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

[JRKH]

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.

Setting aside the need to accept the Catholic Church - - I would be content to see the protestant world accept the Bible.
I would be happy to see the protestant world say -
"Hey look, we need to stop harping on this whole Catholic thing and get down to cases. The Bible calls for doctrinal unity - to be one as Jesus and the Father are one - to be of one mind, to agree, to avoid dissension - etc. The Bible calls for councils when disagreements come up.
“It’s obvious that we, as protestant Christians” have not followed the dictates and goals of Scripture - even though we claim Sola Scriptura.
"It’s time we got together and hammered out our differences.

Of course - I don’t see this happening…but if they cannot accept the office of the pope fine…but that does not negate what the rest of what the NT call for.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

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.

Ooooo…tough question. I think I could probably very easily be EO - I tend more toward the “Mystic” than the “intellectual” in my spirituality. I have to say that it is really kind of a 50/50 split.
So - Why am RC and not EO…
Well - let’s start with the fact that I was raised RC. That makes the RC the more familiar of the two. That really is a big factor since I find that I have all the freedom I could want within the Catholic Church - - so why change?

Then there is that fact that, while one might make the case that the “evidence is weak” for the papal office as understood by Catholics today, I don’t really see anything in it that is contrary. I see it as a positive blessing to have this touchstone - this figurehead - this vicar of our Lord and King.
Yes there have been some bad popes…but those in my lifetime have been wonderful holy men.

Finally - and perhaps most important is the fact that I DO accept the Catholic understanding of Scripture.
The when Jesus said he would build His Church on the Kepha of St Peter, that He meant it. That when Peter is mentioned, by name, so many more times in Scripture than the other Apostles - that means something. That when Jesus breathed on the Apostles and gave them His authority, that included naming successors and the successor to Church leadership was one of these.

Don’t know if these are the best reasons in the world…I’ve struggled a bit with the wording of this reply…So I hope it helps a bit…

Peace
James

 

[dronald]

Setting aside the need to accept the Catholic Church - - I would be content to see the protestant world accept the Bible.
I would be happy to see the protestant world say -
"Hey look, we need to stop harping on this whole Catholic thing and get down to cases. The Bible calls for doctrinal unity - to be one as Jesus and the Father are one - to be of one mind, to agree, to avoid dissension - etc. The Bible calls for councils when disagreements come up.
“It’s obvious that we, as protestant Christians” have not followed the dictates and goals of Scripture - even though we claim Sola Scriptura.
"It’s time we got together and hammered out our differences.

Of course - I don’t see this happening…but if they cannot accept the office of the pope fine…but that does not negate what the rest of what the NT call for.

Peace
James

So we can go out and preach together, sharing communion and teaching others about Jesus despite our doctrinal differences?

Sign me up.

Ironically, most Catholics would be against this but I’m glad it’s okay with you!

 

[JRKH]

So we can go out and preach together, sharing communion and teaching others about Jesus despite our doctrinal differences?

So you (protestants in general) can settle your doctrinal differences.

Sign me up.

I can’t - Since I’m Catholic I’m automatically “suspicious” in some circles.

Ironically, most Catholics would be against this but I’m glad it’s okay with you!

Why would most Catholics be against Protestants getting together and forming a more solid and unified (singular) communion?

Peace
James

 

[dronald]

So you (protestants in general) can settle your doctrinal differences.

I can’t - Since I’m Catholic I’m automatically “suspicious” in some circles.

Why would most Catholics be against Protestants getting together and forming a more solid and unified (singular) communion?

Peace
James

Because in Catholicism it’s more about believing every single thing we believe or you’re not united.

 

[JRKH]

Because in Catholicism it’s more about believing every single thing we believe or you’re not united.

Since you started with “because…” your comment here seems to be an answer, but for the life of me I can’t figure out what in my comments you are replying to.

My original comment had to with protestants coming together and resolving their own internal doctrinal conflicts using the biblical model - the council.

When you commented about Catholics not liking that - I asked why you thought Catholics would object to protestants getting together for this purpose?

I don’t see how the above addresses this…

Peace
James

 

[Non_Serviam]

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.

Good point, you are aware that Herod wasn’t actually a Hebrew king and that the jews of his day resented his rule almost as much as roman rule, so while they would have been familiar with royalty in general, it can’t be said that this would given them clear insight into the Davidic kingdom, any more than my experience of living in a constitutional monarchy (Canada).

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.

Are you implying that they lack academic integrity and would falsify their work? If so, I don’t understand why you would be so quick to want to claim them for your side.

If you acknowledge that their interpretations are the honest result of their research and study, then you understand my point that identifying Peter as the rock isn’t a slam dunk for the catholic position and more evidence is required.

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?

Actually we see some identified as apostles in the New Testament besides Paul and the 12, such as Barnabas (Acts 14:14) so there were additional apostles, yet this office stopped being used at some point, just like prophet (unless you can provide examples of these being used formally after the 1st 2 centuries), even though we see them in Acts (Agabus and the daughters of Philip) and documents like the didache. So there is no automatic continuation of an office because it appears in Acts. These offices disappeared at some point since we find the catholic church arguing that they have ended (although Tertullian argues against the catholic hierarchy of his day that they are wrong for not recognizing these offices).

I’m confused by your “If” regarding the offices, are you suggesting Paul was mistaken in Ephesians or that these aren’t offices and there is another understanding of Ephesians 2:20 and chapter 4?

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?

While you pose a rhetorical question to advance your argument, all it would take to add weight to your argument is an early Christian reference where Peter is compared to Eliakim or Jesus is compared to Pharaoh or Peter to Joseph. I’ve found no evidence of the latter analogy in my early church readings. I agree that Jews would have had a degree of familiarity with these names, but whether that supports your argument that they would have made an immediate connection to them when hearing Matt 16 isn’t proven.

I’m wondering what justification you gave yourself for assuming that I’m not familiar with both of these individuals, and how you feel it strengthens your argument.

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.

As I’ve said before whether Jesus is referencing Isaiah (and you’ve provided no evidence that the early church thought he was) or not, it doesn’t follow that his intended meaning was the one that you are promoting, as a variety of other interpretations have been given by the scholars you cite who do accept that connection. Whether I accept the Isaiah connection or not, that next step needs to take place. Accepting the Isaiah does nothing to contradict the interpretation I’ve put forward for Matt 16:19, so that’s why I’ve not focussed on it, except to respond when you bring it up.

If you want to argue that your interpretation of Peter’s role is the correct one to take from the passage, there needs to be more supporting evidence. I’ve mentioned Cullman’s book since you brought it up and he has a very strong section on why the catholic understanding of Peter’s role post Matt 16 isn’t the best fit for the evidence. I encourage you to read it after you finish your current book and perhaps his arguments and evidence will help you to understand why others can come to honestly differing conclusions to yours regarding Peter and his role.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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)

So, after all of this: Do you believe that Peter personally was the rock in Matthew 16:18?

 

[Non_Serviam]

Setting aside the need to accept the Catholic Church - - I would be content to see the protestant world accept the Bible.
I would be happy to see the protestant world say -
"Hey look, we need to stop harping on this whole Catholic thing and get down to cases. The Bible calls for doctrinal unity - to be one as Jesus and the Father are one - to be of one mind, to agree, to avoid dissension - etc. The Bible calls for councils when disagreements come up.
“It’s obvious that we, as protestant Christians” have not followed the dictates and goals of Scripture - even though we claim Sola Scriptura.
"It’s time we got together and hammered out our differences.

Of course - I don’t see this happening…but if they cannot accept the office of the pope fine…but that does not negate what the rest of what the NT call for.

Peace
James

OK, so you were referring to various protestant groups coming together to find common ground and work toward unity. Mightn’t one argue that some organizations, like the National Association of Evangelicals, or the United Church of Canada (The United Church was founded in 1925 as a merger of four Protestant denominations with a total combined membership of about 600,000 members: the Methodist Church of Canada, the Congregational Union of Ontario and Quebec, two-thirds of the congregations of the Presbyterian Church in Canada, and the Association of Local Union Churches, a predominantly prairie-based movement. The Canadian Conference of the Evangelical United Brethren Church joined the United Church of Canada on 1 January 1968.-Wikipedia) for example, are in fact attempts to do just this? I feel both have a ways to go in terms of being led into all truth,but they are working to move forward.

Thoughts?

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

Good.

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).

Okay. I’ll engage in some speculation.

Those priests along with a few Pharisees had been at the center of worship in Jerusalem for a very long time. And I think it is probably reasonable to assume that Temple worship with it’s sacrificing of animals did not stop on the day of Pentecost…even for those who saw Jesus as the risen Son of God. So, it took awhile, a few decades perhaps, before the Church sorted out the relationship between the Old and New covenants.

The Judaizers wouldn’t have been concerned ONLY with circumcision and dietary laws; they would have been clinging to all of the Mosaic laws, the festivals, the sacrificing, etc.

And as the acknowledged experts in matters of the Law and the Levitical priesthood, these folks would have been unlikely to simply walk away from everything that they had known all their lives under the leadership of some fisherman from Galilee. Especially when he is telling them that circumcision and other laws no longer applied.

It took some time (and the destruction of the Temple perhaps) to integrate everything.

 

[JRKH]

OK, so you were referring to various protestant groups coming together to find common ground and work toward unity. Mightn’t one argue that some organizations, like the National Association of Evangelicals, or the United Church of Canada (The United Church was founded in 1925 as a merger of four Protestant denominations with a total combined membership of about 600,000 members: the Methodist Church of Canada, the Congregational Union of Ontario and Quebec, two-thirds of the congregations of the Presbyterian Church in Canada, and the Association of Local Union Churches, a predominantly prairie-based movement. The Canadian Conference of the Evangelical United Brethren Church joined the United Church of Canada on 1 January 1968.-Wikipedia) for example, are in fact attempts to do just this? I feel both have a ways to go in terms of being led into all truth,but they are working to move forward.

Thoughts?

Sure - I’d agree with that - the next step is for these folks to get together with one another and work out their differences…

Peace
James

 

[Non_Serviam]

Ooooo…tough question. I think I could probably very easily be EO - I tend more toward the “Mystic” than the “intellectual” in my spirituality. I have to say that it is really kind of a 50/50 split.
So - Why am RC and not EO…
Well - let’s start with the fact that I was raised RC. That makes the RC the more familiar of the two. That really is a big factor since I find that I have all the freedom I could want within the Catholic Church - - so why change?

Then there is that fact that, while one might make the case that the “evidence is weak” for the papal office as understood by Catholics today, I don’t really see anything in it that is contrary. I see it as a positive blessing to have this touchstone - this figurehead - this vicar of our Lord and King.
Yes there have been some bad popes…but those in my lifetime have been wonderful holy men.

Finally - and perhaps most important is the fact that I DO accept the Catholic understanding of Scripture.
The when Jesus said he would build His Church on the Kepha of St Peter, that He meant it. That when Peter is mentioned, by name, so many more times in Scripture than the other Apostles - that means something. That when Jesus breathed on the Apostles and gave them His authority, that included naming successors and the successor to Church leadership was one of these.

Don’t know if these are the best reasons in the world…I’ve struggled a bit with the wording of this reply…So I hope it helps a bit…

Peace
James

I think this is a great self-assessment. Now put yourself in the shoes of a protestant who might consider that an episcopal approach is more in line with the New Testament. You immediately have 2 candidates who present themselves as the church in such a way as to mutually exclude each other. You look for evidence to find out who is correct and neither can make a solid case that eliminates the other from contention.

So either (a) it doesn’t matter which you choose, which contradicts the teaching of both churches, which if you accept that idea contradicts their claim to infallibility, leaving you even further from the belief required to join them, or (b) you understand that God is leading into all truth, and leave it up to Him to provide the evidence necessary to make the correct choice, if indeed a choice needs to be made to please Him. In the mean time, you “study to show yourself approved” and focus on doing what you feel to be His current will for you.

Make sense?

 

[Non_Serviam]

So, after all of this: Do you believe that Peter personally was the rock in Matthew 16:18?

I’m inclined to see it as Peter and his confession, given that Jesus references both in his response, and this aligns well with Peter’s explanation of God’s special call for him in Acts.Peter is again confessing Jesus as the Christ, loosing the way of salvation to those in need of it (the Gentiles in that particular case) and prevailing over the grave and Hell in the process.

I’m not sure if that qualifies as personally for you, but I do see it being specific to Peter and not perpetual.

 

[tacdon]

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 . . .”

What rock is Jesus talking about? Was he talking about Peter the person or was he talking about the truth of what Peter said?

Matthew 16:15
“But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”

Matthew 16:16
Simon Peter answered, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.

The rock is figurative language. The rock that Jesus is speaking of is the truth of Matthew 16:16.

 

[Darryl_B]

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.

I don’t believe the onus to be on the Catholic to present a case for the value of the office, which is what I stated more than once in my request, it was the protestant who has never really presented a case. And how did Paul view Peter?

The reasoning behind this is that the protestant employs a similar argument to reject Church authority, as what the atheist uses to reject God.

The old You believe what the Pope says, I believe what the Bible says argument is much the same as the you believe in Faith I believe in Reason argument. You cannot separate the two they go hand in hand it is not either or, it is both and. How many witnesses does it take?

 

[Non_Serviam]

Good.

Okay. I’ll engage in some speculation.

Those priests along with a few Pharisees had been at the center of worship in Jerusalem for a very long time. And I think it is probably reasonable to assume that Temple worship with it’s sacrificing of animals did not stop on the day of Pentecost…even for those who saw Jesus as the risen Son of God. So, it took awhile, a few decades perhaps, before the Church sorted out the relationship between the Old and New covenants.

The Judaizers wouldn’t have been concerned ONLY with circumcision and dietary laws; they would have been clinging to all of the Mosaic laws, the festivals, the sacrificing, etc.

And as the acknowledged experts in matters of the Law and the Levitical priesthood, these folks would have been unlikely to simply walk away from everything that they had known all their lives under the leadership of some fisherman from Galilee. Especially when he is telling them that circumcision and other laws no longer applied.

It took some time (and the destruction of the Temple perhaps) to integrate everything.

Possible, but if the Priests and Pharisees with an advanced understanding of the Law and Prophets would have felt there was the possibility of not following Peter’s argument such that James had to reinforce it, doesn’t that nullify your previous argument that jews (most of whom would only have an oral acquaintance with the texts and no advanced study of any kind) would immediately make the connection with Isaiah and draw the same conclusion as the catholic church as to the nature and degree of authority being invested in Peter?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Good point, you are aware that Herod wasn’t actually a Hebrew king and that the jews of his day resented his rule almost as much as roman rule, so while they would have been familiar with royalty in general, it can’t be said that this would given them clear insight into the Davidic kingdom, any more than my experience of living in a constitutional monarchy (Canada).

Neither was Pharaoh. Yet, he had a royal steward.

C’mon…you’re grasping at straws now to avoid the obvious.

Are you implying that they lack academic integrity and would falsify their work? If so, I don’t understand why you would be so quick to want to claim them for your side.

I’m not questioning their academic integrity, but I am openly asserting their denominational bias. Historians are not immune, you know.

Why do I bring them forward in my arguments? Because of their value as hostile witnesses.

If you acknowledge that their interpretations are the honest result of their research and study, then you understand my point that identifying Peter as the rock isn’t a slam dunk for the catholic position and more evidence is required.

I have quotes from 25 Protestant scholars found in books you may own that say Peter personally was the rock in Matthew 16:18. Orthodox scholars admit the same. So, of all Protestant arguments against the Catholic Church, Matthew 16:18 is one that is all over but the shouting by the clamoring masses.

Actually we see some identified as apostles in the New Testament besides Paul and the 12, such as Barnabas (Acts 14:14) so there were additional apostles, yet this office stopped being used at some point, just like prophet (unless you can provide examples of these being used formally after the 1st 2 centuries), even though we see them in Acts (Agabus and the daughters of Philip) and documents like the didache. So there is no automatic continuation of an office because it appears in Acts. These offices disappeared at some point since we find the catholic church arguing that they have ended (although Tertullian argues against the catholic hierarchy of his day that they are wrong for not recognizing these offices).

The office of apostle necessarily died out as the people who were qualified (they had to have seen the risen Lord personally) also died. The bishops were their successors.

I’m confused by your “If” regarding the offices, are you suggesting Paul was mistaken in Ephesians or that these aren’t offices and there is another understanding of Ephesians 2:20 and chapter 4?

No, that was a rhetorical device.

While you pose a rhetorical question to advance your argument, all it would take to add weight to your argument is an early Christian reference where Peter is compared to Eliakim or Jesus is compared to Pharaoh or Peter to Joseph. I’ve found no evidence of the latter analogy in my early church readings. I agree that Jews would have had a degree of familiarity with these names, but whether that supports your argument that they would have made an immediate connection to them when hearing Matt 16 isn’t proven.

It sure would. Let’s keep looking. In the meantime, we will have to rely on logic and the facts of history as they have played out.

I’m wondering what justification you gave yourself for assuming that I’m not familiar with both of these individuals, and how you feel it strengthens your argument.

Actually, I was counting on it! So, if you are familiar with these individuals, I think it is reasonable to assume that the Jewish people of the first century were, also.

As I’ve said before whether Jesus is referencing Isaiah (and you’ve provided no evidence that the early church thought he was) or not, it doesn’t follow that his intended meaning was the one that you are promoting, as a variety of other interpretations have been given by the scholars you cite who do accept that connection. Whether I accept the Isaiah connection or not, that next step needs to take place. Accepting the Isaiah does nothing to contradict the interpretation I’ve put forward for Matt 16:19, so that’s why I’ve not focussed on it, except to respond when you bring it up.

It is not necessary for the early church to have seen the connection for it to be true, is it? :nope:

There are any number of doctrines that we take as intuitively obvious that Peter, James and John may have been completely unfamiliar with.

And I do apologize for missing your interpretation of Mt. 16:19…just give me the post # and I’ll go back to review it.

If you want to argue that your interpretation of Peter’s role is the correct one to take from the passage, there needs to be more supporting evidence. I’ve mentioned Cullman’s book since you brought it up and he has a very strong section on why the catholic understanding of Peter’s role post Matt 16 isn’t the best fit for the evidence. I encourage you to read it after you finish your current book and perhaps his arguments and evidence will help you to understand why others can come to honestly differing conclusions to yours regarding Peter and his role.

Fair enough.

Now, a question for you. We both agree that the Catholic understanding of Peter’s role is highly developed today, and the fullness of this understanding did not exist in the first century.

When, in your opinion, did the office of the papacy as we understand it today first appear?

 

[JRKH]

I think this is a great self-assessment. Now put yourself in the shoes of a protestant who might consider that an episcopal approach is more in line with the New Testament. You immediately have 2 candidates who present themselves as the church in such a way as to mutually exclude each other. You look for evidence to find out who is correct and neither can make a solid case that eliminates the other from contention.

So either (a) it doesn’t matter which you choose, which contradicts the teaching of both churches, which if you accept that idea contradicts their claim to infallibility, leaving you even further from the belief required to join them, or (b) you understand that God is leading into all truth, and leave it up to Him to provide the evidence necessary to make the correct choice, if indeed a choice needs to be made to please Him. In the mean time, you “study to show yourself approved” and focus on doing what you feel to be His current will for you.

Make sense?

Makes sense

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’m inclined to see it as Peter and his confession, given that Jesus references both in his response, and this aligns well with Peter’s explanation of God’s special call for him in Acts.Peter is again confessing Jesus as the Christ, loosing the way of salvation to those in need of it (the Gentiles in that particular case) and prevailing over the grave and Hell in the process.

Close enough and better than I usually hear.

I’m not sure if that qualifies as personally for you, but I do see it being specific to Peter and not perpetual.

Next question: Is it just a coincidence that Jesus, a king, confers keys upon one man, Peter, and there was no intent to establish Peter’s role as the royal steward in His kingdom?

Thanks.

 

[Non_Serviam]

I don’t believe the onus to be on the Catholic to present a case for the value of the office, which is what I stated more than once in my request, it was the protestant who has never really presented a case. And how did Paul view Peter?

The reasoning behind this is that the protestant employs a similar argument to reject Church authority, as what the atheist uses to reject God.

The old You believe what the Pope says, I believe what the Bible says argument is much the same as the you believe in Faith I believe in Reason argument. You cannot separate the two they go hand in hand it is not either or, it is both and. How many witnesses does it take?

I agree fully that there is no automatic obligation on the part of a catholic to defend their understanding of Peter and the church to a protestant. But take a moment to remember the reason this discussion was started (oh so many pages ago in such a short time )

The OP wanted to convince a pentecostal pastor of the validity of the catholic church’s position on Peter and the church, and was looking for solid arguments to help do that. In this case the onus is on the catholic wishing to convince someone else.

I think that’s a very interesting comparison of the catholic-protestant discussion with the theist-atheist discussion. I hadn’t thought of it before, but there are similarities, having been on the theist end of such discussions.

I would say that some separate faith and reason to their detriment (resulting in poor arguments for theism-similar to the mormons arguing for the truth of the BOM from a burning in the bosom) just as some catholics are very comfortable with a version of the faith that has some distinct differences from what is presented in scripture (resulting in difficulties defending teachings or practices of certain saints or theologians that they strongly believe and identify with). And some atheists and some protestants also do the same thing in the other direction.

Good thoughts