Paul Did NOT See Peter as Head of the Church

[benhur]

I don’t follow…maybe check my edited post and clarify. Thanks.

OK. I took it that you were pointing out the weakness of divine revelation to the individual, even private judgement, relative to “corporate” guidance and judgment. My rebuttal was that indeed there are abuses and that it is not idiot proof (subject to the flesh). But that does not do away with God authenticating and using such mode (personal divine revelation and conviction). That is, because a mode can be abused does not do away with it ,and that it has positive fruits. Many use this same argument to defend the papacy, and I use it hear to defend personal revelation.

Cain and Abel both heard from God , even from their parents Adam and Eve, on how to please God. The outcomes were quite the opposite from each other. Did the mode of revelation fail ? Did the parents fail and therefore God instituted the responsibility of the “village” to raise the children ? Of course not.

Any litmus test or guiding institution that you can suggest has failed, partly or momentarily in the past, but we still keep them.(except scripture is error free).

I agree with you that we do have guidance, even a litmus check in the corporate body, and history, and scripture, and tradition, a rule of faith, a context. I would say we have those precisely because we also have a personal, one on one, revelation from God, and are to freely form convictions and this mode must be safeguarded. It is a balance.

 

[benhur]

Not true. Jesus told the people to submit to the teachings of the Jewish leaders:

Hi Steve,

Understand. I was thinking of Peter’s “confession” due to Fatherly revelation about whom Jesus is, and how it was contrary to magisterium, even status quo of the time. The apostles knew they were "rebels’’, both during and after the Lord’s earthly ministry.

"Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach." (Matthew 23:1-3)

You know Jesus told them to beware of their bad doctrine (leaven) ?

You are correct that this is a modern paradigm. Until the “Reformation” it wasn’t an issue. You didn’t have separate churches springing up on every corner preaching their own version of the Gospel, holding conflicting beliefs, and still considered “Christian”.

Well, I think it is much before reformation even the east/west schism.

It really doesn’t matter what “some Catholics” say.

I know, I am somewhat SS. Shall I repeat your quip every time folks quote a Catholic ?

 

[Jon_S_1]

OK. I took it that you were pointing out the weakness of divine revelation to the individual, even private judgement, relative to “corporate” guidance and judgment. My rebuttal was that indeed there are abuses and that it is not idiot proof (subject to the flesh). But that does not do away with God authenticating and using such mode (personal divine revelation and conviction). That is, because a mode can be abused does not do away with it ,and that it has positive fruits. Many use this same argument to defend the papacy, and I use it hear to defend personal revelation.

Cain and Abel both heard from God , even from their parents Adam and Eve, on how to please God. The outcomes were quite the opposite from each other. Did the mode of revelation fail ? Did the parents fail and therefore God instituted the responsibility of the “village” to raise the children ? Of course not.

Any litmus test or guiding institution that you can suggest has failed, partly or momentarily in the past, but we still keep them.(except scripture is error free).

I agree with you that we do have guidance, even a litmus check in the corporate body, and history, and scripture, and tradition, a rule of faith, a context. I would say we have those precisely because we also have a personal, one on one, revelation from God, and are to freely form convictions and this mode must be safeguarded. It is a balance.

I haven’t seen any surveys going out or ballots to all Protestants everywhere whenever a major doctrinal difference comes up.

Tim Kellers church plant in San francisco for example just decided to start allowing same sex marriages. This is a Presbyterian rooted “conservative” evangelical church.

Is same sex marriage now sanctioned in evangelicalism? If not then when will it be? In 15 years when 9 out of 10 evangelical churches allow same sex marriage could we then declare it doctrine?

Check out this 10 min video on authority in the church and let me know your thoughts.
youtu.be/RWYwBDqFsuE

 

[SteveVH]

Hi Steve,

Understand. I was thinking of Peter’s “confession” due to Fatherly revelation about whom Jesus is, and how it was contrary to magisterium, even status quo of the time. The apostles knew they were "rebels’’, both during and after the Lord’s earthly ministry.

But they did not contradict Jewish teaching. They used Jewish teaching to make their case.

You know Jesus told them to beware of their bad doctrine (leaven)?

Not doctrine, rather hypocrisy.

Well, I think it is much before reformation even the east/west schism.

Point taken. Nevertheless, do you consider 1050 AD as “early Christianity”?

I know, I am somewhat SS. Shall I repeat your quip every time folks quote a Catholic ?

Yes, if that Catholic is speaking counter to the official teachings of the Catholic Church. Our individual opinions are nothing more than that.

Peace, my friend.

Steve.

 

[benhur]

But they did not contradict Jewish teaching. They used Jewish teaching to make their case.

 

[benhur]

I haven’t seen any surveys going out or ballots to all Protestants everywhere whenever a major doctrinal difference comes up.

Tim Kellers church plant in San francisco for example just decided to start allowing same sex marriages. This is a Presbyterian rooted “conservative” evangelical church.

Is same sex marriage now sanctioned in evangelicalism? If not then when will it be? In 15 years when 9 out of 10 evangelical churches allow same sex marriage could we then declare it doctrine?

Check out this 10 min video on authority in the church and let me know your thoughts.
youtu.be/RWYwBDqFsuE

Jon,Took a look. Very likeable fellow.We certainly have gone over his points quite well here (this and a bunch of other threads). On the positive side i did post a sitemodernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var2=19 that dealt more with SS that addressed some of this, and admitted a "rule of faith’’ a church context for individual convictions.

As long as we are chit chatting ,my heart sank when he mentioned 30,000 , thinking it did not match his otherwise genuine, scholarly approach. I have some trouble with Newman, for I read some stuff (that is tough to verify) where he advocates for papal infallibility in quite demonstrative terms. In the end I think he pushed for it to justify his switching over to CC, and meeting the objection of “umpires” erring. Bottom line on the video is that it was all about justifying one church over another. But thank you, and liked it overall, and felt comfortable that his concerns are understandable but conclusively still questionable/debatable. And like he said, the game is being played on by all sides, and perhaps the most fruitful are those least concerned with denominationalism (not downplaying our sincere even amiable conversation)…Thanks again

 

[benhur]

You should really study the Korah uprising in Numbers 16:1-33.

Thanks to you and others here on CAF I have been taught much on it. There is indeed a time for everything, including proper submission.

One should also study how those in authority can err, how the one true and holy authority of the OT (Israel) got it so right yet so wrong, how an anointing is conditional and above any office/ceremony.

In this event, Korah and others had tried to arrogate to themselves an authority not granted by God nor delegated to them by someone who HAD divine authority.

That is right ,they misinterpreted the Word, where they were to be a “nation of priests”. Later, when sin occurred, that was "postponed " and only Aaron and Levites were to be priests.

I would say this is now fulfilled in NT as Peter suggests, that we are a kingdom of priests.
Like all twelve tribes are priests now, not just Levites anymore . Church offices are not priestly (heirus) but presbytery. So while we are warned to submit to apostles and presbyters, we are all heirus priests. There is ample warning of leaders asserting themselves wrongly, even lording over wrongly, maybe even using justifying scripture like Korah, improperly. The whole thing cuts both ways.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Jon,Took a look. Very likeable fellow.We certainly have gone over his points quite well here (this and a bunch of other threads). On the positive side i did post a sitemodernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var2=19 that dealt more with SS that addressed some of this, and admitted a "rule of faith’’ a church context for individual convictions.

As long as we are chit chatting ,my heart sank when he mentioned 30,000 , thinking it did not match his otherwise genuine, scholarly approach. I have some trouble with Newman, for I read some stuff (that is tough to verify) where he advocates for papal infallibility in quite demonstrative terms. In the end I think he pushed for it to justify his switching over to CC, and meeting the objection of “umpires” erring. Bottom line on the video is that it was all about justifying one church over another. But thank you, and liked it overall, and felt comfortable that his concerns are understandable but conclusively still questionable/debatable. And like he said, the game is being played on by all sides, and perhaps the most fruitful are those least concerned with denominationalism (not downplaying our sincere even amiable conversation)…Thanks again

If your not familiar with Fr Barron check him out! He’s awesome. His website is wordonfire.org which is a wealth of information. He also has a YouTube channel and comments on things in the culture primarily. So he pulls Christian truths from books songs movies and comments on current events.

 

[PRmerger]

Thanks to you and others here on CAF I have been taught much on it. There is indeed a time for everything, including proper submission.

One should also study how those in authority can err, how the one true and holy authority of the OT (Israel) got it so right yet so wrong, how an anointing is conditional and above any office/ceremony.

You are aware, ben, that Moses was in error–he was leading them the WRONG WAY in the desert. That’s why Korah and his companions wanted to rebel against him.

Yet, even if Moses was wrong, (and he clearly was) he was the authority, and, as such ought to have been obeyed. God would have made it right, if Korah had simply obeyed Moses in his error.

That is right ,they misinterpreted the Word, where they were to be a “nation of priests”.

Where did the Israelites read this Word of God that they were to be a “nation of priests”?

Is that in Exodus? Do you have any evidence that the Israelites had this Word?

 

[SteveVH]

Of course you and I know that but the magisterium did not . So which of the Jewish teachings, interpretations of that time is the other question/point ?

Well, first of all, I am not sure that the Jews had a magisterium.

“Then they understood that he said not that they should beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” Matt16:12 Doctrine and hypocrisy.

The context of that verse is that the Pharisees and Sadducees were asking Jesus for a sign. Jesus replied "A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah.” It is immediately after this that he makes the statement about their teachings in this regard. They were testing Jesus. This had nothing to do with Jewish doctrine as a whole.

No but, “It was something that came about gradually, as the result of a long and complicated process, starting well before the eleventh century and not completed until some time after.” orthodoxinfo.com/general/greatschism.aspx

Yes, I understand. But the view that the early Christian Church was much as it is today, with everyone figuring it out on their own, based upon their own abilities and interpretations, and that this was somehow acceptable to the Apostles, is just biblically and historically not the case.

Peace.

Steve

 

[Jon_S_1]

Well, first of all, I am not sure that the Jews had a magisterium.

The context of that verse is that the Pharisees and Sadducees were asking Jesus for a sign. Jesus replied "A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah.” It is immediately after this that he makes the statement about their teachings in this regard. They were testing Jesus. This had nothing to do with Jewish doctrine as a whole.

Yes, I understand. But the view that the early Christian Church was much as it is today, with everyone figuring it out on their own, based upon their own abilities and interpretations, and that this was somehow acceptable to the Apostles, is just biblically and historically not the case.

Peace.

Steve

Magesterium is probably not the right word technically but the Jews had and continue to have something in common with us…a 3 legged stool

The Jews have the scriptures, the oral tradition (Talmud), and the chair of Moses found now in the rabbis.

So when electricity was invented, the rabbis had to find out what it was, could electricity be used on the sabbath? So they looked at all their sources and decided it would be treated as fire. This is binding on all Jews today.

In things like this, one can see practically how catholicism has sprouted organically from Judaism, and protestant ideas of sola scriptura are not only detracting from Christian history but also Jewish history.

Jewish bibles are filled with commentary that they wouldn’t dare read the scriptures without the commentary as it would be to read the scriptures outside the tradition that it came from.

I’m reading a book and heard the author speak and can’t recommend it enough. It’s important we understand what our roots in Judaism really are.

“A Christians guide to Judaism” - by Rabbi Lotker
amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0809142325/ref=gp_aw_ybh_l_3?pi=SL500_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-big%2CTopRight%2C35%2C-73_OU01_SR329%2C500&refRID=1H8KMNBK9Z2SVWEZXDZD

 

[KathleenGee]

If I am understanding you correctly…in regards to which Hebrew heritage?..I am referring to the original Jewish Christian community that met co-jointly with the Jews in their synagogues until disputes among came about that they were expelled and formed their own synagogue.

After the Diaspora…many Christian Jews fled the Holy Land, only a few remaining and their Christian roots becoming very small in influence in relation to the great conversions by the Gentiles to Christ.

It was the Jewish Christians practicing in Rome in homes when SS Peter and Paul came.

The Hebrew Catholics are those Jews who came to fulfillment in the Catholic Church and also state that the Church provides them the authority of teaching whereas the Messianic Jews have the same conditions within them as found in Protestantism, the lack of a single central authority.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Thanks to you and others here on CAF I have been taught much on it. There is indeed a time for everything, including proper submission.

One should also study how those in authority can err, how the one true and holy authority of the OT (Israel) got it so right yet so wrong, how an anointing is conditional and above any office/ceremony.

That is right ,they misinterpreted the Word, where they were to be a “nation of priests”. Later, when sin occurred, that was "postponed " and only Aaron and Levites were to be priests.

I would say this is now fulfilled in NT as Peter suggests, that we are a kingdom of priests.
Like all twelve tribes are priests now, not just Levites anymore . Church offices are not priestly (heirus) but presbytery. So while we are warned to submit to apostles and presbyters, we are all heirus priests.

 

[KathleenGee]

People often quote how the Church ordered this or that…if they looked at who actually ordered an abuse…it was the temporal rulers…or as in the case of the Council of Constance that ordered the execution of Jan Hus…a council that was later nulled…during the time when we had two anti popes…and this particular anti pope as well did not go along with the execution…only a small portion in part of local bishops. When the valid pope assumed his position, he nulled the entire council.

People have to see what the Church hierarchy actually administered…and who the temporal rulers or rogues were who did such.

 

[benhur]

You are aware, ben, that Moses was in error–he was leading them the WRONG WAY in the desert. That’s why Korah and his companions wanted to rebel against him.

Yet, even if Moses was wrong, (and he clearly was) he was the authority, and, as such ought to have been obeyed. God would have made it right, if Korah had simply obeyed Moses in his error.

Don’t think so PR, that Moses was wrong, clearly, and Korah was gonna fix it.

And God will "fix it’ if you follow a leader who is wrong? Sometimes, sometimes not . Who decides ? Do you always follow orders ? What about the folks who disobeyed their immediate tribal supervisors/leaders/council members and stuck to Moses ?

 

[Jon_S_1]

Don’t think so PR, that Moses was wrong, clearly, and Korah was gonna fix it.

And God will "fix it’ if you follow a leader who is wrong? Sometimes, sometimes not . Who decides ? Do you always follow orders ? What about the folks who disobeyed their immediate tribal supervisors/leaders/council members and stuck to Moses ?

Everything is under God’s providence, despite our choices and failures, he works with our limitations.

To assert that “I follow God because I know best” is to assert oneself as God.

To assert that “I follow God under the leadership and authority he provided despite myself” is to assert oneself as Gods humble servant.

Just some food for thought as the statements descend on who knows the mind of God best.

 

[SteveVH]

Magesterium is probably not the right word technically but the Jews had and continue to have something in common with us…a 3 legged stool

The Jews have the scriptures, the oral tradition (Talmud), and the chair of Moses found now in the rabbis.

So when electricity was invented, the rabbis had to find out what it was, could electricity be used on the sabbath? So they looked at all their sources and decided it would be treated as fire. This is binding on all Jews today.

In things like this, one can see practically how catholicism has sprouted organically from Judaism, and protestant ideas of sola scriptura are not only detracting from Christian history but also Jewish history.

Jewish bibles are filled with commentary that they wouldn’t dare read the scriptures without the commentary as it would be to read the scriptures outside the tradition that it came from.

I’m reading a book and heard the author speak and can’t recommend it enough. It’s important we understand what our roots in Judaism really are.

“A Christians guide to Judaism” - by Rabbi Lotker
amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0809142325/ref=gp_aw_ybh_l_3?pi=SL500_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-big%2CTopRight%2C35%2C-73_OU01_SR329%2C500&refRID=1H8KMNBK9Z2SVWEZXDZD

Thanks for this Jon, I’ll check it out.

 

[benhur]

Ahh, just like Korah said.

Exactly like Korah.

Totally understand. If I were Catholic I would say the same thing. Just that it cuts both ways. Others see Rome as historically doing the power grab, even using scripture to that end.

Putting politics aside maybe one can see Korah and the rebellion for what it was. It was a power grab for Korah and some other princes. Do you really think he wanted to supplant Moses so that all could be a “pope/Moses/Aaron” to themselves, Korah then himself just being one of a million "leaders/priests’’ ? Moses saw right thru Korahs misapplication of the word of the Lord (nation of holy priests). Korah and his 250 wanted what Moses and Aaron and his sons had for themselves, and Moses pretty much says that to their faces in a challenge.

The rebellion was full of malcontents, folks who felt shunned in the new setup, being firstborn, being of elder status, and as mentioned also, no land of milk and honey but only desert as Dathan and Abriam quipped.

It is a bit of a stretch to say reformers were shunned malcontents and used theology for power, that they were not genuine in their call for reform.

Can you show me ONE place in salvation history where someone who is not God has given or assumed authority that God has not condemned?

Agreed, and He also condems false teaching and a proud stance.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Well, first of all, I am not sure that the Jews had a magisterium.

For lack of a better word . They did have their Talmud (commentary). From what I understand many views could be contained in it . It was not absolute as say our catechisms are . The only absolute thing they had was the Torah/ Scripture. The Torah and Talmud were not “equal” in nature not role, but both were important. I think they also struggled like we in balancing Scripture and Tradition . Don’t think they did what CC did either, and elevate Tradition as inerrant dogmatically .

The context of that verse is that the Pharisees and Sadducees were asking Jesus for a sign. Jesus replied "A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah.” It is immediately after this that he makes the statement about their teachings in this regard. They were testing Jesus. This had nothing to do with Jewish doctrine as a whole.

Sorry, but the P" and S’s did not question or look for a sign from Jesus because of a doctrine that said they should . No verse twelve says it, the light bulb:newidea: went off and it was plain, “leaven=doctrine” in that discourse. Unless of course you think no resurrection of the dead was the Saduccees tradition and not their "doctrine’’.

Not sure you can define Jewish doctrine as a “whole”, unless you wittle it down to a few basic elements. I understand that despite their divisions, doctrines, traditions, salvation is still from the Jews and Israel delivered the Messiah perfectly.

Peace.

 

[benhur]

Everything is under God’s providence, despite our choices and failures, he works with our limitations.

Then why do we have to say Tradition is as inerrant as Scripture?

To assert that “I follow God because I know best” is to assert oneself as God.

Agreed.

To assert that “I follow God under the leadership and authority he provided despite myself” is to assert oneself as Gods humble servant.

Agreed.

Just some food for thought as the statements descend on who knows the mind of God best

.You save the best for last. That could be taken as denominationalism, or personal revelation and corporate revelation and “office” revelation, lay vs clergy.

I also think of Nicodemus, who was leader of Israel yet blind as bat.

I think of Job 32 and the never mentioned fourth friend, Elihu, “For I hoped that greater age would speak, and that a multitude of years would teach wisdom. *But there is a spirit which is in man; and the breath of the Almighty giveth them understanding.*They that are aged are not the wise men, neither do the ancients understand judgment.”

Blessings

PS. not insinuating any one here is “ancient” but hopefully "child-like " in faith.