Lutherans: The King and the Royal Steward

[Randy_Carson]

Define Royal Steward and how is his power exercised.

Start with posts #5 &6.

Can we override an Ecumenical Council?

What is the limit of “whatever you bind…whatever you loose”?

But you didn’t really answer my questions. I don’t think you WANT to.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Who’s arguing primacy?

Did you read beyond the headline?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Undeniably. The King of kings.

One down, three to go.

I don’t like “re-establish.” Did Christ institute a particular teaching office to administer the Keys? Absolutely. And that office is exercised by every rightly called and ordained servant of the Word (bishop) by virtue of their call and ordination by and within the church, in general - it is not derived from, or of an otherwise lesser sacred power/authority than, any particular bishop.

Nope. Only Peter has the keys. You do acknowledge that, right? Luther did, but do you?

By human right, no, sure. By divine right, see above. Again, we go back to primacy vs. supremacy.

No, we really don’t. What did Pharaoh say to Joseph? What did God say to Eliakim? What did Jesus say to Peter?

After the king or Pharaoh, NO ONE was greater in all the land or household than the Royal Steward. Period. That makes the Royal Steward the SUPREME ruler of the land.

Name one person in the kingdom or household who had the authority to countermand a single word from the Royal Steward other than the king himself. There wasn’t anyone!

Look, I know you’re Lutheran and the implications of this are huge, but you’ve got to get real here.

Your King named a Royal Steward whose successors have supreme, God-given authority.

Simply claiming that every minister has those keys is a pious fiction that has no basis in fact.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Start with posts #5 &6.

Hmmm… will look.

ETA: Ok, I looked. This one stands out:

R.T. France

Not only is Peter to have a leading role, but this role involves a daunting degree of authority (though not an authority which he alone carries, as may be seen from the repetition of the latter part of the verse in 18:18 with reference to the disciple group as a whole).​

That is consistent with the Church as a Whole for 1,000 years. I agree with the Whole Church and the 7 Ecumenical Councils before the Great Schism.

What is the limit of “whatever you bind…whatever you loose”?

But you didn’t really answer my questions. I don’t think you WANT to.

What are you like 15? lol

The limit is the Church. All the Bishops bind and lose in Christ. Not against each other. And if one of the Bishops, regardless of which one it is - if it falls on heresy - he is deposed.

Can we override en Ecumenical Church Council?

I tagged you back.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Did you read beyond the headline?

I did. Who’s saying it was “invented”?

 

[steido01]

One down, three to go.

And of what world did Christ say His Kingdom was? When is that Kingdom to come to Earth, according to how He taught us to pray? The Office of the Keys is clearly a spiritual authority granted to the Church on Earth - your attempt to tie it to a corporate, temporal (and often tyrannical) kingdom (entirely subject to a single, sinful, fallen human being) has no grounding in Scripture and is missing Christ’s whole point! John 16 is quite clear that there is no temporal triumph for us here until the End. In this world, we have only trouble.

Nope. Only Peter has the keys. You do acknowledge that, right? Luther did, but do you?

Luther acknowledged that Peter was the first of the “Peters” to receive the Keys. As do I. Your quote (I think it was yours?) from earlier ignores the context of Luther’s Treatise on the Keys. A more accurate presentation can be found here, and it’s worth the read.

 

[JonNC]

=Randy Carson;12434115]
Nope. Only Peter has the keys. You do acknowledge that, right? Luther did, but do you?

Hi Randy.
Not exactly, as Don has responded to.

But even more concerning of this issue is not what Luther or Lutherans say about the keys and primacy, but what our Orthodox siblings say:

If these claims are true, then the Orthodox are the guilty party in the schism for not recognizing the supreme authority of the Pope, and must repent. If, on the other hand, it can be historically proven that the Bishop of Rome did not originally possess this power over the Church, but usurped it, then the Papacy is guilty of schism and must repent. Below is an examination of the problems associated with these papal claims.
The first concern that Orthodox have with this premise has to do with the presupposition that Peter was the unique rock upon which the Church was built. The Orthodox Church sees the following…problems associated with this claim.
First of all, although Peter was given the prominent role as the first of the apostles, he was always equal to the other apostles. Christ told the apostles that they would sit on twelve thrones (Matt. 19:28). A special throne was not set up for Peter. Moreover the “keys” were given to all the apostles (Matt. 18:18). The other apostles were also the foundation upon which the Church was built (Eph. 2:20). If the Roman view is to be believed, it is interesting to note that when the disciples disputed among themselves as to who would be the greatest, (Lk. 22:24-27), they seemed unaware that Christ had already picked Peter.
Second, the Rock upon whom the Church is established is Christ. When Christ says, “Thou art Peter,” He called him “PETROS,” which means “small stone.” But when He says, “Upon this rock I will build my Church” the Greek term for rock is not Petros but “PETRA” which means “bedrock.” This bedrock which the Church is built upon was always understood by the Greek Fathers and many Western Fathers to mean either Christ Himself, or the profession of faith in Christ’s Divinity.
Third, the patristic witness is that no Father of the Church has seen, in the primacy of Peter, any title of jurisdiction or absolute authority in Church government. The Latin Church Father, St. Ambrose, for instance, taught that Peter and Paul were equal: “It was proper that Paul should go to see Peter. Why? was Peter superior to him and to the other Apostles? No, but because, of all the Apostles, he was the first to be entrusted by the Lord with the care of the churches. Had he need to be taught, or to receive a commission from Peter? No, but that Peter might know that Paul had received the power which had also been given to himself.” (The Papacy, by Abbe Guettee, pp. 173-174).
Furthermore, he taught that Peter’s primacy was not one of honor or rank, but of faith and confession: “As soon as Peter heard these words, ‘Whom say ye that I am?’ remembering his place, he exercised this primacy, a primacy of confession, not of honour; a primacy of faith, not of rank.” (Ibid., p. 174).

orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/ecumenical/maxwell_peter.htm

The Orthodox are as keenly aware of any possible parallel between Peter and Eliakim. So, the issue of chief steward, regardless of agreement regarding it, has to do with what that means, first in the early Church, and now in the contemporary Church.

Jon

 

[benhur]

There is no need to undermine Church authority. And there is no need to add the descriptive: corporate to the councils. Unless you are also willing to call the Council at Jerusalem - corporate. Church Councils are indeed a model of what we see in Scriptures. The Episcopal model is indeed a model of what we see in Scriptures as well.

What I am arguing is entirely different from what you are saying. We are not partakers of the keys, those are for the Bishops who can bind and lose in unison with the Church. Like many like to point out, truth cannot contradict itself, the pillar and bulwark of truth is the Church. The Whole Church, not a single Bishop. That is my argument.

No , don’t want to undermine proper authority either, hence I said not withstanding offices, giftings. By corporate I mean as opposed to individual, as in " formed into a unified body of individuals". I suppose individuals consisting of elders, leaders of the brethren, yet including all brethren. But that is another discussion, but as the council at Jerusalem was, so be it… As far as partakers of the keys, I like your scenario the best but I guess I am offering the fourth view , that it can also include those beyond presbyters, at least in a looser interpretation of that commission. I think you also see a presbyterian model shown in Scripture and first fathers. Anyways, thanks for the breath of fresh air you sometimes provide, making us all think. ( and now I see some of the heat you take for it but hopefully not for your post here).

 

[benhur]

Hi Randy.
Not exactly, as Don has responded to.

But even more concerning of this issue is not what Luther or Lutherans say about the keys and primacy, but what our Orthodox siblings say:

orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/ecumenical/maxwell_peter.htm

The Orthodox are as keenly aware of any possible parallel between Peter and Eliakim. So, the issue of chief steward, regardless of agreement regarding it, has to do with what that means, first in the early Church, and now in the contemporary Church.

Jon

Good reading.Thanks

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hi Randy.
Not exactly, as Don has responded to.

But even more concerning of this issue is not what Luther or Lutherans say about the keys and primacy, but what our Orthodox siblings say:

They have a lot to lose in this, don’t they? :yup:

But let’s take a look…

If these claims are true, then the Orthodox are the guilty party in the schism for not recognizing the supreme authority of the Pope, and must repent. If, on the other hand, it can be historically proven that the Bishop of Rome did not originally possess this power over the Church, but usurped it, then the Papacy is guilty of schism and must repent.

Okay. Sure. Like I said, they have a lot to lose.

Below is an examination of the problems associated with these papal claims.

The first concern that Orthodox have with this premise has to do with the presupposition that Peter was the unique rock upon which the Church was built. The Orthodox Church sees the following…problems associated with this claim.

Jon, as you know, I have over two dozen quotes from Protestant scholars (and now a couple of Orthodox, also) acknowledging that Peter, alone, is the rock. If this is all they have to go on, then the rest of their argument is built on sand.

First of all, although Peter was given the prominent role as the first of the apostles, he was always equal to the other apostles.

Jon, this is laughable, and you know it. Peter walks on water, Peter pays the temple tax (acting in the place of Christ - in persona Christi), Peter is mentioned 197 times (always first), Peter is told to strengthen his brothers, John waits to let Peter enter the tomb first, Peter is told to tend and care for the flock (as the vicarious shepherd of the one flock)…and on and on and on…

Christ told the apostles that they would sit on twelve thrones (Matt. 19:28). A special throne was not set up for Peter.

A meaningless argument. All of the apostles were infallible individually and Peter was an apostle. However, the existence of other stewards does not preclude the existence of a chief.

Moreover the “keys” were given to all the apostles (Matt. 18:18).

Perhaps the Orthodox need to brush up on their Greek, because there are no keys in that verse. You know that, too.

The other apostles were also the foundation upon which the Church was built (Eph. 2:20). If the Roman view is to be believed, it is interesting to note that when the disciples disputed among themselves as to who would be the greatest, (Lk. 22:24-27), they seemed unaware that Christ had already picked Peter.

I can readily concede both of these points because they prove nothing. Remember, later, Jesus told Peter ALONE (the Greek is singular) to strengthen the others.

Second, the Rock upon whom the Church is established is Christ. When Christ says, “Thou art Peter,” He called him “PETROS,” which means “small stone.” But when He says, “Upon this rock I will build my Church” the Greek term for rock is not Petros but “PETRA” which means “bedrock.” This bedrock which the Church is built upon was always understood by the Greek Fathers and many Western Fathers to mean either Christ Himself, or the profession of faith in Christ’s Divinity.

Jon, you know better than this. Boatloads of Protestant Greek scholars have demonstrated this to be false. This is Catholic Apologetics 101.

Third, the patristic witness is that no Father of the Church has seen, in the primacy of Peter, any title of jurisdiction or absolute authority in Church government. The Latin Church Father, St. Ambrose, for instance, taught that Peter and Paul were equal: “It was proper that Paul should go to see Peter. Why? was Peter superior to him and to the other Apostles? No, but because, of all the Apostles, he was the first to be entrusted by the Lord with the care of the churches. Had he need to be taught, or to receive a commission from Peter? No, but that Peter might know that Paul had received the power which had also been given to himself.” (The Papacy, by Abbe Guettee, pp. 173-174).

First, it is unclear as to whether St. Ambrose, or Abbe Guettee’s own interpretation is being quoted here. Second, they argument conveniently forgets the fact that the Corinthians appealed NOT to John, a living apostle, but to Clement, the Royal Steward, concerning the problems they were having. Clement dealt with a matter outside of his own immediate diocese demonstrating his universal jurisdiction.

Furthermore, he taught that Peter’s primacy was not one of honor or rank, but of faith and confession: “As soon as Peter heard these words, ‘Whom say ye that I am?’ remembering his place, he exercised this primacy, a primacy of confession, not of honour; a primacy of faith, not of rank.” (Ibid., p. 174).

Hmmm. Talk of primacy here…a little fuzzy on whether supremacy is excluded.

orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/ecumenical/maxwell_peter.htm

The Orthodox are as keenly aware of any possible parallel between Peter and Eliakim. So, the issue of chief steward, regardless of agreement regarding it, has to do with what that means, first in the early Church, and now in the contemporary Church.

Jon

And as yet, not one Orthodox in this forum has stepped up to prove me wrong.

I’m glad to see you are thinking about this, though. I hope you continue to do so…for obvious reasons.

 

[guanophore]

Very simple (emphasis added)? But the fact that the CCC has 1,000 pages or so might give a different impression.

He was questioning the gifts given to Peter for the care and feeding of the Church. It really is very simple.

I will stipulate, though, that the world in which we live is often not. Neither are the plethora of heresies that abound since the Reformation, so yes, the CCC is quite detailed in attempting to connect the 2000 years of scholarship and faith to the needs of the present day.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

No , don’t want to undermine proper authority either, hence I said not withstanding offices, giftings. By corporate I mean as opposed to individual, as in " formed into a unified body of individuals". I suppose individuals consisting of elders, leaders of the brethren, yet including all brethren. But that is another discussion, but as the council at Jerusalem was, so be it… As far as partakers of the keys, I like your scenario the best but I guess I am offering the fourth view , that it can also include those beyond presbyters, at least in a looser interpretation of that commission. I think you also see a presbyterian model shown in Scripture and first fathers. Anyways, thanks for the breath of fresh air you sometimes provide, making us all think. ( and now I see some of the heat you take for it but hopefully not for your post here).

Gotcha, missed the notwithstanding.

Did you know the laity and the priests were involved in the selection of their Bishop in the early Church? Further, after the Great Schism the laity was involved in Papal elections as well, it didn’t last long before the selection process was limited to the College of Cardinals (something also absent for a thousand years ).

And yes, some dioceses had a presbyterian model. That’s why in one of the Councils the Church had to set boundaries for those models to remain within the area of responsibility of the overseeing See. Not a single See

Thanks for your kind words.

You know, Catholic apologetics tends to generalize (not all but a significant part) towards protestantism. And some of the accusations used (I know I have before ) are like a reflection of things we have done ourselves…

 

[guanophore]

The answers have meandered away from the question Jose [and I] are considering. I’m not necessarily arguing against the pastoral role assigned to Peter.

Where is the practice and proof of the universal, immediate jurisdiction of the Pope in the early Church? Why was this not “accepted by the sheep” until modern times, but now mandatory to believe for salvation?

Do you honestly believe that there were Christians who refused to be in communion with and obedient to Peter and the other Apostles?

Have you really not seen the writings in the early Church, where authenticity is centered around the Bishop?

These simple facts are what brought me back to the faith. I was at Ashbury Seminary and took an historical theology class. I realized that the early Church was Catholic, and had to reorganize my whole mentality about Bishops.

Where did anyone in the NT act with ministerial authority outside of the Apostles? Why would anyone not WANT to be in union with the successors of the Apostles?

 

[Peter_J]

Good. I was thinking Jesus is the foreshadowed key keeper in Isaiah as House was saying . For sure Peter shared/was given the role as Randy points out . But as you say, it was others also. In fact we are all stones in that building, and even a foundation for others to go on top of us. Christ called all His disciples as friends, to be One with Him. We are to be disciples, even partakers of the keys, not withstanding offices and giftings. A disciple by definition does, imitates His Master. Peter definitely used the keys first and dramatically(Pentecost ect.) . However, the temptation must be resisted to institutionalize this partnership of God and the man Peter ( like Peter wanting to stay and memorialize the Transfiguration). The Church moves on, with many others doing dramatic entrances with their keys also.

Yes. (I have one in particular in mind, whom you may be familiar with. Took the name “Francis”. )

 

[benhur]

Gotcha, missed the notwithstanding.

Did you know the laity and the priests were involved in the selection of their Bishop in the early Church? Further, after the Great Schism the laity was involved in Papal elections as well, it didn’t last long before the selection process was limited to the College of Cardinals (something also absent for a thousand years ).

And yes, some dioceses had a presbyterian model. That’s why in one of the Councils the Church had to set boundaries for those models to remain within the area of responsibility of the overseeing See. Not a single See

Thanks for your kind words.

You know, Catholic apologetics tends to generalize (not all but a significant part) towards protestantism. And some of the accusations used (I know I have before ) are like a reflection of things we have done ourselves…

Thanks for info. What do apologists say about the disproportionate number of Italian cardinals, that exists to this day, and are not bishops beholden to papal office, for appointing them ? Does this have roots in friction with concilarism ?

 

[benhur]

Yes. (I have one in particular in mind, whom you may be familiar with. Took the name “Francis”. )

Maybe. We’ ll see.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Thanks for info. What do apologists say about the disproportionate number of Italian cardinals, that exists to this day, and are not bishops beholden to papal office, for appointing them ? Does this have roots in friction with concilarism ?

Here’s a good concise synopsis the Papal Electoral history:
History of Papal Electoral Law

The root in the election process really blew up with the [Investitures Controversy]. In 1073, Gregory VII (Hildebrand) began the fight against the practice of investiture, secular princes “investing” popes and bishops with office. In this he ran head-long into Henry IV, whom he excommunicated and unsuccessfully deposed. It is during this time that for the very first time, the Bishop of Rome starts to exercise universal, supreme, ordinary and immediate jurisdiction.

Conciliarism has its roots in the Avignon Controversy (Papal Schism-1309-1377AD), where at one point in time there were 3 people claiming to be Bishop of Rome.

 

[rcwitness]

This is before the Council of Jerusalem.

45 And the believers from among the circumcised who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. 46 For they heard them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, 47 “Can any one forbid water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.

Seems pretty immediate and supreme to me.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The Petrine Fact, Part 8
jimmyakin.com/2009/10/the-petrine-fact-part-8.html

Excerpt:

To see Peter as Jesus’ chief steward offers a definitive context in which to understand Peter’s primacy throughout the New Testament, and vice versa; each contextualizes the other. In Luke 22, when the whole company of Christ’s stewards are to be sifted by Satan, it is the chief steward that Jesus prays for, that he might strengthen the rest. It is the chief steward to whom Jesus gives the solemn threefold commission as vice shepherd, to whom Jesus appears first after the Resurrection.

It is the one to whom Jesus gives the keys, the master of the house, who leads the apostles in choosing a replacement for Judas, who speaks for the Twelve at Pentecost, who speaks before the Sanhedrin, who pronounces judgment (exercising the power of the keys) on Ananias and Sapphira (a pronouncement that is ratified by heaven).

It is the chief steward who receives the vision opening the door to Gentile believers — and who silences debate at the Jerusalem council by reminding the assembled that it was he whom God chose from among them all for that vision, just as he was chosen from among the Twelve at Caesarea Philippi.

It is also the chief steward whom Jesus rebuffs at Caesarea Philippi, who initially refuses Jesus’ foot-washing, who receives the rebuke for the sleeping disciples at Gethsemane, who denies Jesus three times, whom Paul must oppose to his face. The New Testament’s near preoccupation with Peter’s failures tells much the story as its interest in his outspokenness and leadership. Peter’s weakness is so significant precisely because he is the chief of the apostles.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

The Petrine Fact, Part 8
jimmyakin.com/2009/10/the-petrine-fact-part-8.html

Excerpt:

To see Peter as Jesus’ chief steward offers a definitive context in which to understand Peter’s primacy throughout the New Testament, and vice versa; each contextualizes the other. In Luke 22, when the whole company of Christ’s stewards are to be sifted by Satan, it is the chief steward that Jesus prays for, that he might strengthen the rest. It is the chief steward to whom Jesus gives the solemn threefold commission as vice shepherd, to whom Jesus appears first after the Resurrection.

It is the one to whom Jesus gives the keys, the master of the house, who leads the apostles in choosing a replacement for Judas, who speaks for the Twelve at Pentecost, who speaks before the Sanhedrin, who pronounces judgment (exercising the power of the keys) on Ananias and Sapphira (a pronouncement that is ratified by heaven).

It is the chief steward who receives the vision opening the door to Gentile believers — and who silences debate at the Jerusalem council by reminding the assembled that it was he whom God chose from among them all for that vision, just as he was chosen from among the Twelve at Caesarea Philippi.

It is also the chief steward whom Jesus rebuffs at Caesarea Philippi, who initially refuses Jesus’ foot-washing, who receives the rebuke for the sleeping disciples at Gethsemane, who denies Jesus three times, whom Paul must oppose to his face. The New Testament’s near preoccupation with Peter’s failures tells much the story as its interest in his outspokenness and leadership. Peter’s weakness is so significant precisely because he is the chief of the apostles.