How do protestants explain the time between Christ and the reformation?

[hope]

Your explanation is false. I explained why. He used a number indicating that he was referring to not having more than one wife. He wasn’t referring to having multiple wives but that he could only have one wife. According to you,he also must have children. Jesus and Paul would not have been a bishop. CRAZY!

Maybe it will be clearer to you by this translation
1 Timothy Chapter 3

2 Now a bishop must be above reproach, married only once, temperate, sensible, respectable, hospitable, an apt teacher,

 

[ReadTheBible]

I think we’ve been over the entire Peter view.

I understand your view and why you think it. I don’t agree. The entire context of the passage when Jesus talks about building his Church is around faith. The Jews saw Jesus and the miracles he worked and didn’t believe. Peter saw the miracles and believed Jesus was the son of God, and, didn’t hesitate in that belief. It’s the belief or faith Jesus is building his church upon, not Peter. What need is there to build on Peter when there’s already a cornerstone? There isn’t any and I’ve already alluded to what Peter said himself that we are all the same numerous times.

 

[JonNC]

I don’t think we disagree about The TULIP generally, though I am very aware of the difference between I and P.
My point remains that your claim in your initially comments is not applicable to anyone butCalvinists.

 

[JonNC]

I continuously pray for THOSE outside.

Since I’m in the Catholic Church don’t include me in we.

I’m Catholic, too, so we it is. Catholic is not limited to communion with the pope.

 

[hope]

No you haven’t been over the entire view of Peter. You haven’t addressed the name change. You haven’t addressed the keys. You are not incorrect that Peter’s faith has much to do with it. But to ignore the rest means you are not getting the entire what scripture means. You seem to think that scripture is at odds with itself. You seem to believe that if Jesus is cornerstone that the Apostles cannot be the foundation.
Not true. Jesus said he was going to build His Church on Peter. You are rock and upon this rock I will build My Church.

 

[EZweber]

I understand your view and why you think it. I don’t agree. The entire context of the passage when Jesus talks about building his Church is around faith. The Jews saw Jesus and the miracles he worked and didn’t believe. Peter saw the miracles and believed Jesus was the son of God, and, didn’t hesitate in that belief. It’s the belief or faith Jesus is building his church upon, not Peter. What need is there to build on Peter when there’s already a cornerstone? There isn’t any and I’ve already alluded to what Peter said himself that we are all the same numerous times.

As I said before (quoting from memory) “You are Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Can you seriously tell me with a straight face that the emphasized text is not conferring authority? The other parts are also pretty strong on Peter. I might note that the last time I said that, no one answered.

 

[ReadTheBible]

The only authority Jesus is bestowing on Peter (and the rest of the apostles) is the knowledge, which are the keys, on how to get to Heaven.

Jesus is not telling Peter that he is handing him the literal key to heaven and hell. This would negate Isaiah.

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

Peter is not the door keeper to Heaven. This power is Christ’s alone.

Revelation 3:7 affirms this
7 And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth;
8 I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name.

Jesus the Messiah holds the key, no mortal man. Not Peter, nor the popes have this authority.

When Jesus tells Peter about binding and loosening again this is referring to doctrines, or declarations of what is lawful and unlawful.

See Ecclesiastics 12:11 The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd.

Jesus tells Peter and the apostles they will have the power to bind, make unlawful, and to loose, make lawful by his authority and guided by the Holy Spirit. We see this played out in the New Testament.

They loosed many things, made them lawful, that were forbidden previously: (circumcision, conversation, and interactions between Jews and Gentiles, the eating of any sort of food, Gentiles were no longer to be considered unclean)

They also bound things, made them unlawful things that previously were lawful: (They bound, or forbid the observance of new moons, days, and months, and times, and years.)

See Galations 4:9-10 & Colossians 2:16-17

So Yes with a straight face and all sincerity I fully accept Catholicism is in error about Peter’s authority, or what they deem as his authority.

 

[EZweber]

When Jesus tells Peter about binding and loosening again this is referring to doctrines, or declarations of what is lawful and unlawful.

1. That is only based on your subjective interpretation. The verse you cite proves nothing.
2. That sounds an awful lot like infallibility to me.

 

[EZweber]

Jesus is not telling Peter that he is handing him the literal key to heaven and hell. This would negate Isaiah.

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

Peter is not the door keeper to Heaven. This power is Christ’s alone.

Revelation 3:7 affirms this
7 And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth;
8 I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name.

The quote in Isaiah is taken out of context. Isaiah is not referring to David, the most common symbol of Christ. He is talking about Eliakim, the prime minister. This implies Peter if anyone. Revalation 7 could easily refer to Peter, and in Revalation 8, Peter closing a door that Christ opened is not part of the authority given here.

 

[EZweber]

Jesus tells Peter and the apostles they will have the power to bind, make unlawful, and to loose, make lawful by his authority and guided by the Holy Spirit. We see this played out in the New Testament.

If the Apostles have successors, this authority would obviously pass to them. The bishops are the successors of the Apostles.

 

[JonNC]

ReadTheBible:

I understand your view and why you think it. I don’t agree. The entire context of the passage when Jesus talks about building his Church is around faith. The Jews saw Jesus and the miracles he worked and didn’t believe. Peter saw the miracles and believed Jesus was the son of God, and, didn’t hesitate in that belief. It’s the belief or faith Jesus is building his church upon, not Peter. What need is there to build on Peter when there’s already a cornerstone? There isn’t any and I’ve already alluded to what Peter said himself that we are all the same numerous times.

As I said before (quoting from memory) “You are Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Can you seriously tell me with a straight face that the emphasized text is not conferring authority? The other parts are also pretty strong on Peter. I might note that the last time I said that, no one answered.

While you and I will disagree on the extent of Peter’s authority, the power to bind and loose, is clearly an authority to bind or loose sin.

 

[steve-b]

I don’t except Peter was given any authority greater than any other apostle.

On the contrary

Lk 22: 24 A dispute also arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest 25Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. 26But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules ἡγούμενος like the one who serves. 27For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves. 28You are those who have stood by me in my trials. 29And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, 30so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 31“Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift all of you as wheat. 32But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen στήρισον your brothers.”

Jesus clearly identified one apostle Simon (Peter) as greatest among THEM and would rule. And it is quoted in scripture

Jesus singles Peter out again in front of the others, as He usually does, (settling this time their argument over who is greatest among THEM) and says this about Peter, Lk 22 ἡγούμενος

Catch that? From the Greek study bible, Open the link

Peter is

to lead … a) to go before b) to be a leader
to rule, command
to have authority over
a prince, of regal power, governor, viceroy, chief, leading as respects influence, controlling in counsel, overseers or leaders of the churches
used of any kind of leader, chief, commander
the leader in speech, chief, spokesman)to rule, govern
of rulers
to furnish pasture for food
to nourish
to supply the requisites for the soul’s need

Add up the traits referring to Peter. Peter is to lead, feed, rule, command, have authority over the churches, govern, and control in counsels… make stable his brothers, strengthen them, and confirm them…and be the chief spokesman. And it goes without saying, Jesus expects the apostles to follow Peter’s lead. (look at the definition above for [ ἡγούμενος ]. That ends their argument and every body elses…right?
And let’s not forget John 17:18-23 there is to be zero division in Our Lord’s plan

You catch all that? Jesus prayer should also answer the required communion with 1 bishop. You can’t refute that evidence.

Gee, Sounds like Jesus describes and defends the papacy and His One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church

ReadTheBible:

All 12 apostles have thrones in Heaven. None are mentioned to be of higher stature. All 12 are given the same job in Heaven of judging the tribes of Israel…

you’ve been shown Peter is the greatest among THEM

 

[steve-b]

EZweber:

ReadTheBible:

I understand your view and why you think it. I don’t agree. The entire context of the passage when Jesus talks about building his Church is around faith. The Jews saw Jesus and the miracles he worked and didn’t believe. Peter saw the miracles and believed Jesus was the son of God, and, didn’t hesitate in that belief. It’s the belief or faith Jesus is building his church upon, not Peter. What need is there to build on Peter when there’s already a cornerstone? There isn’t any and I’ve already alluded to what Peter said himself that we are all the same numerous times.

As I said before (quoting from memory) “You are Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Can you seriously tell me with a straight face that the emphasized text is not conferring authority? The other parts are also pretty strong on Peter. I might note that the last time I said that, no one answered.

While you and I will disagree on the extent of Peter’s authority, the power to bind and loose, is clearly an authority to bind or loose sin.

It’s more than that. https://www.catholic.com/qa/can-the-church-change-its-doctrines

 

[EZweber]

While you and I will disagree on the extent of Peter’s authority, the power to bind and loose, is clearly an authority to bind or loose sin.

It is clearly that? Even if it is just that, you just gave very strong evidence for Confession. But why do you say it is clearly the authority to bind and loose sin? It’s not implied by the context.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

While you and I will disagree on the extent of Peter’s authority, the power to bind and loose, is clearly an authority to bind or loose sin.

It is clearly that? Even if it is just that, you just gave very strong evidence for Confession. But why do you say it is clearly the authority to bind and loose sin? It’s not implied by the context.

It is precisely the strong evidence for confession/Holy Absolution.

A very well written article about it
http://saintpaulsirvine.com/resources/sermons/the-keys-of-the-church-binding-and-loosing/

 

[ReadTheBible]

On the contrary

Lk 22: 24 A dispute also arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest 25Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. 26But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules ἡγούμενος like the one who serves. 27For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves. 28You are those who have stood by me in my trials. 29And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, 30so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 31“Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift all of you as wheat. 32But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen στήρισον your brothers.”

Jesus clearly identified one apostle Simon (Peter) as greatest among THEM and would rule. And it is quoted in scripture

Jesus singles Peter out again in front of the others, as He usually does, (settling this time their argument over who is greatest among THEM) and says this about Peter, Lk 22 ἡγούμενος

Catch that? From the Greek study bible, Open the link

Utterly nowhere does Jesus tell Peter or the apostles that Peter is to be their leader. The verse right before you quoted have the apostles arguing to see which is the traitor. They then argue over which will be the greatest.

Jesus knows that Satan has asked God to test the apostles. It’s extremely similar to Job. Jesus knows Peter is going to stumble 3 times correct? Jesus tells Peter he will deny him three times but Jesus says he has prayed for Peter that what shall not fail him?? Faith. Jesus knows the root of faith is firm in Peter and although he knows Peter will stumble three times, in the end Peter is saved because his faith does not go away. He never stops believing in the Messiah.

Having gone through this stumbling and sin Jesus knows he will be in a place of understanding to help those who have gone through similar strife. Peter can give them strength because he himself struggled.

Nowhere, absolutely, 10,000% nowhere in scripture does it say Peter has authority over all the apostles for if it did there wouldn’t be anyone to question it.

 

[ReadTheBible]

Again, you take that passage in scripture and believe what you are bound and obligated to believe it says, so says Catholicism.

You quote John 18
18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.
19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.
20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

You do error again. This has nothing to do with a hierarchy. Jesus is praying that all the apostles are of one mind and doctrine. Again, there isn’t one hint of a hierarchy, or 1 Bishop, or one holy Catholic church. It’s not there. You are free to believe what you wish but you act like there’s some definitive evidence and it’s exactly the contrary.

you’ve been shown Peter is the greatest among THEM

No, in fact I’ve shown Peter is the same as the other 11.

 

[EZweber]

It is precisely the strong evidence for confession/Holy Absolution.

A very well written article about it
http://saintpaulsirvine.com/resources/sermons/the-keys-of-the-church-binding-and-loosing/

I read it and there is much that I agree with. Obviously, I have concerns about a Lutheran minister hearing confessions, but let’s concentrate on the original point. I saw no reason why the binding and loosing should only apply to sin; the article doesn’t address it. The context says nothing about sin specifically.

 

[EZweber]

Utterly nowhere does Jesus tell Peter or the apostles that Peter is to be their leader.

Just a note; there are 2 Apostles whose position in the list of Apostles remain constant: Peter first, Judas last. The others move around in the list.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

It is precisely the strong evidence for confession/Holy Absolution.

A very well written article about it
http://saintpaulsirvine.com/resources/sermons/the-keys-of-the-church-binding-and-loosing/

I read it and there is much that I agree with. Obviously, I have concerns about a Lutheran minister hearing confessions, but let’s concentrate on the original point. I saw no reason why the binding and loosing should only apply to sin; the article doesn’t address it. The context says nothing about sin specifically.

Why would you have a problem with an ordained Lutheran pastor hearing confessions and granting absolution?
Lutheran pastors are applying the power of the keys to find and loose, as well as Maury he sanctity of the confessional.

The context says nothing about sin specifically.

What other context has the Church historically offered than the binding and loosing of sin ?