Matthew 16:18 controversy

[steve-b]

We alse have the Eastern Understanding of this. And it is not what “they say” yes we have the “first among equals” and “primary see” arguments but that doesn’t hold up by the mere fact the Eastern Orthodox find it “pretty okay” not being in communion with Rome which seems also to be argued a pretty important thing. And they are agreed to be apostolic and " there from the beginning" so the 500 year Protestant Church argument also falls flat.

Eastern Orthodoxy of any stripe, doesn’t appear anywhere in writing prior to 1045. I’ve asked the question of the Orthodox for the last 13 years on CAF to show me in writing properly referenced where the “Orthodox Church” first appears in writing. NO BODY answered me. I’m still waiting.

To your other point, there is no Protestant church. It’s one big conglomeration of individual heresies started in the 16th century.

MichaelP3:

And then we start to analyse Peter. Was he ever in Rome ? (no the bones were not confirmed).

Who told you that?

MichaelP3:

And then we go to the "list of Popes " being professed. Well that was also very dodge. It wasn’t always as today. Either the Pope chose the successor, the Emperor chose him (or confirmed him for those with an issue), we have the “dove on the shoulder papacy” and even a Papel veto!! Not even talking about all the rest.

So even if this is true! The subsequent history seems very dodge and worth thinking about.

Irenaeus, one man away from John the apostle. Lists 12 bishops by name, in succession from Peter, in Rome, down to his day
Please read Book 3 Chapter 3 paragraphs 2-3 http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm

Bp Polycarp was that connection to John for Irenaeus. Polycarp was a direct disciple of John the apostle. Bp Irenaeus and Bp Polycarp were both from the city of Smyrna, in present day Turkey. Irenaeus and Polycarp knew each other. THAT’s how Irenaeus formation happened.

The year Irenaeus wrote his work “Against Heresies” was ~180 a.d.

BTW, Book 1 Chapter 10 paragraph 3 http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103110.htm
tells us which Church he belongs to, as does Polycarp, and John as well

 

[tgGodsway]

The churches in the Eastern province of the Roman empire were established first, but eventually the church at Rome insisted on dominating all. The east never gave in.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias, … is this all you got, cheap shots.

“Cheap shots”? Hmm… let’s see…

scholars have rejected [your] argument for many years now

Actually… no. Look at the difference in the contexts of the two chapters.

And yet, after His resurrection, Jesus again entrusts this ‘satan’ to feed His sheep. …

“New revelation”? Can you substantiate that claim, please?

That is your personal interpretation of this Scripture. Yet… is any prophecy of Scripture a matter of personal interpretation?

what Christ has instituted, He sees through to completion. Peter’s stumbles do not nullify Christ’s institution.

By my count, you’ve got rebuttals to your arguments, Scriptural references, and an (unanswered) question. If these are “cheap shots”, it’s only because you don’t have answers.

Awaiting your (substantive) response to my questions/rebuttals…

 

[Gorgias]

But the problem begins when we look at the most significant circle of believers, those who were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write their gospels

The Gospels speak of Jesus’ ministry, not of the ministry of the Church. You cannot reasonably use the Gospels to refute Church governance… as they don’t address post-Pentecost Church history.

This concept is missing from passages where Church government is taught such as what we find in Ephesians 5.

So, Paul doesn’t talk about it. I think that this is the main gist of your complaint, because…

This concept is missing when it comes to Peter’s epistles.

… Does Peter talk about Church governance in a way that runs counter to the historical Church?

This concept is missing certainly from Paul’s but from every New Testament writer. This fact falls on deaf ears on this site.

Do other “New Testament writers” address Church governance in a way that contradicts the experience of the historical Church? Before you claim ‘deaf ears’, you’ll need to demonstrate that it’s ‘deafness’ rather than a lack of evidence for your claims.

And as mentioned before, The Catholic Church made the mistake of building an entire system of religious order all based on this one issue of keys, a metaphor that is NOT explained, or taught anywhere else in scripture.

Isaiah 22:22. Not the first time this has been mentioned to you.

This too falls on deaf ears.

Tell me about it. Physician, heal thyself…

 

[tgGodsway]

Gorglas, certainly you are aware of “new revelation”? Of course the RCC doesn’t call it that. How about extra-biblical revelation? This is when a pope decrees a matter, let’s say this week, and his decree becomes equal in authority to the New Testament inspired scripture. But he forgot to check with scripture about what he decreed and it becomes a blatant contradiction. Woops

 

[Gorgias]

This is when a pope decrees a matter, let’s say this week, and his decree becomes equal in authority to the New Testament inspired scripture. But he forgot to check with scripture about what he decreed and it becomes a blatant contradiction.

It’s a nice story, but can you give a real-world example?

 

[JoshuaIsLord]

For Matthew 16:18, can someone give me a Greek translation for this verse?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[JoshuaIsLord]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Double click on image to get a larger view.

 

[tgGodsway]

yeah sure but will it matter? Most, if not all of you, on this site don’t really care about a real example. I can put something as clear as day right in front of you and you redirect with something else.

 

[tgGodsway]

Gorgias, you said, Does Peter talk about Church governance in a way that runs counter to the historical Church? No… my point is, that Peter forgot to mention that he would be Bishop of the entire world. He forgot to call an Apostle meeting and set everyone straight. He forgot to explain the new office called papacy where only he, (and his successors) could decree new revelation in each generation of time all that God continues to say.

It wasn’t that Peter had a bad memory. These kind of ideas were never in his head and the evidence is in the fact that the New Testament goes silent on all of it. This is a huge red flag for any serious student of Christianity.

 

[Vonsalza]

…Peter forgot to mention that he would be Bishop of the entire world… He forgot to call an Apostle meeting and

These kind of ideas were never in his head and the evidence is in the fact that the New Testament goes silent on all of it. This is a huge red flag for any serious student of Christianity. (emph. mine)

No, not at all. Now for someone who is a “serious student of Christianity” that also holds the assumption that “the bible is written as a stand-alone systematic theology”, yeah that’s a problem.

But then that same mistaken student would have to explain how the Church even functioned without an official canon for the first nearly 400 years of its existence. Then that student would have to explain why that canon was ultimately different from the canon he uses today. Then that student would have to explain why debate over the canonicity of the back-half of the NT continued until the 15th century.

The bible likely doesn’t extensively address Petrine Headship because it wasn’t under question.

When the primitive Church met in councils, it did so wherever Peter was. Why Jerusalem, then Antioch??? Because that’s where Peter was.

When Paul became an apostle, he sought confirmation from Peter for a few weeks. Otherwise we was just another “false prophet” in an age full of them.

And when Paul set up home-base in Rome, it was because Peter was there. Not because it was convenient. For where he traveled, Ephesus or Thessalonica would have been a far more convenient hub.

There are plenty of things that are core Christian doctrine that aren’t explicitly defined in scripture. The Holy Trinity is another one. Do you show the Trinity the same scrutiny you show the Chair of Peter? You do if you’re consistent in your extra-biblical skepticism.

 

[tgGodsway]

From the standpoint of teaching the first century student, the inspired writers taught something other than papacy. Papacy had to have come in and replace what was already in place by the Spirit of God. And as for the N.T. cannon, it was the word of God before the ink dried. The squabbles that took place in years and even centuries later was never of God. Our God is not the God of confusion.

 

[tgGodsway]

As for the Trinity. Granted, the actual word is not found in scripture, but the concept was taught long before the RCC. Jesus too taught the Trinity, so what is your point?

 

[Vonsalza]

From the standpoint of teaching the first century student, the inspired writers taught something other than papacy.

From one guy who used to hang around a reputable protestant seminary in his younger, zealously protestant days to a possible current student:
You have absolutely no way of knowing that.
What they didn’t explicitly mention in their letters cannot be used to argue anything since “arguments from absence” are total garbage as a rule.

What we see are apostles advocating a visible Church structure with a visible connection to the Petrine seat in Rome. While the obstinate are free to deny this obvious reality, even the Orthodox largely recognize Petrine primacy, if not supremacy.

For historical Christianity, this isn’t really even an open question. It’s primarily “open” for evangelical revisionists who are trying to provide evidence for the utterly impossible task of connecting their particular 19th/20th century denomination directly to the 1st century Church without using Roman Catholicism.

Papacy had to have come in and replace what was already in place by the Spirit of God.

The hierarchical, visible Church was established by Christ himself and he personally chose a head. What better endorsement could it possibly need?
Moreover, without visible hierarchy, the Church utterly loses its ability to defend truth and maintain unity.
When two Churches squabbled, the wayward evangelical leadership methodology couldn’t have been able to solve the problem, since both were surely claiming authority in the name of the Spirit.

You’d end up with yet-another denomination forming…

And as for the N.T. cannon, it was the word of God before the ink dried.

Sure, but the elephant you’re ignoring is the process of deciding what is and is not part of “The Word of God”, since God did not drop a list of books down on us from heaven, right?

As for the Trinity. Granted, the actual word is not found in scripture, but the concept was taught long before the RCC. Jesus too taught the Trinity, so what is your point?

Jesus taught the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all one and all three are members of the Godhead?

Scripture reference please? In all my years of looking, I’ve never seen that one.

 

[tgGodsway]

Okay… I can easily answer this but not now. Working. Hopefully tonight.

 

[Vonsalza]

Okay… I can easily answer this but not now. Working. Hopefully tonight.

As gently as I can; no you can’t. Because it doesn’t exist. Trust me fella, this isn’t the first time I’ve studied this topic. Not by a long shot. And most of my study was as a zealous protestant trying to do exactly what you’re trying to do now.

The Church authoritatively and visibly settled the issue at the Council of Nicaea, if I remember correctly. Over two hundred years after the last book of the NT was written.

 

[steve-b]

The churches in the Eastern province of the Roman empire were established first, but eventually the church at Rome insisted on dominating all. The east never gave in.

Peter was made leader of the Church by Jesus. Rome was Peter’s last see and final resting place. THAT is why Rome is the see of preeminent authority.

As for Churches in the East, here is what Bp John https://melkite.org/bishop-john wrote looking back on that history,

"When the Patriarchate of Antioch was divided into two branches in 1724, one branch kept the name Orthodox and the other branch which sealed its union with the Holy See of Rome, kept the name Melkite given to it since the Sixth Century and called itself Catholic. It became known as the Melkite Greek Catholic Church. In the Middle East, although both branches claim orthodoxy as well as catholicity, however being Catholic means not Orthodox and being Orthodox means not Catholic.
To be a Catholic Christian means that one accepts the primacy of the Pope of Rome, because he is the successor of St. Peter. To be an Orthodox Christian means that one does not recognize the primacy of the Pope of Rome, but considers him as “first among equals.”
According to the Catholic teaching, Christ did not create a church with five heads of equal importance. He established One Holy Catholic and Apostolic church whose invisible head is the Lord, but whose visible head is the Pope of Rome.
The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches states it in these terms: “The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in a special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.” (Canon 43 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches) If an Orthodox subscribes to the Canon quoted above, he/she can be called Catholic and be considered “united to Rome” or in full communion with the Catholic Church.”
From Melkite – Holy Synergy
Please read the other thoughts of Bp John as well

 

[JoshuaIsLord]

As for the Trinity. Granted, the actual word is not found in scripture, but the concept was taught long before the RCC. Jesus too taught the Trinity, so what is your point?

Yes I am quite anxious to see these scriptures as well. Exactly where did Jesus teach this concept. Looks like to me you are going to have to cobble a whole bunch of holy writ together to even remotely make that assertion true.

 

[steve-b]

Peter forgot to mention that he would be Bishop of the entire world. He forgot to call an Apostle meeting and set everyone straight. He forgot to explain the new office called papacy where only he, (and his successors) could decree new revelation in each generation of time all that God continues to say.

It wasn’t that Peter had a bad memory. These kind of ideas were never in his head and the evidence is in the fact that the New Testament goes silent on all of it. This is a huge red flag for any serious student of Christianity.

We know
. Jesus gave Peter and only Peter, the keys to the kingdom of God. Keys goes from the king to his chief steward. While there are other stewards under the chief steward, the chief steward still is over THEM.

. Where does Jesus actually end an argument the apostles are having over who is the greatest among THEM? As in Peter is named the greatest.

Lk 22:
24A 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 (plural) as wheat. 32But I have prayed for you,(singular) Simon, that your faith may not fail.** And when you have turned back, strengthen στήρισον your brothers.”

1. Did Jesus confirm one would rule? Yes
2. Did He say anyone else would rule? No
3. Did Jesus promise to pray especially for one who would rule and strengthen the others? Yes
4. Did Jesus name or pray for anyone else in that position He names? No
5. Who is this only one Jesus names to rule, and that Jesus is going to pray for? Peter.
6. Peter is the one who rules ἡγούμενος http://bibleapps.com/greek/2233.htm , open the link and see the explanation. Part of the understanding of that word is, hence Peter deserves cooperation by those who are led by him

Who got the apostles in this argument? Satan
Jesus answered this and settled the argument. To keep this argument going, is serving who? Satan

 

[theCardinalbird]

Tertullian (220 A.D.):

“Was anything hid from Peter, who was called the Rock, whereon the Church was
built; who obtained the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and the power of
loosing and of binding in heaven and on earth?” (Tertullian, De Praescript
Haeret).

Tertullian (as a Montanist heretic) thereafter writes to criticize Pope Callistus I by saying …

“I now inquire into your opinions, to see whence you usurp the right for the
Church. Do you presume, because the Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will
build my Church …[Matt 16-19]’ that the power of binding and loosing has
thereby been handed over to you, that is, to every church akin to that of Peter (Rome)?
What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest
intent of the Lord when He conferred this personally on Peter? ‘On
you,’ He says, ‘I will build my Church; and I give to you the keys’…”
(Tertullian, On Modesty 21:9-10)

Note: The Montanists did not believe in the succession of Church authority (but believed that authority was only a charismatic gift to individuals via the Holy Spirit). But, the mere fact that Tertullian opposes Pope Callistus and the other bishops in communion with Rome on this issue shows that the Catholic understanding was the mainstream (non-heretical) position at the time.