Pentecostal pastor claims Jesus did NOT build his Church on Peter?

[rcwitness]

It is huge because,…

Thanks Randy, for all the effort going into those posts. :hammering:

 

[Telstar]

Now let’s look at 2 more scriptures:

Originally Posted by Acts 15:7-8 NAB
After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, “My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the holy Spirit just as he did us.

Sorry, but I beg to differ. You claim that Peter is referring to Matthew 16 here, but to me he’s clearly referring to his vision in Acts 10 where he was lead to the house of Cornelius.

"DR - Acts 10 [39] And we are witnesses of all things that he did in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem, whom they killed, hanging him upon a tree. [40] Him God raised up the third day, and gave him to be made manifest, [41] Not to all the people, but to witnesses preordained by God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he arose again from the dead; [42] And he commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that it is he who was appointed by God, to be judge of the living and of the dead. [43] To him all the prophets give testimony, that by his name all receive remission of sins, who believe in him. [44] While Peter was yet speaking these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them that heard the word. [45] And the faithful of the circumcision, who came with Peter, were astonished, for that the grace of the Holy Ghost was poured out upon the Gentiles also.
[46] For they heard them speaking with tongues, and magnifying God. [47] Then Peter answered: Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we? [48] And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Then they desired him to tarry with them some days.

This is where Peter was called by God to preach the Word to the Gentiles, as well as the Jews. I believe this is what Peter was actually referring to when he mentioned his earlier ‘calling’ in Acts 15. It had nothing to do with Matthew 16.

I Corinthians 1:11-13 "[11] For it hath been signified unto me, my brethren, of you, by them that are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. [12] Now this I say, that every one of you saith: I indeed am of Paul; and I am of Apollo; and I am of Cephas; and I of Christ. [13] Is Christ divided? Was Paul then crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul? [14] I give God thanks, that I baptized none of you but Crispus and Caius; [15] Lest any should say that you were baptized in my name."

Here **Paul **talks about factions, some claiming to follow him, some Apollos, and some Cephas or Kepha (rock) in Aramaic, which is, as randycarson pointed out the name used for Peter in Jesus’ discussion in Matthew 16. While some catholic commentators have tried to avoid the plain meaning of the passage by suggesting another Cephas, looking at the passage and the broad awareness of Paul and Apollos demonstrates that the Cephas mentioned must be equally well known, which points to Peter, another apostle who had influence on the Gentile churches (If one of the catholic posters can identify another Cephas with equal awareness and authority to Paul and Apollos, please present your evidence). His message is clear, making Paul, or Apollos or Peter your foundation directs away from Christ and divides the church.

This whole passage certainly has no bearing on Peter’s singular position in the Church, because they are not just discussing Peter. Paul was reminding all of them that Jesus is the only one they should follow, and the particular Apostle that first taught them about Jesus didn’t matter, because they all follow Jesus in the same way. That’s the most important point of this lesson, so it has no bearing on Peter’s position in the Church.

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

This whole passage certainly has no bearing on Peter’s singular position in the Church, because they are not just discussing Peter. Paul was reminding all of them that Jesus is the only one they should follow, and the particular Apostle that first taught them about Jesus didn’t matter, because they all follow Jesus in the same way. That’s the most important point of this lesson, so it has no bearing on Peter’s position in the Church.

Hi Telstar,
Whilst I would agree with your point in regards to the apostle Paul’s main objective in addressing these believers ,I think that the fact that the Corinthian ’ church’ is seen to single out and elevate a particular ‘apostle’ ,Paul or Cephas ,has a great bearing on this subject.

That is whether Or not Paul recognised Cephas (Peter) as having any place out with that equality seen in the unity of the twelve.(apostles)
I would think such an omission would seem a very strange thing indeed :if Peter at that time was chief ‘bishop’,Paul makes no mention of it.
At least one would expect ,for that faction of the Corinthian ‘church’ ,who were saying :‘I of Cephas’ ,
We would not observe Paul dismissing such a matter of Papal supremacy so lightly.
Especially since it was an ideal opportunity for Paul to correct their confusion ,in what would be for me ,an understandable disorientation on their part ,for placing Peter on the most prominent ‘chair’

Remember he is seen here going to great lengths in showing these believers that he himself is not above any of the other eleven .‘was Paul crucified for you’? ‘or were you baptised in the name of Paul?’ (1Cor1:13).

Sometimes even among our own selves,we can learn as much( sometimes more) by things people omit to mention.
For example ,the apostle John warns of those who omit certain ( soul saving ) truths :

2John 7 “For many deceivers are entered into the world,who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh”

For me,the interesting emphasis upon the rest of this chapter takes its spring(I believe) from Paul’s cry for unity 'Is Christ divided?(verse 13)
What all those in verse twelve had in common was that they were sent to ‘preach the gospel’, and it is this that he is elevating ( in this chapter)

"For Christ sent me not to baptise ,but to preach the gospel’.

Are Catholics of the opinion that in their understanding of Cephas ,that he would have said the same thing as Paul?
Or would he have been sent to baptise and to preach?

 

[Telstar]

Hi Telstar,
Whilst I would agree with your point in regards to the apostle Paul’s main objective in addressing these believers ,I think that the fact that the Corinthian ’ church’ is seen to single out and elevate a particular ‘apostle’ ,Paul or Cephas ,has a great bearing on this subject.

That is whether Or not Paul recognised Cephas (Peter) as having any place out with that equality seen in the unity of the twelve.(apostles)
I would think such an omission would seem a very strange thing indeed :if Peter at that time was chief ‘bishop’,Paul makes no mention of it.
At least one would expect ,for that faction of the Corinthian ‘church’ ,who were saying :‘I of Cephas’ ,
We would not observe Paul dismissing such a matter of Papal supremacy so lightly.
Especially since it was an ideal opportunity for Paul to correct their confusion ,in what would be for me ,an understandable disorientation on their part ,for placing Peter on the most prominent ‘chair’

Remember he is seen here going to great lengths in showing these believers that he himself is not above any of the other eleven .‘was Paul crucified for you’? ‘or were you baptised in the name of Paul?’ (1Cor1:13).

Hello, Bernard: (my Dad’s name, BTW )
We have to remember that this small fledgling congregation was still fairly new, and was not as well acquainted with the faith as those in Jerusalem and other areas. They needed to learn the basics before they could understand it all. They were also Gentiles that didn’t know about the basic structure of the Jewish faith that the early Church was loosely based on.

Being so much more familiar with the hierarchical structure of the Greek or Roman gods, that were often subject to the powers of other gods, they might have been confused in thinking that one Apostle must also be more ‘powerful’ than another. This is likely one of the reasons that they tended to align themselves along those lines. If Paul had told them at that point that Peter was the head of the Apostles, I think it would have just confused them even more, and caused more problems than it would have solved.

Sometimes even among our own selves,we can learn as much( sometimes more) by things people omit to mention.
For example ,the apostle John warns of those who omit certain ( soul saving ) truths :

2John 7 “For many deceivers are entered into the world,who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh”

For me,the interesting emphasis upon the rest of this chapter takes its spring(I believe) from Paul’s cry for unity 'Is Christ divided?(verse 13)

I agree that bringing unity to them was Paul’s primary concern, by far. He was trying to keep them from falling apart because they were more concerned about the messengers than the message, itself. Jesus was the one that he called them to focus on, because none of the messengers were greater than Him.

What all those in verse twelve had in common was that they were sent to ‘preach the gospel’, and it is this that he is elevating ( in this chapter)
"For Christ sent me not to baptise ,but to preach the gospel’.

Are Catholics of the opinion that in their understanding of Cephas ,that he would have said the same thing as Paul?
Or would he have been sent to baptise and to preach?

I can’t speak for other Catholics, but I think Peter would have said the same thing as Paul (my personal opinion). But, the main focus of all the Apostles was always to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ. They weren’t concerned about which one among them might have been more ‘popular’ among the people. Jesus told them as much when they asked which of them would be greater in Heaven. Their sole purpose was to serve God by spreading the Gospel, and not to increase their own glory in the process.

One thing that I think many people seem to overlook, is the great humility of Peter. One reason that Peter doesn’t dwell on constantly proclaiming himself the leader of the Apostles is because his main concern is Jesus, and preaching the Gospel to as many souls as he can. He doesn’t see himself as any more important than the others, even though he clearly was. I think that’s exactly why God chose to single him out, because he had the faith and humility of a little child. He was a simple man that loved God with his whole being, and he probably would have followed Jesus to hell if He asked him to go with Him.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Forgive me for picking this single point out of you very fine post…and this is a bit off topic…but I think it speaks to something of the very different frame of mind that Catholics and Protestants come from.
Pointing it out might help us to understand each other a bit more.

From the Catholic view the Apostles did not establish “new churches” in each new city. Rather, they established new communities of the one Church - For Jesus said He would build His “Church” (singular) not “Churches”.
The protestant view of a much more diversified and independent local church (churches) is quite foreign to our way of thinking.

You will be pleased to know we agree on this point-I simply used the word church, because that is the word Paul uses in his writing. That said, I know he didn’t intend to teach that these local churches (as Paul refers to the various local assemblies when emphasizing the local aspect) weren’t united in the church universal.

Then we start to part ways

Paul also points out that he laid the foundation of that local church and that the foundation was Jesus, which others now build upon. This point, in conjunction with Bernard Lyons’ point (that if Paul were part of a church with Peter as its universal head, he was at best careless about not making that distinction for those he chastised about being “of Peter”) point to clear statements about the nature of the church, in contrast with Matthew 16, which requires a large amount of after-the-fact interpretation, to claim it says what it does about Peter and the church.

The Council in Acts 15, Paul’s laying out his teaching for Peter and James, and Paul confronting Peter over Peter’s actions, along with the fact that we see the Apostles moving among the various local communities, clearly illustrates this idea that all the local communities were interconnected and that the leadership (Apostles and Elders of the Church) were in communication with each other and sought harmony of teaching.

In conversations like this I have often seen protestants debate the role of James and Peter at the council of Jerusalem…and indeed there is room for consideration there…but I rarely see the protestant really address the larger and (in my mind) more significant ramification of the council of Jerusalem…The authority of the one Church to set doctrine.

As I said, it is a bit off topic…but just wanted to get that out there.

Peace
James

I agree that Acts 15 is tremendously important in understanding the church and how Jesus intends to draw unity out of diversity. While I believe it is clear from the text that James presided over the meeting (but not necessarily over the other leaders-again it appears to me to take significant reading into the text to make it Peter’s meeting, especially give that he had to justify himself to those in attendance before making his argument) the key points to take from the story are:

1. there was legitimate diversity that developed in apostolic teaching and practice-note that no one is characterized as having departed from the truth, all are there in good faith to seek the truth for the good of the church-both approaches appear to have grown up in the church until there was a conflict that was holding back the church’s mission.
2. Arguments are made for both sides, and in fact, looking at Paul’s writing in Galatians, we see that at least at one point in his ministry, Peter held a different understanding than the one he advocates in Acts 15. Whether is dispute with Paul changed his mind, or whether it was changed the night of this council, we don’t know, but we see here, exactly what Jesus promised-the church being led “into” truth.

Contrary to catholic teaching, this wasn’t a topic taught by Jesus to the apostles as part of “Apostolic tradition”, but something which the Apostles, along with the leaders of the church, came to understand and corporately accept at this meeting.

1. The leaders sharply limited themselves in speaking to the question at hand-recognizing the diversity that existed among the various congregations and those teaching and evangelizing. There was no sense of their claiming authority to “set doctrine” but rather an excitement of hearing from god and presenting a way for past this stumbling block. There was no mention of heresy or judgement for those on the “losing” side, but rather a common commitment for all to move forward-to me a much different approach than the one seen in later councils.

One final thought on this: if this is the first council, that sets the model for all future church government, and it produced a written set of instructions on how gentile churches are to behave, how is it that these instructions appear to have little or no impact in what is written in the CCC or the Code of Canon Law, when they should be a foundational source for both documents?

 

[Faithdancer]

There is a very anti-Catholic (former cradle Catholic, whose family left the RC church when he was a child and converted to Pentecostalism) pastor that I know through my volunteer work at a program that takes place at his church (even though I do not go to that church). He once said that Jesus did NOT mean for Peter to run the Church. That it was not built on Peter at all and therefore the Catholic Church is wrong wrong wrong.

How could he, a sola scriptura, born again Protestant, believe this, when we read in the Bible:

Matthew 16:18: “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church; and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.”

Matthew 16:19 “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . .”

Whether or not the “rock” was Peter himself or the truth in the statement he had just made to Jesus, there is a big difference between Christ’s recognition of Peter’s leadership among the 12 and the Petrine succession (i.e. the papacy), which is based upon a specific interpretation of Gospel passages. Perhaps it is actually this particular interpretation to which the Pentecostal preacher objects.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Oh - you are absolutely right. Their view of the “job description” is quite different.

Well - Honestly I was unaware of this call…it’s purpose or agenda etc…so I really don’t feel qualified to comment on it too much.
That said - my basic opinion is this…1) The Holy Spirit will be present among the Church leadership in the council. 2) I doubt that Pope Francis stands in opposition to the council. 3) I would even suggest that the Holy Father would send his prayers and hopes that such a council would lead to greater understanding between the “two lungs” as St John Paul II called the two Churches.
Because of this, I would suggest that the council will act with great wisdom and even authority…but it will not be able to act infallibly.
As I said…this is just an opinion…more general…

Fair enough-while I will be interested to see the response to the council from catholic leadership. I would also be interested to see if they stand by the wording they have endorsed in the CCC. Your distinction of “no infallibility” is in my opinion, much more generous than the comment of “no authority” in the CCC.

Sidebar I’ve noticed that non-catholics are often asked to accept more charitable interpretations of statements made by catholics when discussing those statements, but we are then told we much accept them “as written” to become catholic. While I’m not suggesting bad faith on the part of catholics, it seems to me somewhat unfair-if the statements don’t actually mean what they appear to say, it would perhaps be better to reword them officially and lessen some opposition. The encouragement for the adoption of the term “mediatrix” for Mary and the use of “disordered” when speaking of individuals with same sex attraction are examples that come to mind immediately. Since the terms generate so much immediate opposition, and lead people astray from the intended meaning, it would seem that alternatives would be a better approach to having to “correct” ever person who encounters the terms. End Sidebar

I like what you say here since it mirrors my own views.
Movement towards unity indeed requires that we understand how to fulfill Scripture - and that means a recognition among certain elements in the Protestant community that the NT calls for a single and visibly unified and authoritative Church. Not a bunch of locally independent communities with each one interpreting scripture as they see fit.

I don’t mean the above as a swipe at anyone - but simply a statement of fact - - that greater unity among Christians will require two things from us. One is more councils (ala Acts 15) and councils can only be effective if the laity are willing to submit to them.

In the mindset of the larger protestant community - this second seems to be the larger sticking point and I believe this is because one of the very foundations of the protestant movement was (and is) a rejection of such submission.

Would you agree?

Not exactly, as I noted in my previous post, I see Acts 15 clearly teaching that there are a number of issues where no correct answer existed, and it was required to gather the entire mind of the church to choose between valid apostolic alternatives.

In contrast, Victor felt he had the authority to order many congregations to abandon apostolic teaching regarding the date of Easter, and to adopt his preferred practice. The response from the church involved (he was rebuked and later corrected by other church leaders) highlights the difference Acts 15 and the approach promoted as “catholic” today.

To enter into a model where the infallibility of Rome is assumed (given that the evidence for this infallibility is presented by the same individuals who are benefiting from it) without any evidence for this assumption, is a non-starter for any of us who believe that at a minimum, this action of Victor would need to be repudiated as a mistake, and at worst an attempt to turn churches from teaching entrusted to them by their apostolic founders. How can we agree Rome is always right, if in fact we believe there is clear evidence to the contrary?

I believe in the Acts 15 model, but again the church can only be led if everyone is will to move from where they are. God may not call everyone to move, but everyone must be prepared to do so.

Be careful what you ask for…

Seriously - I won’t be able to reply until tomorrow afternoon sometime, but I do look forward to your response. Such thoughtful conversation is wonderfully stimulating and helpful.

Peace
James

I was busy with relatives myself, so no concern there. I think we are finding a number of points of common thinking, mixed in with the few (but significant) points of disagreement.

 

[Non_Serviam]

First century? Wow…we don’t have first century writings on the trinity or the hypostatic union. But okay, since you asked:

You may recall that Gabriel of 12 on 2 occasions wrote that his interpretation of Matthew 16 was the first century interpretation. Is it not only fair to ask that, before accepting such a claim, he produce the evidence upon which it is based? Are you agreeing that there is no such evidence and therefore his argument can be dismissed from the discussion? If not, can you provide such evidence since Gabriel of 12 seems unwilling or unable to do so.

Clement of Rome

“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

“We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ, in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. (ibid.)

Now, does that tie directly to Matthew 16:18? No, but these do:

(emphasis in the last sentence of the quote was mine)

I appreciate that you had the honesty to admit that this quote refers to nothing more than the authority of Apostles (in general) and bishops/overseers (depending on your preferred translation) and proves nothing about any special office created for Peter about from those of Apostle or Elder, which he refers to in his epistles as sharing with others.

Also note the lack of language related to authority, rule,leading, etc and instead the emphasis on humility, service, peace, disinterest with any leadership occurring through “the consent of the entire church” and how this contrasts with the description of the pope’s authority I quoted previously from the CCC. Someone not knowing the history of both documents and the claims of catholicism would never suspect that they were speaking of the same organization or of the same leadership role, the descriptions are so different.

Instead you want us to gloss over these differences and skip over 200 years of history to your next quotes, which I’ll address in a separate post.

 

[Non_Serviam]

**Tertullian **

“[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed” (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).

It is questionable for a catholic to quote Tertullian as evidence for the papacy, while condemning him as unreliable and suspect on matters of theology.

It is important to note the ellipsis in the first quote , which signifies text left out of the quotation. I’ve found catholic answers often does this and other catholic apologists often follow suit, and when the entire quote is examined, it often shows the exact opposite of what it is claimed to demonstrate.

So here is the quote in its entirety:

If, because the Lord has said to Peter, Upon this rock will I build My Church, to you have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdom; or, Whatsoever you shall have bound or loosed in earth, shall be bound or loosed in the heavens, you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter, what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring (as that intention did) this (gift) personally upon Peter? On you, He says, will I build My Church; and, I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and, Whatsoever you shall have loosed or bound, not what they shall have loosed or bound. For so withal the result teaches. In (Peter) himself the Church was reared; that is, through (Peter) himself; (Peter) himself essayed the key; you see what (key): Men of Israel, let what I say sink into your ears: Jesus the Nazarene, a man destined by God for you, and so forth. (Peter) himself, therefore, was the first to unbar, in Christ’s baptism, the entrance to the heavenly kingdom, in which (kingdom) are loosed the sins that were beforetime bound; and those which have not been loosed are bound, in accordance with true salvation; and Ananias he bound with the bond of death, and the weak in his feet he absolved from his defect of health. Moreover, in that dispute about the observance or non-observance of the Law, Peter was the first of all to be endued with the Spirit, and, after making preface touching the calling of the nations, to say, And now why are you tempting the Lord, concerning the imposition upon the brethren of a yoke which neither we nor our fathers were able to support? But however, through the grace of Jesus we believe that we shall be saved in the same way as they. This sentence both loosed those parts of the law which were abandoned, and bound those which were reserved. Hence the power of loosing and of binding committed to Peter had nothing to do with the capital sins of believers; and if the Lord had given him a precept that he must grant pardon to a brother sinning against him even seventy times sevenfold, of course He would have commanded him to bind— that is, to retain — nothing subsequently, unless perchance such (sins) as one may have committed against the Lord, not against a brother. For the forgiveness of (sins) committed in the case of a man is a prejudgment against the remission of sins against God.

What, now, (has this to do) with the Church, and your (church), indeed, Psychic? For, in accordance with the person of Peter, it is to spiritual men that this power will correspondently appertain, either to an apostle or else to a prophet. For the very Church itself is, properly and principally, the Spirit Himself, in whom is the Trinity of the One Divinity— Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (The Spirit) combines that Church which the Lord has made to consist in three. And thus, from that time forward, every number (of persons) who may have combined together into this faith is accounted a Church, from the Author and Consecrator (of the Church). And accordingly the Church, it is true, will forgive sins: but (it will be) the Church of the Spirit, by means of a spiritual man; not the Church which consists of a number of bishops. For the right and arbitrament is the Lord’s, not the servant’s; God’s Himself, not the priest’s.

So quickly looking at the entire quotes (with an emphasis on the red portions):

1. Tertullian saw Jesus’ command as belong to Peter personally, not an ongoing office
2. The keys, again given to Peter personally, are sown as being used in Peter’s preaching in Acts, to loose salvation and defeat the power of the grave (whose interpretation of Matt 16 does that most resemble? mine or yours?)
3. Again Peter is spoken of as being enlightened in Acts 15, and his experience there being tied to the promise of binding and loosing, affirming my interpretation that Peter is speaking of his Matt 16 experience in Acts 15:8.
4. In the last section of the quote we see Tertullian attributing the application of that promise to Apostles and Prophets (plural) in his day, whom were identified as the spiritual church in contrast with the church he identified with a number of bishops.

I can understand why you and Catholic Answers would want to leave those parts out. So Tertullian is most certainly not a witness for your interpretation of Matt 16, pushing even further down the road of history to try and find something similar to what you propose. (see next post)

 

[Non_Serviam]

Cyprian of Carthage (251 A.D.)

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ He says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven.’ And again He says to him after His resurrection: ‘Feed my sheep.’ On him He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 [A.D. 251]).

Again, the use of this quote is questionable on the part of an apologist, as even the Catholic encyclopaedia acknowledges significant textual issues, and your quote as an alternate rather than preferred reading.

It is in this copy of the “De Unitate” that Cyprian appears most probably to have added in the margin an alternative version of the fourth chapter. The original passage, as found in most manuscripts and as printed in Hartel’s edition, runs thus:

If any will consider this, there is no need of a long treatise and of arguments. 'The Lord saith to Peter: ‘I say unto thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; to thee I will give the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and what thou shalt have bound on earth shall be bound in heaven, and what thou shalt have loosed shall be loosed in heaven.’ Upon one He builds His Church, and though to all His Apostles after His resurrection He gives an equal power and says: ‘As My Father hath sent Me, even so send I you: Receive the Holy Ghost, whosesoever sins you shall have remitted they shall be remitted unto them, and whosesoever sins you shall have retained they shall be retained’, yet that He might make unity manifest, He disposed the origin of that unity beginning from one. The other Apostles were indeed what Peter was, endowed with a like fellowship both of honour and of power, but the commencement proceeds from one, that the Church may be shown to be one. This one Church the Holy Ghost in the person of the Lord designates in the Canticle of Canticles, and says, One is My Dove, My perfect one, one is she to her mother, one to her that bare her. He that holds not this unity of the Church, does he believe that he holds the Faith? He who strives against and resists the Church, is he confident that he is in the Church?

The substituted passage is as follows:

. . . bound in heaven. Upon one He builds His Church, and to the same He says after His resurrection, ‘feed My sheep’. And though to all His Apostles He gave an equal power yet did He set up one chair, and disposed the origin and manner of unity by his authority. The other Apostles were indeed what Peter was, but the primacy is given to Peter, and the Church and the chair is shown to be one. And all are pastors, but the flock is shown to be one, which is fed by all the Apostles with one mind and heart. He that holds not this unity of the Church, does he think that he holds the faith? He who deserts the chair of Peter, upon whom the Church is founded, is he confident that he is in the Church?

These alternative versions are given one after the other in the chief family of manuscripts which contains them, while in some other families the two have been partially or wholly combined into one. The combined version is the one which has been printed in man editions, and has played a large part in controversy with Protestants. It is of course spurious in this conflated form, but the alternative form given above is not only found in eighth- and ninth-century manuscripts, but it is quoted by Bede, by Gregory the Great (in a letter written for his predecessor Pelagius II), and by St. Gelasius; indeed, it was almost certainly known to St. Jerome and St. Optatus in the fourth century. The evidence of the manuscripts would indicate an equally early date. Every expression and thought in the passage can be paralleled from St. Cyprian’s habitual language, and it seems to be now generally admitted that this alternative passage is an alteration made by the author himself when forwarding his work to the Roman confessors.

While the Catholic Encyclopaedia advocates for the alternate reading, it is quite possibly an addition by a later scribe seeking to read back a later understanding of the papacy into an older respected work. To offer this quote without background information provides a false impression to readers.

So your 3 sources either a) say nothing about the issue, b) provide evidence contrary to your view of the issue c) provide no evidence for your view in the original text, but only in a disputed alternate text. One does add some support my proposed interpretation of Matt 16 which catholics will dismiss for his “error” while still trying to claim him as a witness for their side when it is convenient.

I now need a break before tackling any of your other arguments. I’ve seen in the past that you’ve improved your arguments based on criticism received and I look forward to seeing how you will improve this particular set of claims. Thanks for providing something tangible to interact with.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Thanks Randy, for all the effort going into those posts. :hammering:

:tiphat:

 

[Randy_Carson]

You may recall that Gabriel of 12 on 2 occasions wrote that his interpretation of Matthew 16 was the first century interpretation. Is it not only fair to ask that, before accepting such a claim, he produce the evidence upon which it is based? Are you agreeing that there is no such evidence and therefore his argument can be dismissed from the discussion? If not, can you provide such evidence since Gabriel of 12 seems unwilling or unable to do so.

Before I invest too much more time on this, I want to find out exactly what we may agree on and what we disagree on.

Question #1

In posts 97, 98 & 99, I laid out the connection between Matthew 16:18 and Is. 22:22. I explained that connection, showed some parallels between Peter and both Eliakim and Joseph, and I quoted some Protestants whose understandings confirm that the connection is not simply a product of Catholic bias or eisegesis.

My question: do you agree or disagree that Matthew 16:18 is an intentional, direct reference to Is. 22:22?

Question #2

I haven’t read the entire thread, and I’m not sure it would help if I did because I want to understand what YOUR understanding or position is.

What exactly about anything in Gabriel’s comments are you taking issue with? Specifically, I’m guessing that he is defending the modern papacy by claiming that the first century Christians held that same view, and you, presumably, don’t.

Could you define EXACTLY what you think that missing element might be?

Thanks.

 

[JRKH]

You will be pleased to know we agree on this point-I simply used the word church, because that is the word Paul uses in his writing. That said, I know he didn’t intend to teach that these local churches (as Paul refers to the various local assemblies when emphasizing the local aspect) weren’t united in the church universal.

Just from you posts I was pretty well aware of this, but since there ARE some protestants who hold with the “locally independent churches” idea I thought it worth while pointing out as one of those things where we sometimes have to make sure of the understandings.

Then we start to part ways

Yea - I was afraid of that…

Paul also points out that he laid the foundation of that local church and that the foundation was Jesus, which others now build upon. This point, in conjunction with Bernard Lyons’ point (that if Paul were part of a church with Peter as its universal head, he was at best careless about not making that distinction for those he chastised about being “of Peter”) point to clear statements about the nature of the church, in contrast with Matthew 16, which requires a large amount of after-the-fact interpretation, to claim it says what it does about Peter and the church.

You know - I would agree with this at least in principle.
However - I think that without knowing the particulars of exactly what the factionalism was and how it manifested itself, it’s difficult to say if Paul was actually negligent or not.

That said - I think that both sides of the argument can make the mistake of trying to equate the very small and very early Church functions with those we see today - a Church of one Billion world-wide.

Just as a parallel idea look at how things might change in a company. When I first started with my company there were 35 or so people. The owner wore many hats and you could find him doing everything from sales to running machine to packing parts.
Now the Company is almost 200 people and he hardly ever gets out of his office anymore.

Now I know this is not a direct parallel…but I think it illustrates something we can all agree with…that the functioning of the very early Church, like a very small company, was likely very different than the Church we see today…like a multi-national concern.

(Cont)

 

[JRKH]

(Cont)

I agree that Acts 15 is tremendously important in understanding the church and how Jesus intends to draw unity out of diversity. While I believe it is clear from the text that James presided over the meeting (but not necessarily over the other leaders-again it appears to me to take significant reading into the text to make it Peter’s meeting, especially give that he had to justify himself to those in attendance before making his argument) the key points to take from the story are:

I would primarily agree with this…though I might disagree that Peter was having to “Justify himself”…I could just as easily say that he was a) reminding them of his authority / mission and / or b) he was sharing this information for the benefit of some who were maybe newer members etc…
But this point is not a big one in my opinion.

1. there was legitimate diversity that developed in apostolic teaching and practice-note that no one is characterized as having departed from the truth, all are there in good faith to seek the truth for the good of the church-both approaches appear to have grown up in the church until there was a conflict that was holding back the church’s mission.

Amen…

1. Arguments are made for both sides, and in fact, looking at Paul’s writing in Galatians, we see that at least at one point in his ministry, Peter held a different understanding than the one he advocates in Acts 15. Whether is dispute with Paul changed his mind, or whether it was changed the night of this council, we don’t know, but we see here, exactly what Jesus promised-the church being led “into” truth.

Yes - and of course this really was a matter more about discipline than dogmatic doctrine…

Contrary to catholic teaching, this wasn’t a topic taught by Jesus to the apostles as part of “Apostolic tradition”, but something which the Apostles, along with the leaders of the church, came to understand and corporately accept at this meeting.

I’m unclear on what you see as being contrary to Catholic teaching. I don’t recall a teaching that says Jesus addressed the issue of circumcision with the Apostles…

1. The leaders sharply limited themselves in speaking to the question at hand-recognizing the diversity that existed among the various congregations and those teaching and evangelizing. There was no sense of their claiming authority to “set doctrine” but rather an excitement of hearing from god and presenting a way for past this stumbling block. There was no mention of heresy or judgement for those on the “losing” side, but rather a common commitment for all to move forward-to me a much different approach than the one seen in later councils.

1. We do not know just how wide ranging the discussions were or who might have accused who of what. We do know that there was “Much debate” (Acts 15:7)
2. When you say there was no sense of their claiming authority…you are automatically reading into the text. The Authority was already there. If the authority was not there, then why have the council?

Other than these two points…I think you are right. The council was limited to the question at hand and everyone ended the council in friendship - and unity.

One final thought on this: if this is the first council, that sets the model for all future church government, and it produced a written set of instructions on how gentile churches are to behave, how is it that these instructions appear to have little or no impact in what is written in the CCC or the Code of Canon Law, when they should be a foundational source for both documents?

Well I suppose I must plead stupid here since I have virtually no working knowledge of Canon Law - and have read the entirety of the Catechism only once.
But what I know of the Church and her functioning since then, I would say that this first council had a tremendous impact and IS a foundational source.

1. No one requires circumcision - so no need to mention it in the catechism.
2. The fact of the council and set the standard for Church functioning when other problems arose. How much more foundational can you get?

My final thought here is this…in such a discussion as this, I will happily concede to the pentecostal pastor (of our thread title) that our understanding could be wrong - if by so doing the pentecostal pastor is willing to look at what the NT Scriptures actually DO say and show about early Church structure and intent…
For - if we can have THIS conversation, it can be show that, with or without the papal office, the Catholic Church (and EO) are far and away more biblically based and structured than the many so-called “bible churches” around today - most likely including his own pentecostal group.

Peace
James

 

[Telstar]

I agree that Acts 15 is tremendously important in understanding the church and how Jesus intends to draw unity out of diversity. While I believe it is clear from the text that James presided over the meeting (but not necessarily over the other leaders-again it appears to me to take significant reading into the text to make it Peter’s meeting, especially give that he had to justify himself to those in attendance before making his argument)

I hope you don’t mind if I stick my nose in to make a couple of points.

You say that James presided over the meeting, but I don’t see any real evidence of that. Nor do I see any evidence that anyone else did. It was a council of the “elders” and other leaders of the whole Church that was called together to discuss the matter, because it was causing some serious confusion. Their intention was to settle on what was to be done about it, once and for all.

As I posted previously, I believe Peter was referring to the vision (Acts 10) that had ‘called him’ to the house of Cornelius, where he first preached to the Gentiles. I don’t think he was talking about what was said in Matthew, at all. But, even if Peter didn’t preside over the meeting, it certainly seems that he had the ‘last word’ that decided what was to be done, and all agreed.

the key points to take from the story are:

1. there was legitimate diversity that developed in apostolic teaching and practice-note that no one is characterized as having departed from the truth, all are there in good faith to seek the truth for the good of the church-both approaches appear to have grown up in the church until there was a conflict that was holding back the church’s mission.

Up until the time that the Gentiles were being converted, it wasn’t a problem. But, as the Church grew, some things had to change. The only way that could happen was if all agreed on what to do about it.

1. Arguments are made for both sides, and in fact, looking at Paul’s writing in Galatians, we see that at least at one point in his ministry, Peter held a different understanding than the one he advocates in Acts 15. Whether is dispute with Paul changed his mind, or whether it was changed the night of this council, we don’t know, but we see here, exactly what Jesus promised-the church being led “into” truth.

I believe it was the vision and visit to Cornelius in Acts 10 that convinced him that the Gentiles were also being called by God, and asking them to accept circumcision (“which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear”) was asking too much of them. I think he realized that it was much more relevant to the Christian faith that they be baptized, and that would be sufficient.

Contrary to catholic teaching, this wasn’t a topic taught by Jesus to the apostles as part of “Apostolic tradition”, but something which the Apostles, along with the leaders of the church, came to understand and corporately accept at this meeting.

Apostolic Tradition comes from the practices of Apostles in the early Church, whether they were directly taught to them by Jesus or not. Traditions that were established after Jesus returned to Heaven are just as much a part of that, as those that were taught to them before He died. So, this is just one small example of how those Traditions began. (the key word here is “Apostolic”)

1. The leaders sharply limited themselves in speaking to the question at hand-recognizing the diversity that existed among the various congregations and those teaching and evangelizing. There was no sense of their claiming authority to “set doctrine” but rather an excitement of hearing from god and presenting a way for past this stumbling block. There was no mention of heresy or judgement for those on the “losing” side, but rather a common commitment for all to move forward-to me a much different approach than the one seen in later councils.

In my opinion, there is no “losing side” in this argument.

One final thought on this: if this is the first council, that sets the model for all future church government, and it produced a written set of instructions on how gentile churches are to behave, how is it that these instructions appear to have little or no impact in what is written in the CCC or the Code of Canon Law, when they should be a foundational source for both documents?

I think it was very important, because it shows that there was a real structure to the early Church, contrary to the belief of many non-Catholics. There was a cohesion among all the leaders of the Church as to what was correct and acceptable to teach. Whenever there was a question, they clearly conferred with one another as to which direction they should go.

Jesus taught them a lot more than is written in the Gospels. It’s my opinion that He had given them a ‘plan’ that they should follow, so that’s exactly what they did. They had 3 years to learn from Him. I have no doubt that Jesus taught them a lot more than most people think He did, even if they didn’t understand it all until later. (JMHO)

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Whether or not the “rock” was Peter himself or the truth in the statement he had just made to Jesus, there is a big difference between Christ’s recognition of Peter’s leadership among the 12 and the Petrine succession (i.e. the papacy), which is based upon a specific interpretation of Gospel passages. Perhaps it is actually this particular interpretation to which the Pentecostal preacher objects.

Are you saying that the preacher is ignorant of Isaiah 22, and the meaning in the Davidic Kingdom of the possessor of the Keys?

 

[FathersKnowBest]

I agree that Acts 15 is tremendously important in understanding the church and how Jesus intends to draw unity out of diversity. While I believe it is clear from the text that James presided over the meeting

Not if you read it closely.
It’s Peter who speaks up, and provides the opinion for the entire Church.

He speaks of what “we” believe, speaking for the entire Church.

After his pronouncement, there is no more debate.

St. James, however, makes a pastoral declaration (which, BTW, is only of a temporary duration; the equivalent of a Church “discipline” and not the “doctrine” that St. Peter pronounced) regarding how this doctrine declared by St. Peter would “look” in practical application.

1. Arguments are made for both sides, and in fact, looking at Paul’s writing in Galatians, we see that at least at one point in his ministry, Peter held a different understanding than the one he advocates in Acts 15.

Not at all. What we DO see is that St. Peter didn’t follow the doctrine that he had pronounced in the council. He was teaching infallibly while not acting impeccibly.

And St. Paul called him on it.

Contrary to catholic teaching, this wasn’t a topic taught by Jesus to the apostles as part of “Apostolic tradition”, but something which the Apostles, along with the leaders of the church, came to understand and corporately accept at this meeting.

And how was that? According to scripture, it was because of the council of the Holy Spirit to St. Peter. They accepted it because of that fact.

1. The leaders sharply limited themselves in speaking to the question at hand-recognizing the diversity that existed among the various congregations and those teaching and evangelizing. There was no sense of their claiming authority to “set doctrine” but rather an excitement of hearing from god and presenting a way for past this stumbling block. There was no mention of heresy or judgement for those on the “losing” side, but rather a common commitment for all to move forward-to me a much different approach than the one seen in later councils.

Right. Until, later, factions wouldn’t follow the doctrine pronounced by St. Peter.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Before I invest too much more time on this, I want to find out exactly what we may agree on and what we disagree on.

Question #1

In posts 97, 98 & 99, I laid out the connection between Matthew 16:18 and Is. 22:22. I explained that connection, showed some parallels between Peter and both Eliakim and Joseph, and I quoted some Protestants whose understandings confirm that the connection is not simply a product of Catholic bias or eisegesis.

My question: do you agree or disagree that Matthew 16:18 is an intentional, direct reference to Is. 22:22?

Question #2

I haven’t read the entire thread, and I’m not sure it would help if I did because I want to understand what YOUR understanding or position is.

What exactly about anything in Gabriel’s comments are you taking issue with? Specifically, I’m guessing that he is defending the modern papacy by claiming that the first century Christians held that same view, and you, presumably, don’t.

Could you define EXACTLY what you think that missing element might be?

Thanks.

I’ll start with question 2 as it may be the simplest to answer. I two separate posts Gabriel of 12 made the claim that the catholic interpretation was “the first century interpretation” of Matthew 16. He provided no evidence in either post, so I have twice asked him to do so. Like you, I have a limited amount of time and I can’t invest it in replying to his posts if they will consist solely of assertions without evidence. I sent a good deal more time with your citations from Clement, Tertullian and Cyprian because you provided what you considered to be good evidence. I provided what I consider to be evidence that suggests the passages may not be the strong evidence you suggest they are. We work back and forth, sifting evidence and arguments until we clearly understand the basis upon which various claims rest and whether that basis is sufficiently convincing for us to accept or reject the claim. I can in no way accept Gabriel of 12’s claim because he provided no evidence for it.

To me the way to know that the catholic interpretation of Matthew 16 is the “first century interpretation” is to have examples of it being interpreted that way which date back to the first century.I’ve found none in my research, so for me the claim is unsupported. I’m willing to consider it if it comes with evidence, as I did in your case, even though the evidence was from a significantly later period and didn’t explicitly support the catholic interpretation of Matthew 16, with the exception of the marginal reading of Cyprian.

As far as question 1, I’m unsure if there is a connection between the two passages. I’ve found no early patristic evidence that such an interpretation was ever put forward in the early centuries of the church, and even if there were some literary borrowing, one would be right to question to what point Matthew was extending the allusion. As a catolic you are familiar with the argument comparing baptism to circumcism, yet no one extends it so far as to require all baptisms take place on the 8th day after birth or to limit baptism to males only-even those who accept the comparison as evidence for infant baptism don’t push for a 100% equivalence between the two practices.

Which brings us to the protestant scholars you have cited as “evidence”. While I haven’t fully read all of the works quoted from I know that none of them carried the Isaiah analogy as far as you do. They felt that even accepting that borrowing between the two books that the catholic interpretation was not found in Matt 16. The two with which I am most familiar Oscar Cullman and Guthrie in the New BIble Commentary propose views of Peter’s role much more in line with the Orthodox understanding of Peter as a primacy of place. Cullman’s book, with which I am most familiar, also argues for the view that the role given Peter was one that was given to him personally and not an office that continued.

Do you accept these ideas from these scholars? I’m guessing no, and I’m guessing that if I asked you why, you would say because they conflict with catholic teaching. So your “evidence” is actually cherry picking of small parts of protestant theological works where they agree with your preconceived ideas and rejection of the rest because it differs from the conclusions you accept. So you don’t actually respect their ability as theologians and scholars, but rather select what is convenient to offer the impression of support for your position, while leaving out the fact that all of them disagree with you on the final interpretation of the passage (Except for the joint catholic/lutheran statement which covers everything under a flurry of “mights” so that everyone can appear to agree).

The purpose of the op is to present a series of defensible arguments to a pentecostal pastor regarding the catholic belief about Peter’s role in the church. Repeated assertions without evidence, in the case of Gabriel of 12, or providing evidence that obscures inconvenient elements, as in your case, is not effectively equipping him to do so.

So, regarding question one, it is moot whether I accept a literary connection between Matthew and Isaiah as doing so in no way makes your interpretation of the passage a sure thing, as proven by the divergent interpretations of all the scholars you have cited. It’s for that reason, that I neither accept nor reject that part of the interpretation, because it has no final bearing on the understanding one comes to of Peter’s role taken from the text.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Just from you posts I was pretty well aware of this, but since there ARE some protestants who hold with the “locally independent churches” idea I thought it worth while pointing out as one of those things where we sometimes have to make sure of the understandings.

Yea - I was afraid of that…

You know - I would agree with this at least in principle.
However - I think that without knowing the particulars of exactly what the factionalism was and how it manifested itself, it’s difficult to say if Paul was actually negligent or not.

If it is essential to recognize the Petrine primacy as the source of governance for the church, I would have to argue he was tremendously negligent if he was communicating with a group of believers who had a defective view of Peter’s role and he didn’t correct it in this writing when he states within the writing itself that he is writing specifically to correct them for this deficient understanding (among other issues). Since my understanding of inspiration wouldn’t permit such a gross case of negligence on Paul’s part becoming part of inspired Scripture, I have to lean toward the understanding that such a view of Petrine primacy wasn’t there for him to explain to them. Not enough to be convincing on it’s own, I’ll concede, but it buttresses some of the other points we’ve been discussing.

That said - I think that both sides of the argument can make the mistake of trying to equate the very small and very early Church functions with those we see today - a Church of one Billion world-wide.

Just as a parallel idea look at how things might change in a company. When I first started with my company there were 35 or so people. The owner wore many hats and you could find him doing everything from sales to running machine to packing parts.
Now the Company is almost 200 people and he hardly ever gets out of his office anymore.

Now I know this is not a direct parallel…but I think it illustrates something we can all agree with…that the functioning of the very early Church, like a very small company, was likely very different than the Church we see today…like a multi-national concern.

(Cont)

I agree that Acts definitely identifies tremendous change at work even within the early church, like the appointment of deacons, the requirements for gentiles, the establishment of inter-congregational charity and support. All of these things were truth the church was being led into, per our previous discussion. To look at your analogy, one thing that hasn’t changed at your firm is that your owner is still the owner, he was identified as such on day 1 of the business and is still identified as such today. I have my original registration papers for my small part-time business, as well as my tax returns etc, that clearly show I have always held the same role, a role that has existed since the company started.

In the case of your owner, there is also a clear trail of evidence for this, and even though some of his tasks have changed, and how his time is allocated, no one would make the mistake of arguing that his overall role is different from the one he had in the beginning.

This is the crux of our discussion, the pentecostal pastor argues that role described for the bishop of Rome is not found in the early church, even taking into account differing tasks and responsibilities. The role of earthly head of the church, with authority over all, isn’t clearly mentioned at all in the first 200 years of church history and even beyond that there are issues with some of the evidence provided (as discussed in my replies to Randy Carson). That is the evidence the pentecostal pastor (and I) are requesting to accept this understanding of the church and authority.

Without it, there appears to be a significant disconnect between the current catholic church and the church mentioned in Acts. I concede that there are many elements in the catholic church that do line up with what we see in Acts, but those are shared with the other early churches. When we look for evidence of the distinctive catholic ecclesiological elements in the early church, we don’t find them. If we did, there would be no catholic-orthodox debate. Again, I think the discussion with the pentecostal pastor is on more solid ground in terms of New Testament church practice in general, but that doesn’t address his assertion about Peter and his role.

 

[Non_Serviam]

(Cont)

I would primarily agree with this…though I might disagree that Peter was having to “Justify himself”…I could just as easily say that he was a) reminding them of his authority / mission and / or b) he was sharing this information for the benefit of some who were maybe newer members etc…
But this point is not a big one in my opinion.

Amen…

Yes - and of course this really was a matter more about discipline than dogmatic doctrine…

I’m glad we can agree on a number of things.

I’m unclear on what you see as being contrary to Catholic teaching. I don’t recall a teaching that says Jesus addressed the issue of circumcision with the Apostles…

I must apologize here-I was working off a definition of sacred tradition from a catholic as “all that the apostles learned from Jesus that was passed down to the bishops”. So, I was arguing that definition was wrong because here in Acts 15 we saw the Apostles learning something that Jesus hadn’t taught them. Before replying to you I went back to the CCC and read that sacred tradition also includes things taught by the Holy Spirit after Jesus’ ascension, so I was arguing against an incorrect definition here. Sorry.

1. We do not know just how wide ranging the discussions were or who might have accused who of what. We do know that there was “Much debate” (Acts 15:7)
2. When you say there was no sense of their claiming authority…you are automatically reading into the text. The Authority was already there. If the authority was not there, then why have the council?

Other than these two points…I think you are right. The council was limited to the question at hand and everyone ended the council in friendship - and unity.

1. fair enough-no argument
2. I wasn’t claiming they has no authority, but rather that claiming that authority wasn’t an overt part of their communication to the entire church, in contrast with some of the later conciliar documents and the CCC, which focus a great deal on claiming authority. Which goes back to my argument that Victor’s approach to church relations brought a very different (and I believe unhelpful) element into the leadership approach taken by the church of Rome.

Well I suppose I must plead stupid here since I have virtually no working knowledge of Canon Law - and have read the entirety of the Catechism only once.
But what I know of the Church and her functioning since then, I would say that this first council had a tremendous impact and IS a foundational source.

1. No one requires circumcision - so no need to mention it in the catechism.
2. The fact of the council and set the standard for Church functioning when other problems arose. How much more foundational can you get?

My final thought here is this…in such a discussion as this, I will happily concede to the pentecostal pastor (of our thread title) that our understanding could be wrong - if by so doing the pentecostal pastor is willing to look at what the NT Scriptures actually DO say and show about early Church structure and intent…
For - if we can have THIS conversation, it can be show that, with or without the papal office, the Catholic Church (and EO) are far and away more biblically based and structured than the many so-called “bible churches” around today - most likely including his own pentecostal group.

Peace
James

Sorry the lack of emphasis on the document from Acts 15 by any church has always been a pet peeve of mine, as I would think that a greater respect for this document (the only one sent to the entire church, even the gospels and epistles didn’t have this reach at this time) to be considered a “New Testament” church.

I think your approach described here, could lead to more dialogue with this pastor, and have a greater potential for mutual understanding and respect, than some other approaches that have been suggested. As I’ve said before, my primary goal in this discussion has been to help the OP understand that many of the common arguments put forth lack rigour when confronted, and that the pastor may have reasons for his beliefs, that while you may not agree with them, may be strong enough and reasonable enough that they should be respected while you critique them in arguing for the catholic position.