Christ Did NOT make Peter the head of the church

[spina1953]

We’re a team. Let’s do this!

:tiphat:

Hi Randy: Sounds like a plan to me!!!

 

[guanophore]

Or is it that you don’t want to see it? Jesus prayed for Peter’s faith not to fail.
Jesus tells Peter that once he has turned back he must strengthen the other apostles. That is a leadership role.

Not only that, but Jesus addresses Peter in the singular “I have prayed for you (Peter)” so that everyone who wants to get in on Jesus’ prayer better get in with Peter.

[v22ff is not a standard way of citing scripture ](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ff.)as a result it is hard to follow what  scripture you are referring to.  If this is the same as you mentioned before, it was Jesus rebuking Peter for trying to dissuade Jesus from His mission.

This is a method used by NT scholars. It comes from the Latin "folio meaning that the reference extents to the next “leaf” or page. It is most often used to refer to “verses following” without a direct endpoint in attempt to gather context.

 Which seems you are throwing things out to see if something sticks.

It does seem clear that the OP is simply attempting to be provocative. The refusal to accept any historical documents as “valid” or relevant does not reflect an attitude of open discussion.

Jesus is only saying that it is not for Peter to know.

I am not sure that this can even be asserted. It could be that Jesus is just telling Peter not to let his own mission be distracted by what God has called others to do. He is refocusing Peter, because if Peter focuses on the care and feeding of the flock, everything will fall into place. He needs to keep his focus on Christ, and not the brother next to him.

What He doesn't say is that your not in charge so why do you need to know?  Peter isn't above Jesus which is what you seem to think a Pope would be.  Peter is the vicar of Jesus.   He represents Jesus not rules Him.

This is a good point. The OP seems to be suggesting that Peter is trying to assert “authority” in his interactions with Christ.

It is not true. It was Jesus who gave him this position. I give you the Keys if you understood what this meant in scripture you wouldn’t be making up these attacks on Peter.

Tomi has to reject the meaning of the keys, or else give up protesting.

 

[ProdigalSun]

No, it means that each congregation is autonomous in electing its presbyters and overseers. There is still a governing body of the EV free Church. Not to mention it was created as a unification and merger of several different churches. Not by division.

Yes. They aren’t a denomination.

Not anymore than when your denomination divides.

Oh! So what you are saying is all these different denominations have there on pope much like the one True Church has “The Pope”

Cheers!

 

[guanophore]

you have been offered a differing interpretation, which you do not accept, so it is just an exercise in voicing your dislike for the papacy....:shrug:

I think you hit this nail on the head Pablo.

Sometimes short questions require long explanations to be adequate.
You have to read a bit to get those answers.

I don’t think the OP really wants any “answers” Randy, just an opportunity to vent spleen paid for by those of us that cherish CAF.

I am sure your posts will be helpful to others who read the threads, in addition to myself. Let us pray for the OP, that the scales may fall from the eyes.

No, it means that each congregation is autonomous in electing its presbyters and overseers.  There is still a governing body

It is certainly one way of replacing the authority appointed by Christ with that of one’s own choosing.

Yes. They aren’t a denomination.

I know they believe that, but when one examines the theology, it is clear they they denominated from the Reformation. All of them are defined by which parts, and how much of the Deposit of Faith they reject in the CC.

Not anymore than when your denomination divides.

HH, your hostility toward the CC is leaking out again. Had you considered forgiving those that have hurt you, so that you can be released unto joy?

 

[Randy_Carson]

You no doubt are fully aware I am sure that Christians have differing beliefs as to whether Peter was the rock or whether the rock was what Peter had professed.

Sure. They post here all the time.

What those folks may not realize, however, is that most Protestant scholars have come to acknowledge that Peter actually was the rock. Here’s just one:

Donald A. Carson (Baptist)

“On the basis of the distinction between ‘petros’ . . . and ‘petra’ . . . , many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Peter is a mere ‘stone,’ it is alleged; but Jesus himself is the ‘rock’ . . . Others adopt some other distinction . . . Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken ‘rock’ to be anything or anyone other than Peter . . . The Greek makes the distinction between ‘petros’ and ‘petra’ simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine ‘petra’ could not very well serve as a masculine name . . . Had Matthew wanted to say no more than that Peter was a stone in contrast with Jesus the Rock, the more common word would have been ‘lithos’ (‘stone’ of almost any size). Then there would have been no pun - and that is just the point! . . . In this passage Jesus is the builder of the church and it would be a strange mixture of metaphors that also sees him within the same clauses as its foundation . . .” (Expositor’s Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984], vol. 8: Matthew, Mark, Luke (Matthew: D.A. Carson), 368)

“The word Peter petros, meaning ‘rock,’ (Gk 4377) is masculine, and in Jesus’ follow-up statement he uses the feminine word petra (Gk 4376). On the basis of this change, many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken ‘rock’ to be anything or anyone other than Peter.” (Carson, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary [Zondervan, 1994], volume 2, page 78, as cited in Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page 18)

And that, my friend, becomes a game-changer when it sinks in. :yup:

 

[rfournier103]

Keep up the great work, Randy!

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Oh! So what you are saying is all these different denominations have there on pope much like the one True Church has “The Pope”

Cheers!

Not at all. No other denomination has a man who can unilaterally determine new dogma and excercise universal jurisdiction over any other denomination. No other denomination has one man who claims to be the sole representative of Christ on earth, to which all other bishops must submit. These are all false doctrines.

There are other denominations who have hierarchical leadership.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Actually, you accomplish quite the opposite.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

You are stating that he was the head of the Church. Well I don’t argue with that he was indeed head of Jesus’ Church.

Christ Jesus is always and will always be the head of the Church.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

When in the New Testament did Peter pass on his authority to the other apostles. Does your statement mean Paul was unable to ordain?

This idea of yours seems to emphasize Peter’s supremacy. I suppose in mad efforts to shore up erroneous theology, such mistakes occur.

Peter doesn’t demonstrate in the NT that he has authority over any other apostle. Nor does he act as the “Royal steward” or any other fanciful title.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

How does the Tome of Leo and the Council of Chalcedon fit in with your worldview?

“This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the Apostles! So we all believe! thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo! . . . This is the true faith!’” (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 451]).

Please take a look at this: biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/a35.htm

They accepted Leo’s statement because it was orthodox, not because they were bound to whatever he told them or that he was a “Royal Steward”.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Keep up the great work, Randy!

:tiphat:

 

[Randy_Carson]

Peter doesn’t demonstrate in the NT that he has authority over any other apostle. Nor does he act as the “Royal steward” or any other fanciful title.

Here’s an idea: why not log off for a few days and actually read the gospels, the Book of Acts, and Peter’s Epistles? Keep a highlighter handy.

Then, we can discuss what you have found for yourself when you’ve refreshed your memory.

Good?

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Here’s an idea: why not log off for a few days and actually read the gospels, the Book of Acts, and Peter’s Epistles? Keep a highlighter handy.

Then, we can discuss what you have found for yourself when you’ve refreshed your memory.

Good?

No matter how many times I read them there still won’t be any reference to Peter declaring that he has any greater authority than any other apostle, nor acting with the authority that modern day popes claim to possess.

No. He acted as a prominent apostle, and was held accountable by another apostle.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

If you name your daughter “Faith”, she does not become faith, but you desire her to have all the positive qualities of faith.

True.
When YOU change someone’s name.

But when GOD changes someone’s name, it’s a different story.

Did Peter take a lead among the apostles? Yes. But he was an apostle to the Jews, while Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles, and Acts can be read as the eclipse of Peter by Paul. It would, on reading Acts, be more convincing to decide that Paul should have been the first pope, not Peter (if he was one, but that would be ANOTHER thread).

Start a thread on that.

Your position won’t prove to be any better on that one than on this thread.

 

[ptisme]

I think God the Father is like the CIC and Jesus is the field commander. After all the Father is the supreme authority. Everything comes from the father.

You guys have this all wrong:
Field Commander=Peter
President=Jesus
World Banks=God
Due to the Triune nature of God/Jesus/Holy spirit, the President and the World Banks are one in the same and yet different….

 

[FathersKnowBest]

No matter how many times I read them there still won’t be any reference to Peter declaring that he has any greater authority than any other apostle, nor acting with the authority that modern day popes claim to possess.

Of course not.
If you have to tell everybody you’re the leader, then you’re not the leader.

He didn’t have to tell them; they knew because Christ told them. You should listen to Him.

No. He acted as a prominent apostle, and was held accountable by another apostle.

Actually, the Gospels themselves tell us that Peter was the FIRST <protos> among the Apostles:

Mt 10:2 The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother;

This word, according to Strong (a protestant), means:
contracted superlative of 4253; foremost (in time, place, order or importance):–before, beginning, best, chief(-est), first (of all), former.

So, Peter was foremost.
He wasn’t foremost in time (he was called AFTER his brother Andrew).
He wasn’t foremost in place (that would be inapplicable in context)
so that leaves …

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Of course not.
If you have to tell everybody you’re the leader, then you’re not the leader.

He didn’t have to tell them; they knew because Christ told them. You should listen to Him.

So, because neither him nor any other apostle make mention of this special office that is necessary to submit to for salvation, that silence MUST mean that it was absolutely true?

Have any of the modern popes or the popes throughout history claimed to be the leader?

Actually, the Gospels themselves tell us that Peter was the FIRST <protos> among the Apostles:

Mt 10:2 The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother;

This word, according to Strong (a protestant), means:
contracted superlative of 4253; foremost (in time, place, order or importance):–before, beginning, best, chief(-est), first (of all), former.

So, Peter was foremost.
He wasn’t foremost in time (he was called AFTER his brother Andrew).
He wasn’t foremost in place (that would be inapplicable in context)
so that leaves …

First amongst equals. No problem with that. That was the teaching of the early church and scripture.

 

[Gorgias]

Did someone ever give a name to the RC denomination?

Jesus. He called it “my Church”.

When others – denominations, not churches, as it were – left, they took the Bible with them, but not the name; I guess it was more intellectually honest to name themselves after their human founders.

 

[ptisme]

First amongst equals. No problem with that. That was the teaching of the early church and scripture.

You still have the problem of the “keys” and “binding” etc….