Rebuked him for teaching erroneous doctrine or for being a hypocrite???
What fallible teaching?
In Galatians, Paul is rebuking Peter for his hypocrisy, not for his teachings. Peter, like Paul was a fallible sinner. Paul certainly had his share of faux pas’s. Do you think that Paul taught error free doctrine???In post 65 I was asked, “Kevin, I am really trying to get some feedback reguarding the proverbial keys given to Simon…”
To me its not the truth. To you it is the truth. To agree that its the truth does not make it more true.
;7131674]Christ did not seem to think Peter’s primacy was unimportant.
This was an extraordinary thing for Jesus to do, because “rock” was not even a name in Jesus’ time. Jesus did this, not to give Simon a strange name, but to identify his new status among the apostles. No other explanation seems to suffice. When God changed a person’s name, He changed their status, as I am sure you know.That made no sense to me as a former non-catholic. Jesus’ whole discourse relates to the person of Peter, not his confession of faith.Absolutely not. However, if in fact the holy spirit is still guiding the church built by Jesus, (on Kepha) - into all truth, then it does not matter in my humble opinion. That was a question that kept me on the fence for quite awhile Jon, but I eventually hopped off.
I know Jon! I guess, my point, circuitously speaking, was, that no protestant church leadership would ever even claim to possess the keys of Peter, and therefore must minimize its significance, yet they still carry out church discipline, legislation and administration just as Peter’s successor does.
A little bit, I guess. Quite frankly I admire your loyalty, love and the deep rooted conviction you possess for your church. You embrace it for all the right reasons. However, I can definitely see that you have a great deal of respect and love for the CC as well, which, alas, I don’t see too often from other non-Catholics.
I agree Jon. A lot of my research, as a former non-Catholic, was about the primacy of the CC vs the primacy of the EOC.
Only one of us can be right. To opposing statements cannot be true. This is the first principle of non-contradiction. I have provided Scripture, you have provided mere opinion based on nothing more than personal interpretation.
The keys were given ONLY to Peter, not to the other apostles. You were saying that the keys were given to the other apostles too which clearly was not mentioned in the Gospels.
There is a simple saying; actions speak louder than words. Peter was both being a hypocrite, and he was leading other Christians astray of the Gospel via the improper teaching that his actions conveyed.
We can examine what Peter wrote and, via comparison to other scripture, and by leading of the Holy Spirit that dwells in each of us, discern the truth of it. I have no reason to doubt anything Peter wrote.
I can understand you feel that way. I would too if I am a Protestant who does not believe in the Papacy. But hard as it may to understand, it is exactly just that. A pope is just a human being. He can make mistake as a human. He is not infallible. He is only when he speaks in matters of faith and moral. Faith and moral? These we all know. Peter was infallible when he declared that Jesus is the Son of the living God. He was not when he said that the Son of Man should not be given to the Sanhedrins to be crucified.
What was that improper teaching? Was he behaving hypocritically - yes, but Peter was not teaching anything. Again, do you believe that Paul taught fallibly as well in light of his major past faux pas’s?
Peter never claimed to be infallible nor does the CC claim that he was infallible. **All of the writers **were totally fallible so how did they write infallibly, given all of their character flaw and fallible nature?
So Peter did teach infallibly in spite of his moment of hypocrisy???
;7133036]There is a simple saying; actions speak louder than words. Peter was both being a hypocrite, and he was leading other Christians astray of the Gospel via the improper teaching that his actions conveyed.
Well, then you better jettison your entire New Testament, for the writers of each and every book were all fallible people prone to the same weaknesses and double talk as we all are, which is why Jesus gave to His church, the holy spirit, to guide His church into all truth in spite of these weaknesses .
Interesting take. So, those of us who did not know Jesus or walk and talk with Jesus, learn truth, first hand from Jesus, who were not present on Pentecost when the holy spirit descended upon Peter and the others, and told to be Jesus’ witnesses to the ends of the world and to teach all that Jesus had commanded - can infallibly “examine what Peter wrote and, via comparison to other scripture,” via the guidance of the holy spirit which dwells in all of us, discern for ourselves whether or not Peter’s letters were in fact the inspired words of God, but Peter, a man who was endowed with the holy spirit on Pentecost and given the keys of the kingdom of heaven, can not be trusted to teach infallibly?? Perhaps I am missing something here? Am I???
Show me, in sacred scripture, where “Cephas”, (outside this isolated moment of weakness do to fear of the circumcised, according to the bible) - teaches that Jews and gentiles should not eat together? I will use scripture to show you just the opposite:
;7133036]There is a simple saying; actions speak louder than words. Peter was both being a hypocrite, and he was leading other Christians astray of the Gospel via the improper teaching that his actions conveyed.
Well, then you better jettison your entire New Testament, for the writers of each and every book were all fallible people prone to the same weaknesses and double talk as we all are, which is why Jesus gave to His church, the holy spirit, to guide His church into all truth in spite of these weaknesses .
Interesting take. So, those of us who did not know Jesus or walk and talk with Jesus, learn truth, first hand from Jesus, who were not present on Pentecost when the holy spirit descended upon Peter and the others, and told to be Jesus’ witnesses to the ends of the world and to teach all that Jesus had commanded - can infallibly “examine what Peter wrote and, via comparison to other scripture,” via the guidance of the holy spirit which dwells in all of us, discern for ourselves whether or not Peter’s letters were in fact the inspired words of God, but Peter, a man who was endowed with the holy spirit on Pentecost and given the keys of the kingdom of heaven, who walked and talked with Jesus, could not be trusted to teach infallibly?? Perhaps I am missing something here? Am I???
Show me, in sacred scripture, where “Cephas”, (outside that isolated moment of weakness do to fear of the circumcised, according to the bible) - teaches that Jews and gentiles should not eat together? I will use scripture to show you just the opposite:
That is what it really boils down to! If the current key holder of the kingdom of heaven, is not being protected by the holy spirit, (even against his own human flaws) - to lead Jesus’ church, then a simple question must be asked:
;7133036]There is a simple saying; actions speak louder than words. Peter was both being a hypocrite, and he was leading other Christians astray of the Gospel via the improper teaching that his actions conveyed.
Well, then you better jettison your entire New Testament, for the writers of each and every book were all fallible people prone to the same weaknesses and double talk as we all are, which is why Jesus gave to His church, the holy spirit, to guide His church into all truth in spite of these weaknesses .
Interesting take. So, those of us who did not know Jesus or walk and talk with Jesus, learn truth, first hand from Jesus, who were not present on Pentecost when the holy spirit descended upon Peter and the others, and told to be Jesus’ witnesses to the ends of the world and to teach all that Jesus had commanded - can infallibly “examine what Peter wrote and, via comparison to other scripture,” via the guidance of the holy spirit which dwells in all of us, discern for ourselves whether or not Peter’s letters were in fact the inspired words of God, but Peter, a man who was endowed with the holy spirit on Pentecost and given the keys of the kingdom of heaven, who walked and talked with Jesus, could not be trusted to teach infallibly?? Perhaps I am missing something here? Am I???
Show me, in sacred scripture, where “Cephas”, (outside that isolated moment of weakness do to fear of the circumcised, according to the bible) - teaches that Jews and gentiles should not eat together? I will use scripture to show you just the opposite:
That is what it really boils down to! If the current key holder of the kingdom of heaven, is not being protected by the holy spirit, (even against his own human flaws) - to lead Jesus’ church, then a simple question must be asked:
Yeah, I would think, a a result of your decision, it would not. As you can tell, for me, I think the authority is compromised, as even if one considers the Bishop of Rome as having some level of primacy, the early Church still depended on ecumenical councils.
What we would claim is that the keys are the Church’s, not that of a single Bishop, important though he may be.
Thanks for your kind words. ISTM that many of the problems I have with the CC, parallel the problems the EO has with the CC. So, if those problems are resolved, I would consider the need of the Reformation to be finished. Not saying all Lutherans feel this way.
Me, too, Joe. And that remains for me a large concern.
J;7133024]The keys were given ONLY to Peter, not to the other apostles. You were saying that the keys were given to the other apostles too which clearly was not mentioned in the Gospels.
Reuben, I hope someone (Protestant or Eastern Orthodox) - will venture to answer that question!
The first Ecumenical Council didn’t take place until 325 AD, which is already nearly half way through the Early Church period. The Bishops were certainly not “winging it” lone-ranger style, between the death of Peter and the Council of Nicea - they were united together under the Bishop of Rome, and were going to him to settle their disputes.
Exactly! Furthermore,if the early church were dependent on ecumenical councils and the first official one happened until 325 A.D.,then what did the church prior to 325 A.D. depend on?