How do protestants determine heresy?

[rinnie]

I was going to say the same thing. Basically if they don’t agree, factions are made and out comes two groups. That is why we have thousands of denominations right now.

Okay lets go one step further.

Now the Pope has authority given to him by the passing of the keys. Now you can either reject it as the word of God or you can accept it for what it is.

Now my point we accept it as the word of God and have the scripture, History, and proof of Apostolic Succession to prove it.

Now again back to my point where is authority in any protestant religion?

Now if there is none, how can anyone teach?

Now if I say I have authority from personal revelation what makes my authority and personal revelation trump yours or vice-versa

 

[kylemccloughan]

Okay lets go one step further.

Now the Pope has authority given to him by the passing of the keys. Now you can either reject it as the word of God or you can accept it for what it is.

Can you show me where you get any of this from Scripture?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You should change your user name to Krakasmile! Protestants don’t believe the pope is the antichrist, maybe some before 1930, and no denominations teach it. That would be a heresy. If you can’t speak on actual Protestant teachings then don’t. Protestants look to Scripture to determine heresies, if you have any specifics feel free to ask.

While I would agree it’s not common, it’s not accurate that no denominations ‘teach’ it. Google it…

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Can you show me where you get any of this from Scripture?

It is scriptural, but would be off topic. If you wish to start another thread on the subject, send me a message and I’ll do my best to explain it to you; however, there are many old threads on the subject, that provide what you’re asking for. If you start a new thread, leave it open to all things scriptural, so we can ask where scriptures teach ‘many denominations/doctrines’.

 

[wmscott]

kylemccloughan;8088346:

RINNIE writes…Now the Pope has authority given to him by the passing of the keys. Now you can either reject it as the word of God or you can accept it for what it is.

**PAPACY & APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION
PRIMACY OF PETER **

Mt 16:18 - upon this rock (Peter) I will build my church. Mt 16;19 - give you keys of the kingdom; power to bind & loose. Lk 22:32 - Peter’s faith will strengthen his brethren. Jn 21:17 - given Christ’s flock as chief shepherd. Mk 16:7 - angel sent to announce Resurrection to Peter. Lk 24:34 - risen Jesus first appeared to Peter . Acts 1:13-26 - headed meeting which elected Matthias. Acts 2:14 - led Apostles in preaching on Pentecost. Acts 2:41 - received first converts. Acts 3:6-7 - performed first miracle after Pentecost. Acts 5:1-11 - inflicted first punishment: Ananias & Saphira. Acts 8:21 - excommunicated first heretic, Simon Magnus. Acts 10:44-46 - received revelation to admit Gentiles into Church
Acts 15:7 - led first council in Jerusalem. Acts 15:19 - pronounces first dogmatic decision
Gal 1:18 - after conversion, Paul visits chief Apostle
Peter’s name always heads list of Apostles: Mt 10;14; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16; Acts 1:13
“Peter and his companions” Lk 9:32; Mk 16:7
Spoke for Apostles - Mt 18:21; Mk 8:29; Lk 8:45; 12:41; Jn 6:69
Peter’s name occurs 195 times, more than all the rest put together

Now my point we accept it as the word of God and have the scripture, History, and proof of Apostolic Succession to prove it.

**APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION **2 Chr 19:11 - high priest is over you in everything of Lord’s. Mal 2:7 - seek instruction from priest, he is God’s messenger. Eph 2:20 - Church built upon foundation of apostles & prophets. Eph 4:11 - God gave some as apostles, others as prophets. 1 Cor 12:28-29 - God designated in church: apostles. Acts 1:20 - let another take his office. Acts 1:25-26 - Matthias takes Judas’ apostolic ministry. 1 Tim 3:1, 8; 5:17 - qualifications for: bishops, priests, & deacons. 1Tim 4:14 - gift conferred with the laying on of hands
1Tim 5:22 - do not lay hands too readily on anyone. Acts 14:23 - they appointed presbyters in each church
2Tim 2:2 - what you heard from me entrust to faithful teachers. Titus 1:5 - appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed
Now again back to my point where is authority in any protestant religion?

Now if there is none, how can anyone teach?

THE CHURCHMt 16:18-19 - upon this rock I will build my Church. Mt 18:17 - if he refuses to listen even to the Church.
Mt 28:18-20 - go baptize and teach all nations. Mk 16:15-16 - go to whole world and proclaim gospel
Lk 10:16 - whoever hears you, hears me; rejects you, rejects me. Jn 14:16, 26 - Holy Spirit with you always, teach/remind you of everything. Jn 16:13 - Spirit of truth will guide you to all truth. 1Tim 3:15 - Church is the pillar and foundation of truth.

**AUTHORITATIVE CHURCH **Mt 28:18-20 - Jesus delegates all power to Apostles. Jn 20:23 - power to forgive sin. 1Cor 11:23-24 - power to offer sacrifice (Eucharist). Lk 10:16 - power to speak with Christ’s voice. Mt 18:17 - power to discipline. Mt 18:18 - power to legislate

**INFALLIBLE CHURCH **Jn 16:13 - guided by Holy Spirit into all truth. Jn 14:26 - Holy Spirit to teach & remind them of everything
Lk 10:16 - speak with Christ’s own voice. 1Tim 3:15 - Church called “pillar and foundation of truth”
1Jn 2:27 - anointing of Holy Spirit remains in you. Acts 15:28 - Apostles speak with voice of Holy Spirit
Mt 28:20 - I am with you

Now if I say I have authority from personal revelation what makes my authority and personal revelation trump yours or vice-versa

**2Pet 1:20 **- no prophecy is a matter of private interpretation.

kylemccloughan asks…Can you show me where you get any of this from Scripture?

 

[JonNC]

I guess I should ask the question “Are there still heretics in Protestant churches?”.
Calvin and Luther accused people of heresy, does it still happen? Or, has relativism set in among the protestant and evangelical churches?

Well, of course there are heretics in protestant churches. I think Lutherans tend to use the term heterodox more often than heresy. I suspect though, that most confessional Lutherans would probably refer to the teaching of symbolic presence as a heresy, as well as some of the protestant teachings on Baptism, and even some of the eschatology floating around out there. And all lutherans recognize and condemn the heresies of the early Church era.

The LCMS does not share altar and pulpit with any group with which we do not have full doctrinal agreement. Say what one will, we are anything but relativists.

Jon

 

[Newsy]

Well, of course there are heretics in protestant churches. I think Lutherans tend to use the term heterodox more often than heresy. I suspect though, that most confessional Lutherans would probably refer to the teaching of symbolic presence as a heresy, as well as some of the protestant teachings on Baptism, and even some of the eschatology floating around out there. And all lutherans recognize and condemn the heresies of the early Church era.

The LCMS does not share altar and pulpit with any group with which we do not have full doctrinal agreement. Say what one will, we are anything but relativists.

Jon

Thanks for that info. I was pretty sure the LCMS was a conservative denomination, but it’s nice to get it straight from a member.

 

[kylemccloughan]

wmscott:
Thank you for your efforts on that. My problem still lies in the passages you use to try and positively respond to the claims of the Roman Catholic church. Lets start with Jesus speaking to Peter. In the original Greek, there are two different words used when talking about rock. First is Peter (Petros) and then Jesus say upon this rock (Petras) I will build my Church. This is very problematic in my view to try and show where Peter is the rock upon which Jesus builds his Church. I think Scripture actually shows that Peter is a small stone built up in a temple of small stones and Jesus is the Cornerstone of the Church. The Greek clearly shows two different words here for rock.

Also too, I think that the entire book of Acts really deals with how Jesus gave authority to all of the Apostles.

 

[Tiberius1701]

Thank you for your efforts on that. My problem still lies in the passages you use to try and positively respond to the claims of the Roman Catholic church. Lets start with Jesus speaking to Peter. In the original Greek, there are two different words used when talking about rock. First is Peter (Petros) and then Jesus say upon this rock (Petras) I will build my Church. This is very problematic in my view to try and show where Peter is the rock upon which Jesus builds his Church. I think Scripture actually shows that Peter is a small stone built up in a temple of small stones and Jesus is the Cornerstone of the Church. The Greek clearly shows two different words here for rock.

I have to ask, do you know any languages that change the endings of words regularly? Latin? Greek? Spanish? Dutch? Italian? German? etc? The difference between petros and petra is nothing but gender. It’s like Jesus saying, “You are Computador, and on this computadora I will build my database.” He’s talking to a man: gender (obviously), male. But, rock, in Greek, was naturally gendered feminine (just as computer is in Spanish), so, when he moved from the naming of a man (male) to the more general noun which was the reason for the naming, he went back to the abstract gender of the noun (female). If you told a Spanish speaking man, whom you were naming Computer, in the above example, “You are Computador, and on this computador I will build my database,” he’d look at you very confusedly, as though you were a first-year Spanish speaker who’d made a gigantic blunder in grammar. Making the abstract computer male simply wouldn’t make sense to him. But neither would making the name of the male person female.

Secondly, the only reason you believe that petros means “tiny pebble” is because of Protestant lexicon-writers who, in order to undermine the Papacy, drew from completely different dialects of Greek - all of which had died out at least 200 years prior to Christ’s birth - to get that definition for petros as opposed to petra. In* Koine*, which was the dialect spoken then, no such distinction existed.

Thirdly, don’t forget that this wasn’t just said anywhere. This was said in Caesarea Phillipi, where there is a massive rockface, under which is found a pit that was commonly referred to as the Gates of Hades. Jesus stood there, and turned to Simon saying, “And I tell you, you are Rock, and on this rock I will build My Church, and the Gates of Hades shall not prevail against it” (Matt 16:18). You’re telling me that, what He meant to say was, “And I tell you, you are Pebble, and on this Gigantic Rock [the significance of which cannot be found in this sentence since, obviously, you’re not it] I will build My Church, and the Gates of Hades shall not prevail against it [whatever “it” is…]”? Wow. That’s a profoundly disappointing interpretation. Not to mention that, grammatically, it thus makes no sense. If Petros was meant to have an entirely different meaning than petra, Jesus is forced to make no logical sense at all, grammatically speaking. Think about it: “You are pebble, and on this enormous-rockface I will build My Church”? The Apostles would’ve stared at him and gone, “What the Hades are you talking about???” But they didn’t. They accepted His words in silent obedience, even though, when they don’t understand Him elsewhere, they ask him exactly that, “What are you talking about???” Either that, or they’d assume that He meant they should found a Rabbinical School of Jesusites right there in Caesarea Phillipi, but they didn’t do that, either, did they?

Jesus, like the Catholic Church, accepts that people are physical beings - after all, He created us that way! So, when he uses a massive, physical “visual aid,” we would do well to consider the import of it. He didn’t take them miles north of Jerusalem and stand them in front of a gigantic rockface with a cave called “the Gates of Hades” beneath it just to call someone a pebble and then talk philosophically about founding His Church on some non-physical declaration. No. He took Peter and the Eleven there to show them that He was making Peter the same kind of massive foundation, standing between the netherworld and the People of God, that that incredible rockface still is to this day. Go there, look at the visual aid that still stands today, and then tell me that He didn’t mean what He very clearly said.

 

[ltwin]

How do protestants determine heresy?

Simple answer? Heresy is determined by reading the Bible. If something contradicts what the Bible considers to be fundamental to the Christian faith, then it is heresy. How are the fundamentals determined? This determination ultimately will be shaped by the theological tradition(s) one has been influenced by.

Individual Protestants would look to the pastor and authorities of their local church. Local church authorities and pastors would look to their denominational confessions and belief statements. These are usually enacted by the highest governing body (after Christ of course) of the denomination. This could be a legislature (such as the General Convention of the American Episcopal Church) or a more selective institution.

“Liberal” mainline Protestant churches generally tolerate more “diversity” in belief. This can even include direct and blatant disregard for the denomination’s stated fundamental beliefs. More “conservative” evangelical or fundamentalist denominations are less inclined to tolerate doctrinal innovation or heresy.

If you are in the “non-denominational” churches or those that adhere to strict congregational polity than the congregation (or whatever other legitimate authority has been put in place) is ultimately the final arbiter of what occurs in the church. If they are truly Protestant (as in believe that Scripture is the “all-sufficient rule for faith and practice”) the Bible will be their guide. However, even “non-denominational” churches aren’t free from the influences of traditions and theological points of view. These will shape how the individual church interprets Scripture.

Even congregationally governed churches, however, will usually subscribe to a higher authority-even if it is on a non-hierarchical and loose basis. The Southern Baptist Convention is a good example. Baptists have historically preferred congregational polity. This does not prevent them from joining voluntary associations, like the SBC. The convention has a statement of belief-The Baptist Faith and Message which SBC owned institutions are required to adhere to-but individual members and churches do not have to subscribe to it. However, the SBC can kick a Baptist church out of the convention if it fundamentally differs from what is stated in the BFM.

 

[kylemccloughan]

I have to ask, do you know any languages that change the endings of words regularly? Latin? Greek? Spanish? Dutch? Italian? German? etc? The difference between petros and petra is nothing but gender. It’s like Jesus saying, “You are Computador, and on this computadora I will build my database.” He’s talking to a man: gender (obviously), male. But, rock, in Greek, was naturally gendered feminine (just as computer is in Spanish), so, when he moved from the naming of a man (male) to the more general noun which was the reason for the naming, he went back to the abstract gender of the noun (female). If you told a Spanish speaking man, whom you were naming Computer, in the above example, “You are Computador, and on this computador I will build my database,” he’d look at you very confusedly, as though you were a first-year Spanish speaker who’d made a gigantic blunder in grammar. Making the abstract computer male simply wouldn’t make sense to him. But neither would making the name of the male person female.

Secondly, the only reason you believe that petros means “tiny pebble” is because of Protestant lexicon-writers who, in order to undermine the Papacy, drew from completely different dialects of Greek - all of which had died out at least 200 years prior to Christ’s birth - to get that definition for petros as opposed to petra. In* Koine*, which was the dialect spoken then, no such distinction existed.

Thirdly, don’t forget that this wasn’t just said anywhere. This was said in Caesarea Phillipi, where there is a massive rockface, under which is found a pit that was commonly referred to as the Gates of Hades. Jesus stood there, and turned to Simon saying, “And I tell you, you are Rock, and on this rock I will build My Church, and the Gates of Hades shall not prevail against it” (Matt 16:18). You’re telling me that, what He meant to say was, “And I tell you, you are Pebble, and on this Gigantic Rock [the significance of which cannot be found in this sentence since, obviously, you’re not it] I will build My Church, and the Gates of Hades shall not prevail against it [whatever “it” is…]”? Wow. That’s a profoundly disappointing interpretation. Not to mention that, grammatically, it thus makes no sense. If Petros was meant to have an entirely different meaning than petra, Jesus is forced to make no logical sense at all, grammatically speaking. Think about it: “You are pebble, and on this enormous-rockface I will build My Church”? The Apostles would’ve stared at him and gone, “What the Hades are you talking about???” But they didn’t. They accepted His words in silent obedience, even though, when they don’t understand Him elsewhere, they ask him exactly that, “What are you talking about???” Either that, or they’d assume that He meant they should found a Rabbinical School of Jesusites right there in Caesarea Phillipi, but they didn’t do that, either, did they?

Jesus, like the Catholic Church, accepts that people are physical beings - after all, He created us that way! So, when he uses a massive, physical “visual aid,” we would do well to consider the import of it. He didn’t take them miles north of Jerusalem and stand them in front of a gigantic rockface with a cave called “the Gates of Hades” beneath it just to call someone a pebble and then talk philosophically about founding His Church on some non-physical declaration. No. He took Peter and the Eleven there to show them that He was making Peter the same kind of massive foundation, standing between the netherworld and the People of God, that that incredible rockface still is to this day. Go there, look at the visual aid that still stands today, and then tell me that He didn’t mean what He very clearly said.

I find that your argument is mostly combative toward anything you perceive to be Protestant. I don’t wish to argue with you about this in long condescending dialogues due to the fact that Protestants like myself are much more likely to be kicked out of here for arguing than those like yourself. I simply showed where Jesus plainly in the Greek did not use the same word when dealing with Peter and then to deal with the foundation of the Church. Period. That is the fact. Say what you wish about dialects or Protestants trying to undermine the pope or whatever else you wish to throw at this but the facts are right there in Scripture.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Here’s how all Protestants determine heresy…

If its taught by the Catholic Church, its heresy

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I find that your argument is mostly combative toward anything you perceive to be Protestant. I don’t wish to argue with you about this in long condescending dialogues due to the fact that Protestants like myself are much more likely to be kicked out of here for arguing than those like yourself. I simply showed where Jesus plainly in the Greek did not use the same word when dealing with Peter and then to deal with the foundation of the Church. Period. That is the fact. Say what you wish about dialects or Protestants trying to undermine the pope or whatever else you wish to throw at this but the facts are right there in Scripture.

Yes, facts are facts, but scriptures appear to be open to interpretation and often for biased reasons.

Have you considered the time and culture in which Matthew wrote the Gospel? Would there have been any implications if he had referred to Peter in a feminine sense? Matthew would not have referred to Peter, in a written documentation, in a feminine sense. He used the masculine form for ‘rock’.

Also, Christ spoke Aramaic, which only has one word for rock; Cephas/Kephas.

Immediately following the announcement of building His Church, Christ continued speaking to Peter telling him He would give him the keys to the kingdom of heaven and whatsoever he bound, or loosed, on earth would be so in heaven. It speaks clearly.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I find that your argument is mostly combative toward anything you perceive to be Protestant. I don’t wish to argue with you about this in long condescending dialogues due to the fact that Protestants like myself are much more likely to be kicked out of here for arguing than those like yourself. I simply showed where Jesus plainly in the Greek did not use the same word when dealing with Peter and then to deal with the foundation of the Church. Period. That is the fact. Say what you wish about dialects or Protestants trying to undermine the pope or whatever else you wish to throw at this but the facts are right there in Scripture.

Caesarea Philippi is a mountain, which primarily consisted of a massive rock. Originally, Caesarea Philippi was Panion, the city of the Greek God Pan. Pan was the God of shepherds and flocks, among other things. It was believed by people of the time of Christ and before, that there was an entrance to a great abyss, or hades/hell, located in the mountain.

Panion had statues of Zeus, as well as Pan, on this pagan holy place.

Why, of all places, did Christ choose Caesarea Philippi, so named Caesarea in honour of Caesar Augustus? Herod the Great, Herod Philip, had built a temple to Augustus there. This place, where men worshipped side by side the forces of nature and political power, was the place chosen by our Lord. The same place His divinity was professed by Peter.

It was not chance, it was meaningful. The place that had kept men from the kingdom of heaven was chosen by our Lord to be the place where He announced His Church that would bring men to the kingdom of heaven.

This was the place He re-named Simon, Kipha, rock, Peter. This was the place He said He would give the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven to Peter. The same place He stated, “…and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

Name changes in the Bible were significant. Name changes in the Old Testament always included explanations. Abram becomes Abraham because God will make of him a great nation. Jacob becomes Israel because he contended and had power with God and with men and prevailed.

Simon becomes Peter, Kipha/rock, because his strength of faith would have Christ’s Church built upon it.

To understand the symbolism of the “keys”, I suggest reading the passage containing Isaiah 22:22.

Isa 22:22 And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open.

1Chron 9 details the specifics of the keys.

The person who was designated as the keeper of the keys was the “right hand man” of the king. He literally sat at the right hand of the king’s throne.

1Ch 29:23 And Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord as king instead of David his father, and he pleased all: and all Israel obeyed him.

The keeper of the keys serves as prime minister to the King. He sits upon the earthly throne…until Christ returns.

 

[ltwin]

Here’s how all Protestants determine heresy…

If its taught by the Catholic Church, its heresy

Hmm??? I’m assuming that that was a joke.

 

[kylemccloughan]

Caesarea Philippi is a mountain, which primarily consisted of a massive rock. Originally, Caesarea Philippi was Panion, the city of the Greek God Pan. Pan was the God of shepherds and flocks, among other things. It was believed by people of the time of Christ and before, that there was an entrance to a great abyss, or hades/hell, located in the mountain.

Panion had statues of Zeus, as well as Pan, on this pagan holy place.

Why, of all places, did Christ choose Caesarea Philippi, so named Caesarea in honour of Caesar Augustus? Herod the Great, Herod Philip, had built a temple to Augustus there. This place, where men worshipped side by side the forces of nature and political power, was the place chosen by our Lord. The same place His divinity was professed by Peter.

It was not chance, it was meaningful. The place that had kept men from the kingdom of heaven was chosen by our Lord to be the place where He announced His Church that would bring men to the kingdom of heaven.

This was the place He re-named Simon, Kipha, rock, Peter. This was the place He said He would give the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven to Peter. The same place He stated, “…and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

Name changes in the Bible were significant. Name changes in the Old Testament always included explanations. Abram becomes Abraham because God will make of him a great nation. Jacob becomes Israel because he contended and had power with God and with men and prevailed.

Simon becomes Peter, Kipha/rock, because his strength of faith would have Christ’s Church built upon it.

To understand the symbolism of the “keys”, I suggest reading the passage containing Isaiah 22:22.

Isa 22:22 And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open.

1Chron 9 details the specifics of the keys.

The person who was designated as the keeper of the keys was the “right hand man” of the king. He literally sat at the right hand of the king’s throne.

1Ch 29:23 And Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord as king instead of David his father, and he pleased all: and all Israel obeyed him.

The keeper of the keys serves as prime minister to the King. He sits upon the earthly throne…until Christ returns.

I appreciate your post here and I am aware of the history you spoke of. It still doesn’t explain away the need for there to be two words used in the same sentence used by Jesus himself to deal with Peter and to deal with the foundation of the Church. If Peter genuinely is whom Jesus founded his Church, then why isn’t the same word used? You see, this is the real stumbling block. When we look at the NT beyond Matthew’s Gospel, we see that Jesus gave authority to all the Apostles, not just Peter. Much of the Book of Acts is very problematic to your argument as well.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I appreciate your post here and I am aware of the history you spoke of. It still doesn’t explain away the need for there to be two words used in the same sentence used by Jesus himself to deal with Peter and to deal with the foundation of the Church. If Peter genuinely is whom Jesus founded his Church, then why isn’t the same word used? You see, this is the real stumbling block. When we look at the NT beyond Matthew’s Gospel, we see that Jesus gave authority to all the Apostles, not just Peter. Much of the Book of Acts is very problematic to your argument as well.

Because you’re reading a retelling of the story as documented in writing by Matthew. Is Matthew remembering verbatim the words spoken, or giving us the ‘gist’ of the story. You realize this was not written down as they were spoken, but many years later. We see slight differences in wording throughout the four Gospels, referencing the same stories.

Then in John’s Gospel, Christ singles Peter out yet again. This time repeating the same instructions, ‘Feed my sheep/lambs’. Christ taught there was to be one shepherd and one flock. This does not remove any authority of Christ. Christ knew He would be physically absent on earth and needed a ‘prime minister’ to act in His place.

The Book of Acts shows Peter, first slowly, asserting his authority. He called for the replacement of Judas. He spoke at the first council of Jerusalem and his words were confirmed by the bishop of Jerusalem. He spoke converting thousands at Pentecost. He dealt with Ananais and Saphira lying to the Holy Spirit. He refused the rich man who tried to buy imposition of hands to receive the Holy Spirit. Then move forward in time and see what the early Church fathers said about the primacy of Peter.

Sticking with scriptures, read every time the Apostles are listed by name. Who’s name comes first? Who is sometimes mentioned by name and those with him referred to as ‘companions’, without being named. Peter’s name appears in scriptures around 92 times, more than all the other Apostles added together. When the Apostles had questions of Christ, who generally spoke the question the majority of the time? His primacy is shown in scriptures…

EDITED TO ADD: Christ did tell all the Apostles they had the power to bind and loose, with it being so in heaven; however, only one received the keys and was set apart. When He spoke of the authority to the others, He had already designated one and announced His authoritative Church. In the same chapter He gave others the authority to bind and loose, He specifically spoke of taking offenses to the Church. Christ chose and appointed those men and Paul gave us the hierarchy.

1Co 12:28 And God indeed hath set some in the church; first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly doctors: after that miracles: then the graces of healings, helps, governments, kinds of tongues, interpretations of speeches.

 

[kylemccloughan]

Because you’re reading a retelling of the story as documented in writing by Matthew. Is Matthew remembering verbatim the words spoken, or giving us the ‘gist’ of the story. You realize this was not written down as they were spoken, but many years later. We see slight differences in wording throughout the four Gospels, referencing the same stories.

Of course it is a retelling but it is also the inherant word of God coming through the writers by the Holy Spirit. That being said, this is a vitally (name removed by moderator)ortant place in any part of Scripture and I can’t help but see that if it were to be as you say, one word, one single statement about authority would be made here, but its not.

Then in John’s Gospel, Christ singles Peter out yet again. This time repeating the same instructions, ‘Feed my sheep/lambs’. Christ taught there was to be one shepherd and one flock. This does not remove any authority of Christ. Christ knew He would be physically absent on earth and needed a ‘prime minister’ to act in His place.

In the full context of what the NT says, I do not agree.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

In the full context of what the NT says, I do not agree.

When you respond in a quote, it makes it very hard to address all the points you raise.

What you said about the inerrant word of God fails when we compare the four Gospels against one another. Different words are used by the individual authors when retelling the same story, but the ‘gist’ remains the same according to how the authors remembered it.

Because what Peter spoke about not wanting Christ to suffer. It was a temptation of the flesh and who had tempted Christ, Himself? Do you really think He promised the keys to the kingdom of heaven and then immediately called the receiver Satan?

I confirmed all the Apostles were chosen and appointed by Christ, but one was singled out over the rest. One received the truth about Christ from the Father, Christ said so in Matthew 16:17. He commanded them to go out to all nations, this was not a one man job. Through ecumenical councils all participate to bind and loose, but one has the keys and the final word.

Paul counseled Peter and Peter listened to his bishop, as any good Pope would do.

Paul told the Hebrews that the brethren in Italy saluted them. Who were these brethren? And why do all the early Church fathers attribute Peter as being in Rome? Why do we listen to Christians today as having solid truth and so easily discount the writings of the first Christians in history?

Irenaeus

But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [inter A.D. 180-190]).

Clement of Alexandria

[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? “Behold, we have left all and have followed you” [Matt. 19:2 7, Mark 10:28] (Who is the Rich Man That is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]).

Tertullian

[T]he Lord said to Peter, “On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven” [Matt. 16:18-19]. … Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).

Letter of Clement to James

Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D, 221]).

Cyprian

With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).

The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church” . . . On him he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was , but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 [A.D. 251]).

 

[JonNC]

Here’s how all Protestants determine heresy…

If its taught by the Catholic Church, its heresy

You’re a better apologist than this. Think about the fact the Lutherans and Catholics agree on the vast majority of doctrines. We both accept the first 7 councils, infant Baptism necessary for the forgiveness of sin, the real and substantial presence, and countless other things.

Jon