Non Catholic Interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19

  • Thread starter Thread starter SavedbyHisBlood
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dokimas said:
As I read Acts and Paul, James seems to be the leader of the early church.

And if James is THE leaader of the early church,how ironic none of the ECF’s ever mention or teach it as a strong belief? If one looks at written documentation (the NT), Paul is the leader.
Click to expand...
Paul is A leader,not THE leader.
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
First to do this and first to do that, however, doesn’t necessarily prove an infallible primal universally supreme jurisdiction. James headed the council, not Peter. And Paul determined that Peter was wrong about table fellowship with Gentiles and called him out on it bigtime. If we’re trying to compare accomplishments and firsts to prove something, look at Paul. Paul out-evangelized Peter and wrote most of the NT epistles. He shaped our theology and understandings of grace and faith and even ecclesiology and christology through his contributions to Scripture far more than Peter and he co-founded Rome with Peter and both died there. Firsts are great and meaningful but not necessarily proof of anything. It’s fascinating to me how James led the Jerusalem council as well.
Click to expand...
If you are referring to the episode in Antioch so what? You are confusing infallibility with impeccability. Paul’s rebuke of Peter was not a repudiation of Peter’s office, it was a redpudiation of Peter because he was not living up to his own infallible teaching. The argument amounts to a strawman.

James did not lead the council. Nowhere in the scripture does it say “James convened the council” or that “James, the leader of the brethern, lead the council.” The statement is pure conjecture.

Acts 15:
[4] When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they declared all that God had done with them.
[5] But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up, and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to charge them to keep the law of Moses.”
[6] The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter.
[7] **And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, "Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. **

Peter was the first to speak. Not only IS he the first to speak he confirms that “God made choice among you, that by **my mouth **the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.”

[8] And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us;
[9] and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith.
[10] Now therefore why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?
[11] But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will."
[12] And all the assembly kept silence; and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.

James follows, not by contradicting Peter, but by agreeing with what Peter had already said.

[13] After they finished speaking, James replied, "Brethren, listen to me.
[14] **Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. **[15] And with this the words of the prophets agree, as it is written,
[16] `After this I will return,
and I will rebuild the dwelling of David, which has fallen;
I will rebuild its ruins,
and I will set it up,
[17] that the rest of men may seek the Lord,
and all the Gentiles who are called by my name,
[18] says the Lord, who has made these things known from of old.’
[19] Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God,
[20] but should write to them to abstain from the pollutions of idols and from unchastity and from what is strangled and from blood.

**James is ratifying something Peter already proclaimed. **

Secondly, so what that Paul “out-evangelized”(as if the Kingdom is a matter of competition). Paul was following the grace which God had bestowed on him- as a great teacher, theologian, apologist, and writer- as Peter was following the grace God bestowed on him as an apostle and bishop-“to strengthen your brethern”-“to feed my lambs…tend my sheep…feed my sheep”. They lived the roles God had given them.

This does not negate the established fact of Peter’s primacy as proclaimed by the Lord.
 
The_GreyPilgrim said:
If you are referring to the episode in Antioch so what? You are confusing infallibility with impeccability. Paul’s rebuke of Peter was not a repudiation of Peter’s office, it was a redpudiation of Peter because he was not living up to his own infallible teaching. The argument amounts to a strawman.

James did not lead the council. Nowhere in the scripture does it say “James convened the council” or that “James, the leader of the brethern, lead the council.” The statement is pure conjecture.

Acts 15:
[4] When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they declared all that God had done with them.
[5] But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up, and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to charge them to keep the law of Moses.”
[6] The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter.
[7] **And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, "Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. **

Peter was the first to speak. Not only IS he the first to speak he confirms that “God made choice among you, that by **my mouth **the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.”

[8] And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us;
[9] and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith.
[10] Now therefore why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?
[11] But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will."
[12] And all the assembly kept silence; and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.

James follows, not by contradicting Peter, but by agreeing with what Peter had already said.

[13] After they finished speaking, James replied, "Brethren, listen to me.
[14] **Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. **[15] And with this the words of the prophets agree, as it is written,
[16] `After this I will return,
and I will rebuild the dwelling of David, which has fallen;
I will rebuild its ruins,
and I will set it up,
[17] that the rest of men may seek the Lord,
and all the Gentiles who are called by my name,
[18] says the Lord, who has made these things known from of old.’
[19] Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God,
[20] but should write to them to abstain from the pollutions of idols and from unchastity and from what is strangled and from blood.

**James is ratifying something Peter already proclaimed. **

Secondly, so what that Paul “out-evangelized”(as if the Kingdom is a matter of competition). Paul was following the grace which God had bestowed on him- as a great teacher, theologian, apologist, and writer- as Peter was following the grace God bestowed on him as an apostle and bishop-“to strengthen your brethern”-“to feed my lambs…tend my sheep…feed my sheep”. They lived the roles God had given them.

This does not negate the established fact of Peter’s primacy as proclaimed by the Lord.
Click to expand...
Amen! Why do people assume or add to what scripture truly says?

James did not lead the council. Nowhere in the scripture does it say “James convened the council” or that “James, the leader of the brethern, lead the council.” The statement is pure conjecture.

I could not find it anywhere either…🤷
 
Dokimas said:
As I read Acts and Paul, James seems to be the leader of the early church.

If one looks at written documentation (the NT), Paul is the leader.
Click to expand...
Arguments from silence do not suffice as proof.
 
Dokimas said:
If the keys to Heaven is the ‘Gospel of Jesus’ (that He is the Christ, the Son of the Living God), then anytime we share that fact, we are using the keys.
Click to expand...
Where in the Bible does it say that “the Keys to Heaven” is merely the Gospel of Jesus?
 
SavedbyHisBlood said:
In the argument given by some Non Catholic Christians, they state that Peter was called Petros by Jesus and his church was built on Petra (not Peter).

Please see the link for more on this argument.

My question is this: For you Non Catholic Christians that hold this interpretation, who holds the Keys of Heaven if not Peter?
Click to expand...
SavedbyHisBlood,

I’m studying this issue at present. I have a question for you and anyone else who wants to answer: Do Catholics believe the individual Christian has the right/authority through Christ to bind and loose? Please explain your answer.

Thanks,
Anna
 
Funnyt how you prooftext with the Bible when you want to prove your point and want something not to be there. But when a Protestant or other opponent points to Scripture you override it with history or the Magisterium or accuse somebody of sola scriptura! 😛

*When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. Galatians 2:11-12 *

It’s interesting how James’ men are sent to make sure Peter does the right thing. He must need James’ men to make sure he arrives at an infallible decision 😛

And James is not only clearly in charge of the Council of Jerusalem in Scripture, tradition in the East and West affords him the authority at that council:

When they finished, James spoke up: “Brothers, listen to me. 14Simon[a] has described to us how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself. 15The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:
16” ‘After this I will return
and rebuild David’s fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
and I will restore it,
17that the remnant of men may seek the Lord,
and all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things’*
18that have been known for ages.[c]

19"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.**"–Acts 15:13-21

And later in Acts we see:

When we arrived at Jerusalem, the believers received us warmly. The next day Paul and the rest of us went to see James, and all the elders were present.–Acts 21:17-18

And this comes from New Advent, a Catholic source:

Then James, whom the ancients surnamed the Just on account of the excellence of his virtue, is recorded to have been the first to be made bishop of the church of Jerusalem. This James was called the brother of the Lord because he was known as a son of Joseph, and Joseph was supposed to be the father of Christ, because the Virgin, being betrothed to him, “was found with child by the Holy Ghost before they came together,” Matthew 1:18 as the account of the holy Gospels shows.
Nicea325 said:
Amen! Why do people assume or add to what scripture truly says?

James did not lead the council. Nowhere in the scripture does it say “James convened the council” or that “James, the leader of the brethern, lead the council.” The statement is pure conjecture.
Click to expand...
I could not find it anywhere either…🤷*
 
Anna_Scott said:
SavedbyHisBlood,

I’m studying this issue at present. I have a question for you and anyone else who wants to answer: Do Catholics believe the individual Christian has the right/authority through Christ to bind and loose? Please explain your answer.

Thanks,
Anna
Click to expand...
It depends on what is the issue at hand. “Binding” an “loosing” was most specifically reserved for first Peter and those who hold his “office” or Bishopric in Rome. Secondarily to the other apostles and afterwards those bishopsthey appointed to the various cities where they presided so long as they hold to Peter. Peter’s office was and is always meant to be the sign of unity and integrity within Christian doctrine and practice.

For the individual lay person to presume to take upon themselves such a power is to arrogate something that really doesn’t belong to them. God’s truth does not belong to any individual person, He has handed His truth on to the Church(1 Tim 3:15; 1 John 4:6). We proclaim it not as our truth as if we own it, but God’s truth that he has entrusted to us. Individuals are merely suppose to be faithul stewards, nothing more.
 
The most common accusation on Catholic Answers Forum other than sola scriptura: “you’re confusing impeccability with infallibility.” Actually I’m quite adept in this area and do know the difference, Mithrandir. 🙂

I’m quite aware of the difference and agree that Peter is behaving badly here. I’m also not saying that Peter’s horrible behavior with table fellowship implies that he’s not a pope either. You missed my point completely. My point was that JAMES was in charge of the council, not Peter. That was my point. Universal jurisdiction and papal supremacy were evidently suspended that day. My point was James was the head hancho, not Peter. And it took James and Paul to rebuke Peter. Do you ever hear anyone balling out and rebuking popes in the last few centuries? They’re not able to do so. Things have changed. That’s the point. The point is not impeccable vs. infallible, obviously. It’s who was in charge.

So the argument isn’t a strawman when you don’t even properly understand what the argument is :p!

And see my other post above about James chairing the council. If you’re not even willing to accept what Scripture, tradition and the Fathers all said about James leading the Council, then it’s impossible to carry on an intelligent and thoughtful, intellectually-honest conversation. It’s then pure denial and anachronism. The Church has always openly stated that James led the council. If you want to talk conjecture, it’s your interpretations of Matthew 16:18 and the other supposedly papal “feed my sheep” references. Conjecture and opinion can go both ways.
The_GreyPilgrim said:
If you are referring to the episode in Antioch so what? You are confusing infallibility with impeccability. Paul’s rebuke of Peter was not a repudiation of Peter’s office, it was a redpudiation of Peter because he was not living up to his own infallible teaching. The argument amounts to a strawman.

James did not lead the council. Nowhere in the scripture does it say “James convened the council” or that “James, the leader of the brethern, lead the council.” The statement is pure conjecture.

Acts 15:
[4] When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they declared all that God had done with them.
[5] But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up, and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to charge them to keep the law of Moses.”
[6] The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter.
[7] **And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, "Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. **

Peter was the first to speak. Not only IS he the first to speak he confirms that “God made choice among you, that by **my mouth **the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.”

[8] And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us;
[9] and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith.
[10] Now therefore why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?
[11] But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will."
[12] And all the assembly kept silence; and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.

James follows, not by contradicting Peter, but by agreeing with what Peter had already said.

[13] After they finished speaking, James replied, "Brethren, listen to me.
[14] **Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. **[15] And with this the words of the prophets agree, as it is written,
[16] `After this I will return,
and I will rebuild the dwelling of David, which has fallen;
I will rebuild its ruins,
and I will set it up,
[17] that the rest of men may seek the Lord,
and all the Gentiles who are called by my name,
[18] says the Lord, who has made these things known from of old.’
[19] Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God,
[20] but should write to them to abstain from the pollutions of idols and from unchastity and from what is strangled and from blood.

**James is ratifying something Peter already proclaimed. **

Secondly, so what that Paul “out-evangelized”(as if the Kingdom is a matter of competition). Paul was following the grace which God had bestowed on him- as a great teacher, theologian, apologist, and writer- as Peter was following the grace God bestowed on him as an apostle and bishop-“to strengthen your brethern”-“to feed my lambs…tend my sheep…feed my sheep”. They lived the roles God had given them.

This does not negate the established fact of Peter’s primacy as proclaimed by the Lord.
Click to expand...
 
mflorence said:
Another question along that same line, since the post makes reference to the keys to heaven. I’m curious as to what the term “keys to heaven” means to other people. Catholics, Protestants, whomever - just interested in some thoughts.
Click to expand...
The only relevant question is what the “keys of heaven” meant to Jesus and to Peter. We find the answer in Judaism. The keys were the symbol of authority given by the King to his vizier (the guy appointed by the King to take authority over and watch after his household (his kingdom). The vizier’s authority was equal to the King’s. The capitalized “king” refers to King Jesus, who was crucified with a sign over his head that read “Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews.”

Jesus is head of His Church. By conferring the keys, Jesus appointed Peter (and his successors) as head of His Church – the kingdom of God on earth.

You will encounter many opinons, but this is the true meaning of the keys. Christianity is a revealed religion, not a guessing game as Protestants and others have made it.

See my post #22 for more info and Scriptural citations.

Peace be with you, Jim D
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
Funnyt how you prooftext with the Bible when you want to prove your point and want something not to be there. But when a Protestant or other opponent points to Scripture you override it with history or the Magisterium or accuse somebody of sola scriptura! 😛
Click to expand...
Don’t you, as a Protestant, believe in the right of every believer to interpret the Bible as they feel the Spirit guiding them? Or do you arrogate the right of interpetation only to yourself?

Show where I have prooftexted out of context, (as you have done several times), or demonstrate where the history I have demonstrated is fallacious or amounts to circular logic.
gurneyhalleck1 said:
When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. Galatians 2:11-12

It’s interesting how James’ men are sent to make sure Peter does the right thing. He must need James’ men to make sure he arrives at an infallible decision 😛
Click to expand...
Where is it said in that passage*or even in the bible-that James sent babysitters to look after Peter’s behavior?

Secondly you seem to not even read the passage correctly! You have it backwards-Peter seemd to have reverted after James’ men came, not before. The ones who came from James it seems were IN the circumcision group mentioned by Paul, not against them.

Bottom line, you still have not proved that Peter’s primacy was removed because Peter was not perfect in his behavior.
gurneyhalleck1 said:
And James is not only clearly in charge of the Council of Jerusalem in Scripture, tradition in the East and West affords him the authority at that council:

When they finished, James spoke up: "Brothers, listen to me. 14Simon[a] has described to us how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself. 15The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:
16" ‘After this I will return
and rebuild David’s fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
and I will restore it,
17that the remnant of men may seek the Lord,
and all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things’**
18that have been known for ages.[c]

19"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.**"–Acts 15:13-21

I posted the entire context of the council where Peter is the first one to speak as the bold type I highlighted in your passage proves. Pretext as usual. You can’t ignore the first several verses of the chapter because you don’t like what they demonstrate.
gurneyhalleck1;6980516:
And later in Acts we see:

When we arrived at Jerusalem, the believers received us warmly. The next day Paul and the rest of us went to see James, and all the elders were present
Click to expand...
.–Acts 21:17-18

Again, out of context. And it proves nothing about your presupposition. It merely seems to state that Peter wasn’t in Jerusalem. Strawman.
gurneyhalleck1 said:
And this comes from New Advent, a Catholic source:

Then James, whom the ancients surnamed the Just on account of the excellence of his virtue, is recorded to have been the first to be made bishop of the church of Jerusalem. This James was called the brother of the Lord because he was known as a son of Joseph, and Joseph was supposed to be the father of Christ, because the Virgin, being betrothed to him, “was found with child by the Holy Ghost before they came together,” Matthew 1:18 as the account of the holy Gospels shows.
Click to expand...
Strawman…That James was the bishop of Jerusalem says nothing to refute Peter’s primacy.
Click to expand...
 
The_GreyPilgrim said:
Where in the Bible does it say that “the Keys to Heaven” is merely the Gospel of Jesus?
Click to expand...
You questioned my agreement to a post. That was my answer.

The context of the keys is Peter’s confession of who Jesus is. Who Jesus is is the center of the Gospel of Jesus.
 
The_GreyPilgrim said:
Arguments from silence do not suffice as proof.
Click to expand...
The following is not of silence.

Ac 12:17 But motioning to them with his hand to keep silent, he declared to them how the Lord had brought him out of the prison. And he said, “Go, tell these things to James and to the brethren.” And he departed and went to another place.

Ac 15:13 And after they had become silent, James answered, saying, "Men and brethren, listen to me:

Ac 21:18 On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present.

1Co 15:7 After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles.

Ga 1:19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother.

Ga 2:9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

Ga 2:12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision.

Notice: Paul, speaking of Peter (Cephas) said Cephas ‘seemed’ to be pillars. Seems Paul didn’t know Peter was the leader of the church.
 
SavedbyHisBlood said:
In the argument given by some Non Catholic Christians, they state that Peter was called Petros by Jesus and his church was built on Petra (not Peter).

Please see the link for more on this argument.

My question is this: For you Non Catholic Christians that hold this interpretation, who holds the Keys of Heaven if not Peter?
Click to expand...
So, an individual Christian is not to pray that something be bound or loosed, claiming such authority through Christ?
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
The most common accusation on Catholic Answers Forum other than sola scriptura: “you’re confusing impeccability with infallibility.” Actually I’m quite adept in this area and do know the difference, Mithrandir. 🙂

I’m quite aware of the difference and agree that Peter is behaving badly here. I’m also not saying that Peter’s horrible behavior with table fellowship implies that he’s not a pope either. You missed my point completely. My point was that JAMES was in charge of the council, not Peter. That was my point. Universal jurisdiction and papal supremacy were evidently suspended that day. My point was James was the head hancho, not Peter. And it took James and Paul to rebuke Peter. Do you ever hear anyone balling out and rebuking popes in the last few centuries? They’re not able to do so. Things have changed. That’s the point. The point is not impeccable vs. infallible, obviously. It’s who was in charge.

So the argument isn’t a strawman when you don’t even properly understand what the argument is :p!

And see my other post above about James chairing the council. If you’re not even willing to accept what Scripture, tradition and the Fathers all said about James leading the Council, then it’s impossible to carry on an intelligent and thoughtful, intellectually-honest conversation. It’s then pure denial and anachronism. The Church has always openly stated that James led the council. If you want to talk conjecture, it’s your interpretations of Matthew 16:18 and the other supposedly papal “feed my sheep” references. Conjecture and opinion can go both ways.
Click to expand...
I still maintain that Peter was essential to the council of Jerusalem being valid due to the power given to him by Christ which he even bears witness to in Acts15:7.

That being given I will allow the possibilty of James leading the Council.

Now explain how “leading a council” equates to James having primacy in the Church?
 
The_GreyPilgrim said:
Don’t you, as a Protestant, believe in the right of every believer to interpret the Bible as they feel the Spirit guiding them? Or do you arrogate the right of interpetation only to yourself?

Show where I have prooftexted out of context, (as you have done several times), or demonstrate where the history I have demonstrated is fallacious or amounts to circular logic.

Where is it said in that passage*or even in the bible-that James sent babysitters to look after Peter’s behavior?

Secondly you seem to not even read the passage correctly! You have it backwards-Peter seemd to have reverted after James’ men came, not before. The ones who came from James it seems were IN the circumcision group mentioned by Paul, not against them.

Bottom line, you still have not proved that Peter’s primacy was removed because Peter was not perfect in his behavior.

I posted the entire context of the council where Peter is the first one to speak as the bold type I highlighted in your passage proves. Pretext as usual. You can’t ignore the first several verses of the chapter because you don’t like what they demonstrate.

Again, out of context. And it proves nothing about your presupposition. It merely seems to state that Peter wasn’t in Jerusalem. Strawman.

Strawman…That James was the bishop of Jerusalem says nothing to refute Peter’s primacy.
Click to expand...
Jerusalem was the center of the church then. The Bible says nothing of Peter’s primacy that I’m aware of. Could you give specific scriptures. The Bible verses given before are no better than saying Paul was the leader because he wrote the most letters of the NT. BTW, if you want to compare the amount of verses written about Paul’s ministry and Peter’s ministry in Acts, who’s written about more?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top