The Rise of the Papacy

There are one billion Roman Catholics worldwide, one billion people who are subject to the Pope’s authority. How, one might ask, did all of this happen? The answer, I believe, is far more complex and untidy than Catholics have argued. First, I will give a brief explanation of what the Catholic position is, and then, second, I will suggest what I think actually took place.

The traditional Catholic understanding is that Jesus said that it was upon Peter the church was to be built (Matt. 16:18−19; see also John 21:15−17; Luke 22:32). Following this, Peter spent a quarter of a century in Rome as its founder and bishop, and his authority was recognized among the earliest churches; this authority was handed down to his successors. Indeed, the Second Vatican Council (1962–65) re-affirmed this understanding. Apostolic authority has been handed on to the apostles’ successors even as Peter’s supreme apostolic power has been handed on to each of his successors in Rome.

The problem with this explanation, however, is that there is no evidence to sustain it. The best explanation of Matthew 16:18–19 is that the church will be built, not on an ecclesiastical position, but on Peter’s confession regarding Christ’s divinity. Correlative to this understanding is the fact that there is no biblical evidence to support the view that Peter spent a long time in the church in Rome as its leader. The Book of Acts is silent about this; it is not to be found in Peter’s own letters; and Paul makes no mention of it, which is strange if, indeed, Peter was in Rome early on since at the end of Paul’s letter to the Romans, he greets many people by name. And the argument that Peter’s authority was universally recognized among the early churches is contradicted by the facts. It is true that Irenaeus, in the second century, did say that the church was founded by “the blessed apostles,” Peter and Paul, as did Eusebius in the fourth century, and by the fifth century, Jerome did claim that it was founded by Peter whom he calls “the prince of the apostles.” However, on the other side of the equation are some contradictory facts. Ignatius, for example, en route to his martyrdom, wrote letters to the bishops of the dominant churches of the day, but he spoke of Rome’s prominence only in moral, not ecclesiastical, terms. At about the same time early in the second century, the Shepherd of Hermas, a small work written in Rome, spoke only of its “rulers” and “the elders” who presided over it. There was, apparently, no dominant bishop at that time. Not only so, but in the second and third centuries, there were numerous instances of church leaders resisting claims from leaders in Rome to ecclesiastical authority in settling disputes.

It is, in fact, more plausible to think that the emergence of the Roman pontiff to power and prominence happened by natural circumstance rather than divine appointment. This took place in two stages. First, it was the church in Rome that emerged to prominence and only then, as part of its eminence, did its leader begin to stand out. The Catholic church has inverted these facts by suggesting that apostolic power and authority, indeed, Peter’s preeminent power and authority, established the Roman bishop whereas, in fact, the Roman bishopric’s growing ecclesiastical prestige derived, not from Peter, but from the church in Rome.

In the beginning, the church in Rome was just one church among many in the Roman empire but natural events conspired to change this. Jerusalem had been the original “home base” of the faith, but in a.d. 70, the army of Titus destroyed it and that left Christianity without its center. It was not unnatural for people in the empire to begin to look to the church in Rome since this city was its political capital. All roads in that ancient world did, indeed, lead to Rome, and many of them, of course, were traveled by Christian missionaries. It is also the case that the Roman church, in the early centuries, developed a reputation for moral and doctrinal probity and, for these reasons, warranted respect. Its growing eminence, therefore, seems to have come about in part because it was warranted and also, in part, because it was able to bask in some of the reflected splendor of the imperial city.

Heresies had abounded from the start, but in the third-century, churches began to take up a new defensive posture against them. Would it not be the case, Tertullian argued, that churches founded by the apostles would have a secure footing for their claims to authenticity, in contrast to potentially heretical churches? This argument buttressed the growing claims to preeminence of the Roman church. However, it is interesting to note that in the middle of this century, Cyprian in North Africa argued that the words, “You are Peter …” were not a charter for the papacy but, in fact, applied to all bishops. Furthermore, at the third Council of Carthage in 256, he asserted that the Roman bishop should not attempt to be a “bishop of bishops” and exercise “tyrannical” powers.

Already in the New Testament period, persecution was a reality, but in the centuries that followed, the church suffered intensely because of the animosities and apprehensions of successive emperors. In the fourth century, however, the unimaginable happened. Emperor Constantine, prior to a pivotal battle, saw a vision and turned to Christianity. The church, which had lived a lonely existence on the “outside” up to this time, now enjoyed an unexpected imperial embrace. As a result, from this point on, the distinction between appropriate ecclesiastical demeanor and worldly pretensions to pomp and power were increasingly lost. In the Middle Ages, the distinction disappeared entirely. In the sixth century, Pope Gregory brazenly exploited this by asserting that the “care of the whole church” had been placed in the hands of Peter and his successors in Rome. Yet even at this late date, such a claim did not pass unchallenged. Those in the east, whose center was in Constantinople, resented universal claims like this, and, in fact, this difference of opinion was never settled. In 1054, after a series of disputes, the Great Schism between the eastern and western churches began. Eastern Orthodoxy began to go its own way, separated from Roman jurisdiction, and this remains a breach that has been mostly unhealed.

The pope’s emergence to a position of great power and authority was, then, long in the making. Just how far the popes had traveled away from New Testament ideas about church life was brutally exposed by Erasmus at the time of the Reformation. Pope Julius II had just died when, in 1517, Erasmus penned his Julius Exclusus. He pictured this pope entering heaven where, to his amazement, he was not recognized by Peter! Erasmus’ point was simply that the popes had become rich, pretentious, worldly, and everything but apostolic. However, he should have made his point even more radically. It was not just papal behavior that Peter would not have recognized as his own, but papal pretensions to universal authority as well.

So it is wrong to disbelieve His teachings at any point, whether early in His ministry, or His later teaching and the teaching of His chosen apostles. But they cannot be in logical contradiction. Being simultaneously obligated both to the full Old Covenant law in Mathew 5 and NOT obligated to the same exact thing in Acts 15 is an absurdity.

The vision of Peter was for the Gentiles. Jesus gave the Apostles the power to loose and bind. They spoke with his authority and decided at the First Council of Jerusalem not to burden the Gentiles with the Law, with a few exceptions (which many Gentiles who claim the name ignore). Teaching that what Jesus taught in Matthew 5 is no longer extant is disobedience and disavowal of Messiah. Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

I see the sun shining over this little plot of earth. His Word stands and I believe Him.

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: 28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. 29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. 30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. 31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: 32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. 33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: 34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: 35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. 36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. 37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil. 38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. 41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. 42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. 43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; 45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? 47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? 48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. 18And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present. 19And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry. 20And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: 21And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. 22What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come. 23Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them; 24Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. 25As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication. 26Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.

Wall posts are fun, but I do have a Bible. If you want to make an argument, it helps to see your work. You have made no argument whatsoever for Gentiles (such as I) being obligated to the full weight of Moses. If in fact you do allow that exemption, then presenting the passage in Matthew 5 as if it were universal in scope is misleading. If it is NOT obligatory on Gentiles, as you seem to admit, then you also admit that, at least for some individuals, what Jesus taught in Matthew 5 is “no longer extant,” and so qualify for your own disapproval as one who has disavowed Messiah. On the other hand, if you will stand by your limitation of scope to Gentiles, you also concede that Matthew 5 does have limits, and therefore believing Christ when He Himself identifies a limit in time, both in the prediction and the fulfilment, is NOT a disavowal of Messiah, but rather a more complete submission to His authority in recognizing the difference in terms between the Old Covenant and the New.

But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Yes, I allow the Gentiles are granted an Apostolic exemption, as it were, within limits. I believe and trust all the Jewish Apostles, save Judas who fell from grace as it were. The historic disunity and progressive splintering into myriads of discordant faith groups is much more dissonant and absurd than believing Matthew 5 still applies to our teaching.

Context, my FRiend. Context! We have writings from Athanasius that explain and qualify what he means by “sufficiency”. He allows that the Arians had an interpretation of Scripture. But, their interpretation is wrong because it denied what had ever been believed. Arius denied orthodoxy.

This is the vital point. In a contest of interpretations, which one wins? Athanasius appeals to an authority other than HIS own or the mere words of Scripture. I will snip a quote of his from

LINK

"For not only in outward form did those wicked men dissemble, putting on as the Lord says sheep's clothing, and appearing like unto whited sepulchres; but they took those divine words in their mouth, while they inwardly cherished evil intentions. And the first to put on this appearance was the serpent, the inventor of wickedness from the beginning-the devil,-who, in disguise, conversed with Eve, and forthwith deceived her. But after him and with him are all inventors of unlawful heresies, who indeed refer to the Scriptures, but do not hold such opinions as the saints [meaning orthodox saints or Fathers -- see article at top] have handed down, and receiving them as the traditions of men, err, because they do not rightly know them nor their power. Therefore Paul justly praises the Corinthians, because their opinions were in accordance with his traditions. And the Lord most righteously reproved the Jews, saying, 'Wherefore do ye also transgress the commandments of God on account of your traditions.' For they changed the commandments they received from God after their own understanding, preferring to observe the traditions of men. And about these, a little after, the blessed Paul again gave directions to the Galatians who were in danger thereof, writing to them, 'If any man preach to you aught else than that ye have received, let him be accursed.'" (Festal Letter 2.6)

He asserts that tradition informs and supports his interpretation. The Council ratifies it and from here forward the line is clearly drawn. Orthodoxy is defined. Subsequent councils could then require Bishops to affirm Nicean orthodoxy.

Holding that Athanasius relied solely on Scripture must be understood in the context of what his other writings show HIS understanding to be. Athanasius surely held also with the transmission of apostolic authority, and I expect he would have dealt with your nutty neighbors in a couple of short paragraphs. But, that’s for further discussion.

[Springfield Reformer:] This is correlated to the loose network, because the ultimate decisional authority still rests with the local congregation. As Roamer says, if some local group decides to go down a path that leads to error, the remainder of the network is free to continue in the truth.

More to the point, if the network decides to go down a path that leads to error (as an instance, PresbyterianUSA) the local church (and each individual) is not only free to continue in the truth, but is almost duty bound to do so.

Don-o is exampling a top-down situation - Authority from on high. So my question would be this:

Is unity worth truth? IOW, if the authority that one has subscribed to is found to be invalid by way of teaching untruth, is that authority abrogated, AND, even in the face of that authority, what action should be taken by the local church and, in the end, the individual?

A Protestant mind would be to 'come out of her'... Enough individuals walk away, and eventually the local church also must disassociate or perish...

Don-o, I think, would not agree.

St Paul must not have gotten the memo on that, if one is to judge from his repeated directions to the erring assemblies to straighten up and fly right.

Like my FRiend Springfield Reformer has already mentioned, Paul comes with evidences of authority - conspicuously missing in those who claim authority today - In that I most certainly agree. It is one thing to submit to authority which is incontrovertibly and demonstrably established according to power granted from on high. It is quite another to follow when such evidences are not present, and the teaching put forth is wavering from truth.

Now, if that type of authority vanished with the death of John, then we have a problem with Athanasius and all the Ecumenical Councils.

I do have problems with the Ecumenical Councils - I cannot speak for others, but as for me, I am a disciple of Yeshua. I am to follow HIM, as is plainly demonstrated in Scripture. Authority of others is secondary. Ergo, while I recognize that others may have authority over me, as established by Him, that authority CANNOT negate the discipleship in the first part, that being following the Master.

But nobody IS perfect. So now what?

Hold fast to Jesus and obey him.

Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;) And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

12 Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us, 2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God. 3 For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds. 4 Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin. 5 And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him: 6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. 7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? 8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons. 9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? 10 For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness. 11 Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby. 12 Wherefore lift up the hands which hang down, and the feeble knees; 13 And make straight paths for your feet, lest that which is lame be turned out of the way; but let it rather be healed. 14 Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord: 15 Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled; 16 Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright. 17 For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears. 18 For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest, 19 And the sound of a trumpet, and the voice of words; which voice they that heard intreated that the word should not be spoken to them any more: 20 (For they could not endure that which was commanded, And if so much as a beast touch the mountain, it shall be stoned, or thrust through with a dart: 21 And so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake:) 22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, 23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, 24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel. 25 See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven: 26 Whose voice then shook the earth: but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven. 27 And this word, Yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain. 28 Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear: 29 For our God is a consuming fire.

But all it takes is ONE sin to keep us from being able to be in His presence.

Adam and Eve sinned only one sin and for that death came into the world, they were kicked out of the Garden, and God promised the needed Redeemer.

You could live a perfect life except for ONE sin, and still not make it into heaven because God’s standard is ABSOLUTE perfection, perfection as the Father is perfect.

Obeying God is good, and has value, but it is totally useless and worthless to attaining eternal life because it CANNOT erase the record of debt we owe, that is death, for that first sin that was committed.

There is the additional complication that we are sinners. We are not sinners because we sin. We sin because we’re sinners and our very nature and all that we do is tainted and corrupted by and with sin. So even that entire life of obedience is still not going to be effective because none of our works are pure enough to count for salvation. They are as filthy rags in God’s sight.

THAT is the reason we need forgiveness granted from the Father and the righteousness of Jesus credited to our account.

The ONLY way to have the kind of perfection that God demands of us. That is that HE Himself gives it to us.

The law wasn’t put into place so that by keeping it, we could become or be made righteous. It was put into place to show us that we COULDN’T do it on our own and lead us to Christ so that we could throw ourselves on the mercy of the court and be given the forgiveness we don’t deserve and can’t earn.

It’s then we are born again and given the new nature that God requires of us, one that, when this body of flesh is dead and gone, gives us the ability to stand before Him in His presence, acceptable in His sight.

Yes, I allow the Gentiles are granted an Apostolic exemption, as it were, within limits. I believe and trust all the Jewish Apostles, save Judas who fell from grace as it were.

So you believe Paul then? Even when he says:

2Cor 3:7-11 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away: (8) How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? (9) For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. (10) For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth. (11) For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.

Which covenant is it that is set in stone and not heart? Moses. Contrasted with what? The ministration of the Spirit. One covenant brings condemnation. The other, righteousness. Through the letter of the law? No. Through the Spirit. And what is set aside? The moral principles from which the law flows? No, never. Those are eternal. We agree on that. What passes is the ministration of those principles through the mediation of the Aaronic priesthood, displaced by a new ministration God's eternal righteousness through the mediation of Jesus Christ, our High Priest:

Heb 7:11-14 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? (12) For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. (13) For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar. (14) For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

What helps here is to remember that the law under Moses had a specific purpose. It was to prepare the way for Messiah, to establish both the righteousness of God and the failure of all of us to live up to that righteousness, and thus to establish our need for redemption through the sacrifice of the Lamb of God. To deny the genuine newness of the New Covenant is to deny that purpose, as clearly taught by both Jesus and those Jewish apostles of His. The Old Covenant revolved around the service of the Temple, but if the Temple service is done away, and God Himself settled that question in 70AD, there is simply no way to carry out the ministration of the law under Moses. It cannot be done in bits and pieces. Matthew 5 does not allow for that. And if the heart of the Old Covenant law cannot be ministered to lost souls, then no souls can be saved under that law.

Thus the New Covenant in Jesus' blood is not simply a nice addition to Moses, it is the completion of it, the fulfillment of it's purpose, and the only now available means of salvation for lost souls. To deny this new ministration, about which Paul and the others are so clear, is to deny the very purpose of Christ in dying on our behalf. This is why Paul was so wroth with the Galatian foolishness of mixing law and grace. Such a mixture amounts to a denial of the Christian Gospel, because it renders the death of Christ meaningless:

Gal 2:19-21 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. (20) I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. (21) I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

All of this fits perfectly with Christ's own teaching, that the law in it's Mosaic form would not pass till all was fulfilled, and that when Jesus died and rose again, that was the promised fulfillment. And so now the old wine is too old, and the new wine must be put in a new container, built from the teachings of Christ and His Apostles, for the benefit of His New Covenant people, made as Jewish Apostle Paul says into One New Man in Christ, Jew and Gentile in the same covenant together, and not two covenants, one for Jews and one for Gentiles. No such thing is taught. The Jerusalem Council did not even teach that Jews were obligated to Moses, only that for the peace of the body of Christ, Gentiles should avoid certain extremely offensive behaviors.

But there is only one New Covenant, not two. And in this covenant, the fulfillment of the righteousness of God does not come through the ministration of the letter of the law, but through the ministration of the Spirit, which sheds abroad in our heart the love of God, by which we fulfill the righteousness of God apart from the law. This is the teaching of your Jewish apostles.

Peace,

SR

But, their interpretation is wrong because it denied what had ever been believed.

No, that is not what he says. Their interpretation is wrong because it was an untrue handling of Scripture, using Scripture as a mere cover for evil intent, which never was to purvey truth, but to act as Satan and beguile us away from the truth. Their conflict with the opinions of the saints is not a cause of error but an effect of error, resulting "because they do not rightly know them [the Scriptures] nor their power."

And who does He cite as representative of these saintly opinions? An apostle, with full apostolic authority, and not lesser men: "Therefore Paul justly praises the Corinthians, because their opinions were in accordance with his traditions." And Paul's traditions were not some extra-Biblical data stream known only to certain select insiders, but are God-breathed truth recorded for us openly in Scripture, so it is the same thing being pointed to in both places, Scripture!

So, not to wear out the NASA meme, but there's still a problem here for using Athanasius to support an equality of authority as between Scripture and councils, such that obligations of Christian belief could be created that had no basis in Scripture. He does not equate them or put them on the same level at all, but gives Scripture logical precedence in determining truth, in perfect keeping with the Protestant position. Which position does not exclude the advice and input of godly teachers, but does not elevate them beyond persuasive authority, as opposed to binding authority.

This distinction also holds in the practice of law. A case occurring in another jurisdiction, or in the same jurisdiction at a lower level, may be brought forward as persuasive evidence of the true interpretation of the law, under an appeal to reason and not raw authority. But such case law is not binding on the court. Only case law in the same jurisdiction and from a superior court can act to bind the decision of the court.

So we see this principle in Athanasius, as here, from the link I provided earlier:

Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faiths sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrines so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture.

The Supreme Court of divine truth is that which has been spoken by God, Scripture. That is the only binding authority, and that is the "sufficiency above all things" of which he speaks. But as he says, councils may be needed, and it may help to consult the patristic writings, even though they are not a canon of Scripture, and therefore not anything but persuasive. And in his one example, the Nicene Bishops, does he describe their voice as independently authoritative, or does he relate their derived authority back to its true foundation? The latter, as the force of their words comes only from honest readers being "reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture."

Peace,

SR

The Jerusalem Council did not even teach that Jews were obligated to Moses, only that for the peace of the body of Christ, Gentiles should avoid certain extremely offensive behaviors.

17And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. 18And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present. 19And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry. 20And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: 21And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. 22What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come. 23Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them; 24Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. 25As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication. 26Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.

The writings of Paul are consistent with the teaching of Christ regarding the fulfilment of the law by Christ. It is not an effort to work around the law passages in the Gospels, but to understand them as having served their purpose, which purpose was not yet complete during the ministry of Christ, but IS complete upon His death and resurrection.

The reason, as I understand it, that Catholicism does not see this break between the covenants the way most Protestants do is because they have an a priori commitment to a sacerdotal priesthood, despite the discontinuation of such by God’s own act of installing Jesus Christ as our high priest, which is not accounted for under the Mosaic covenant, and so renders it obsolete for Christians, per Hebrews 7.

Furthermore, this a priori sacerdotalism is not a function of sound Biblical doctrine, but the historical elevation of key misunderstandings of Scripture to a position of power and influence. That is not a sufficient reason to accept it as true.

Nor is it necessary to confuse the official statement of the Jerusalem Council, which did not state a position on whether Moses was still obligatory for Jewish Christians, versus the followup narrative, which is valid as history, but is not given as formal apostolic teaching. We know from Paul elsewhere he was willing to accommodate Jewish custom to the extent necessary to be “all things to all men” that he might win them to Christ.

That does not rise to a formal apostolic teaching, and in many places where Paul IS doing direct, God-breathed teaching, he would have us all be “one new man” in Christ. There is hardly a better recipe for schism than to promote two sets of rules for believers, based on mere genetics. What an odious notion! Which is at least one reason why it was necessary for God to intervene directly and dismantle the temple system, which He never would have done if it was actually necessary for Christian Jewery.

As for reformed Baptists, we share most beliefs in common with the confessionally reformed, excepting the baptism of infants, which is exampled nowhere in Scripture, and appears contrary to the testimonial function of water baptism. Nevertheless, we are family in Christ with all those whose trust is in the Lord, and His work of sacrificial love on our behalf, and not at all in the self-deceiving heart, or the false goodness of sinful humanity. Soli Deo Gloria.

Peace,

You state this as if it is no big deal. And I have heard from others about "essentials" that must be adhered to as a test of orthodoxy. Here are two diametrically opposed views of Baptism. Both cannot be right. Both claim support from Scripture.

Found this on a Reformed website.

In baptism God promises by grace alone

to forgive our sins;
to adopt us into the Body of Christ, the church;
to send the Holy Spirit daily to renew and cleanse us;
and to resurrect us to eternal life.

When I is was an Independent Baptist, I was taught that Baptism is an external symbol of an internal reality.

How is this anything but confusion? One group says that Baptism is how we get our sins forgiven and another teaches that repenting and accepting Jesus as personal Savior is how we get our sins forgiven, and both pile Scripture upon Scripture.

That Reformed site calls Baptism a Sacrament. Baptists of my former ilk would not even use the word. They called it an ordinance (not sure if they capitalize it).

This is a Fundamental difference between Protestants and the Jews who believed in the LORD Jesus Christ in the First Century, who are the first fruits, as it were, of the holy catholic apostolic church. They loved the Law and understood it in all contexts. Then again, the Apostles, and those eligible to be Apostles, walked and lived with Jesus and his mother, the very Israel of God. The only contentious issue they faced wrt the Law was what to do with the Gentiles who received the Holy Spirit. They decided and we are bound by their decision. The reason, as I understand it, that Catholicism does not see this break between the covenants the way most Protestants do is because they have an a priori commitment to a sacerdotal priesthood, despite the discontinuation of such by God’s own act of installing Jesus Christ as our high priest, which is not accounted for under the Mosaic covenant, and so renders it obsolete for Christians, per Hebrews 7.

The Protestant view, as I see it, created a new religion in the 16th Century that continues to suffer the same sort of protestations and reformations that marked its founding. I do not believed in an orphaned church.

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.