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 previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 461-480 next last
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]

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

Small details that escape the notice of the brainwashed.

51 posted on 05/01/2014 7:28:15 AM PDT by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: dangus; Tucker39
I think Mt. 16:18 is better understood in the light of all Scripture, which (as shown above ) clearly and uniquely defines the Christ of Peter's confession as the "rock and "stone," which also finds support among CFs, while the linguistic disputations seem to go on and on. Here is one the use of Aramaic.
52 posted on 05/01/2014 7:33:19 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 26 | View Replies]

To: Petrosius
"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.

You do bring up a very good question, Petrosius. And in the spirit of each of us trying to understand what the other believes or bases his/her faith in, let me try to give you an answer.

Protestantism is a very BROAD label. And I will not attempt to defend it's varied definitions. Suffice it to say that defining you as a Catholic pretty much tells us what you believe. Defining me as a Protestant will not tell you much, other than I am not a Catholic. That in itself does not define my beliefs. Catholics seem to want to lump all Protestants into one definition.

I do not base my faith in "Protestantism", for that would be such a broad statement that it would encompass many apposing beliefs. And because of this, when asked to state my religion, I always say "Christian" and if asked to explain further, I go on to say, I believe the Bible is the infallible Word of God, and the basic tenets it lays out are those in the creed that I quoted above. I believe that creed is in your Roman Catholic Catechism as well, for it is the basis of what the Bible teaches. During the Reformation, many Christians who had read and studied the words of the Bible began to understand that there were certain practices in the Roman Catholic Church that they felt were not totally biblical, some of which they felt dangerously detracted from their wish to put total, compromised faith that salvation came from Jesus Christ alone. One example: Selling indulgences did not give one forgiveness, only Grace given freely to those who professed faith in Jesus Christ brought about forgiveness of sin. There are many others.

Thus, I am not putting my salvation and daily guidance in the hands of ANY human person or organization, but rather in the hands of the Father, Son (Jesus Christ) and Holy Spirit. The "Church" means to me the "Body of Christ" and "Saints" are all true believers, and they come from various protestant denominations as well as the Roman Catholic church, though belonging to one of the above does not necessarily assure one to belong to the "Body of Christ" as there are true Christians and false Christians in all.

I choose to attend worship and teaching at a Presbyterian (PCA)church. PCA is a branch of the Presbyterian church that adheres closely to the Bible without any variation.

53 posted on 05/01/2014 7:40:33 AM PDT by Apple Pan Dowdy (... as American as Apple Pie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: metmom

If “the blues brothers” movie has taught me anything, it’s that Catholics and Protestants can find common moral planes to cooperate and resist tyranny.

Of course popes aren’t infallible on any level. But he must be the leader of the catholic faith without question, so he has to be right by definition. This was needed in the aftermath of the protestant reformation be cause the pope could no longer claim political leadership of the civilized world. It was to beef up his credentials when Rome lost political control so the catholic faithful would not question his authority as had become routine for developing democracies. Catholicism can’t survive as a democracy. So he needed to be perceived by the rank and file as not subject to their griping.


54 posted on 05/01/2014 7:41:05 AM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer

Think of it as the doctrine of “presidential infallibility” in place today by the Democrat faithful. It was a needed tool at the time.


55 posted on 05/01/2014 7:44:21 AM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Petrosius
oooopps, correcting typo in post #53.... (compromised should be uncompromised)
In last paragraph, should say:

During the Reformation, many Christians who had read and studied the words of the Bible began to understand that there were certain practices in the Roman Catholic Church that they felt were not totally biblical, some of which they felt dangerously detracted from their wish to put total, uncompromised faith that salvation came from Jesus Christ alone.

56 posted on 05/01/2014 7:49:51 AM PDT by Apple Pan Dowdy (... as American as Apple Pie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

So you’re saying you know better, but you’re sinning?


57 posted on 05/01/2014 7:56:07 AM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: metmom; Alex Murphy
There are not widely varying interpretations among Protestants.

Well, there are when you use the standard definition of "Protestant" that includes those which even deny Truths that the Reformers concurred with Rome on. And even among those who most strongly hold to the most distinctive Prot doctrine, that of Scripture only being the infallible rule of faith as is the assured Word of God and transcendent standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims, as it is abundantly evidenced as being, then there is much interpretive variation.

However, they also testify to the strongest unity in core truths, which is manifest by their historical contentions against those that deny them, while the variation of belief as well as consent to core truths is also is the reality among Catholics, but the latter is inferior to evangelicals .

Moreover, Catholicism not only exists in schisms and sects, but while RCs will point to official statements a constituting what their church believes, and superior this is not valid testimony of what they believe, which is shown by what we do and effect. (Mt. 7:20: Ja. 2:18)

And by treating her liberal majority as members in life and in death, Rome reveals what she believes constitutes Catholic faith. Yet RCs insist conservative evangelicals should leave their conservative churches and join Rome, now with a pope who even asserts inequality is the root of social evils.

58 posted on 05/01/2014 7:58:08 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 30 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer
Of course popes aren’t infallible on any level. But he must be the leader of the catholic faith without question, so he has to be right by definition. This was needed in the aftermath of the protestant reformation be cause the pope could no longer claim political leadership of the civilized world. It was to beef up his credentials when Rome lost political control so the catholic faithful would not question his authority as had become routine for developing democracies. Catholicism can’t survive as a democracy. So he needed to be perceived by the rank and file as not subject to their griping.

Your analysis is revealing what helped you obtain your engineering degree.

59 posted on 05/01/2014 7:59:29 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 54 | View Replies]

To: dangus
So you’re saying you know better, but you’re sinning?

Was my post so unclear as to be capable of many interpretations? Did I write it in code?

60 posted on 05/01/2014 8:05:44 AM PDT by Alex Murphy ("the defacto Leader of the FR Calvinist Prohttp://fraangelicoinstitute.files.wordprtestant Brigades")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 461-480 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