Paul Did NOT See Peter as Head of the Church

[Jon_S_1]

Sorry Jon for not answering sooner,but thanks for responding. Notice Christ does not say take it to Peter,not even to an apostles (not that they are not included in “church” and are shepherds). But notice also the dignity, even capacity for an individual to “judge/admonish”, then for several brethren, then the church. In that there is a grain of salt in Luther’s hot remark that we are all popes.

However, it seems the council at Jerusalem is a good playing out of working out contentions, of “taking it to the church” (though Christs remarks were in context of personal offense). I know even the CC had struggles (culminating in1400’s) with balancing final authority being in pope and/or councils.

Sounds pretty good to me, but the council of Jerusalem was not composed of every Christian. So some had authority over others. This authority was even exercised in a letter sent out to the faithful telling them how it will be.

So I have a hard time reconciling your claim that no one has authority with this idea. Even if we remove the pope from the top and place the apostles there (and their successors the bishops) then it still shows that authority is there over others. Indeed all councils of the church have demonstrated this principle.

When I was evangelical, the final step of Matt 18 seemed only to be exercised against pastors committing adultery or some other scandalous sin. They were basically fired by the elder board and would go be a pastor somewhere else.

So really Matt 18 was not utilized in my Evangelical upbringing. So I am wondering if you see it being used in a real way and if not why these serious and timeless instructions of Christ are dissolved, watered down or broken today.

 

[ericc]

One of the more popular views on the passage from 1 Cor. 11 among Baptists and non-denominational Protestants is that the “body” not being discerned in that passage is not Christ’s body in the Eucharist. Rather, it is not discerning the Body of Christ in the poor among the congregation who the rich are spurning and treating badly.

How does that tie in with :

1 Cor 11:27 Profaning the body and blood of the Lord
1 Cor 11:30 and causing sickness and death

And if the subject matter is really about the rich spurning the poor then (1 Cor 11:26) proclaiming the Lord’s death until he comes seems to be totally unconnected.

So either Paul is nuts talking about these verses when the subject matter is about the rich spurning the poor at the Eucharist table, or you are nuts talking about the rich/poor when Paul is talking about the Eucharist and how to partake it properly. Which one do you think stand on firmer footing?

Paul talked about the abuses when they come together for the Lord’s Supper. Some eat before others. V 21. And Paul said about those, if one is hungry, eat at home first V34. The Lords’ Supper should be eaten together V33. And V24-30 tells us how to do it properly otherwise one may suffer V30.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Kind of amazing that the Church didn’t pick up on this for 1500 years.

Don’t underestimate the power of 16th century Luther-piggy backing anabaptist German wackadoodles.

 

[SteveVH]

Don’t underestimate the power of 16th century Luther-piggy backing anabaptist German wackadoodles.

Never heard of that denomination.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Never heard of that denomination.

I’m sure they are still around somewhere!

 

[KathleenGee]

Hi Benhur…

All Hebrew men were priests until they abandoned the Lord for the Golden Calf. Only the Levites remained faithful. To be a priest at this point, one had to be born of the Levites, only serve so many years.

Christ is the fulfillment of Melchizedek, of the ancient High Priest.

But you then must go back to how did Christians worship?..They worshipped with the Breaking of the Bread…and the parts, spirit, tone and liturgy were in place by 100 AD throughout the entire Christian world…which in itself is the work of the Holy Spirit.

to clarify…Peter and Paul were founders. They appointed bishops. There were presbyters when Peter and Paul arrived…but the Christians in Rome were the Jewish Christians who had escaped Israel…and likewise practiced the use of presbyters…those sanctioned by the apostles and early Church.

The title, ‘pope’, came later as the Church grew. It was not intentional but Rome always ended up with having grace to settle disputes and fund and support new churches. Linus and later Clement were appointed bishop. I believe it was Pope Calixtus who gave a universal decree whose actions and authority were automatically recognized throughout the Christian world without any dissension.

Another source…if you go to St. Justin the Martyr, read his description of the Mass in Rome…written for the Roman emperor around 154 AD…which is so recognizable to us Catholics.

The point is you cannot separate Church from Scripture.

The issue with Luther’s 50 theses…is that they essentially liquidated the Church, at least in the eyes of those who followed Luther. And all the Church could do was to systematically and uniform the entire universal Church in sacred unity…by printing the Roman Missal in Latin with identical form and intent throughout in reaction to the ongoing fragmentation out side of the Church in the use of Sola Scriptura.

What is happening is that your premise is ignoring 1500 years of Church history.

 

[DCNBILL]

Who says the Church is without organization with out the evolved modern day papacy ? Last I heard many folk have no problem calling Peter a rock, or that he had keys, that he was even a type of leader of the twelve, yet do not see the CC view of institutionalized papal leadership.

However the fact is that the Church did developed with the modern papacy so that must be the way that the Holy Spirit wanted it.

 

[benhur]

So I have a hard time reconciling your claim that no one has authority with this idea.

Per post #280 “Either/ or” again. So if we don’t believe Peter was a pope but first amongst equals we believe, " no one(was) in charge". Easy to win that debate, just don’t know who you are debating against.

 

[benhur]

However the fact is that the Church did developed with the modern papacy so that must be the way that the Holy Spirit wanted it.

Not sure what you are claiming here about the papcy.

 

[benhur]

All Hebrew men were priests until they abandoned the Lord for the Golden Calf. Only the Levites remained faithful. To be a priest at this point, one had to be born of the Levites, only serve so many years.

Hi Kathleenn,

Glad to see we both understand the Israelites were all priests before the calf/sin, and they all had their own Passover ( the first one), sacrificed with their own hands.(Not sure the levites /Aaron were “faithful” at the calf).

Israel had a rebellion in the wilderness not understanding they were not all priests anymore, and in fact misunderstood the Word that they were a nation of priests (using that as a claim for rebellion).

I humbly suggest that the CC also misunderstands the Word but in reverse, claiming an OT sacrificial priesthood (whether Levitical/Melchizedekian), apart from laity. That she dubbs all Christians “priests” is nice and according to the Word, but she goes further and initiates the old priesthood at expense of the prietshood of all.

St. Peter says now we are indeed a nation of priests, and last I heard the church did not have a “calf/sin” experience like the Israelites to loose this. We are like the Israelites before their "fall’ and can celebrate the "new’ Passover , the ecuhcaristing without a “levite” priest. Further, the new passover remembrance is not a "sacrifice’’ in OT sense

This is the reason why the word for OT priest (heirus) is not used in NT offices but the word presbyter and bishop.

So either way, that we are all priests and that Eucharist is not a "sacrifice’’ (of praise, yes), a presbyter/priest /bishop certainly can "officiate’’ an Eucharist, though not their primary function, for we can all do likewise. That is not to say a presbyter or appointed "presider’’ is preferred, but not because of “office/anointing” but for order sake.

 

[benhur]

So it is your contention that we have a careless God who does not understand His creatures? Since when does any organization survive without leadership?

Organization, even institution, and leadership have different shades and variations, of which you have one of several being practiced now by the Body of Christ.

Again, you are posting an either/or argument, which it is not.

Israel survived quite well, had leadership even structure , before she demanded a “king”.

 

[dronald]

Hi Kathleenn,

This is the reason why the word for OT priest (heirus) is not used in NT offices but the word presbyter and bishop.

I think this point should be its own topic. It has always bothered me that Catholics take the title “Priest” from two different words.

If I ask “Who’s a Priest” shall I point at myself or a Catholic Priest?

 

[PRmerger]

I think this point should be its own topic. It has always bothered me that Catholics take the title “Priest” from two different words.

If I ask “Who’s a Priest” shall I point at myself or a Catholic Priest?

Does it bother you that the Bible takes the title “Father” from 2 different words, then?

That’s no more confusing than if you ask, “Who’s a father?” Should you point to yourself or to God?

 

[benhur]

Does it bother you that the Bible takes the title “Father” from 2 different words, then?

That’s no more confusing than if you ask, “Who’s a father?” Should you point to yourself or to God?

Actually you can point to more a few more like father of my wife’s children, the orthodox "pappas’’/popes, and of course Father as in priest, and lastly God the Father. That is only four, and not as confusing as 30,000.

 

[benhur]

I think this point should be its own topic. It has always bothered me that Catholics take the title “Priest” from two different words.

If I ask “Who’s a Priest” shall I point at myself or a Catholic Priest?

Circular, even insulary, by design.

 

[benhur]

Sounds pretty good to me, but the council of Jerusalem was not composed of every Christian. So some had authority over others. This authority was even exercised in a letter sent out to the faithful telling them how it will be.

Agreed. The letter however, was in the name , not just of the subgroups (elders,apostles) but the entire body, every Christian (at Jerusalem) and the authoritative top dog, the Holy Spirit. Otherwise no name dropping.

The famed letter to the Corinthians(attributed to Clement writing) was in same fashion. From the entire church at Rome to the entire church at Corinth. No name dropping, save the Holy Spirit again.

When I was evangelical, the final step of Matt 18 seemed only to be exercised against pastors committing adultery or some other scandalous sin. They were basically fired by the elder board and would go be a pastor somewhere else.

Be careful here Jon. This is an institutional problem. I have seen the same "relocating’’ with teachers, and lately with priests, of several denominations, including Catholic. So while most institutions do sanction, including evangelical churches, not always. But yes, independents are free to hire whom they please. I have also seen priests get into “trouble” and go "pastor’’ a church/congregation, though independent from CC. It has been that way since the beginning, even with Arianism, Gnostics etc. There is no sure fire way to stop a heretic, or chief sinner from pastoring, leading, teaching somewhere to someone, once ousted.
(Well, there is but we won’t go into that.)

So really Matt 18 was not utilized in my Evangelical upbringing.

Well it was utilized per your own words, and per mine I have tried to overcome your objection that it was not done “fully”.

So I am wondering if you see it being used in a real way and if not why these serious and timeless instructions of Christ are dissolved, watered down or broken today.

Jon, you have one historical extreme of church’s being liberal or “soft on crime” so to speak , and the other of supreme harshness
with imprisonment, property confiscation, and even death (on both sides of the aisle, P’s and C’s).

I think most churches today are OK but perhaps leaning on soft side. We both want parishioners and their leaders to be held accountable and have it done properly, in love as admonished by the Lord and St. Paul for instance. Also the context of Mat:18 is personal offence.

Along these lines I do not like it when a politician is supposed to be a follower of Christ yet they vote for abortion laws, and vote against any constitutionally allowed limiting thereof, and their respective churches do little, and keep them in good standing, even sacramentally, in their church. have heard of no excommunications on this.

Blessings

 

[Rocks_91]

If Peter alone without a council was protected by the Holy Spirit when preaching faith and morals, then how did he preach the Juadaizing heresy? And why then did Paul recognize no infallible authority in Peter when he came and rebuked him to his face?

Also, I read that Peter was first bishop of Antioch, what makes the Roman pope infallible and not where Peter was bishop first?

 

[Jon_S_1]

Agreed. The letter however, was in the name , not just of the subgroups (elders,apostles) but the entire body, every Christian (at Jerusalem) and the authoritative top dog, the Holy Spirit. Otherwise no name dropping.

The famed letter to the Corinthians(attributed to Clement writing) was in same fashion. From the entire church at Rome to the entire church at Corinth. No name dropping, save the Holy Spirit again.
Be careful here Jon. This is an institutional problem. I have seen the same "relocating’’ with teachers, and lately with priests, of several denominations, including Catholic. So while most institutions do sanction, including evangelical churches, not always. But yes, independents are free to hire whom they please. I have also seen priests get into “trouble” and go "pastor’’ a church/congregation, though independent from CC. It has been that way since the beginning, even with Arianism, Gnostics etc. There is no sure fire way to stop a heretic, or chief sinner from pastoring, leading, teaching somewhere to someone, once ousted.
(Well, there is but we won’t go into that.)
Well it was utilized per your own words, and per mine I have tried to overcome your objection that it was not done “fully”. Jon, you have one historical extreme of church’s being liberal or “soft on crime” so to speak , and the other of supreme harshness
with imprisonment, property confiscation, and even death (on both sides of the aisle, P’s and C’s).

I think most churches today are OK but perhaps leaning on soft side. We both want parishioners and their leaders to be held accountable and have it done properly, in love as admonished by the Lord and St. Paul for instance. Also the context of Mat:18 is personal offence.

Along these lines I do not like it when a politician is supposed to be a follower of Christ yet they vote for abortion laws, and vote against any constitutionally allowed limiting thereof, and their respective churches do little, and keep them in good standing, even sacramentally, in their church. have heard of no excommunications on this.

Blessings

So I guess we might be missing each other’s points.

I took this quote of yours to mean that we all exercised equal church authority…

“Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?” 1 Cor. 6:2

For sure all of us will “rule”. All of us have that gifting (even now) and reward.

So it seems now you hold that there is some sort of authority.

If so I guess I ask where does the church authority lie?

Which church has greater authority?

If a pastor is dismissed because he taught “heresy” at your evangelical church, but then was picked up at a Presbyterian church that found him wholly orthodox, then where is the authority?

Where is the authority as it was in apostolic times where peter or Paul or Clement could write a letter and say “your doing it wrong, change it”

Also, why would the entire church in Rome have the authority to send a letter to the Corinthians in your mind?

 

[benhur]

So based upon your interpretation of your Bible, after Jesus established his Church on Peter did Jesus leave a single leader to lead his Church after his ascension? Yes or No

Hi erric

No, not in the CC paradigm?

And if no, in the event a dispute arises in the Christian religion, how would Protestants resolve it? I mean really resolving it, not hurl interpretations at each other. The solution that is binding to all parties and persons to be excommunicated if they refused to be bound by the solution in the manner of Matthew 18:17-18

Forget Matt 18 (not the context) . A perfect context to your question is in Acts, with the Jerusalem council (except for the excommunication part).

It has been along time since the Catholics, Eastern church, and then P’s have been able to be Acts council-like.

C’s and Os’ are now councilled mostly by themselves, and P’s only within their denominational lines also.

 

[benhur]

So it seems now you hold that there is some sort of authority.
If so I guess I ask where does the church authority lie?

Sorry, I thought you knew that but not sure what posts you have read. I also see you have experienced authority outside CC paradigm.

We only dispute scripture/history,tradition of successive popes outright, and the rest only with variations (just how was Peter a leader, and the office of presbyter perhaps as sacrificial priest).

Which church has greater authority?

Which ever speaks the greater truth on a given matter.

If a pastor is dismissed because he taught “heresy” at your evangelical church, but then was picked up at a Presbyterian church that found him wholly orthodox, then where is the authority?

Where is the authority as it was in apostolic times where peter or Paul or Clement could write a letter and say “your doing it wrong, change it”

Of course one is only authoritative in its own denomination. Even the CC is limited, as evidenced by Gnostics, Arians, Montanists etc etc.

Also, why would the entire church in Rome have the authority to send a letter to the Corinthians in your mind?

The letter speaks for itself. It says it is authoritative, if I recall correctly, because it’s admonitions are Holy Spirit given. It is good counsel, on its own, without any institutional enforcement (save one church to another). Truth is its own way , is authoritative. At least it should be (free will).