Protestant arguments against the primacy of Peter

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sebastian04
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Julius_Caesar said:
Which kinda speaks on the teaching itself. It would’ve been good teaching otherwise.
Click to expand...
Lol…you struggle to cross the river, pick a certain cherry…it is not forbidden fruit…it is on same tree…there is no need to beware of good teaching, yet we are told to beware of it?
 
Last edited:
mcq72 said:
40.png
ArchStanton:
Heb 13:17 Obey them that have the RULE OVER YOU, and SUBMIT yourselves : for they watch for your souls , as they that must give account , that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.
Click to expand...
Not conditional? So the apostles were disobedient when they ignored rulers who let em out of jail under condition of preaching no more?
Click to expand...
I think you know this is for the Church…notice the watching for your souls.
 
Last edited:
mcq72 said:
Not conditional? So the apostles were disobedient when they ignored rulers who let em out of jail under condition of preaching no more?
Click to expand...
You forget this was addressed to Christians.
 
PatK63 said:
But Was not Judas replaced In Acts? If they had a replacement for Judas isn’t it reasonable they replaced the others when they died?
Click to expand...
the apostles clearly had the authority to add to their numbers; that is exactly what a bishop is.

But that really doesn’t approach the question as to whether the primacy of peter was specific to him or to his geographic successors.
 
mcq72 said:
The papacy as known today evolved, developed, enlarged etc…many would say wrong to apply the office of today to Linus or Clement for example.
Click to expand...
This is where binding & loosing comes in. Doesn’t really matter how far or how wide she spread her wings. It is her prerogative to do so.
 
Justin_Mary said:
This is where binding & loosing comes in. Doesn’t really matter how far or how wide she spread her wings.
Click to expand...
And it shouldn’t matter either if it is by council or a patriarchal system, presbyterian or episcopal model, a head bishop etc.

Not talking of binding loosing but the method of such. Apparently it does matter, the ugly divisive yet necesary pull to one method over the other.
 
Justin_Mary said:
This is leaven.(that “the first church was Jewish” Mcq72) This understanding makes it difficult to see the truth.
Click to expand...
Do you say the church was not first known as a Jewish sect, a Jewish thing?
 
Last edited:
Julius_Caesar said:
The High Priest was appointed by Rome.
Click to expand...
Still appointed from priestly stock, and was a religious leader just the same, just had to keep the peace so to speak, Rome not interfering otherwise

Thank you for that (name removed by moderator)ut.
 
mcq72 said:
Still appointed from priestly stock, and was a religious leader just the same
Click to expand...
With Rome being responsible for his position. Ironic. The pagan government appointed those who would minister to God.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top