:1; 5:1; 2Pt. 1) and was married, (Mt. 8:14; 1Cor. 9:4) and evidently poor, (Acts 3:6) living as a guest a tanner's house (Acts 10:6: a smelly profession, thus it was by the sea) who would not let even an unsaved men bow down to him. (Acts 10:25,26) And while not diminishing his non-assertive, informal leadership among brethren, and initial primary use in Acts, yet it was James who provided the definitive and detailed decree at the 1st ecumenical council. (Acts 15:13-21)

Modern research, including by Catholics, testifies against the Roman version of history, in which Peter is set forth as the first of a line of supreme infallible heads to whom all the church looked to from the beginning.

Among Catholic and other scholars,

Klaus Schatz [Jesuit Father theologian, professor of church history at the St. George’s Philosophical and Theological School in Frankfurt] in his work, “Papal Primacy ,” pp. 1-4 :

New Testament scholars agree..., 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 authority 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.” 

 “....that does not mean that the figure and the commission of the Peter of the New Testament did not encompass the possibility, if it is projected into a Church enduring for centuries and concerned in some way to to secure its ties to its apostolic origins and to Jesus himself. 

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.” (page 1-2) 

[Schatz goes on to express that he does not doubt Peter was martyred in Rome, and that Christians in the 2nd century were convinced that Vatican Hill had something to do with Peter's grave.]

"Nevertheless, concrete claims of a primacy over the whole church cannot be inferred from this conviction. If one had asked a Christian in the year 100, 200, or even 300 whether the bishop of Rome was the head of all Christians, or whether there was a supreme bishop over all the other bishops and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church, he or she would certainly have said no." (page 3, top) 

Thus, while Peter was the initial street-level leader of the 11, and can be seen exercising a general pastoral role, yet he was not looked to by the churches as the the supreme infallible head, nor is there any evidence for a successor of any apostle after Judas (by a for or preparation for one), though James was martyred, (Acts 12:1,2) and which was to maintain the original number of the 12, (Rv. 21:14) which Rome has not, and was by the non-political OT Scriptural method of casting lots (Prov. 16:33) used by Peter and the 11, but instead her elections have often involved political machinations, resulting in, among other things, wicked men being elected, and conveying that God is a respecter of persons in favoring Italians. Moreover, a qualification for an apostle seem to require a literal personal discipleship by the Lord Himself. (Acts 1:21-22; 1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:11,12,17)

29 posted on 05/01/2014 6:21:23 AM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

There are not widely varying interpretations among Protestants.

The *wide* variation is far more between Catholicism and non-Catholic denominations.

The Catholic positions by taking partial verses, verses out of context, interpreting passages inconsistently (literal, figurative, back to literal all within the same sentence or discourse), etc.


30 posted on 05/01/2014 6:32:52 AM PDT by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII
Besides your wresting of Scripture already shown, and the fact that the perpetuation of this purported supreme infallible office is not shown or promised in Scripture, there is the additional testimony of which i previously provided only small part.

• The Catholic historian Paul Johnson (author of over 40 books and a conservative popular historian), writes in his 1976 work “History of Christianity:”

Eusebius [whose history can be dubious] presents the lists as evidence that orthodoxy had a continuous tradition from the earliest times in all the great Episcopal sees and that all the heretical movements were subsequent aberrations from the mainline of Christianity.

Looking behind the lists, however, a different picture emerges. In Edessa, on the edge of the Syrian desert, the proofs of the early establishment of Christianity were forgeries, almost certainly manufactured under Bishop Kune, the first orthodox Bishop, and actually a contemporary of Eusebius...

Orthodoxy was not established [In Egypt] until the time of Bishop Demetrius, 189-231, who set up a number of other sees and manufactured a genealogical tree for his own bishopric of Alexandria, which traces the foundation through ten mythical predecessors back to Mark, and so to Peter and Jesus...

Even in Antioch, where both Peter and Paul had been active, there seems to have been confusion until the end of the second century. Antioch completely lost their list...When Eusebius’s chief source for his Episcopal lists, Julius Africanus, tried to compile one for Antioch, he found only six names to cover the same period of time as twelve in Rome and ten in Alexandria. 
 
• Roger Collins, writing of the Symmachan forgeries”, describes these “pro-Roman” “enhancements” to history:

So too would the spurious historical texts written anonymously or ascribed to earlier authors that are known collectively as the Symmachan forgeries. This was the first occasion on which the Roman church had revisited its own history, in particular the third and fourth centuries, in search of precedents That these were largely invented does not negate the significance of the process...

Some of the periods in question, such as the pontificates of Sylvester and Liberius (352-366), were already being seen more through the prism of legend than that of history, and in the Middle Ages texts were often forged because their authors were convinced of the truth of what they contained. Their faked documents provided tangible evidence of what was already believed true...

It is no coincidence that the first systematic works of papal history appear at the very time the Roman church’s past was being reinvented for polemical purposes. (Collins, “Keepers of the Keys of Heaven,” pgs 80-82).

Catholic theologian and  Jesuit priest Francis Sullivan, in his work From Apostles to Bishops (New York: The Newman Press), examines possible mentions of “succession” from the first three centuries, and concludes from that study that “the episcopate [development of bishops] is a the fruit of a post New Testament development,” and cannot concur with those (interacting with Jones) who see little reason to doubt the notion that there was a single bishop in Rome through the middle of the second century:

Hence I stand with the majority of scholars who agree that one does not find evidence in the New Testament to support the theory that the apostles or their coworkers left [just] one person as “bishop” in charge of each local church... 
 
As the reader will recall, I have expressed agreement with the consensus of scholars that available evidence indicates that the church of Rome was led by a college of presbyters, rather than a single bishop, for at least several decades of the second century... 
 
Hence I cannot agree with Jones's judgment that there seems little reason to doubt the presence of a bishop in Rome already in the first century. 
 
“...the evidence both from the New Testament and from such writings as I Clement, the Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians and The Shepherd of Hennas favors the view that initially the presbyters in each church, as a college, possessed all the powers needed for effective ministry. This would mean that the apostles handed on what was transmissible of their mandate as an undifferentiated whole, in which the powers that would eventually be seen as episcopal were not yet distinguished from the rest. Hence, the development of the episcopate would have meant the differentiation of ministerial powers that had previously existed in an undifferentiated state and the consequent reservation to the bishop of certain of the powers previously held collegially by the presbyters. — Francis Sullivan, in his work From Apostles to Bishops , pp. 221,22,24

• Klaus Schatz [Jesuit Father theologian, professor of church history at the St. George’s Philosophical and Theological School in Frankfurt] in his work, “Papal Primacy ,” pp. 1-4 :

“New Testament scholars agree..., 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 authority 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.” 
 
“....that does not mean that the figure and the commission of the Peter of the New Testament did not encompass the possibility, if it is projected into a Church enduring for centuries and concerned in some way to to secure its ties to its apostolic origins and to Jesus himself. 
 
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.” (page 1-2) 
 
[Schatz goes on to express that he does not doubt Peter was martyred in Rome, and that Christians in the 2nd century were convinced that Vatican Hill had something to do with Peter's grave.]

"Nevertheless, concrete claims of a primacy over the whole church cannot be inferred from this conviction. If one had asked a Christian in the year 100, 200, or even 300 whether the bishop of Rome was the head of all Christians, or whether there was a supreme bishop over all the other bishops and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church, he or she would certainly have said no." (page 3, top) 
 
[Lacking such support for the modern concept of the primacy of the church of Rome with its papal jurisdiction, Schatz concludes that, “Therefore we must set aside from the outset any question such as 'was there a primacy in our sense of the word at that time?” Schatz therefore goes on to seek support for that as a development.]

“We probably cannot say for certain that there was a bishop of Rome [in 95 AD]. It is likely that the Roman church was governed by a group of presbyters from whom there very quickly emerged a presider or ‘first among equals’ whose name was remembered and who was subsequently described as ‘bishop’ after the mid-second century.” (Schatz 4).

Schatiz additionally states,

Cyprian regarded every bishop as the successor of Peter, holder of the keys to the kingdom of heaven and possessor of the power to bind and loose. For him, Peter embodied the original unity of the Church and the episcopal office, but in principle these were also present in every bishop. For Cyprian, responsibility for the whole Church and the solidarity of all bishops could also, if necessary, be turned against Rome."Papal Primacy [Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1996], p. 20)

• Roman Catholic scholar William La Due (taught canon law at St. Francis Seminary and the Catholic University of America) on Cyprian:

....those who see in The Unity of the Catholic Church, in the light of his entire episcopal life, an articulation of the Roman primacy - as we have come to know it, or even as it has evolved especially from the latter fourth century on - are reading a meaning into Cyprian which is not there." — The Chair of Saint Peter: A History of the Papacy [Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1999], p. 39

Roman Catholic [if liberal] Garry Wills, Professor of History Emeritus, Northwestern U., author of “Why i am a Catholic:”

"The idea that Peter was given some special power that could be handed on to a successor runs into the problem that he had no successor. The idea that there is an "apostolic succession" to Peter's fictional episcopacy did not arise for several centuries, at which time Peter and others were retrospectively called bishops of Rome, to create an imagined succession. Even so, there has not been an unbroken chain of popes. Two and three claimants existed at times, and when there were three of them each excommunicating the other two, they all had to be dethroned and the Council of Carthage started the whole thing over again in 1417." — WHAT JESUS MEANT, p. 81

• American Roman Catholic priest and Biblical scholar Raymond Brown (twice appointed to Pontifical Biblical Commission):

“The claims of various sees to descend from particular members of the Twelve are highly dubious. It is interesting that the most serious of these is the claim of the bishops of Rome to descend from Peter, the one member of the Twelve who was almost a missionary apostle in the Pauline sense – a confirmation of our contention that whatever succession there was from apostleship to episcopate, it was primarily in reference to the Puauline tyupe of apostleship, not that of the Twelve.” (“Priest and Bishop, Biblical Reflections,” Nihil Obstat, Imprimatur, 1970, pg 72.) 
 
Raymond Brown [being criticized here], in “Priest and Bishop: Biblical Reflections,” could not prove on historical grounds, he said, that Christ instituted the priesthood or episcopacy as such; that those who presided at the Eucharist were really priests; that a separate priesthood began with Christ; that the early Christians looked upon the Eucharist as a sacrifice; that presbyter-bishops are traceable in any way to the Apostles; that Peter in his lifetime would be looked upon as the Bishop of Rome; that bishops were successors of the Apostles, even though Vatican II made the same claim.. (from, "A Wayward Turn in Biblical Theory" by Msr. George A. Kelly can be read on the internet at http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Dossier/Jan-Feb00/Article5.html)

 

Anglican/Roman Catholic Joint Preparatory Commission: 

The New Testament contains no explicit record of a transmission of Peter's leadership; nor is the transmission of apostolic authority in general very clear. Furthermore, the Petrine texts were subjected to differing interpretations as early as the time of the Church Fathers. 
 
 Fathers and doctors of the Church gradually came to interpret the New Testament data as pointing in the same direction. This interpretation has been questioned, and it has been argued that it arose from an attempt to legitimize a development which had already occurred...

Yet it is possible to think that a primacy of the bishop of Rome is not contrary to the New Testament and is part of God's purpose regarding the Church's unity and catholicity, while admitting that the New Testament texts offer no sufficient basis for this. — (“Authority in the Church” II, ARCIC, para 2, 6,7; http://www.prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/arcic/doc/e_arcic_authority2.html)
 
 More from Paul Johnson on development:

..the Church, operating on the principle of collective commonsense, was a haven for a very wide spectrum of opinion. In the West, diversity was disappearing fast; in the East, orthodoxy was becoming the largest single tradition by the early decades of the third century. The Church was now a great and numerous force in the empire, attracting men of wealth and high education, inevitably, then, there occurred a change of emphasis from purely practical development in response to need, to the deliberate thinking out of policy.

This expressed itself in two ways: the attempt to turn Christianity into a philosophical and political system, and the development of controlling devices to prevent this intellectualization of the faith from destroying it. The twin process began to operate in the early and middle decades of the third century, with Origen epitomizing the first element and Cyprian the second. If Paul brought to the first generation of Christians the useful skills of a trained theologian, Origen was the first great philosopher to rethink the new religion from first principles.

He [Origen] slept on the floor, ate no meat, drank no wine, had only one coat and no shoes. He almost certainly castrated himself,..

 The effect of Origen’s work was to create a new science, biblical theology, whereby every sentence in the scriptures was systematically explored for hidden [much prone to metaphorical] meanings, different layers of meanings, allegory and so forth.....

Cyprian came from a wealthy family with a tradition of public service to the empire; within two years of his conversion he was made a bishop. He had to face the practical problems of persecution, survival and defence against attack. His solution was to gather together the developing threads of ecclesiastical order and authority and weave them into a tight system of absolute control...the confession of faith, even the Bible itself lost their meaning if used outside the Church.

Without the office of bishop there could be no Church: and without the Church, no salvation. The man who determined who was or was not a member of the Church and therefore eligible tor salvation was the bishop. He interpreted the scriptures in the light of the Church’s needs in any given situation; the only unambiguous instruction they contained being, to remain faithful to the Church and obey its rules.

With Cyprian, then, the freedom preached by Paul and based on the power of Christian truth was removed from the ordinary members of the Church, it was retained only by the bishops, through whom the Holy Spirit still worked, who were collectively delegated to represent the totality of Church members...With Bishop Cyprian, the analogy with secular government came to seem very close. But of course it lacked one element: the ‘emperor figure’ or supreme priest...

[Peter according to Cyprian was] the beneficiary of the famous ‘rock and keys’ text in Matthew. There is no evidence that Rome exploited this text to assert its primacy before about 250 - and then, interestingly enough, in conflict with the aggressive episcopalian Cyprian - but what is clear is that in the second half of the second century, and no doubt in response to Marcion’s Pauline heresy - the first heresy Rome itself had experienced - Paul was eliminated from any connection with the Rome episcopate and the office was firmly attached to Peter alone...

The Church survived, and steadily penetrated all ranks of society over a huge area, by avoiding or absorbing extremes, by compromise, by developing an urbane temperament and erecting secular-type structures to preserve its unity and conduct its business. There was in consequence a loss of spirituality or, as Paul would have put it, of freedom... - A History of Christianity, by Paul Johnson, pp. 51-61,63. transcribed using OCR software)


Roman church’s past was being reinvented for polemical purposes.
Eamon Duffy (Pontifical Historical Commission, Professor of the History of Christianity at the University of Cambridge, and former President of Magdalene College)
 
Self-consciously, the popes began to model their actions and their style as Christian leaders on the procedures of the Roman state”.
 - Eamon Duffy notes (“Saints and Sinners”, ©2001 edition)

Peter Lampe (Lutheran)*:

The picture that finally emerges from Lampe’s analysis of surviving evidence is one he names ‘the fractionation of Roman Christianity’ (pp. 357–408). Not until the second half of the second century, under Anicetus, do we find compelling evidence for a monarchical episcopacy, and when it emerges, it is to manage relief shipments to dispersed Christians as well as social aid for the Roman poor (pp. 403–4). Before this period Roman Christians were ‘fractionated’ amongst dispersed house/tenement churches, each presided over by its own presbyter–bishop. This accounts for the evidence of social and theological diversity in second-century Roman Christianity, evidence of a degree of tolerance of theologically disparate groups without a single authority to regulate belief and practice, and the relatively late appearance of unambiguous representation of a single bishop over Rome. — Review of “Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries,” by Peter Lampe in Oxford’s Journal of Theological Studies, 2005 
*Peter Lampe is a German Lutheran minister and theologian and Professor of New Testament Studies at the University of Heidelberg, whose work, “From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries,” was written in 1987 and translated to English in 2003. The Catholic historian Eamon Duffy (Irish Professor of the History of Christianity at the University of Cambridge, and former President of Magdalene College), said “all modern discussion of the issues must now start from the exhaustive and persuasive analysis by Peter Lampe” — Saints and Sinners,” “A History of the Popes,” Yale, 1997, 2001, pg. 421).
31 posted on 05/01/2014 6:37:43 AM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NY.SS-Bar9

Well, people also don’t believe that Bill Clinton’s personal life was relevant to his ability to be president. Liberals liked to sat that all the time.

Problem is, people’s lives are not compartmentalized like that. A man who has no integrity in his personal life is singularly unqualified to be a moral leader.


32 posted on 05/01/2014 6:39:05 AM PDT by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998; Celtic Conservative

So what if it was debated?

It was established in the First Vatican Council of 1869–1870, (from the church that never changes and is the same one Jesus established. /s)


33 posted on 05/01/2014 6:41:53 AM PDT by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: metmom

“So what if it was debated?”

Exactly, so what?

“It was established in the First Vatican Council of 1869–1870,”

No. It was defined. There’s a difference.

“(from the church that never changes and is the same one Jesus established. /s)”

The Faith never changes. The Church makes changes to itself when necessary - as we see in scripture. Creation of the diaconate, for instance.


34 posted on 05/01/2014 6:47:13 AM PDT by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII
As said, all of Staples' proof texts only show Peter was being the street-level leader among brethren whose faith would persevere, despite faltering at times, and strengthen his brethren, but not that Peter was the exalted infallible head whom all the church looked to as the first of a line of infallible popes ruling from Rome.

There simply is no exalted Roman pope sitting above all the bishops, and the recipient of such perpetuated unique powers and superlatives such as, 

 “The Pope’s authority is unlimited, incalculable; it can strike, as Innocent III says, wherever sin is; it can punish every one; it allows no appeal and is itself Sovereign Caprice; for the Pope carries, according to the expression of Boniface VIII, all rights in the Shrine of his breast. As he has now become infallible, he can by the use of the little word, 'orbi,' (which means that he turns himself round to the whole Church) make every rule, every doctrine, every demand, into a certain and incontestable article of Faith. No right can stand against him, no personal or corporate liberty; or as the Canonists put it -- 'The tribunal of God and of the pope is one and the same.'” - Ignaz von Dollinger, in “A Letter Addressed to the Archbishop of Munich”, 1871 (quoted in The Acton Newman Relations (Fordham University Press), by MacDougall, pp. 119 120


It is Peter who provides briefly key testimony and sound counsel in Act 15, affirming the evangelical gospel, "purifying their hearts by faith," before baptism. And briefly urges this counsel to be accepted versus the gospel of the Judaizers. Yet it is James who provides the (approx. 175 word) conclusive decree on what is to be believed and done. 

And after this chapter Peter is no more heard of in the rest of Acts, as the focus then shifts to Paul, who specifically records of Peter that he was married, as were the rest of the apostles, (1Cor. 9:5) but who fails to even mention Peter in Romans, despite mentioning 26 names. (Rm. 16)

Moreover, in all the church epistles and the rest of the the NT obedience to Peter as the universal head is never enjoined upon the churches, nor is such obedience to him as the universal head commended or the failure to do so faulted, even in the Lord's critique to all the churches in Rv. 2,3, or mentioned as solution to their problems. Not once is even prayer specifically for him exhorted (though he was prayed for, as others were). And which conspicuous omission, along with the manner of Petrine leadership that is recorded, is incongruous in the light of the Roman construance of Peter 's leadership, and fatal to it

Furthermore, for Peter the "more sure word of prophecy" is Scripture, (2Pt. 1:19-21) while there is zero mention of any apostolic successors, like for the martyred James, (Acts 12:1,2) besides for Judas who was to maintain the original 12, ( Rv. 21:14) and thus only one was elected, and who was elected by the non-political, non-Roman OT method of casting lots, (Josh. 18:6; Prov. 16:33) not voting. (Acts 1:15ff)

Thus the Roman papacy is not seen, and Peter, who taught that the heart was purified by faith, a faith that is confessed in baptism, (Acts 10:43,47; 15:7-9) is not shown as being the infallible exalted head to whom all the churches looked to, while there is no mention of any successor for him or manifest preparation for such.

This does not mean a centralized magisterium is not the ideal, and if we can find men like Peter evangelicals would themselves see him as an true pastor. But Rome is not even in the running for such in the light of what manner of the apostles were, upon which the church was built, Jesus Christ being the rock. (Eph. 2:20;1Cor. 3:11)

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

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

Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds. (2 Corinthians 12:12

It was under this manner of manifest apostles, in word, virtue and overt and abundant demonstrations of attestive supernatural power, that the primitive church had its unity: 

"And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles." "And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart.." (Acts 2:46) (Acts 2:43) "Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them." (Acts 15:12)

And the greater the claims, then the greater the correspondent attestation must be, yet Rome claims for herself things which even the apostles did not, and which she utterly fails of warrant for.

And in contrast to Rome, the Lord and His established their truth claims upon the basis of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39, 14:11; Acts 17:2,11; Rm. 15:19; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.) as it alone is the supreme material standard for obedience and testing truth claims, as is abundantly evidenced


And which in principal forces the church (us) to continually manifest itself as the church of the living God, versus the institutionalized version of Catholicism and much fo Protestantism. Not that I think I am giving great witness to the resurrection either, but as a former weekly mass-going RC what I do know is the profound contrast between Biblical regeneration and that of ritualism.

35 posted on 05/01/2014 6:53:39 AM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon

You will find the difference in Greek. Not in the KJV,


36 posted on 05/01/2014 6:56:08 AM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

Oh yes, yes yes, this should be a nice thread to read while curling up with a hot cup o’tea! Very relaxing.


37 posted on 05/01/2014 6:57:27 AM PDT by FourtySeven (47)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NY.SS-Bar9

Are there bad CEOs? Bad managers? Bad construction workers.

Separate the man from the duty. Do you see where you are erring?


38 posted on 05/01/2014 6:58:24 AM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII
Furthermore, if the testimony of how God used Peter is sppsd to support him as being the first of a line of supreme infallible popes whose power is unhindered and incalculable, then the even more instrumental use of Paul could be used (in parody) to support him as pope :

Here are the 51 Biblical proofs of a Pauline papacy and Ephesian primacy, using popular Catholic reasoning:

 
1. Paul is the only apostle who is called God's chosen vessel who will bear His name before Jews and Gentiles (Acts 9:15).

2. Paul is the last apostle chosen by God, apart from the other twelve.

3. The resurrected Christ appears to Paul in a different way than He appeared to the other apostles (Acts 9:3-6).

4. Paul is the only apostle who publicly rebukes and corrects another apostle (Galatians 2:11).

5. Paul is the only apostle who refers to his authority over all the churches (1 Corinthians 4:17, 7:17, 2 Corinthians 11:28).

6. Paul is the only apostle to call himself "father" (1 Corinthians 4:15).

7. Paul is the steward of God's grace (Ephesians 3:2). This means that Paul is the overseer of salvation. Fellowship with Paul and his successors is necessary for salvation.

8. Paul is mentioned more in the New Testament than any other apostle.

9. The book of Acts, which mentions all of the apostles, discusses Paul more than any other apostle.

10. Paul was the first apostle to write a book of scripture.

11. Paul wrote more books of the New Testament than any other apostle.

12. Paul is the first apostle to be taken to Heaven to receive a revelation (2 Corinthians 12:1-4).

13. Paul is the only apostle Satan was concerned about enough to give him a thorn in the flesh (2 Corinthians 12:7).

14. Paul seems to have suffered for Christ more than any other apostle (2 Corinthians 11:21-33).

15. Paul seems to have received more opposition from false teachers than any other apostle did, since he was the Pope (Romans 3:8, 2 Corinthians 10:10, Galatians 1:7, 6:17, Philippians 1:17).

16. Paul seems to have traveled further and more often than any other apostle, as we see in Acts and his epistles, which is what we might expect a Pope to do.

17. Only Paul's teachings were so advanced, so deep, that another apostle acknowledged that some of his teachings were hard to understand (2 Peter 3:15-16). Peter's understanding of doctrine doesn't seem to be as advanced as Pope Paul's. Paul has the primacy of doctrinal knowledge.

18. Paul was the first apostle whose writings were recognized as scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16).

19. Paul singles himself out as the standard of orthodoxy (1 Corinthians 14:37-38).

20. Only Paul refers to himself having a rod, a symbol of authority (1 Corinthians 4:21).

21. Paul initiates the council of Acts 15 by starting the debate with the false teachers (Acts 15:2) and delivering a report to the other church leaders (Acts 15:4).

22. Peter's comments in Acts 15:7-11 are accepted only because Pope Paul goes on to confirm them (Acts 15:12).

23. When the Corinthians were dividing over which apostle to associate themselves with, Paul's name was the first one mentioned (1 Corinthians 1:12).

24. Paul was the only apostle with the authority to deliver people over to Satan (1 Corinthians 5:5).

25. Paul had the best training and education of all the apostles (Philippians 3:4-6).

26. Paul is the only apostle to call the gospel "my gospel" (Romans 2:16).

27. Paul writes more about the identity of the church than any other apostle does (1 Corinthians 12, Colossians 1, Ephesians 4-5), which we might expect a Pope to do. Paul is the standard of orthodoxy and the Vicar of Christ on earth, so he has the primary responsibility for defining what the church is and who belongs to it.

28. Paul writes more about church government than any other apostle does, such as in his pastoral epistles.

29. Paul discusses church unity more than any other apostle does (1 Corinthians 12-14, Ephesians 4), suggesting that he was the one responsible for maintaining church unity because of his papal authority.

30. Paul writes more about the gospel than any other apostle does (Romans, Galatians). As the leader of Christianity, Paul was most responsible for explaining the gospel and other Christian doctrine.

31. After Jesus, Paul speaks more about the kingdom of God than anybody else does (Acts 14:22, 19:8, 1 Corinthians 4:20, Galatians 5:21, 2 Thessalonians 1:5). After leaving earth, Jesus passed on the responsibility of teaching about the kingdom of God to Paul, the king of the church on earth.

32. Paul speaks of revealing mysteries more than any other apostle does (Romans 11:25, 1 Corinthians 15:51, Ephesians 5:32, 6:19, 2 Thessalonians 2:7), since he was the chief teacher of the church.

33. Paul was the only apostle other people tried to impersonate (2 Thessalonians 2:2), since he had more authority than anybody else.

34. Paul's clothing works miracles (Acts 19:11-12).

35. Paul is delivered from death more than any other apostle (Acts 14:19, 28:3-6, 2 Corinthians 11:23).

36. The Jewish exorcists in Acts 19:13 associate themselves with Paul rather than with any other apostle.

37. The demons in Acts 19:15 recognize Paul's primacy.

38. The Jews in Acts 21:28 recognize Paul's primacy, saying that he's the man they hold most responsible for teaching Christianity everywhere.

39. Paul had authority over the finances of the church (Acts 24:26, 2 Corinthians 9:5, Philippians 4:15-18).

40. Paul acts as the chief shepherd of the church, taking responsibility for each individual (2 Corinthians 11:29). For example, Paul was Peter's shepherd (Galatians 2:11).

41. Paul interprets prophecy (2 Thessalonians 2:3-12).

42. Only Paul is referred to as being set apart for his ministry from his mother's womb (Galatians 1:15).

43. Jesus Christ is revealed in Paul (Galatians 1:16), meaning that Paul and his successors are the infallible standard of Christian orthodoxy.

44. Paul is the only apostle who works by himself, only later coordinating his efforts with the other apostles (Galatians 1:16-18).

45. Only Paul is referred to as bearing the brandmarks of Christ (Galatians 6:17).

46. Every Christian was interested in Paul and what was happening in his life, looking to him as their example and their encouragement (Philippians 1:12-14).

47. Christians served Paul (Philippians 2:30).

48. Paul worked more than the other apostles (1 Corinthians 15:10), since he had more responsibilities as Pope.

49. Paul was to be delivered from every evil deed (2 Timothy 4:18), meaning that he was infallible.

50. Only Paul is referred to as passing his papal authority on to [Ephesian] successors who would also have authority over the church of God (Acts 20:28).

51. Among the seven churches addressed in Revelation 2-3, the church of Ephesus is mentioned first, since the bishops of Ephesus have primacy as the successors of Paul. The church in Ephesus "cannot endure evil men" (Revelation 2:2), meaning that the bishop of Ephesus is infallible when speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals. The Ephesian church puts false teachers to the test (Revelation 2:2) by exercising its papal authority. The bishop of Ephesus has the responsibility of evaluating all teachers and declaring which are orthodox and which are not. None of the other churches in Revelation 2-3 are described as having this authority.

39 posted on 05/01/2014 6:58:57 AM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon

When Christ named Peter(the Rock)from Simon. He is addressing someone outside of himself because Christ is the builder.
Matthew 18 And I tell you, you are Peter(The Rock),[d] and on this rock[e] I will BUILD MY church, and the powers of death[f] shall not prevail against it.[g] 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,[h] and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

“And I Tell YOU, YOU ARE PETER” He changed the name Simon to PETER. Which means ROCK.

When God Changes names something is happening here. Peter is the Rock. He is addressing PETER without a doubt.

When I say in a conversation “ And I TELL YOU” I am pointing out to you . He is obviously addressing To the one he is talking at in the conversation.

Then if I would put “YOU ARE PETER” I am emphazing you are the ROCK also to the next words- “ and on this ROCK I will BUILD MY church, and the powers of death[f] shall not prevail against it.[g]

19 I will give YOU the KEYS of the kingdom of heaven,[h] and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

He is addressing “The Rock”that was named by him. PETER.

Also when you give Keys those Keys are to be passed on to someone responsible as a leader. I have a house with keys. I only pass them on to who is to be trusted.

Peace in Christ


40 posted on 05/01/2014 6:59:06 AM PDT by johngrace (I am a 1 John 4! Christian- declared at every Sunday Mass , Divine Mercy and Rosary prayers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: NY.SS-Bar9
As you should know by now, PI is an unScriptural teaching the imagines the perpetuated Petrine papacy possesses assured formulaic infallibility, so that,

Error condemned] If a pope is foreknown as damned and is evil, and is therefore a limb of the devil, he does not have authority over the faithful given to him by anyone, except perhaps by the emperor. Council of Constance, Condemnation of Errors, against Wycliffe, Session VIII, https://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/CONSTANC.HTM#4

"Even if the Pope were Satan incarnate, we ought not to raise up our heads against him, but calmly lie down to rest on his bosom." ( St. Catherine of Siena: A Biography By Anne B. Baldwin, p. 125 ,

Contra,

"But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat...Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person. " (1 Corinthians 5:11,13)

41 posted on 05/01/2014 7:12:24 AM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon

All this and more testifies against “rock” as meaning Peter, but to the Christ of his confession.


42 posted on 05/01/2014 7:13:58 AM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: JPX2011
if the bible was as clear as you state there wouldn’t be so many interpretations. Appreciate the effort though.

If the Roman Catholic church was as clear as RC state there wouldn’t be so many interpretations. Some appreciate the effort though for each sect.

43 posted on 05/01/2014 7:15:31 AM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: dangus
For the record, that’s the precise definition of papal infallibility from Vatican I. Now that you know that definition, any further attempts to confuse infallibility with impeccability or clairvoyance shall be known to be deceit.

LOL! Who's confusing infallibility with impeccability?

44 posted on 05/01/2014 7:19:31 AM PDT by Alex Murphy ("the defacto Leader of the FR Calvinist Prohttp://fraangelicoinstitute.files.wordprtestant Brigades")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: JPX2011
Papal infallibility isn’t about personal holiness.

No kidding.

However, that does not square with the Scripture that Catholics claim their church wrote.

Matthew 5:48 You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

John 8:11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

Matthew 7:15-23 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

1 PETER 1:14-16 As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance, but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, since it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.”

1 Timothy 3:1-13 The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.

Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain. They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless. Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things. Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. For those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.

Titus 1:5-15 5 This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you— if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. For an overseer, as God's steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.

For there are many who are insubordinate, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision party. They must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for shameful gain what they ought not to teach. One of the Cretans, a prophet of their own, said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.” This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, not devoting themselves to Jewish myths and the commands of people who turn away from the truth. To the pure, all things are pure, but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their minds and their consciences are defiled. They profess to know God, but they deny him by their works. They are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good work.

1 Corinthians 5:6-13 Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”

According to Scripture, those immoral (bad) popes have disqualified themselves from even being considered qualified to hold the office.

Scripture does not allow for the man's personal life from being separated from the office he holds. And believers are commanded to not associate with those who call themselves brothers who live immoral lives. They should not even EAT with him, not be in communion with him.

This business of separately an immoral man from the office he holds is rationalization, plain and simple.

45 posted on 05/01/2014 7:20:00 AM PDT by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: motoman; Alex Murphy; bkaycee; blue-duncan; boatbums; caww; count-your-change; CynicalBear; ...
As for bad Popes and sinful clergy, Jesus himself prepared us for this when in he brought Judas into his inner circle.

Just.... wow.....

Did you all happen to notice that Jesus did not put Judas in charge of His church?

Hey, gamecock. Another one.

46 posted on 05/01/2014 7:21:51 AM PDT by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: metmom
So what if it was debated?

If it was considered debatable in the 13th century, it must not have been established.

47 posted on 05/01/2014 7:22:36 AM PDT by Alex Murphy ("the defacto Leader of the FR Calvinist Prohttp://fraangelicoinstitute.files.wordprtestant Brigades")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

*snicker*


48 posted on 05/01/2014 7:22:42 AM PDT by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Petrosius; Apple Pan Dowdy
Identify your Protestant denomination and let us see if it teaches today the same as the original reformers. Of course then we would have to ask, which reformer: Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc.? The teaching of Protestantism, as a movement, has been anything but stable.

Comparing one church with many, which even includes Unitarians to Mormons, is a perverse comparison. But comparing Rome with herself we see different interpretations even here.

Some believe Lumen Gentium generally precludes Prots from salvation unless they convert to Catholicism,and even deny that they have the Spirit of God in baptism, as they must in order to be consistent with their literal interpretation of Jn. 6:53,54.

Some also uphold that it is right to burn heretics.

And in such contrast with historical teaching they have strong support (if not from Scripture).

49 posted on 05/01/2014 7:24:33 AM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Petrosius; Apple Pan Dowdy
The teaching of Protestantism, as a movement, has been anything but stable.

Can you say *Vatican 2*?

Can you say *pope Francis*?

That's funny, a Catholic criticizing other churches for not being stable.

50 posted on 05/01/2014 7:25:08 AM PDT by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 451-480 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson