A question for all Protestants

[chessmane4e5]

On a side note, and not an area I think I have ever discussed. Faith and Morals is anachronistic. If it is not, I would like to hear why.

Might you first explain why you think it is?

 

[BrianH]

Might you first explain why you think it is?

Faith and morals?
Nah. I was looking for your view. No biggie then

 

[chessmane4e5]

Faith and morals?
Nah. I was looking for your view. No biggie then

Haha, I do not think it is anachronistic, that is my view. Why would it be?

 

[BrianH]

I agree that Paul wanted the people to view him as “No less an Apostle”, but you must also agree that he never intended anyone to view him as the leader.

Other than this, we can only speculate as to why he waited 3 years. To say he waited 3 years was to show that he was a true apostles does not make sense. I would be more inclined to believe that he was preaching the Gospel, which he felt was more important at the time, of course this is my own speculation. What we do know, is that he did go to Peter. We also know that Paul did submit to Peters role as leader of the Church.

We have plenty of instances where Peter takes the role of leader, with no protest from Paul or any other Apostle.

Acts 1:12-16, 20-26 and Acts 2:14, we see it is Peter that stands up from among the other Apostles and speaks for them.

If anyone doubted Peter’s role as Leader of the Church, they never spoke or wrote about it. Although, why would the Apostles (or anyone else) question Peters authority as leader when they heard Christ words, “Upon you Peter I will build my church, the gates of hell will not prevail against it, and I give you the Keys to the Kingdom”.

If you can cite any Scripture or any writings of the Early Fathers that show that Peter was not the leader of the Church, please cite them. Galatians 2:11-14 only shows Paul admonish Peter for acting inappropriately, and it was not in a leadership role but while he was eating.

I do not think that he waited three years to show he was a true apostle, I think he pointed it out to show he answers to no one but God. Seems that way to me.
I do not know of any way in which Paul submitted to Peter. Do tell.
Speaking does not make someone a leader. Paul does list the pillars; and he does not differentiate them. It is at the very least an interesting ommission.
This will get us know where though. To be perfectly pessimistic. When Catholics see Peter being assertive, as Peter certainly is assertive, they see a Papacy. For example, what does Paul actually say

For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9James, Peter[c] and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews. 10All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.

Who is Peter? An apostle to the Jews. Who is Paul. The apostle to the Gentiles. Also notice the “they agreed”. There simply is nothing in Paul’s actual writing to suggest he viewed Peter this way.

As far as the early church, I quoted the first historian who said that the church was controlled by James and the apostles. But that is viewed in light of how things turn out 50 to 100 years later. By the time, the third century roles around, you are not going to find anyone who suggests that. Legends grow and power centralizes perceptions and interpretations.

When you read Clement, Ignatius, and other early writers, its always Peter and Paul together. I do not recall anyone before 200 AD saying it was Peter who led the church. Even Irenaeus says the Bishop of Rome got his authority being in line from…Peter and Paul.
But like I said that is forgotten or overlooked.

 

[BrianH]

A couple of items. When writing to the Church at Rome, who does Ignatius say will oversee his area when he is gone? Not the Bishop of Rome. God alone. Right?

But more interesting to me is that Ignatius says who issued orders to them? Peter and Paul.

newadvent.org/fathers/0107.htm

 

[chessmane4e5]

I do not think that he waited three years to show he was a true apostle, I think he pointed it out to show he answers to no one but God. Seems that way to me.

And it seems to me that the fact that he did go and stay with Peter for 15 days is significant.

I do not know of any way in which Paul submitted to Peter. Do tell.

Acts 15 comes to mind. We see that Paul does not assume to make a decision on his own, so he goes back to Jerusalem where the other Apostles are. (So you might say, no leader, but all the Apostles make decisions.) But it was Peter in verse 7 that stands up and speaks with Authority. Then Paul and Barnabas tell everyone about the things they have been doing and James speaks, with Authority as well. Does this mean James is the leader then? He only reaffirms what Peter said. James is the Bishop of the Jerusalem Church, so it is fitting that he would close this first Council.

Speaking does not make someone a leader.

It does if everyone listens to him. It does if Authority is deferred to him. Lets not forget that Jesus gave the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven to Peter. All the Jewish people would understand this referenced Isaiah 22 and know it meant that Peter was to lead after Jesus was gone.

Paul does list the pillars; and he does not differentiate them. It is at the very least an interesting ommission.

Everywhere throughout scripture, we find Peter’s name listed first. Surely there must be a reason for this.

In this passage, many have questioned why Paul listed James and then Cephas. A lot of early Church fathers wanted to change this order because no where else do we see this. The most logical explanation though is that James was the Bishop of the city, which is why he was listed first by Paul.

This will get us know where though. To be perfectly pessimistic. When Catholics see Peter being assertive, as Peter certainly is assertive, they see a Papacy.

And the fact that Jesus appointed Peter the leader. That too.

Who is Peter? An apostle to the Jews. Who is Paul. The apostle to the Gentiles. Also notice the “they agreed”. There simply is nothing in Paul’s actual writing to suggest he viewed Peter this way.

Yes, they agreed. A leader does not always have to be bossing people around. Peter knew it made sense for Paul to preach to the Gentiles and Paul agreed.

As far as the early church, I quoted the first historian who said that the church was controlled by James and the apostles. But that is viewed in light of how things turn out 50 to 100 years later. By the time, the third century roles around, you are not going to find anyone who suggests that. Legends grow and power centralizes perceptions and interpretations.

I cited one reason for this, namely James being listed first in Paul’s letter because James was the Bishop of Jerusalem. Maybe that explains it as well. Lots of people might have thought that the leader of Christianity would naturally be in Jerusalem.

When you read Clement, Ignatius, and other early writers, its always Peter and Paul together. I do not recall anyone before 200 AD saying it was Peter who led the church. Even Irenaeus says the Bishop of Rome got his authority being in line from…Peter and Paul.
But like I said that is forgotten or overlooked.

But Peter is always listed First. Sure, they were both great men, but their is not one shred of evidence that anyone ever questioned Peter’s authority. When Peter spoke, the Apostles listened.

I am still reading the book “Upon this Rock”. Maybe I will have more evidence when I am done.

 

[BrianH]

And it seems to me that the fact that he did go and stay with Peter for 15 days is significant.

Acts 15 comes to mind. We see that Paul does not assume to make a decision on his own, so he goes back to Jerusalem where the other Apostles are. (So you might say, no leader, but all the Apostles make decisions.) But it was Peter in verse 7 that stands up and speaks with Authority. Then Paul and Barnabas tell everyone about the things they have been doing and James speaks, with Authority as well. Does this mean James is the leader then? He only reaffirms what Peter said. James is the Bishop of the Jerusalem Church, so it is fitting that he would close this first Council.

 

[chessmane4e5]

A couple of items. When writing to the Church at Rome, who does Ignatius say will oversee his area when he is gone? Not the Bishop of Rome. God alone. Right?

But more interesting to me is that Ignatius says who issued orders to them? Peter and Paul.

newadvent.org/fathers/0107.htm

Interesting you should bring this up.

In the preface to his letter to the Romans, “Ignatius’ laudatory words in the epistle to the Romans have no parallels in his addresses to the other Churches. There is no doubt he held the Roman Church in much higher regard than other Churches” and “…not much later, [he] suggests that we should understand more than this, that Rome has a special presidency and a special gift of indefectible faith” John Chapman, in The Papacy page 27.

Ignatius says the Roman Church is “presiding in love”. He used the word ‘preside’ before in his Epistle to the Magnesians, where he says, “Let the bishop preside in the place of God, and his clergy in the place of apostolic conclave”. The word would seem, then, strongly to suggest a position of authority and leadership.

Now to your quote. Ignatius says “Remember in your prayers the Church in Syria which now has God for her Shepard in my stead. Jesus Christ alone will be her Bishop, together with your love.”

Lets think about this. “Ignatius had been plucked from his diocese under the order of the Roman Emperor, the Church in Antioch was left without a bishop. Ignatius appealed to the Church of Rome to shepherd his flock even though she was more than thirteen hundred miles away.”

We see that because of the great distance, it was not physically possible for the Bishop (or Pope) of Rome to oversee the Church in Antioch.

Ignatius “appeals to the Roman Church, not only to pray for his Syrian Church, but also to preside over her in love”. Why did he write only to the Roman Church?

“[Perler] points out that the Roman Church alone among those addressed in Ignatius’ extant letters, is expected to have ‘over-sight’ or ‘care’ for the distant Church of Antioch - just as the same Roman Church had shown maternal concern for the Church of Corinth in its distress.”

 

[BrianH]

Interesting you should bring this up.

In the preface to his letter to the Romans, “Ignatius’ laudatory words in the epistle to the Romans have no parallels in his addresses to the other Churches. There is no doubt he held the Roman Church in much higher regard than other Churches” and “…not much later, [he] suggests that we should understand more than this, that Rome has a special presidency and a special gift of indefectible faith” John Chapman, in The Papacy page 27.

Ignatius says the Roman Church is “presiding in love”. He used the word ‘preside’ before in his Epistle to the Magnesians, where he says, “Let the bishop preside in the place of God, and his clergy in the place of apostolic conclave”. The word would seem, then, strongly to suggest a position of authority and leadership.

Now to your quote. Ignatius says “Remember in your prayers the Church in Syria which now has God for her Shepard in my stead. Jesus Christ alone will be her Bishop, together with your love.”

Lets think about this. “Ignatius had been plucked from his diocese under the order of the Roman Emperor, the Church in Antioch was left without a bishop. Ignatius appealed to the Church of Rome to shepherd his flock even though she was more than thirteen hundred miles away.”

We see that because of the great distance, it was not physically possible for the Bishop (or Pope) of Rome to oversee the Church in Antioch.

Ignatius “appeals to the Roman Church, not only to pray for his Syrian Church, but also to preside over her in love”. Why did he write only to the Roman Church?

“[Perler] points out that the Roman Church alone among those addressed in Ignatius’ extant letters, is expected to have ‘over-sight’ or ‘care’ for the distant Church of Antioch - just as the same Roman Church had shown maternal concern for the Church of Corinth in its distress.”

First things first. Where did you get that this is written to the Bishop of Rome? There was not Bishop of Rome at this time. Or he gets skipped over unlike the other ones. What do you mean he wrote only to the Roman Church? The regions of the Romans only deals with the immediate area around Rome.
He does not say the have over-sight, he says they are to pray for it. Oversea and regard are two different concepts.

Remember in your prayers the Church in Syria, which now has God for its shepherd, instead of me. Jesus Christ alone will oversee it, and your love [will also regard it

And once again. Peter and Paul. Could you address that?

I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you.

[/quote]

 

[chessmane4e5]

Reaffirms what he said? Peter never mentions circumcision! Circumcision is not the yoke they are not able to bear. It is the law as mentioned in verse 5. So James and only James says what they must do. He answers the real question; which part of the law, in the case it appears to be a reaffirmation of the Noahic Covenant

 

[chessmane4e5]

First things first. Where did you get that this is written to the Bishop of Rome?

Well it is written to the Roman Church so…

There was not Bishop of Rome at this time.

Ignatius wrote this epistle c. 106 A.D. which means St. Alexander was Bishop (or Pope) of Rome.

Or he gets skipped over unlike the other ones. What do you mean he wrote only to the Roman Church?

When did I say he wrote only to the Roman Church? His Epistle was to the Romans (I suppose he could have made copies and sent it to other Churches, but I doubt this.)

In fact, I referenced that he wrote to other Churches as well, when describing his use of the word ‘presiding’.

The regions of the Romans only deals with the immediate area around Rome.
He does not say the have over-sight, he says they are to pray for it. Oversea and regard are two different concepts.

I didn’t say that Ignatius said that, I am not quoting Ignatius, but the Book I am reading. the reason Ignatius is writing to the Roman Church is because they do have over-sight. You can disagree, but why then is Ignatius writing this Epistle? What is the purpose? Just to tell them it no longer has a Bishop? Seems like something you would want the Head-Church to know I suppose.

And once again. Peter and Paul. Could you address that?

Do you mean when Ignatius refers to them?

Ignatius “Petition Christ in my behalf that through these instruments I may prove God’s sacrifice. Not like Peter and Paul do I issue any orders to you. They were Apostles, I am a convict; they were free, I am until this moment a slave”

Are you asking why he uses both names and not just Peters?

Of hand, the Romans knew both Peter and Paul, so why not mention both of them?

I think the important note to make is that Ignatius does not presume to issue orders to Rome. He is the Bishop of the largest Church in the Roman Empire, except for Rome itself, and he was a disciple of the apostles, yet he does not presume to issue orders to the Church of Rome.

 

[BrianH]

There was no Bishop of Rome at this time. Scholars believe that the Roman church was led by elders still. But I know I cannot convince you of that
But, the fact remains, all the other letters, I believe if I remember correctly mention the bishops but not this one.
And Ignatius also tells the Ephesians he does not issue orders in chapter three of his epistle to them so if that is what is important to you …you might want to hang your hat on the second most important thing when it comes to this particular letter

 

[chessmane4e5]

There was no Bishop of Rome at this time. Scholars believe that the Roman church was led by elders still. But I know I cannot convince you of that
But, the fact remains, all the other letters, I believe if I remember correctly mention the bishops but not this one.
And Ignatius also tells the Ephesians he does not issue orders in chapter three of his epistle to them so if that is what is important to you …you might want to hang your hat on the second most important thing when it comes to this particular letter

haha, well I am still learning

I do not hang my hat on any one thing, but on everything together. The Bible, Tradition, and the Magisterium all work together.

What the book I am reading shows though, is that

1. No one ever spoke out against the Primacy of Peter or of Rome
2. We have many examples of the early Churches looking to Rome for help

What really makes me curious though is how anyone who looks to the Bible as sacred Scripture, can disregard Matt 16:13-19. Same for the Last Supper, and Jesus saying “Do this in remembrance of me.”

 

[GratefulFred]

It’s been an intersting debate to follow. I am with CHESSMANE4e5 at #33 just above. I would add other, should be familar, bible statements such as:

“Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins YOU shall forgive . . .”
“Jesus taught them many things not written here” (tradition)
“I will send the Holy Spirit and HE will remind YOU . . .” (tradition)
“I am with YOU always”

Thus, we have the three prong stool, a steady thing on which to rest, consisting of the Bible, Tradition, and the Church Jesus himself established. I also note that the more important aspects were given to the Apostles and NOT to the crowd, a collection of individuals who, as individuals do often, hold various opinions of what they hear believing themselves to be right and others wrong. Jesus did teach the crowds and some left Him as He taught more, but Jesus did not teach all the lessons to the crowds and certainly not confer all power, especially not the power to speak with authority what Jesus wanted spoken. Being a member of the crowd, I can say what I believe which is NOT saying that I am speaking wiht the authority Jesus gave His Apostles. If my view is at odds, one should follow the Apostles and their successors.

Jesus also talked about the sower of the seeds that fell on different conditions, many failing to grow robustly, and to shake the dust off if a town does not want to hear what HIS apostles had to say.

Skipping over early Church History discussed above and the false views that were corrected BY THE CHURCH in those times, after meeting to discuss (no cowboy shooting from the hip), I wonder if the discussion above was the stuff that motivated King Henry VIII to set hmself up as head of the Church in England. Whether infallibility was his motivation to kill so many who chose to follow the POPE in spiritual matters?

And for the sake of argument, assuming for the moment that the POPE is not the legitimate heir to Christ’s Church, what scripture is there to support that Christ intended one, or dozens, or now thousands of "protestant’ demoninations spring up after there was one Church for some 1500 years. Where did their Bibles come from if not the Catholic Church? Just how does a political king, King James, get Christ’s authority assigned to the Apotles to write (authorize) his own version of the Bible? And, as Christ did establish the Holy Eucharist - “This IS My Body” and Confession “Whose sins YOU shall forgive” which protest churches has these two sacraments and which do not? Those that don’t seem to have a watered down version of Christ and NOT the fullness Christ wanted for us. I think most protest churches chose a limited focus on one or a few aspects of Christ and NOT the fullness of Christ.

On the human side, we all know we all are imperfect. Our understading is incomplete. We cannot understand Jesus as perfectly as we will once in Heaven. We need His grace through the Holy Spirit. Christ gave that Holy Spirit and the authority to the Apostles. Private revelations to individuals, a strong personal commitment to Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior, do not override the Church’s authority to lead us received from Christ.

If the Catholic Church is wrong enough to be rejected, just which Protestant church is the one Christ wants us to follow? And by what scripture authority is the Church Christ established to be abandoned and THE one protest church is to replace it?

Finally, one should ask himself does he “protest” because he wants a measure of control over what he thinks and how he wants to live his life, or if he protests because he is sincerely and continuing praying for God’s Wisdom to truly understand the Church Christ established but has not yet gotten to that level of understanding and faith? Or is he in a protest church because that’s the way he was raised and does not want to come closer to Jesus?

The Church Christ established has much more than some of the basics correct. SO much more, that what I do not yet understand, I accept on faith, the faith of a child that Christ said I should have. Whatever I find difficult to do that the Church Christ established requires, is my sin. I admit that I am a sinner in need of forgiveness that Christ gave to the Apostles to give to me. My struggles do not make the Church Christ established wrong.

 

[chessmane4e5]

There was no Bishop of Rome at this time. Scholars believe that the Roman church was led by elders still. But I know I cannot convince you of that
But, the fact remains, all the other letters, I believe if I remember correctly mention the bishops but not this one.
And Ignatius also tells the Ephesians he does not issue orders in chapter three of his epistle to them so if that is what is important to you …you might want to hang your hat on the second most important thing when it comes to this particular letter

Can you cite your source for this?

I have the following

(1) St Peter c. 64 or 67
(2) St Linus 67-76
(3) St Anacletus 76-88
(4) St Clement I 88-97
(5) St Evaristus 97-105
(6) St Alexander I 105-115

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans (c. A.D. 106)

So it looks like St Alexander was the Bishop (or Pope) of the Church in Rome.

St Ignatius was Bishop of the Church at Antioch, so that Church was without a Bishop for a time, which was one of the purposes of the epistle, to let Rome know what was going on.

Are you questioning why St Ignatius did not mention who the Bishop of Rome is in his Epistle? Probably for the same reason Paul did not either. To protect the Bishop (Pope) of Rome. If the Romans knew who the leader was, they surely would seek them out and kill them.

 

[MyRdmrLvs]

I often wonder how Protestants (maybe I should non-Catholic Christians) come to terms with Jesus appointing Peter as the leader of the Church (gave him the Keys to the Kingdom) and told Peter that He would build His Church upon Peter. When we look at the history of this event, even the Apostles submit to Peter as the Leader (including Paul). St John even submits to Pope Clement (he was the 4th Pope). I mean, if Peter was supposed to be the only leader, then surely John would have felt obligated to speak up and not let Clement lead the Church. This all happened within the first century.

Jesus also said the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church.

First I am confused at how people can claim Sola Scriptura, and yet deny all this.

Second, how do we reconcile all this. Do we say that Jesus was a liar, and Hell has prevailed against the Catholic Church?

Or do claim that the Apostles twisted the words of Christ.

Both of these seem highly unlikely. But now we have to wait about 300 years after Christ died until St. Jerome compiles the New Testament (much of it was already considered sacred Scripture, but Jerome had the final say, so to speak). Which means that Sola Scriptura are putting their faith in St Jerome some 300 years after Christ died, but not in the very Apostles that Jesus choose to be disciples, and whom all followed Peter as the leader of the Church.

The only thing that makes sense to me is to either:

1. Treat the New Testament as suspect, and therefore rely on Christ alone (sort of like a personal Jesus view).
2. Or to accept that Jesus did found His one True Church, appointed Peter as the leader, sends the Holy Spirit to protect and inspire the Church, and follow Tradition which is as sacred as the New Testament.

Of course this all seems clear to me, as I have accepted number 2. But I am just curious.

Well I guess if those are the only choices I’ll have to convert, I better go tell the wife and kids…

 

[MyRdmrLvs]

The sad part is, when individuals are quick to judge and dismiss church teachings as errors of an imperfect church, they seldom subject their own understanding to the same level of scrutiny.

Basically they say, if I agree with a church teaching, then the church simply has stumbled upon a truth, good for them, they have my approval. If I find a teaching unacceptable, then the church has made a mistake.

You see, the matter of the fact is, we all believe in the infallibility of someone. We either let it be the church, or we let it be ourselves. When we say the church is imperfect, we are saying that we are more perfect than the church, because we certainly have the wisdom to discern where the church is right and where she is wrong.

Actually it is saying that the pope is no more infallible than I am. that THE church is not the only church, and that a church that challenges the people to read and understand Gods word and discuse freely the differences is more likely to weed out errors than a church that claims infallibility and limits its membership to those who profess to agree on every doctrine. I do question my own church teachings, my paster is pretrib and I am post trib.

 

[chessmane4e5]

Well I guess if those are the only choices I’ll have to convert, I better go tell the wife and kids…

Do you see any other choices?

If not, then I will pray for your conversion.

 

[schaick]

Most Christian doctrines are explicit in Scripture (for example, the dogma of the Blessed Trinity). However, infallibility is strongly inferred from the foregoing passages. Non-Catholic Christians should ask themselves why they accept the Church’s teaching on the three persons of the Trinity, the two natures of Christ in one divine person, and the New Testament canon of Scripture (all defined by the Catholic Church), but not other teachings regarding the Eucharist, Mary, the saints, and purgatory?

The concept that was to be called the Trinity is in the Gospel.

The nature of Christ is in the Gospel.

The concep tof the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is in the Gospel.

Mary being sinless and a perpetual virgin is not in the Gospel.

Purgatory is not in the Gospel. It is a firey cleansing event is in the New Testament. My salvation does not depend on whether I believe it or not.

The absolute truth that we need for our salvation is in the Gospel which was always considered a part of Holy Scripture.

 

[Darron_Steele]

…
And for the sake of argument, assuming for the moment that the POPE is not the legitimate heir to Christ’s Church, what scripture is there to support that Christ intended one, or dozens, or now thousands of "protestant’ demoninations spring up after there was one Church for some 1500 years.

Even if it could be shown that the various Protestant denominations are outside the will of Jesus Christ, it would not automatically follow that the bishop of Rome deserves the claims he makes of himself.

Where did their Bibles come from if not the Catholic Church?

The Bible comes from God – 2 Timothy 3:16a “All Scripture is breathed out by God” (ESV).

Granted, the proto-Orthodox/Proto-Catholic church group did decide a New Testament canon that most of the church has adopted. However, what is “breathed out by God” would be that way regardless of if someone recognized it or not.

Just how does a political king, King James, get Christ’s authority assigned to the Apotles to write (authorize) his own version of the Bible?

Now you are really in left field. The King James Version was
a) a translation of the Bible, and
b) not made by King James himself, but by a committee of scholars that did not include him.
Before you go off like this again, try a bit of research.