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

[Non_Serviam]

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.

You are certainly welcome to discuss things, I must confess though, that I’m getting a bit bleary-eyed at this point, so I hope my replies make sense.

Regarding James role, we see general debate, followed by Peter’s statement, followed by additional statements from Paul and Barnabas. In verse 13 we see James call on those present to listen to him as he:
a) recaps Peter’s argument
b) provides his own interpretation of Scripture to confirm Peter’s argument
c) provides “his judgement” and dictates the text of the letter to be sent to the churches (vs 19 and beyond)

This lines up with the role of any meeting chair I have ever known (remember that I argues that he presided over the meeting, not necessary over all the attendees outside the meeting). If indeed Peter were in charge why would James refer to “my judgement” instead of “Peter’s judgement” or “our judgement” referring to the entire assembly? That doesn’t seem like the “last word” to me.

If you could look at the post I wrote to Randy Carson on the previous page, you’ll see some of my arguments as to why I believe Peter is referring to his experience in Matt 16 when mentioning God’s calling-I can elaborate later if you’d like, I’d prefer a clearer head when I do so.

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.

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.

We agree on this. While I believe God was calling him to do this in Matthew 16, I believe Peter only fully understood what he was to do during his experiences in Acts 10. There was a growth in his audience, from the Jews, to Samaritans, to the Gentiles “building the church”.

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”)

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

As I mentioned to James, I acknowledge that the definition of Apostolic tradition I was responding to was incomplete, and that this council and decision would indeed line up with the catholic definition of tradition. We also agree that there were no losers here.

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)

I think Acts 15 also shows that there was some significant diversity among the teachings and practices in the early church. There was indeed a unity so that they could suspend their differences and come together to find the correct way forward as the Spirit showed them. We agree on this, even if we disagree as to how well this is current;y reflected in the structure of the catholic church.

I also agree that Jesus taught them a great deal more than is in the Gospels, as John tells us this clearly. Whether Jesus intended for there to be additional apostolic teachings to persist in the church beyond those given in the Epistles and other books of the NT would be a good subject for a future discussion…once I’ve had some sleep.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

1. The Jews who heard Jesus speak the words of Matthew 16:18 would not have missed the reference to Is. 22:22. Unlike us moderns, they knew their scriptures and they were steeped in the culture of royalty.
2. What they would have known instantly is that the keys represented the authority of the perpetual office of the Royal Steward re-established by Jesus and conferred upon Peter (and because of the nature of the office, upon his successors).
3. In Acts 1, the election of Matthias provides additional support for understanding the perpetual dimension of the office when Peter quotes the OT;

Acts 1:20 (RSV)
20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, ‘Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it’; and ‘His **office **let another take.’

Acts 1:20 (KJV)
20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

1. Similarly, in the first century, Clement connects the position of “bishop” to an “office” when he wrote, "Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop.

So, while I’m not seeking to defend Gabriel specifically (since I have not stopped to sort through his posts), I am confident in my own assertion that passages from the New Testament as well as from Clement provide support for the idea that the office of bishop was understood by the first century church and that Peter’s role as the head of that church was also clearly known to all.

First, Peter was the rock upon which the Church was built. This is accepted by Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox theologians.

Second, Peter was established as the keeper of the keys or Royal Steward of the kingdom of God by Jesus.

Third, while Jesus remains the Good Shepherd of the entire flock (which includes both the Church Militant, the Church Suffering, and the Church Triumphant) Peter was the vicarious shepherd of the One Flock on earth. That the earthly flock still needs a visible shepherd should be plain enough.

I have no disagreement with the idea that the Church has developed its understanding of the office of the pope over time, but this is an understandable and logical development; as the Church has grown and matured, so the office has expanded and increased in scope. But the essence of the office was established by Jesus as seen in the pages of scripture, and the Church has benefited from His wisdom in doing so.

 

[JRKH]

If it is essential to recognize the Petrine primacy as the source of governance for the church,

hhmmm…Seems there might be a mis-understanding here…Catholics do not see the Petrine primacy as the source of Church governance. We see Christ as the source.
If the factionalism that Paul was addressing was pulling people away from that Christo-centric view, then he was right to address it as he did in my view.

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.

Fair enough…but as I said earlier, the view expressed above may not be the correct one.
Christ, not Peter, was and and will always be the source of Church governance.

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.

Good point…Sadly we do not have all of the documents that the early Church had. We have some…and unfortunately that seems to muddy the water somewhat.

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.

And this is why I approach things from the other direction. I accept the Papal office because I see the Church overall as being more biblically structured and, by virtue of it’s age, having the best pedigree.
More in the next reply.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

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

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. 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.

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.

Interesting - since the council has always been a pet peeve of mine too, except for a different reason. I don’t see why that protestant Churches (especially ones like the pentecostal) embracing the “unity” called for in the NT or the authority given to the universal Church by Christ in Mt 18:15-18 and demonstrated by the council.

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.

I tend to agree. So long as the discussion is narrow…little can be achieved. Too often such discussions are more of a “I’m right and your wrong” activity. Yet in point of fact, as you and I have found, there are many places that we agree.
I think that there are a number of “holes” in the arguments from both sides in these matters. Each side need to be willing to accept this fact and to move forward from there. I don’t know about you, but I never enter such a discussion with the idea or convince or to convert someone. Rather I just hope to plant some seeds, maybe get them thinking a bit differently and build a respect.

That’s why I like talking with you. you have that respect.

Peace
James

 

[Darryl_B]

Can I ask to approach this topic from the perspective of value, rather than truth. The reason I ask this is because I fully agree with the Catholics here on the primacy of Peter as an office handed down, but the protestant does not by instinct, and have formulated arguments of reason (not faith) to refute the historical Catholic claim. The early church Fathers only really talked much about something when there were those who disputed it. If someone at that time did in fact dispute the primacy of Peter and the resultant office, we would expect copious amounts of apologetics, and even councils to establish it. But the primacy of Peter was never seemingly rejected in the times of the Church Fathers, not until much much later.

But since we are almost 2000 years later (or 500 years), with the full potential to revise history through lack of it (and I dont mean the Catholic), and since protestants have had 500 years to forget the history by disassociation, I ask that the question be approached from value. Is there value in having a singular office of authority, or is there value in having a decentralized ethic?

What method would God choose? And why? The Catholic has answered this, I don’t believe the protestant has ever answered this.

 

[Randy_Carson]

II 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.

:nope:

No, the Council of Jerusalem reveals the Church working out the details of something that Jesus had taught them but which they had failed to understand.

Matthew 28:18-20
18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

“All nations” includes those which were obviously Gentile. So, Jesus had commanded them to go, but they still had to work out the relationship between the Old and the New in their own minds. It took a vision given to Peter, powerful preaching by Paul, and a Council to sort out the details of what Jesus had already told them.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

Again, what precisely is the issue?

I can guess it’s Matthew 16:18 and the idea that *Peter *is the rock upon which the Church will be built. Is that correct?

If so, you take the position that either Jesus or Peter’s confession is the rock…as long as it’s anything or anyone other than Peter, correct?

 

[Non_Serviam]

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.

Is he providing the opinion for all or merely highlighting a universal belief that exists in the church, and applying it to this particular situation?

There may have been no debate, but if this is the case, why did James have to call for those in attendance to stop and listen to him? Whether debate had stopped or not, Luke recounts that Paul, Barnabas and James all provided additional evidence and arguments for the position finally adopted, which suggests the possibility that Peter’s words weren’t on par with “roma locuta est, causa finita est” as later saints proposed.

How do you explain James referring to “my judgement” instead of “Peter’s judgement” or “our judgement” for the group?

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.

See previous comment.

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.

So you think that Peter arrived in Antioch after the council? So then James didn’t follow the document either, and sent out teachers teaching contrary to it. Does that make more sense then this taking place before Acts 15, and James (and possibly Peter) changing their minds about this practice?

 

[Telstar]

You are certainly welcome to discuss things, I must confess though, that I’m getting a bit bleary-eyed at this point, so I hope my replies make sense.

Believe me, I do understand about being ‘bleary-eyed’. I read your post last night, just before I crashed & burned, so I didn’t dare even attempt to reply to it at that point. :whacky:

Regarding James role, we see general debate, followed by Peter’s statement, followed by additional statements from Paul and Barnabas. In verse 13 we see James call on those present to listen to him as he:
a) recaps Peter’s argument
b) provides his own interpretation of Scripture to confirm Peter’s argument
c) provides “his judgement” and dictates the text of the letter to be sent to the churches (vs 19 and beyond)

This lines up with the role of any meeting chair I have ever known (remember that I argues that he presided over the meeting, not necessary over all the attendees outside the meeting). If indeed Peter were in charge why would James refer to “my judgement” instead of “Peter’s judgement” or “our judgement” referring to the entire assembly? That doesn’t seem like the “last word” to me.

OK, when you lay it out that way, I have to agree that it would appear that James that was ‘presiding’ over the meeting in some capacity. I didn’t say that Peter was in charge, either. However, the words of Peter certainly seem to have been taken as the ‘last word’, since his declaration was the one agreed upon by all, to be the final solution of the problem. This certainly points to Peter as having the last word. He also waited until all of the others had made their arguments before he stood up to speak, and only then did he offer his own opinion. This clearly shows his respect for what all the others had to say. Isn’t that also a clear sign of good leadership?

If you could look at the post I wrote to Randy Carson on the previous page, you’ll see some of my arguments as to why I believe Peter is referring to his experience in Matt 16 when mentioning God’s calling-I can elaborate later if you’d like, I’d prefer a clearer head when I do so.

We agree on this. While I believe God was calling him to do this in Matthew 16, I believe Peter only fully understood what he was to do during his experiences in Acts 10. There was a growth in his audience, from the Jews, to Samaritans, to the Gentiles “building the church”.

I did read that post (and the rest of the thread), but I still believe he’s speaking about the events in Acts 10, since it was the main point of that whole chapter. He even repeats part of it, almost word for word. But, I really don’t think it had anything to do with Matthew 16. So, I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on that one part.

As I mentioned to James, I acknowledge that the definition of Apostolic tradition I was responding to was incomplete, and that this council and decision would indeed line up with the catholic definition of tradition. We also agree that there were no losers here.

Amen to that!

I think Acts 15 also shows that there was some significant diversity among the teachings and practices in the early church. There was indeed a unity so that they could suspend their differences and come together to find the correct way forward as the Spirit showed them. We agree on this, even if we disagree as to how well this is current;y reflected in the structure of the catholic church.

While I can somewhat agree that there may have been some minor diversities in some of their teaching, I don’t think there was much in the way of differences in their practices. I think baptism and the observance of the ‘breaking of bread’ are two examples of practices that were held to a much more stringent formula, because they were taught to them by the example of Jesus, Himself.

I also agree that Jesus taught them a great deal more than is in the Gospels, as John tells us this clearly. Whether Jesus intended for there to be additional apostolic teachings to persist in the church beyond those given in the Epistles and other books of the NT would be a good subject for a future discussion…once I’ve had some sleep.

Agreed. And, sleep is always a good thing.

 

[Non_Serviam]

1. The Jews who heard Jesus speak the words of Matthew 16:18 would not have missed the reference to Is. 22:22. Unlike us moderns, they knew their scriptures and they were steeped in the culture of royalty.

You do know that there hadn’t been a king for centuries? I don’t know if steeped is the right word to use-they had an historical understanding of the monarchy in Israel. So they may have seen it as an indication of special favour or authority, but as I said in my previous post, the scholars you quoted came to different understandings of Peter’s role than you did, so we can’t automatically assume that your interpretation of how far to take the allusion is correct. We need evidence that it was understood as such.

1. What they would have known instantly is that the keys represented the authority of the perpetual office of the Royal Steward re-established by Jesus and conferred upon Peter (and because of the nature of the office, upon his successors).
2. In Acts 1, the election of Matthias provides additional support for understanding the perpetual dimension of the office when Peter quotes the OT;

Acts 1:20 (RSV)
20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, ‘Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it’; and ‘His **office **let another take.’

Acts 1:20 (KJV)
20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

Yes we have lots of evidence both in the New Testament and outside of it that there was an ongoing office known as bishop or overseer (depending on your preferred translation of episkopos). We also have evidence of other offices, apostle, prophet, pastor, teacher, etc and yet we don’t assume that all of these were perpetual because the office of bishop/overseer continued.

We also don’t know that there was always an office of Chief Steward as part of the structure surrounding hebrew monarchs, so to claim that all readers would have immediately made this leap in understanding requires more evidence on the perpetual nature of this office and some degree of awareness about it in the common Jewish listener. Some early citations of this interpretation would go a long way in strengthening your assertion.

1. Similarly, in the first century, Clement connects the position of “bishop” to an “office” when he wrote, "Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop.

Agreed, I’ve already stipulated to this, but it says nothing about whether an office was created solely for Peter, and whether that office was perpetual.

So, while I’m not seeking to defend Gabriel specifically (since I have not stopped to sort through his posts), I am confident in my own assertion that passages from the New Testament as well as from Clement provide support for the idea that the office of bishop was understood by the first century church and that Peter’s role as the head of that church was also clearly known to all.

First, Peter was the rock upon which the Church was built. This is accepted by Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox theologians.

Second, Peter was established as the keeper of the keys or Royal Steward of the kingdom of God by Jesus.

Third, while Jesus remains the Good Shepherd of the entire flock (which includes both the Church Militant, the Church Suffering, and the Church Triumphant) Peter was the vicarious shepherd of the One Flock on earth. That the earthly flock still needs a visible shepherd should be plain enough.

I have no disagreement with the idea that the Church has developed its understanding of the office of the pope over time, but this is an understandable and logical development; as the Church has grown and matured, so the office has expanded and increased in scope. But the essence of the office was established by Jesus as seen in the pages of scripture, and the Church has benefited from His wisdom in doing so.

I’ve highlighted a number of assertions in your last section. You assert that by providing evidence for the general office of bishop/overseer, you also prove Peter’s special role. You don’t. You assume it.

You provide a list of theologians who say that Peter is “the rock” as evidence, while implying that they mean the same thing by “the rock” that you do. That’s another assumption that I’ve disproven previously. They propose several different interpretations of how “the rock” may be understood, so they don’t prove your case for your particular interpretation.

You assert the Matthew Isaiah connection as fact, yet provide no early evidence for that interpretation-if it was immediately evident to everyone, how come none of the early discussions about the authority of the church make use of it, and none of the jewish polemics against the church identify it as a false giving of authority to Peter, who wasn’t a kohane? There are these exact sort of jewish arguments against Matt 19:28, but none against Matt 16.

You assert that there must be one visible shepherd, yet we see Paul appointing or discussing the appointment of elders (plural) in every local church with no mention of a head elder. This would seem to disprove your assertion, as elders were also called to act as shepherds in their congregation.

Your arguments have significant difficulties in them, in spite of their apparent initial strength. I hope that you will work to address these difficulties or look for other arguments that provide more direct and concrete evidence for your assertions.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Is he providing the opinion for all or merely highlighting a universal belief that exists in the church, and applying it to this particular situation?

There may have been no debate, but if this is the case, why did James have to call for those in attendance to stop and listen to him? Whether debate had stopped or not, Luke recounts that Paul, Barnabas and James all provided additional evidence and arguments for the position finally adopted, which suggests the possibility that Peter’s words weren’t on par with “roma locuta est, causa finita est” as later saints proposed.

How do you explain James referring to “my judgement” instead of “Peter’s judgement” or “our judgement” for the group?

Read this carefully.

Peter, James and the Council of Jerusalem

Many non-Catholics claim that Peter could not have been the head of the earthly Church or “pope” because they believe that it was James, not Peter, who gave the final decision concerning circumcision of the Gentiles at the Council of Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15. This position indicates a complete misunderstanding of the dynamics of the council. Mark Bonocore, a noted Catholic apologist, addressed this misunderstanding in his debate with Jason Engwer in 1999.

Regarding the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, I pointed out in my [opening statement] how Peter gives the definitive teachings and how, after he speaks, all debate comes to an end. However, Engwer rejects this, citing the amendments given by James, and says how James is the only one to render “judgment.” Well, first of all, it must be noted that James bases his remarks on Peter’s teaching:

“Brothers, listen to me. Symeon (i.e., Peter) has described how …” (Acts 15:13-14).

Secondly, look at what James actually says in relation to his “judgment”:

“It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles” (Acts 15:19).

Well, who is this “we”? Who was “troubling the Gentiles”? Certainly not Peter (Acts 10:44-49, 11:1-18, 15:7-10). Certainly not Paul or Barnabas. So, who? Acts 15:1 tells us:

“Some who had come down from Judea were instructing the brothers, ‘Unless you are circumcised …, you cannot be saved.”

It was the Jewish faction under James (bishop of Jerusalem) that was troubling the Gentiles (Acts 15:5, Gal 2:12).

Thus, James is speaking for them, not for the whole council. Indeed, that’s why his remarks are recorded at all—to show that the leader of the Jewish faction subscribed to the decisions of the council, and so silence the Judaizers who Paul will encounter later (Titus 1:10-11).*

*Taken from: Mark Bonocore v. Jason Engwer: Was the Papacy Established by Christ? (bringyou.to/apologetics/debate13.htm)​

In addition to Bonocore’s comments, I would point out that as leader of the church in Jerusalem, James was the head of a congregation which counted among its members many priests and Pharisees who still held to their Jewish roots and believed that Gentiles must become Jews through circumcision in order to become Christians. I refer you to the following:

Acts 4:36-37
36Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means Son of Encouragement), 37sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles’ feet.

Acts 6:7
7So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith.

Some from among this group had gone to Galatia and upset the Gentile believers there.

Galatians 2:11-14
11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.

From this, we can see that the Council of Jerusalem was divided into two camps: those who believed the Gentile converts should be circumcised and those who did not. Peter addresses the former with these words:

“Now then, why do you [Judaizers] try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are." (Acts 15:10-11)

James addresses them, also:

“Brothers, listen to me. 14Simon (note that James even used Peter’s Hebrew name when speaking to the Judaizers) has described to us (James must be speaking here to the believers from Jerusalem since those from Galatia would already have been familiar with God’s work in that province!) how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself…19"It is my judgment, therefore, that we (the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem) should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them…” (Acts 15:13-20)

Thus, after hearing Peter’s doctrinal pronouncement, James rose to speak and addressed those from his own flock whom he knew would have the hardest time accepting Peter’s decision. James accepted Peter’s teaching and added his own pastoral comments for the benefit of the pro-circumcision group present and for those who might be tempted to doubt that the leader of the “Judaizers” really had accepted the decision of the full ecumenical council that circumcision was unnecessary for Gentiles.

 

[Non_Serviam]

hhmmm…Seems there might be a mis-understanding here…Catholics do not see the Petrine primacy as the source of Church governance. We see Christ as the source.
If the factionalism that Paul was addressing was pulling people away from that Christo-centric view, then he was right to address it as he did in my view.

Fair enough…but as I said earlier, the view expressed above may not be the correct one.
Christ, not Peter, was and and will always be the source of Church governance.

To clarify, I used “source” to underscore that catholic documents such as the CCC only speak of authority as existing in union with the bishop of Rome. Perhaps “conduit” would have been a better word, but it seems rather cold and metallic to me.

Again, if union to Peter is required, to not provide the correct understanding of that union to Peter to believers who have a defective understanding of it would seem to be negligent, and I can’t believe inspired scripture would be the product of negligence.

Good point…Sadly we do not have all of the documents that the early Church had. We have some…and unfortunately that seems to muddy the water somewhat.

And this is why I approach things from the other direction. I accept the Papal office because I see the Church overall as being more biblically structured and, by virtue of it’s age, having the best pedigree.
More in the next reply.

Peace
James

Ok, what would be the basis for your accepting the catholic interpretation of Peter’s role, as opposed to the orthodox understanding of it, given their equal pedigrees and the lack of corroborating early documentation? Obviously something is convincing for you, so I am curious what makes the difference, given an absence of solid evidence one way or the other.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Interesting - since the council has always been a pet peeve of mine too, except for a different reason. I don’t see why that protestant Churches (especially ones like the pentecostal) embracing the “unity” called for in the NT or the authority given to the universal Church by Christ in Mt 18:15-18 and demonstrated by the council.

I tend to agree. So long as the discussion is narrow…little can be achieved. Too often such discussions are more of a “I’m right and your wrong” activity. Yet in point of fact, as you and I have found, there are many places that we agree.
I think that there are a number of “holes” in the arguments from both sides in these matters. Each side need to be willing to accept this fact and to move forward from there. I don’t know about you, but I never enter such a discussion with the idea or convince or to convert someone. Rather I just hope to plant some seeds, maybe get them thinking a bit differently and build a respect.

That’s why I like talking with you. you have that respect.

Peace
James

The reluctance to come to the table might well be explained by the “house rules” of those who claim to own the table. If we are required to accept that the catholic church is the universal authority, with infallible teachings to be admitted to the table, then that begs the question which we want to discuss.

As I noted in our discussion of Acts 15, neither group in the dispute was labelled as “wrong” going into the meeting. Different practices had sprung up, and the purpose of the council was to identify the proper way to proceed in future. Even after the decision had been made, no one was identified as right or wrong, but rather all were seen as adopting the now identified way forward. A very different dynamic.

Other than that, I very much agree with your sentiments presented here.

 

[Randy_Carson]

You do know that there hadn’t been a king for centuries? I don’t know if steeped is the right word to use-they had an historical understanding of the monarchy in Israel. So they may have seen it as an indication of special favour or authority, but as I said in my previous post, the scholars you quoted came to different understandings of Peter’s role than you did, so we can’t automatically assume that your interpretation of how far to take the allusion is correct. We need evidence that it was understood as such.

Of course. However, you have heard of King Herod, haven’t you? The Jews were more intimately familiar with the language of royalty and its courts than we Americans.

As for the conclusions of the Protestant scholars, sure…they HAVE to come to different conclusions; otherwise, they would be CATHOLIC scholars. At which point, we have come back around to where I joined this discussion back in post #96.

Yes we have lots of evidence both in the New Testament and outside of it that there was an ongoing office known as bishop or overseer (depending on your preferred translation of episkopos). We also have evidence of other offices, apostle, prophet, pastor, teacher, etc and yet we don’t assume that all of these were perpetual because the office of bishop/overseer continued.

This is less certain, isn’t it? If God has ordained these offices (and we both have in mind the same verse from Paul, don’t we?) then at what point did those offices pass out of existence. Apostle when the last died, but Bishop? Prophet? Pastor and teacher?

We also don’t know that there was always an office of Chief Steward as part of the structure surrounding hebrew monarchs, so to claim that all readers would have immediately made this leap in understanding requires more evidence on the perpetual nature of this office and some degree of awareness about it in the common Jewish listener. Some early citations of this interpretation would go a long way in strengthening your assertion.

I cited Joseph under Pharoah as well as Eliakim in Isaiah. Wouldn’t the Jews have been somewhat familiar with those two at the least? Shouldn’t YOU be, also?

Agreed, I’ve already stipulated to this, but it says nothing about whether an office was created solely for Peter, and whether that office was perpetual.

Don’t the examples of the replacement of Eliakim and the election of Matthias after the death of Judas Iscariot speak to this?

You claim that we Catholics are reading too much into this. Wouldn’t it be more accurate that you’re having to explain away the plain and obvious meaning of the text in Matthew 16:18?

Let me ask it another way: If Jesus is not referring to Is. 22:22 in Matthew 16:18, why did He bother referencing keys AT ALL when he could have conveyed the same authority WITHOUT THAT IMAGE as He did in Matthew 18?

Unfortunately, I just got a phone call and have to cut this short. I will try to return to the rest of your post (below) later. Thanks for your patience.

I’ve highlighted a number of assertions in your last section. You assert that by providing evidence for the general office of bishop/overseer, you also prove Peter’s special role. You don’t. You assume it.

You provide a list of theologians who say that Peter is “the rock” as evidence, while implying that they mean the same thing by “the rock” that you do. That’s another assumption that I’ve disproven previously. They propose several different interpretations of how “the rock” may be understood, so they don’t prove your case for your particular interpretation.

You assert the Matthew Isaiah connection as fact, yet provide no early evidence for that interpretation-if it was immediately evident to everyone, how come none of the early discussions about the authority of the church make use of it, and none of the jewish polemics against the church identify it as a false giving of authority to Peter, who wasn’t a kohane? There are these exact sort of jewish arguments against Matt 19:28, but none against Matt 16.

You assert that there must be one visible shepherd, yet we see Paul appointing or discussing the appointment of elders (plural) in every local church with no mention of a head elder. This would seem to disprove your assertion, as elders were also called to act as shepherds in their congregation.

Your arguments have significant difficulties in them, in spite of their apparent initial strength. I hope that you will work to address these difficulties or look for other arguments that provide more direct and concrete evidence for your assertions.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Can I ask to approach this topic from the perspective of value, rather than truth. The reason I ask this is because I fully agree with the Catholics here on the primacy of Peter as an office handed down, but the protestant does not by instinct, and have formulated arguments of reason (not faith) to refute the historical Catholic claim. The early church Fathers only really talked much about something when there were those who disputed it. If someone at that time did in fact dispute the primacy of Peter and the resultant office, we would expect copious amounts of apologetics, and even councils to establish it. But the primacy of Peter was never seemingly rejected in the times of the Church Fathers, not until much much later.

But since we are almost 2000 years later (or 500 years), with the full potential to revise history through lack of it (and I dont mean the Catholic), and since protestants have had 500 years to forget the history by disassociation, I ask that the question be approached from value. Is there value in having a singular office of authority, or is there value in having a decentralized ethic?

What method would God choose? And why? The Catholic has answered this, I don’t believe the protestant has ever answered this.

An appeal to best practice is an interesting approach. Perhaps a more centralized authority would function better, but to have that discussion would require both sides coming to the table with an intention to follow the course best supported by evidence. I would note again quickly that Paul proposed a plurality of elders for local churches and we see this model in Acts, so that would be a model for consideration as well, centralized plural authority.

Could be a good discussion if we could convince anyone to have it.

 

[Non_Serviam]

:nope:

No, the Council of Jerusalem reveals the Church working out the details of something that Jesus had taught them but which they had failed to understand.

Matthew 28:18-20
18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

“All nations” includes those which were obviously Gentile. So, Jesus had commanded them to go, but they still had to work out the relationship between the Old and the New in their own minds. It took a vision given to Peter, powerful preaching by Paul, and a Council to sort out the details of what Jesus had already told them.

I agree that Jesus taught them their mission would include all nations. I believe they understood this, but that Jesus did not teach them how they would relate to these other nations, hence the development of different approaches and requirements.

If Jesus had taught them a model for incorporating Gentile believers, then all that would have been required in Acts 15 was a reminder of Jesus’ teaching. This didn’t happen, so we can see that while Jesus taught them all nations would be included, he didn’t specify how that would happen.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Again, what precisely is the issue?

I can guess it’s Matthew 16:18 and the idea that *Peter *is the rock upon which the Church will be built. Is that correct?

If so, you take the position that either Jesus or Peter’s confession is the rock…as long as it’s anything or anyone other than Peter, correct?

I think I’ve explained this in my earlier posts today, but let’s make sure. Whether we take Jesus’ words to apply to Peter, his confession, or both, we still have to understand what Jesus meant by “the rock” and the gates of Hell not prevailing. Simply saying Peter is “the rock” doesn’t equate to the catholic interpretation being correct as I’ve shown with the varying understandings of the theologians that you quoted. While they identified Peter as the rock (at at least Peter and his confession together) and made linkages with Isaiah, none of the protestant scholars understand this to mean the same thing as taught by the catholic church.

It’s like if I say I have a car (a sedan) and when you hear “I have a car” you think of a sports car. We attach different meanings to the word and our subsequent understanding of the words that follow are impacted by that understanding. If I tell you how much I paid for my car, you may think I got a tremendous bargain, when in fact I paid regular price. Same thing if we discuss mileage. It is only when your understanding of car matches my original meaning that many of the communication miscues can be cleared up.

The next step beyond this is ambiguous terms like “have” Do I own the car? Am I simply in possession of it (borrowing or renting)? Do I own a car dealership and I’m simply talking about a car I own, but that I don’t use personally? There is a level of interpretation beyond getting the facts of the sentence correct. A misinterpretation on the part of the hearer also produces misunderstandings.

The difference from my example is that neither of us is Jesus or Peter, so we are both having to try and discover the original meaning of what was said. Recognizing that we are first trying to agree on (1) the correct understanding of the sentences followed by (2) the correct interpretation of that understanding clarifies what a challenging task we have.

I hope this explains my position a bit more clearly (if not concisely)

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

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.

Hi Telstar,

1Corinthians 10:1-4. “Moreover brethren,I would not that ye should be ignorant,how that all our fathers were under the cloud ,and all passed through the sea;
And were all baptised unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
And did all eat of the same spiritual drink:for they drank of the same spiritual Rock that followed them:and that Rock was Christ”(KJV)

For a number of reasons I disagree with your hypothesis stated above in regards to 'this small fledgling congregation"
Paul’s desire indeed ,was to feed them with the ‘meat’ rather than just the ‘milk’ (1Cor3:3&4) but “hitherto ye were not able to bear it ,neither yet now are ye able.For ye are yet carnal,and walk as men”
How then did this carnality manifest itself ? “Now this I say ,that everyone of you saith,I am of Paul ;and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas;and I of Christ.”

It is the question of carnality that Paul is here dealing with not so much with the ‘meat’ (or doctrine) and as this is a major priority for him here ;in order to root it out ,he would leave no stone ,I believe,unturned.
If you consider that Paul in regards to those who were teaching the Corinthian 'church ’ that Paul’s ministry was somehow inferior to theirs( Paul especially deals with this problem at length in the last three chapters of his second letter) then Paul would be for me ,foolish to leave this young ‘church’ at the mercy of such if he was not to properly address the Cephas sect that had developed.
Furthermore ,as is seen in my opening verse Paul does not treat of this gentile ‘church’ with any less respect than that of their circumcised brethren .That is when he includes them with
“all our fathers were under a cloud,and all passed through the sea”
Notice that Paul is also going into some considerable depth of teaching here also ,and what is also relevant is his reference here to Christ : “and that Rock was Christ”,
Ought not Paul for the same reason you are suggesting in regards to this ‘fledgling ’ congregation ,that he should have refrained from using this metaphor in regards to Christ,if that is ,they were somehow to here of another Rock( Cephas) in the apostles absence ?what of this door of confusion ?
Another puzzling verse for them ,later on ,would be in the same letter(3:9) "We are labourers together’ that is in relation to " he that planteth and he that watereth are one"(verse 8)

Why did Paul tell us ,all were on an equal level (among the twelve) if we now understand Peter to be the one exception?

 

[Non_Serviam]

Believe me, I do understand about being ‘bleary-eyed’. I read your post last night, just before I crashed & burned, so I didn’t dare even attempt to reply to it at that point. :whacky:

OK, when you lay it out that way, I have to agree that it would appear that James that was ‘presiding’ over the meeting in some capacity. I didn’t say that Peter was in charge, either. However, the words of Peter certainly seem to have been taken as the ‘last word’, since his declaration was the one agreed upon by all, to be the final solution of the problem. This certainly points to Peter as having the last word. He also waited until all of the others had made their arguments before he stood up to speak, and only then did he offer his own opinion. This clearly shows his respect for what all the others had to say. Isn’t that also a clear sign of good leadership?

Remember that I’m not arguing that Peter isn’t a leader in this chapter, regardless of any unique role, he is still one of the 12 Apostles, giving him a significant amount of authority over most in the room. My point is that to claim this scene as a demonstration of Peter’s unique role beyond one of the 12, things need to be identified in the passage that show him acting or being responded to in a fashion that demonstrates that unique role. My argument is that I find no difference in how his contribution is described from those of Paul, Barnabas and James, suggesting to me that they were all considered equals (as Apostles) rather than one being able to decide for the entire group. To me, James is the closest example of that sort of authority, but as I mentioned I see it more as him functioning as a “chair” for the meeting and wrapping things up.

I did read that post (and the rest of the thread), but I still believe he’s speaking about the events in Acts 10, since it was the main point of that whole chapter. He even repeats part of it, almost word for word. But, I really don’t think it had anything to do with Matthew 16. So, I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on that one part.

Amen to that!

While I can somewhat agree that there may have been some minor diversities in some of their teaching, I don’t think there was much in the way of differences in their practices. I think baptism and the observance of the ‘breaking of bread’ are two examples of practices that were held to a much more stringent formula, because they were taught to them by the example of Jesus, Himself.

Agreed. And, sleep is always a good thing.

I agree that the events in Acts 10 are part of God’s call to Peter, I just see Acts 10 as a clarification of the initial calling in Matt.16 so that Peter makes the correct choice when approached. So I think we have some common ground here, even though we also have some difference of opinion.

I also agree that teaching on baptism and breaking of bread was very clear cut, both in the New Testament and early church writings (always a big fan of the didache)

But looking at things like requirements for Gentiles and the creation of the office of deacon, and even the differing practices we see later in terms of celebrating Easter, there are different traditions identified with the teachings of different Apostles, that appear to have developed simultaneously, much like the various rites in the catholic church.

Hope you got some rest, I got some sleep, but I’m going to try and make it an early night tonight.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Read this carefully.

Peter, James and the Council of Jerusalem

Many non-Catholics claim that Peter could not have been the head of the earthly Church or “pope” because they believe that it was James, not Peter, who gave the final decision concerning circumcision of the Gentiles at the Council of Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15. This position indicates a complete misunderstanding of the dynamics of the council. Mark Bonocore, a noted Catholic apologist, addressed this misunderstanding in his debate with Jason Engwer in 1999.

Regarding the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, I pointed out in my [opening statement] how Peter gives the definitive teachings and how, after he speaks, all debate comes to an end. However, Engwer rejects this, citing the amendments given by James, and says how James is the only one to render “judgment.” Well, first of all, it must be noted that James bases his remarks on Peter’s teaching:

“Brothers, listen to me. Symeon (i.e., Peter) has described how …” (Acts 15:13-14).

Secondly, look at what James actually says in relation to his “judgment”:

“It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles” (Acts 15:19).

Well, who is this “we”? Who was “troubling the Gentiles”? Certainly not Peter (Acts 10:44-49, 11:1-18, 15:7-10). Certainly not Paul or Barnabas. So, who? Acts 15:1 tells us:

“Some who had come down from Judea were instructing the brothers, ‘Unless you are circumcised …, you cannot be saved.”

It was the Jewish faction under James (bishop of Jerusalem) that was troubling the Gentiles (Acts 15:5, Gal 2:12).

Thus, James is speaking for them, not for the whole council. Indeed, that’s why his remarks are recorded at all—to show that the leader of the Jewish faction subscribed to the decisions of the council, and so silence the Judaizers who Paul will encounter later (Titus 1:10-11).*

*Taken from: Mark Bonocore v. Jason Engwer: Was the Papacy Established by Christ? (bringyou.to/apologetics/debate13.htm)​

In addition to Bonocore’s comments, I would point out that as leader of the church in Jerusalem, James was the head of a congregation which counted among its members many priests and Pharisees who still held to their Jewish roots and believed that Gentiles must become Jews through circumcision in order to become Christians. I refer you to the following:

Acts 4:36-37
36Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means Son of Encouragement), 37sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles’ feet.

Acts 6:7
7So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith.

Some from among this group had gone to Galatia and upset the Gentile believers there.

Galatians 2:11-14
11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.

From this, we can see that the Council of Jerusalem was divided into two camps: those who believed the Gentile converts should be circumcised and those who did not. Peter addresses the former with these words:

“Now then, why do you [Judaizers] try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are." (Acts 15:10-11)

James addresses them, also:

“Brothers, listen to me. 14Simon (note that James even used Peter’s Hebrew name when speaking to the Judaizers) has described to us (James must be speaking here to the believers from Jerusalem since those from Galatia would already have been familiar with God’s work in that province!) how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself…19"It is my judgment, therefore, that we (the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem) should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them…” (Acts 15:13-20)

Thus, after hearing Peter’s doctrinal pronouncement, James rose to speak and addressed those from his own flock whom he knew would have the hardest time accepting Peter’s decision. James accepted Peter’s teaching and added his own pastoral comments for the benefit of the pro-circumcision group present and for those who might be tempted to doubt that the leader of the “Judaizers” really had accepted the decision of the full ecumenical council that circumcision was unnecessary for Gentiles.

This is an interesting and reasonable interpretation of Acts 15. I don’t know if it is better than mine, but I think it’s at least worthy of equal consideration.

My only question would be, if the entire church of that time understood Jesus’words concerning Peter (even if they didn’t have the written gospel, they would still have the oral tradition at this point) as making him the foundation of the church and supreme authority in matters of faith and morals, why would James have to “sell” Peter’s pronouncement to them? Especially if, as you suggested James’ party included priests and Pharisees who would have been most familiar with the hebrew scriptures and thus most likely to make the connection with Isaiah and Peter’s authority over them, wouldn’t they have been the first to accept Peter’s words? (OK, so it came out as multiple questions, but I’m making one argument with them).