So you don’t believe in proof “by inference”
Thanks for keeping my mind in the right set. I had a bad day…Let’s all be nice, please? Would Christ want us to be angered over the Truth? There is a just anger, but is this it?
Let’s be nice.
The problem is, I have yet to be shown where the doctrine of the “Supremacy of Peter” is even inferred in Scripture - much less then the perpetuity of that which is purportedly “inferred.”
Second everything doesn’t necessary have to be in Scripture. It both Sacred Scripture and Tradition.
Certainly. But “Christian history” is only what transpired by men AFTER the “foundation” itself was laid. One does not continually build a foundation (Eph. 2:20-21). However, what and how one builds upon that foundation will be examined at the judgment seat of Christ (1 Cor. 3:8-15).
Since the Word of God explicitly states that this temple, the Church, is being built upon the foundation of the Apostles (Christ Himself the corner stone), then I must acquiesce to “proof” being limited to the Apostolic era. And the doctrines which formed that Apostolic era are taught explicitly in the Epistles.
Absolutely! And that which the Holy Spirit brought to their remembrance was subsequently passed down to us in the form of Holy Spirit (God-breathed) Scripture. The Holy Spirit didn’t just bring it to their “remembrance” but through them He preserved it in Holy Writ. And He specifically used Paul to give us special insight into the “mystery of Christ” which “in other generations not made known to the sons of men, as it has not been revealed to His holy Apostles and prophets in the Spirit” (see Eph. 2:20 - 3:9). Paul, more than all the Apostles, was used by the Holy Spirit to pass down to subsequent generations of believers, via the Scriptures, the doctrines that formed the true Christian faith.
Not a fair question. A fair question would be to show proof of a version of Christianity taught by the Apostles - and I would submit you to the N.T. Epistles.
Yes that makes sense.
Apophasis cannot accept the primacy of Peter, because that would jiggle his house of cards, and other Catholic teachings might be seen to be accurate. As it is, he can debunk the whole of Catholocism.
And he will continue to search for any evidence that refutes the primacy of Peter.
If the Catholic interpretation of Jesus’s words regarding Peter is correct, which is what we are pretty much discussing in this thread, then we do not need to find verses that show the apostles confirming this authority. Jesus’s words would be enough. The fact that the apostles explicit acknowledgement of the Peter’s authority as pope is not found in Scripture does not mean that it did not happen and is really besides the point. If Jesus gave him that authority, Peter did not need the apostles to confirm it.
Let the reader beware! Apophasis rejects all the the traditions taught by the apostles that Jesus asked them to hand on, unless they are written in his testament. He also rejects that the NT which he uses to pound against Catholicism is a book produced by Catholics. He rejects the teachings of the early Fathers also.
He denies that the Holy Spirit inspired anyone to say or do something that was not written down, even though the scripture itself testifies that there were only enough things written to bring about faith.
He rejects the notion that God appointed Peter to any task different than that appointed to Paul, and he rejects that the Sacred Traditions handed down orally are also from the Holy Spirit.
Because God promised the Holy Spirit to guide the church into all truth, Apo. Because they are the disciples of the Apostles, and because they were much closer to the actual events than we will ever be.
Huddle all you wish, Apophasis. IT was during those times that the scriptures you are hiding under were put into writing and made into canon by faithful Catholics. What you are saying is that you are afraid to trust the HOly Spirit to accomplish the mission. What are you so afraid of in the early fathers? Is it that they testify to all the doctrines in Catholicism that you reject?
AND the fact that Peter was the only one told that he was the Rock or told to feed and tend Christ’s sheep…
Both the great and small(I’m assuming faithful and unfaithful) will be judged ACCORDING TO THEIR WORKS? Works mean nothing then? Answer me this. Do works mean nothing?
Beware TheApologist! Apophasis is very well versed in his scriptures, and will vigorously refute everything. His purpose is to draw you into his interpretation of scripture, so that you can leave the Catholic church, and start standing against her, as he does.
This is correct, and I did not get carried away. Nor did I claim that Peter is the king of Heaven.
I think that your assumption may be inaccurate about the difference between the great and the small. It is somewhat off topic, so you might want to go back and read what Apophasis wrote in “WORKS SALVATION”. You will see that he has no place for works in salvation. It relates to the topic only to the extent that Apophasis rejects any role of works as well as Peter being the rock. They share in common fundamentals of Catholicism that he rejects.
Check your Greek. Sift YOU is plural. Just do a Google search on the phrase “Satan has asked to sift you plural” - you’ll find it.
In his theology, his doctrine and his authority to preach the Gospel, Paul was in no way inferior. However, in terms of church leadership, Paul knew the position that Peter held…that’s why he went to Jerusalem to spend 15 days with Peter (and James). Why do you suppose he did that?
Sure.
Yeah! Isaiah 22:22.
In one sense, everything you’ve said is true. It is perfectly acceptable for Catholics to say that Jesus built his Church on both Peter and his faith…the imagery is rich and useful for teaching.