Lutherans: The King and the Royal Steward

[rcwitness]

Are those your only two options ? Yes but he didn’t say it your way,and it was much more than rhetorical. It is like saying , “here is what i believe, are you on board also ?” or at most, “here is my example, please follow”.

I am not having two “options”. I believe, in harmony with the Church, that Peter was commanded by God, to offer the Sacrament of Baptism, which forgives sins and accepts the person wholly into the New Covenant salvation specifically before the Church came to agree in a Council. He rhetorically asked who can deny them an equal grace from God as they themselves received. No one agreed, or disagreed, but said nothing. Later, Peter explains to the circumcision party why he “ate with them” (I dont know if this strickly means Communion, as in Eucharist, but it shows a communion nevertheless). Still a little later, more men from Judea were teaching “unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” Here is where Peter has to explain a third time that God has made no distinction between Jews and Gentiles, but offers us all salvation apart from Moses and cleases our hearts by faith. This is interesting because Peter distinctly teaches that “God made choice among them” so that by his own mouth that they should hear and believe. This sets Peter himself in the new and higher authority than Moses, of which leaders succeeded Moses’ authority by heritage and sat on the ‘seat of Moses’ while successors of Peter are appointed through selection and sit on the ‘chair of Peter’. And for the third time, all who criticised, and debated were silent. Then the whole Church leadership was able to act as a whole entity and James was able to convey his acceptance, of what ‘Symeon’ just related, to those who “came from him”.

Those who question Peter’s authority as Chief leader in the Church, must answer as to why God “made choice among them” to fisrt deliver the Gospel so that Gentiles too may inherit the Grace of the New Covenant.

 

[guanophore]

It can seem to be, but I would not take away the dignity of those there to be able to disagree or indeed have their say even in agreement.That is, the end result was the letter which went out to all the churches. The letter does not state, " so says Peter and so shall it be". The letter says all are in agreement, all as in the elders/apostles and brethren at Jerusalem. It is very inclusive, and Peter meant it to be so as evidenced by his “question” . It was much more than rhetorical. He used his authority but not in a way suggesting a supreme ruler.

Yes, just as Christ intended. Jesus was very clear about the servant leader model, and that he did not want them to Lord it (their authority) over others like the Pagan rulers did.

There were times, though, when it was not possible to be collegial. For example, in the incident with Ananias and Sapphira, it seems like the HS just inspired Peter to take a very hard line, and everyone just respndedd.

In both cases, though, we see Peter acting infallibly because the HS inspired him to do so. The wording that is found in the letter is critical - “it seemed right to the HS and to us”. This is the method by which the HS guides the Church infallibly, through Peter, and through the council.

Are you sure you want to call it a human institution as do non-papists. Some would say there has been resistance to it as long as it has been around proving divine guidance.

The Church is an incarnational entity, like Christ, that has both divine and human elements. It is not her human elements that make her survive and persist, but the divine. I would say that yes, there has been resistance to the Church since she was born, but that fact alone proves nothing. The fact that Christ always leads her in triumph, though, is proof that the divine elements are those that preserve her.

Thank you for faith statement being a rock . I think some would say the Jesus and Peter are joined, that is similar but not the same, hence the two terminologies of rock/stone to rockmass (petros/petras). Don’t think it is a gender issue for Jesus is referred to as both in other scriptures. Just as a rock/stone on a rockmass are joined, not separated but yet different entities.
Actually I thought most catholics would say the relationship proceeds the faith statement.That is, because of his faith, he is a rock and will be built upon and was given keys. But yes if you mean he has faith because of the Father/Christ suggesting a relationship. etc.

Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God. This faith grew in Peter from the day he was called, being fed by word and witness. Even when Jesus changed his name to Cephas, he was still lacking in conformity with his identity as a rock.

Yes, Peter has authority but more as an example, footsteps to follow.

Definitely as an example, along with everything else,as the royal steward - the one commissioned to feed and care for His flock.

 

[guanophore]

Those who question Peter’s authority as Chief leader in the Church, must answer as to why God “made choice among them” to fisrt deliver the Gospel so that Gentiles too may inherit the Grace of the New Covenant.

Especially in the light of claims that Peter erred in replacing Judas, and that Paul was supposed to be the 13th apostle- the Apostle to the Gentiles.

 

[Peter_J]

Yes Peter J,

Its actually Simeon the Prophet who saw Him at the Presentation in the Temple.

I guess the guy in shades says a lot.

Heh, but seriously, I was responding to (but neglected to quote):

I can always count on you.

It does make us all think we’re pretty smart doesn’t it?

I hadn’t even read your post about Simeon.

Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Seraphim73]

I hadn’t even read your post about Simeon.

Sorry for the confusion.

Well I was mostly talking about myself. I can google a few terms and sound like I know what I’m talking about.

 

[Peter_J]

Well I was mostly talking about myself. I can google a few terms and sound like I know what I’m talking about.

Alright, just keep telling yourself that.

(Kidding!)

 

[Seraphim73]

Alright, just keep telling yourself that.

(Kidding!)

Haha. It’s not just me. My wife tells me I’m smart too. She has no reason at all to exaggerate…

 

[YADA]

In my faith journey - with membership and practice within various Christian traditions - study of the Scriptures, the Early Church Fathers, the various Councils, history in general … I came to believe in my heart - one could only be Christian as practiced by those closest in time to Christ in one of the Apostolic traditions - Catholic or Orthodox. I am eternally grateful for the Christian experience I had in all the faith communities where I was welcomed. They provided a love of Scripture and the spark that became a fire of love for Christ - and a desire to be with Him, to worship Him - to commune with Him - in fact to receive Him - Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Eucharist. Even as I was confused by the differing beliefs and practices - the divisions and strife - that experience was good.

That journey in search of the faith and practice of the early Christians meant a head on collision with the Office of the Papacy which is - ultimately the real hurdle between the two - Catholic and Orthodox …

The passages that I spent much time with - in addition to the passage from Isaiah that only the most obstinate mind cannot hear echoed in Christ’s words to Peter - are the passages where authority is given to Peter and the passage where authority is given to all the disciples. While they seem similar - appearing similar in wording and similar in authority - taken as being interchangeable by many - the fact is they are not the same. They are very different. Not only is the authority granted different - the vehicle by which the authority is granted and manifested upon the two [Peter first - then the Disciples] is different. Even the timing of the offices - first Peter’s the Royal Steward - over arching office - then the others is important.

So what is the difference in the authority granted and how was this authority given?

Peter is given a for more reaching - general authority - it is not limited in scope … Jesus says to Peter … "Whatever you [Peter] bind … " and “Whatever you [Peter] loose …” This is open … it leaves the subject of what is to become bound or loosed to Peter’s discretion … Then - in addition to this unrestricted - undefined authority to bind and loose on Earth what will be held bound and loosed in Heaven Peter is also given the Keys of the Heavenly Kingdom … this is what Randy has posted here - the “Office” of the Royal Steward - held by a single occupant - for if there were two such “offices” they could work in opposition to each other … Offices are filled when they become vacant - the Office is perpetual the office holder is not - especially this on - Jesus’ Kingdom will have no end!

The authority granted to all the disciples was specific - they were given the authority to forgive and or bind sins - and only sins …Do not get me wrong - the ability to forgive or bind another’s sins is a tremendous authority and responsibility … its huge … and it reaches from earth into the heavenly realm as well … this authority did not come with the “Keys” to the Kingdom and the full authority to act on behalf of the King - beyond the limits outlined - sin … This authority was not through the reception of authoritative ‘keys’ but through reception of the Holy Spirit …“he breathed on them [the disciples] and said to them ‘Receive the holy Spirit’.”

Peter’s authority was not limited to sins and sins alone … Peter’s authority was “Whatever” and this office and authority was marked with the bestowing of the “Keys of the kingdom of heaven” … not the Earthly Kingdom - the Heavenly Kingdom … “I will give you [Peter] the keys to the kingdom of heaven”

Matthew 16:13-19

When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi* he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets. He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” 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, and upon this rock 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. **Whatever you bind **on earth **shall be bound **in heaven; and **whatever you loose **on earth **shall be loosed **in heaven.

John Chapter 20:19- 23

On the evening of that first day of the week, when the doors were locked, where the disciples* were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them, “Peace be with you. When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side.* The disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord. [Jesus] said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit. **Whose sins you forgive **are forgiven them, and **whose sins you retain **are retained.

 

[benhur]

This sets Peter himself in the new and higher authority than Moses,

Well certainly new, as per new covenant.Higher is irrelevant for it is a new covenant as in the existing one

Those who question Peter’s authority as Chief leader in the Church, must answer as to why God “made choice among them” to fisrt deliver the Gospel so that Gentiles too may inherit the Grace of the New Covenant.

Paul was the first to do this. Also there is a difference in saying Peter had authority than explaining how he exercised it. No one is denying what Peter actually said and did.

 

[benhur]

Yes, just as Christ intended. Jesus was very clear about the servant leader model, and that he did not want them to Lord it (their authority) over others like the Pagan rulers did.

Yes, that is why the first to blink, that is exercise “over” is the first one to show he is not leading properly. Examle is example.

There were times, though, when it was not possible to be collegial. For example, in the incident with Ananias and Sapphira, it seems like the HS just inspired Peter to take a very hard line, and everyone just respndedd.

Did Peter take a hard line to rule over here ? Don’t think so. He had a word of knowledge but the hard line action was not taken by Peter but by the Holy Spirit.

This is the method by which the HS guides the Church infallibly, through Peter, and through the council.

I would say guided, and the church yes, the council yes, Peter yes, but also Paul and many others.
,

there has been resistance to the Church since she was born, but that fact alone proves nothing. The fact that Christ always leads her in triumph, though, is proof that the divine elements are those that preserve her.

First off, we were not speaking of resistance to church but resistance to a particular way of exercising authority as in a supreme apostle or now supreme bishop. Resistance and even perseverance may prove nothing. Either may also be evidence of divine elements.

Definitely as an example, along with everything else,as the royal steward - the one commissioned to feed and care for His flock. ;

By example, and as soon as you claim royal steward you show bad example and bad stewardship.

 

[Peter_J]

I would say guided, and the church yes, the council yes, Peter yes, but also Paul and many others.

Indeed. As Scott Hahn once told a friend, Catholics and protestants agree that St Peter exercised infallibility at least twice: when he wrote 1 Peter and 2 Peter. A corollary to that is that protestants and Catholics agree that St Paul exercised infallibility when he wrote Romans, Galatians etc.

If protestants want credit for grudgingly accepting the former (and I do mean “if”) then Catholics should get credit for accepting the latter.

 

[guanophore]

Yes, that is why the first to blink, that is exercise “over” is the first one to show he is not leading properly. Examle is example.

Behaving badly does not disqualify someone from office. If that were the case, all the Apostles would have disqualified themselves.

Did Peter take a hard line to rule over here ? Don’t think so. He had a word of knowledge but the hard line action was not taken by Peter but by the Holy Spirit.

As it was intended. This is how Jesus set things up. “He who hears you hears me”.

I would say guided, and the church yes, the council yes, Peter yes, but also Paul and many others.

yes, all in unity with Peter. And the same, after his passing, everyone in unity with the Bishop of Rome.

First off, we were not speaking of resistance to church but resistance to a particular way of exercising authority as in a supreme apostle or now supreme bishop. Resistance and even perseverance may prove nothing. Either may also be evidence of divine elements.

There have been many good reasons to dislike the various ways that authority has been excercised in the Church.

Jesus never left any instructions about how the disciples should resist the authority of the Aposltes because He intended to guide them into all truth.

By example, and as soon as you claim royal steward you show bad example and bad stewardship.

I think you lost me here. How is the royal steward in itself a bad example? Do you think Joseph was a bad example in Egypt?

What did Eliakim do that made him a “bad steward”?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Yes, that is why the first to blink, that is exercise “over” is the first one to show he is not leading properly. Examle is example.

Did Peter take a hard line to rule over here ? Don’t think so. He had a word of knowledge but the hard line action was not taken by Peter but by the Holy Spirit.
I would say guided, and the church yes, the council yes, Peter yes, but also Paul and many others.
,First off, we were not speaking of resistance to church but resistance to a particular way of exercising authority as in a supreme apostle or now supreme bishop. Resistance and even perseverance may prove nothing. Either may also be evidence of divine elements.
By example, and as soon as you claim royal steward you show bad example and bad stewardship.

Let me respond to all this as follows:

In Galatians 2, Paul uses the name given to Simon by Jesus, Cephas, at the very moment when circumstances suggest that it would have been to Paul’s advantage to downplay Peter’s new name and his role in the Church. Instead, he honors Simon by recognizing his new name.

Moreover, Paul does this while confronting Peter - the incident which so many non-Catholics try to use against papal infallibility by suggesting that Peter was teaching error by his actions in drawing back from eating with the Gentiles out of fear of the Jewish visitors from Jerusalem. Yet, while Paul challenges Peter for his hypocritical actions, he nevertheless supports Peter’s role within the Church.

Because the Council of Jerusalem was held before Paul’s confrontation with Peter in Antioch, Peter’s actions were all the more hypocritical since Peter had argued against circumcision at the Council. Ironically, this actually works in favor of the Catholic view that Peter was the Rock of Mt. 16:18-19, since non-Catholics often argue that Peter could not be the rock in view of his denials of Christ which are decidedly non-rock-like.

In Galatians, we see that once again, Peter waffled by saying one thing and doing another - yet, Paul (at the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) does not hesitate to call Simon, “Rock”.

Thus, the argument that “waffling” disqualifies Peter from being the rock of Matthew 16:18-19 is swept away.

 

[benhur]

Behaving badly does not disqualify someone from office. If that were the case, all the Apostles would have disqualified themselves.

Right, but ain’t talking about that. Not even talking about disqualifying apostles, even a successive bishop of Rome. Blinking, “exercising over” is bad behavior based on bad doctrine of bishop of Rome being singularly supreme.

As it was intended. This is how Jesus set things up. “He who hears you hears me”.

Totally agree, as Jesus told Jews to do what Pharisees say from Moses seat. So as bishop (even a pope) speaks for the Lord , we should all listen and do.

yes, all in unity with Peter. And the same, after his passing, everyone in unity with the Bishop of Rome.

yes, as an example, even an icon for our united faith.

Jesus never left any instructions about how the disciples should resist the authority of the Aposltes because He intended to guide them into all truth.

He did guide the apostles. He did teach to resist if anyone taught anything different and hold on to original.

 

[benhur]

I think you lost me here. How is the royal steward in itself a bad example?

Well as you said, is the church "headless’’ (for Protestants), and is not Christ the head, the ever present Good Shepherd ? A royal steward in OT was ok when King was gone, incommunicado. Is that really totally transferable to NT ?

Do you think Joseph was a bad example in Egypt?

Did not know Joesph was foreshadow of Pope. For sure a good example for any office.

What did Eliakim do that made him a “bad steward”?

He was ok, it is just your NT application that is bad (not totally though). It is also bad to negate the foreshadowing from OT when they had no kings, even royal stewards save the Lord of Lords and those He chose to judge,lead, and correct the Chosen nation.

 

[benhur]

Let me respond to all this as follows:

In Galatians 2, Paul uses the name given to Simon by Jesus, Cephas, at the very moment when circumstances suggest that it would have been to Paul’s advantage to downplay Peter’s new name and his role in the Church. Instead, he honors Simon by recognizing his new name.

Moreover, Paul does this while confronting Peter - the incident which so many non-Catholics try to use against papal infallibility by suggesting that Peter was teaching error by his actions in drawing back from eating with the Gentiles out of fear of the Jewish visitors from Jerusalem. Yet, while Paul challenges Peter for his hypocritical actions, he nevertheless supports Peter’s role within the Church.

Because the Council of Jerusalem was held before Paul’s confrontation with Peter in Antioch, Peter’s actions were all the more hypocritical since Peter had argued against circumcision at the Council. Ironically, this actually works in favor of the Catholic view that Peter was the Rock of Mt. 16:18-19, since non-Catholics often argue that Peter could not be the rock in view of his denials of Christ which are decidedly non-rock-like.

In Galatians, we see that once again, Peter waffled by saying one thing and doing another - yet, Paul (at the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) does not hesitate to call Simon, “Rock”.

Thus, the argument that “waffling” disqualifies Peter from being the rock of Matthew 16:18-19 is swept away.

Thank you but nothing is swept away . No one denies Peter is Peter (stone/rock/petros). None of those names terms designate just what is proper exercise of authority or interpretation of such terms that can be be assigned to Paul’s understanding…The waffling proves only one thing, that as Peter is " in the Spirit’’, walking in the Truth, facing Christ, he is unbeatable, our hero, to be followed. Otherwise…

 

[Randy_Carson]

Thank you but nothing is swept away . No one denies Peter is Peter (stone/rock/petros). None of those names terms designate just what is proper exercise of authority or interpretation of such terms that can be be assigned to Paul’s understanding…The waffling proves only one thing, that as Peter is " in the Spirit’’, walking in the Truth, facing Christ, he is unbeatable, our hero, to be followed. Otherwise…

Heh…LOTS of people deny that Peter was the rock. Glad you aren’t one of them.

Okay, so we agree Peter (and not merely his confession) is the rock.

May I also ask if you agree that Peter - and Peter only - was designated to:

A. Strengthen the other apostles after Jesus was arrested, and
B. Tend and feed the flock as the vicarious shepherd after the ascension.

Thanks.

 

[guanophore]

Right, but ain’t talking about that. Not even talking about disqualifying apostles, even a successive bishop of Rome.

But this is basically the foundation of the Reformation - rejecting the authority of the successor of Peter/ denying the role of the Role of the Royal Steward, and trying to substitute it with SS.

Blinking, “exercising over” is bad behavior based on bad doctrine of bishop of Rome being singularly supreme.

While I agree that bad behavior can be based on bad doctrine, I think these are two separate issues. As an example, we have the Stewards of the last century, who have served faithfully as vicars of Christ based on the very same doctrines.

Totally agree, as Jesus told Jews to do what Pharisees say from Moses seat. So as bishop (even a pope) speaks for the Lord , we should all listen and do.

But you are adding a caveat that Christ did not. You are adding your own interpretation of speaking for the Lord. Jesus said to obey them because they sit on the seat of authority, period. He did not give the disciples the opportunity to decide for themselves if what they were being told was “valid”.

In fact, even when Christians follow their leaders when they have made a mistake, God is able to use this to His own glory. Clearly, Peter and the other Apostles had not reached out to Gentiles, and one has the sense that they were “denied water” of baptism, until Christ intervened to convince Peter.

Likewise, the Jewish Christians sent from James disrupting the Gentile community persuaded Peter to stop eating with the Gentiles until Paul confronted him. God is able to corrrect the leadership, without causing a schism.

yes, as an example, even an icon for our united faith.

He did guide the apostles. He did teach to resist if anyone taught anything different and hold on to original.

And what we are dealing with now is that Protestants have received a truncated version of the Truth. Many are very faithful to the limiited Gospel they have received, and like Apollos, are very fervent, though unaware of what is missing.

 

[benhur]

Heh…LOTS of people deny that Peter was the rock. Glad you aren’t one of them.

Sorry RC but I did not go that far. You see “the” rock only but I had rock/stone/petros. One thing for sure, does not designate supreme apostleship or successive office.Not from this . Again , why Paul calls Peter Peter and Cephas in same letter, I think no one is sure.

May I also ask if you agree that Peter - and Peter only - was designated to:

A. Strengthen the other apostles after Jesus was arrested, and
B. Tend and feed the flock as the vicarious shepherd after the ascension.

Peter was told to strengthen his brothers. Do not know if others were told also. Peter was also told to "feed my sheep’’. Don’t know if others were told this, though we know they did. Both these “commands” were implemented by the Lord , one before Calvary and one before His ascension. One began to be done by Peter after His ascension and the other (feeding) at Pentecost. Both commands were given in context that Peter was a leader type and because of Peter’s thrice denial. Peter needed to be restored to apostleship (converted, “come back to” apostleship for he went back to fishing). Do not know if either of these commands would have been given exclusively if Peter had not exclusively thrice denied. All the apostles were trained to act as a unit to spread the gospel, to bring in the Lord’s sheep round the world, to feed them the Word. Vicarious is a tricky word, for the Lord was still with them, maybe even stronger than before. Yes, Peter was a leader. Do not get strict sense of chief steward or succession to his seat only as supreme from these two commands.

 

[benhur]

But this is basically the foundation of the Reformation - rejecting the authority of the successor of Peter/ denying the role of the Role of the Royal Steward, and trying to substitute it with SS.

A mouthful. First, I agree that doctrinal error and behavior can be muddled. Behavior at most only opened pandoras box, but doctrinal error and practices from that were the crux of division. But for sure they rejected idea /doctrine of a royal steward as defined by the CC in it’s pope. I think they also rejected the idea, practice, doctrine that councils are above scriptural scrutiny. Not sure SS is a “substitute” rather that the church is founded on truth found in scripture. Councils must be scriptural as well as bishops, or popes of both east and western churches. If anything SS only substituted infallibility of popes or councils, for at times both were at odds with each other (pope against pope and council, and council against council and popes).