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

[steve-b]

steve-b:

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.

[snip] for space

This reminds me of a story Jesus told

Jesus gave His “disciples” the bread of life discourse. He knew in advance they had no faith, AND He also knew in advance they would walk away from Him, because they disagreed with Him. HERE

But He taught it to them anyway because He knew they absolutely needed to know what He was going to teach them.

No place in scripture am I required to win a point. I only have to give the information when the opportunity presents itself.

Jesus is the perfect example.

even God in the flesh, Jesus, couldn’t get through to those disciples EVEN teaching them face to face

That example IMV is one of the scariest passages in all of scripture

 

[ReadTheBible]

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.

There is no question Peter had leadership qualities and was allowed to do some things first. He was first to offer the gospel to the gentiles. He’s the one that spoke up to replace Judas. He laid hands on the Samaritans. He preached the first gospel of the christian church. Certainly Peter can be looked upon as a righteous man and important in spreading Christianity.

What does Peter himself say concerning his authority or title?

1 Peter 5:1
The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:

He’s one of the elders. He doesn’t say I am above the elders among you. Not at all. Peter is one of them, same stature, same authority, they are one.

2 Peter 1-1
Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:

Funny, again Peter calls himself a servant and apostle. Why? Why doesn’t Peter say a servant of Christ and Chief Holy Apostle with all authority?

He’s the same as the other apostles when it comes to authority. Read on in 1 Peter

2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;
3 Neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being examples to the flock.
4 And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.

This is Peter talking to the “elders” to which he just counted himself a part of. He’s telling the elders to feed the flock of God. Why doesn’t Peter talk to one person and say, when I’m gone, you shall be the new Holy Leader?

Peter refused to be treated differently, unlike the Pope.

25 And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.
26 But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.

Isn’t that strange? Why doesn’t Peter want to be treated differently if he’s in this all powerful seat of Papal infallibility?

Peter never mentions anything regarding authority, papacy, passing on of authority in his last letter before his death. Surely this was the time to mention it to someone right???

 

[steve-b]

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.

It doesn’t matter the point, you disagree.

you’ve been shown Peter is the greatest among THEM

ReadTheBible:

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

All are apostles. One is greater. Not by his own hand but that of Jesus.

Deny it all you want.

 

[ReadTheBible]

Peter goes on to contradict the entire notion Catholicism has carried and changed for 2000 years, that of tradition.

2 Peter
2 Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,
3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:

This is in contradiction to the claims of Rome that Scripture is somehow incomplete. If at the time Peter wrote this letter, Jesus had already given believers everything that they need, what therefore is the point of two thousand years of so-called holy tradition which the Roman Church adds to the Scripture?

Peter was never treated as an authoritative figure by the other apostles.

What did Paul say concerning this?

2 Corinthians 11
11 I am become a fool in glorying; ye have compelled me: for I ought to have been commended of you: for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing.

2 Corrinthians 11
28 Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches.

What? Paul is taking care of all the churches??? Someone go tell Peter!!!

Catholicism clings to this idea of Peter as the first Pope to prop herself in an authoritative figure on all things. If she were to ever admit Peter wasn’t a Pope the entire institution would crumble. She has no choice no matter what scripture says.

 

[Gingersnaps4]

This is in contradiction to the claims of Rome that Scripture is somehow incomplete. If at the time Peter wrote this letter, Jesus had already given believers everything that they need, what therefore is the point of two thousand years of so-called holy tradition which the Roman Church adds to the Scripture?

This doesn’t make any sense to me, could you clarify what you mean? Jesus gave them
Everything they needed, in the form of oral tradition and also what would later become scripture. And scripture WAS incomplete when Peter wrote that. He died before all of the books of the NT were written. At the time Peter wrote that, the Church was mostly running on oral tradition. I may be misunderstanding what you wrote there, not sure.

 

[ReadTheBible]

This doesn’t make any sense to me, could you clarify what you mean? Jesus gave them
Everything they needed, in the form of oral tradition and also what would later become scripture. And scripture WAS incomplete when Peter wrote that. He died before all of the books of the NT were written. At the time Peter wrote that, the Church was mostly running on oral tradition. I may be misunderstanding what you wrote there, not sure.

Peter is saying they have everything needed, whether oral or written.All of the traditions that Catholicism has would have been there from the beginning. They wouldn’t have filtered in slowly over 2000 years.

 

[Gingersnaps4]

Funny, again Peter calls himself a servant and apostle. Why? Why doesn’t Peter say a servant of Christ and Chief Holy Apostle with all authority?

They are all servants of Christ, yes. But above all all of the apostles already have been taught that the greatest among them is like a servant. It would be contrary to Christ’s teachings to not have an attitude of humility about a leadership role.

Luke 22:25-27 New International Version (NIV)​

25 Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. 26 But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. 27 For 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.

 

[Gingersnaps4]

Sacred Tradition (capital T) hasn’t been added to as far as I know. Please don’t mistake the date of an affirmation or when dogma was made official, with it just then being made up and taught. Some things like the immaculate conception etc have been in tradition from the very beginning.

 

[steve-b]

Peter goes on to contradict the entire notion Catholicism has carried and changed for 2000 years, that of tradition.

2 Peter
2 Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,
3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:

This is in contradiction to the claims of Rome that Scripture is somehow incomplete. If at the time Peter wrote this letter, Jesus had already given believers everything that they need, what therefore is the point of two thousand years of so-called holy tradition which the Roman Church adds to the Scripture?

Peter was never treated as an authoritative figure by the other apostles.

What did Paul say concerning this?

2 Corinthians 11
11 I am become a fool in glorying; ye have compelled me: for I ought to have been commended of you: for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing.

2 Corrinthians 11
28 Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches.

What? Paul is taking care of all the churches??? Someone go tell Peter!!!

Catholicism clings to this idea of Peter as the first Pope to prop herself in an authoritative figure on all things. If she were to ever admit Peter wasn’t a Pope the entire institution would crumble. She has no choice no matter what scripture says.

This is why Peter is the greatest. Peter and the Papacy | Catholic Answers

also some extra reading Defending the Papacy | Catholic Answers

I do this for those reading this thread.

 

[EZweber]

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.

Because I believe the forgiveness of sins to be a specifically Apostolic power, and I do not believe that Lutherans have Apostolic Succession. Let’s not go off on this bunny trail though.

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

Doctrine and communion with the Church. The Pope has authority to define doctrine or excommunicate.

 

[EZweber]

1 Peter 5:1
The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ , and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:

He’s one of the elders. He doesn’t say I am above the elders among you. Not at all. Peter is one of them, same stature, same authority, they are one.

Peter is also an elder

2 Peter 1-1
Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ , to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:

Funny, again Peter calls himself a servant and apostle. Why? Why doesn’t Peter say a servant of Christ and Chief Holy Apostle with all authority?

One of the titles the Pope has claimed is “Servant of the Servants of God.” Also, a servant of Jesus Christ is what all should be. Any Pope wishes to be that.

25 And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.
26 But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.

Isn’t that strange? Why doesn’t Peter want to be treated differently if he’s in this all powerful seat of Papal infallibility?

Because the Pope is not God, which is what Cornelius seems to think here. Peter said “I myself also am a man.” The Popes are men.

He’s the same as the other apostles when it comes to authority. Read on in 1 Peter

2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;
3 Neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being examples to the flock.
4 And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.

This is Peter talking to the “elders” to which he just counted himself a part of. He’s telling the elders to feed the flock of God. Why doesn’t Peter talk to one person and say, when I’m gone, you shall be the new Holy Leader?

Of course the elders should feed the flock of God! They have some authority too. Also, the Popes have usually chosen to leave the choice of their successors to others. Even if Peter designated his own successor, they wouldn’t necessarily be in the group he was contacting. Remember that the writers of Scripture didn’t necessarily know they were writing Scripture.

 

[JonNC]

Because I believe the forgiveness of sins to be a specifically Apostolic power, and I do not believe that Lutherans have Apostolic Succession. Let’s not go off on this bunny trail though.

It isn’t a bunny trail when we are considering the topic. Think about it; Lutherans and Anglicans continue and maintain the pray of the early Church of confession and Holy Absolution, an apostolic practice. A Sacrament!

 

[JonNC]

Doctrine and communion with the Church. The Pope has authority to define doctrine or excommunicate.

That assumes the pope alone determines access to the kingdom of Heaven. The Bishop Of Rome offers the means of grace, word and Sacrament, in the same way the rest of the Church does.

 

[EZweber]

That assumes the pope alone determines access to the kingdom of Heaven.

No, that is not how excommunication works. When a bishop excommunicates someone, they are barred from the sacraments. St. Joan of Arc died excommunicate. Obviously, I believe she is in Heaven.

 

[EZweber]

It isn’t a bunny trail when we are considering the topic. Think about it; Lutherans and Anglicans continue and maintain the pray of the early Church of confession and Holy Absolution, an apostolic practice. A Sacrament!

I consider it a historical question of whether the Apostolic Succession passed to Lutherans and Anglicans. The issues being discussed here are doctrinal and scriptural.

 

[hope]

Others here have answered your misinterpretations quite well. So I don’t need to cover them.
I do have a few comments

Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.And so I say to you, you are Peter,(which means rock) and upon this rock (this rock does not refer back to Peter’s faith but to the name that Jesus has given him) I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. (and Jesus follows it up with the power of the Keys There is no knowledge mentioned this is your addition. )Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” The power of the Key is binding and loosing. You have already been corrected on your misuse of Isaiah by EZweber. As for Revelation, it is talking about the New Jersulem.

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

False by giving him the Keys it is giving him authority.

Peter goes on to contradict the entire notion Catholicism has carried and changed for 2000 years, that of tradition.

This made me laugh for I am sure you did not intentionally acknowledged that the Catholic Church existed from the time of Christ but you have.

This is in contradiction to the claims of Rome that Scripture is somehow incomplete.

There is no contradiction as there is no mention of Scripture. It is your personal interpretation and it is wrong.

Peter was never treated as an authoritative figure by the other apostles.

What did Paul say concerning this?

Paul is not commenting on the authority of the apostles. Again you are just applying your own misguided interpretation.
All does not mean, everyone of the Churches as I have previously posted a link about the use of all. If you were ever to admit that you misinterpret, than you would have to become Catholic as the saying goes to be deep in history is cease to be Protestant. Not one of your interpretation meets scrutiny.

 

[William_Scott]

quote=“MarysLurker, post:848, topic:549953” Explain the gap by resorting to Calvinist double predestination (which says there is no free will so God created everyone during the gap for the express purpose of going straight to hell), which raises an intractable problem of evil by making God the author of sin and thus the direct cause of the world’s evil.
[/quote]

Hello MarysLurker, Calvin was firmly in line with Augustinian tradition on the question of double predestination–albiet of the harder supralapsarian stripe, like Luther and the pre-reformation Bradwardine vs. those softer, squishier infralapsarians. [Aside–IMHO, while the infralapsarian position may not do complete justice on the matter, I think the infralapsarian position is likely as far as we can concretely go before getting into assertions beyond what God has revealed to us in Scripture].

Double predestination is a logical necessity for anyone who holds to the predestinarian position of St. Augustine or St. Aquinas (I know, because I’m Augustinian myself on the question of predestination). If, as St. Augustine and St. Aquinas assert, man can only obtain Salvation by God’s sovereign decree of election–apart from any foreseen faith or good works–then by necessity our Sovereign God has chosen from eternity (i.e. predestined) that all the non-elect be justly consigned to condemnation.

As our predestinarian friend St. Augustine notes, God’s predestination is both to salvation and to damnation (i.e. double predestination):

…He used the very will of the creature which was working in opposition to the Creator’s will as an instrument for carrying out His will, the supremely Good thus turning to good account even what is evil, to the condemnation of those whom in His justice He has predestined to punishment, and to the salvation of those whom in His mercy He has predestined to grace. For, as far as relates to their own consciousness, these creatures did what God wished not to be done: but in view of God’s omnipotence, they could in no wise effect their purpose. For in the very fact that they acted in opposition to His will, His will concerning them was fulfilled." (Chp 100, Enchiridion)

And as St. Augustine further notes, this predestination is irresistible–inasmuch as those whom God passes over will inevitably be condemned in the end and those whom God chooses to save (of His own pleasure and apart from any foreseen faith or works) will irresistibly have their wills finally and savingly turned to His Will:

"And, moreover, who will be so foolish and blasphemous as to say that God cannot change the evil wills of men, whichever, whenever, and wheresoever He chooses, and direct them to what is good?

But when He does this He does it of mercy; when He does it not, it is of justice that He does it not for He has mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardens…And in reference to this matter he quotes another prophetic testimony: Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." (Chp 98, Enchiridion)

 

[William_Scott]

As St. Augustine notes throughout his works, the sufficient basis for being “predestined to punishment” is original sin. While I agree with St. Augustine on this point, I believe there is strong hope of God’s mercy in the case of all who die prior to birth and in infancy, and particularly in the case of children of believers.

The only form of double predestination that is truly heretical is a “symmetrical” double predestination, which neither St. Augustine, St. Aquinas nor any of the reformers held. The following is an excellent article by the late R.C. Sproul on the question of double predestination (and the error of “symmetrical” double predestination):
"Double" Predestination by R.C. Sproul

All that said, the Arminian (Protestant) and Molinist (Roman Catholic) are all getting at some fundamental truths of human culpability and instrumentality and the genuine desire of God that all be saved (though He has not chosen to bestow the gift of final salvation/final perseverance on all), etc., etc.—all of which can be missed or under emphasized if we focus only (or virtually only) on the Sovereign decrees of God in Salvation.

Now for my usual tagline…I’m likely out of here for the next while.

 

[MarysLurker]

So to be explicit, are you stating that the Bible and the CC state there is no such thing as involuntary sins?

Correct. Google “Scrupulous Anonymous”—they’re an apostolate dedicated to answering questions like that.

 

[MarysLurker]

Double predestination is a logical necessity for anyone who holds to the predestinarian position of St. Augustine or St. Aquinas (I know, because I’m Augustinian myself on the question of predestination).

You’re right, the problem is not double predestination but double predestination + no free will. God knows the eternal destiny of everyone so depending on how you phrase it (Augustinian vs. Molinist, etc.) it’s fair to say everyone is predestined one way or another. The problem is when people start saying God created people and willed them to go to hell, because God can’t do evil.

I should have been more specific than just saying “Calvinist double predestination” but that’s what I meant to get across.