Protestant interpretations...

[Randy_Carson]

That is also what I have always heard.

So I’ll give you Matthew 16:18 is singular and speaking directly to Peter.

:clapping:

I will also concede Matthew 18:18 is not speaking to all believers, but only the Apostles.

:extrahappy:

Now, before you get too happy about my concessions,…

:bounce:

In Matthew 18:18 where Jesus is speaking to all the Apostles, this is where you have stated proof for papal infallibility:

"I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be

d]bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will bee] loosed in heaven.

I never saw that before! This we know all the Apostles wrote and spoke truth or they could not be considered divinely inspired. They were protected from error.

But it disproves papal infallibility as Peter was not the only one protected from error.

(I should acknowledge this doesn’t settle the issue of the keys.)

Ginger

Actually, you’re really close at this point.

Let’s review Matthew 16:18-19 side by side with Matthew 18:18:

Matthew 16:18-19 (New International Version)

18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

Matthew 18:18 (New International Version)
18"I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will bebound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

See it?

In verse 19, Jesus says the same thing to Peter individually that we have already agreed that He stated to the Apostles collectively.

Jesus promises infallibility to Peter individually in Matthew 16 and to the Apostles collectively in Matthew 18 using the exact same words in both places.

 

[Randy_Carson]

You need to focus on the core issue "Peterine primacy–>Peter apostolic succession → Roman Catholic Papacy This demonstates none of this and at best the ecf’s acknowledge Peter as the leader of the apostles, which I agree and Peter as foundational, which I also agree. But you have yet to make the leap and you can’t because it doesn’t exist except in Catholicism. You are trying to put a square peg in a round hole as I see it.

It’s late, so we’ll take this up again tomorrow.

But for now, we agree on the fact the the early Christians recognized that Peter was the head of the Church.

The next connection that I have to make is that Peter had successors who were also viewed as the head of the early Christian Church.

Agreed?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Is an Elder, overseer or Deacon a priest, especially in the Catholic sense as we see today? Of course not.Nope. good try. There is a specific and separate Greek term with distinct definitions in regards to priest.

I think you have confused some things, so let’s clarify, okay?

The sacrament of holy orders is conferred in three ranks of clergy: bishops, priests, and deacons.

Bishops (episcopoi) have the care of multiple congregations and appoint, ordain, and discipline priests and deacons. They sometimes appear to be called “evangelists” in the New Testament. Examples of first-century bishops include Timothy and Titus (1 Tim. 5:19–22; 2 Tim. 4:5; Titus 1:5).

Priests (presbuteroi) are also known as “presbyters” or “elders.” In fact, the English term “priest” is simply a contraction of the Greek word presbuteros. They have the responsibility of teaching, governing, and providing the sacraments in a given congregation (1 Tim. 5:17; Jas. 5:14–15).

Deacons (diakonoi) are the assistants of the bishops and are responsible for teaching and administering certain Church tasks, such as the distribution of food (Acts 6:1–6).

In the apostolic age, the terms for these offices were still somewhat fluid. Sometimes a term would be used in a technical sense as the title for an office, sometimes not. This non-technical use of the terms even exists today, as when the term is used in many churches (both Protestant and Catholic) to refer to either ordained ministers (as in “My minister visited him”) or non-ordained individuals. (In a Protestant church one might hear “He is a worship minister,” while in a Catholic church one might hear “He is an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion.”)

Thus, in the apostolic age Paul sometimes described himself as a diakonos (“servant” or “minister”; cf. 2 Cor. 3:6, 6:4, 11:23; Eph. 3:7), even though he held an office much higher than that of a deacon, that of apostle.

Similarly, on one occasion Peter described himself as a “fellow elder,” [1 Pet. 5:1] even though he, being an apostle, also had a much higher office than that of an ordinary elder.

The term for bishop, *episcopos *(“overseer”), was also fluid in meaning. Sometimes it designated the overseer of an individual congregation (the priest), sometimes the person who was the overseer of all the congregations in a city or area (the bishop or evangelist), and sometimes simply the highest-ranking clergyman in the local church—who could be an apostle, if one were staying there at the time.

Although the terms “bishop,” “priest,” and “deacon” were somewhat fluid in the apostolic age, by the beginning of the second century they had achieved the fixed form in which they are used today to designate the three offices whose functions are clearly distinct in the New Testament.

As the following quotations illustrate, the early Church Fathers recognized all three offices and regarded them as essential to the Church’s structure. Especially significant are the letters of Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, who traveled from his home city to Rome, where he was executed around A.D. 110. On the way he wrote letters to the churches he passed. Each of these churches possessed the same threefold ministry. Without this threefold ministry, Ignatius said, a group cannot be called a church.

Ignatius of Antioch

“Now, therefore, it has been my privilege to see you in the person of your God-inspired bishop, Damas; and in the persons of your worthy presbyters, Bassus and Apollonius; and my fellow-servant, the deacon, Zotion. What a delight is his company! For he is subject to the bishop as to the grace of God, and to the presbytery as to the law of Jesus Christ” (*Letter to the Magnesians *2 [A.D. 110]).

“Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God, and with the presbyters in the place of the council of the apostles, and with the deacons, who are most dear to me, entrusted with the business of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father from the beginning and is at last made manifest” (ibid., 6:1).

“Take care, therefore, to be confirmed in the decrees of the Lord and of the apostles, in order that in everything you do, you may prosper in body and in soul, in faith and in love, in Son and in Father and in Spirit, in beginning and in end, together with your most reverend bishop; and with that fittingly woven spiritual crown, the presbytery; and with the deacons, men of God. Be subject to the bishop and to one another as Jesus Christ was subject to the Father, and the apostles were subject to Christ and to the Father; so that there may be unity in both body and spirit” (ibid., 13:1–2).

“Indeed, when you submit to the bishop as you would to Jesus Christ, it is clear to me that you are living not in the manner of men but as Jesus Christ, who died for us, that through faith in his death you might escape dying. It is necessary, therefore—and such is your practice that you do nothing without the bishop, and that you be subject also to the presbytery, as to the apostles of Jesus Christ our hope, in whom we shall be found, if we live in him. It is necessary also that the deacons, the dispensers of the mysteries [sacraments] of Jesus Christ, be in every way pleasing to all men. For they are not the deacons of food and drink, but servants of the Church of God. They must therefore guard against blame as against fire” (*Letter to the Trallians *2:1–3 [A.D. 110]).

“In like manner let everyone respect the deacons as they would respect Jesus Christ, and just as they respect the bishop as a type of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and college of the apostles. Without these, it cannot be called a church. I am confident that you accept this, for I have received the exemplar of your love and have it with me in the person of your bishop. His very demeanor is a great lesson and his meekness is his strength. I believe that even the godless do respect him” (ibid., 3:1–2).

“He that is within the sanctuary is pure; but he that is outside the sanctuary is not pure. In other words, anyone who acts without the bishop and the presbytery and the deacons does not have a clear conscience” (ibid., 7:2).

“I cried out while I was in your midst, I spoke with a loud voice, the voice of God: ‘Give heed to the bishop and the presbytery and the deacons.’ Some suspect me of saying this because I had previous knowledge of the division certain persons had caused; but he for whom I am in chains is my witness that I had no knowledge of this from any man. It was the Spirit who kept preaching these words, ‘Do nothing without the bishop, keep your body as the temple of God, love unity, flee from divisions, be imitators of Jesus Christ, as he was imitator of the Father’” (Letter to the Philadelphians 7:1–2 [A.D. 110]).

 

[Randy_Carson]

Clement of Alexandria

“A multitude of other pieces of advice to particular persons is written in the holy books: some for presbyters, some for bishops and deacons; and others for widows, of whom we shall have opportunity to speak elsewhere” (The Instructor of Children 3:12:97:2 [A.D. 191]).

“Even here in the Church the gradations of bishops, presbyters, and deacons happen to be imitations, in my opinion, of the angelic glory and of that arrangement which, the scriptures say, awaits those who have followed in the footsteps of the apostles and who have lived in complete righteousness according to the gospel” (Miscellanies 6:13:107:2 [A.D. 208]).

Hippolytus

"When a deacon is to be ordained, he is chosen after the fashion of those things said above, the bishop alone in like manner imposing his hands upon him as we have prescribed. In the ordaining of a deacon, this is the reason why the bishop alone is to impose his hands upon him: he is not ordained to the priesthood, but to serve the bishop and to fulfill the bishop’s command. He has no part in the council of the clergy, but is to attend to his own duties and is to acquaint the bishop with such matters as are needful. . . .

"On a presbyter, however, let the presbyters impose their hands because of the common and like Spirit of the clergy. Even so, the presbyter has only the power to receive [the Spirit], and not the power to give [the Spirit]. That is why a presbyter does not ordain the clergy; for at the ordaining of a presbyter, he but seals while the bishop ordains.

“Over a deacon, then, let the bishop speak thus: ‘O God, who have created all things and have set them in order through your Word; Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, whom you sent to minister to your will and to make clear to us your desires, grant the Holy Spirit of grace and care and diligence to this your servant, whom you have chosen to serve the Church and to offer in your holy places the gifts which are offered to you by your chosen high priests, so that he may serve with a pure heart and without blame, and that, ever giving praise to you, he may be accounted by your good will as worthy of this high office: through your Son Jesus Christ, through whom be glory and honor to you, to the Father and the Son with the Holy Spirit, in your holy Church, both now and through the ages of ages. Amen’” (The Apostolic Tradition 9 [A.D. 215]).

I have lots more if you need them.

 

[Randy_Carson]

As far as the ecf’s and infant baptism, a few actually say baptise infants; none but one relate the baptism of an infant to the removal of sin. One erroneously makes the circumcision on the eight day as an equivilent to infant water baptism. If that were actually true, then God has changed the salvation message form the OT to the NT, which in turn would make God contradict Himself, which would make Him a liar and untrustworthy and ever changing, whch He is none of those.

You miss the point. The Church was not arguing about whether infants should be baptized or not; infants were baptized and there was no dissent about that. The only question to concern the early Church was HOW QUICKLY INFANTS SHOULD BE BAPTIZED. Sadly, modern Christians who think they know so much more than those were taught by the Apostles and the disciples of the Apostles now deny baptism to infants based on the teachings of men.

Disproving that water baptism removes any sin is very easy to show beyond any reasonable doubt.

Then start a thread and do so.

You must remember the 1st and 2nd century ecf’s do not have the vantage point that we have for a multitude of reasons. Just because they were removed even a couple of generations is not the same as being taught directly from God. Think of all the resources to study at your fingertips this very moment; think of their resources. Hands down we have the advantage, one of which is time.

What ego we moderns have…to think that we are so much superior to the ignorant fools of ancient days who had nothing but the words of the Apostles themselves still ringing in their ears.

Also, not one said that water baptism saves. That would be a heresy because Scripture states how a person is daved and it isn’t through the blood of water.

Well, you have me there. I can’t deny that scripture nowhere teaches that we are saved through the “blood of water” - whatever that may be.

However, scripture does teach that we are saved by baptism plainly enough.

[1 Peter 3:21](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Peter+3:21&version=NIV)
and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also

 

[Randy_Carson]

As far as the ecf’s and infant baptism, a few actually say baptise infants;

So, tell me…does your Church baptize infants as the earliest Christians did? Or are you following a much later tradition by denying this sacrament to infants?

none but one relate the baptism of an infant to the removal of sin.

Ah. Then one poor ignorant soul who did not have access to the Internet and Bible software programs taught that baptizing infants removed the stain of original sin. Gee, there must have been quite a few people who rose up to refute that ridiculous heresy. Could you quote a few passages from the ECF’s who argued against this false teaching, JB? After all, we have extensive apologetics against other heresies…surely there must be something that condemns the baptism of infants. Show it to us, please.

While you’re tracking that down, let me share some more ECF’s on the subject of baptismal regeneration with you.

**The Epistle of Barnabas **

“Now let us see if the Lord has been at any pains to give us a foreshadowing of the waters of baptism and of the cross. Regarding the former, we have the evidence of Scripture that Israel would refuse to accept the washing which confers the remission of sins and would set up a substitution of their own instead [Jer. 22:13; Is. 16:1-2, 33:16-18; Ps. 1:3-6]. Observe there how he describes both the water and the cross in the same figure. His meaning is, `Blessed are those who go down into the water with their hopes set on the cross.’ Here he is saying that after we have stepped down into the water, burdened with sin and defilement, we come up out of it bearing fruit, with reverence in our hearts and the hope of Jesus in our souls” (11:1-10 [circa A.D. 70]).

**Hermas **

" ‘I have heard, sir,’ said I, ‘from some teacher, that there is no other repentance except that which took place when we went down into the water and obtained the remission of our former sins.’ He said to me, ‘You have heard rightly, for so it is’<|>" (The Shepherd 4:3:1-2 [A.D. 140]).

“They had need [the Shepherd said] to come up through the water, so that they might be made alive, for they could not otherwise enter into the kingdom of God, except by putting away the mortality of their former life. These also, then, who had fallen asleep, received the seal of the Son of God and entered into the kingdom of God. For,’ he said, 'before a man bears the name of the Son of God, he is dead. But when he receives the seal he puts mortality aside and again receives life. The seal, therefore, is the water. They go down into the water dead [in sin], and come out of it alive” (Ibid. 9:16:2-4).

---

Justin Martyr

As many as are persuaded and believe that what we [Christians] teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, and instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we pray and fast with them. **Then they are brought by us where there is water and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father . . . and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit [Matt. 28:19], they then receive the washing with water. **For Christ also said, “Unless you are born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven” (*First Apology *61 [A.D. 151]).

“Whoever are convinced and believe that what they are taught and told by us is the truth, and professes to be able to live accordingly, is instructed to pray and to beseech God in fasting for the remission of their former sins, while we pray and fast with them. Then they are led by us to a place where there is water, and they are reborn in the same kind of rebirth in which we ourselves were reborn: In the name of God, the Lord and Father of all, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they receive the washing of water. For Christ said, ‘Unless you be reborn, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven.’…The reason for doing this, we have learned from the Apostles” (The First Apology 61:14-17 [A.D. 148-155]).

**Theophilus **

“Moreover, those things which were created from the waters were blessed by God, so that this might also be a sign that men would at a future time receive repentance and remission of sins through water and the bath of regeneration–all who proceed to the truth and are born again and receive a blessing from God” (To Autolycus 12:16 [A.D. 181]).

Irenaeus of Lyons

“And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan” [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: “Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven” (*Fragment *34 [A.D. 190]).

In case you have forgotten, JohnnyBeth…Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of the Apostle John. Is there any doubt that Irenaeus believed that baptism washed away sins?

Did Irenaeus need Google to tell him what the Apostles believed and taught?

 

[plain_me]

Whoa…

You really can’t step away from a discussion for a couple of days, can you? I had to get some work done til late a couple nights, and when I decided to come back and get caught up I was pretty overwhelmed. Afer scrolling through this last page with Randy’s book posted all the way down the page :hypno:I decided that I’m not gonna be able to catch up with this one. :sad_bye:

I would, however, like to join another discussion just starting up if anyone is interested. I’m not even sure what this thread has morphed into, but if someone wants to give me a summation then I might be able to join back in, I guess. If anyone cares to allow me back into the discussion, that is…

 

[plain_me]

I’ve decided to go ahead and respond to a couple things on this most recent page, and if anyone objects to my continued interaction then I’ll do my best to read the context in its full as I’m directed…

By the way, your attention to the audience is really important!

Jesus was not giving the authority to bind and loose to ALL believers as many (including JohnnyBeth in this thread) claim.

However, this interpretation is a necessity for those who deny Catholicism because they must explain away their separation from the one Church which Jesus built. IOW, to justify the fact that they are separated from the true authority Jesus conveyed upon Peter and the Apostles, Protestants have developed the idea that Jesus was actually giving the power to bind and loose to everyone.

Since that sounds far-fetched on its face, they are then forced to minimized what binding and loosing entailed. For this reason, you get explanations such as the idea that binding and loosing really only means accepting or rejecting the gospel.

However, this is a theological novelty that was unknown in the history of the Church; it is a tradition of (Protestant) men.

It seems to me that Augstine must’ve been some lone rebel against the doctrine of the church, but you can’t really fault him for this since the clarified teaching on this matter wasn’t developed for years. As soon as you made this claim, Randy, I was reminded of a portion in my copy of On Christian Doctrine that I had highlighted for future reference. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to share it here.

It has to do with your claim that this doctrine of the authority to bind or loose was a novelty as pertains to those other than the apostles and their successors. Obviously, the clergy are not the only ones who were charged with preaching the Gospel to every creature, but that is indeed the way in which those who hear and repent are to have their sins remitted. Since protestants are the ones (in your mind) that invented this doctrine then I thank you for relinquishing to us the mighty theologian Augustine:

Chapter 18

1. He has given, therefore, the keys to His Church, that whatsoever it should bind on earth might be bound in heaven, and whatsoever it should loose on earth might be loosed in heaven; that is to say, that whosoever in the Church should not believe that his sins are remitted, they should not be remitted to him; but that whosoever should believe, and should repent, and turn from his sins, should be saved by the same faith and repentance on the ground of which he is received into the bosom of the Church. For he who does not believe that his sins can be pardoned, falls into despair, and becomes worse, as if no greater good remained for him than to be evil, when he has ceased to have faith in the results of his own repentance.

Source: ccel.org/ccel/augustine/doctrine.xviii.html

I think that this is sufficient to refute your claim to some continuity on this doctrine that you suppose. If you’d like to argue with me, though, you can further prove that the ECFs do nothing more to clarify the teachings of Scripture than the pure Scriptures themselves. Anyways, if we cannot affirm God’s ability to speak with clarity in the Scriptures and trust that to decide the truth or falsity of any claimed doctrine (as the Bereans did in Acts 17:11), then we certainly cannot rely upon extra Biblical writings to determine the truth of God as they have been written by fallible men.

By the way, what in the world does IOW mean?

 

[bluelake]

Came across this on some anti-Catholic protestant site. The site itself has quite a few ignorant claims (the usual- worship of the saints, priests, etc.) but this kind of caught my eye. Could somebody explain this?
It’s regarding Peter’s papacy:

" Remember, if you will, the episode at Caesarea Philippi. There, Jesus asked His Apostles, “Who do YE say that I am?” It was Peter who responded for the twelve with this statement of FACT: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Then said our Lord, “Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, that thou art PETER, and upon this ROCK I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Matthew 16:17, 18) In English, Latin, Aramaic, and other languages the words Peter and rock are entirely different. Unfortunately for Roman Catholics whose beliefs rest heavily on the papacy, Greek is a far more precise language.
In Greek, Peter is petros, masculine gender, defined as a small rock, one that can be picked up and skipped across the surface of a pond. It is a derivative of the root word,
petra, feminine gender, defined as massive foundation rock. If we insert Greek definitions for petros and petra, what our Lord said in Matthew 16:18 reads like this: “Thou art Little Rock, and upon this Massive Foundation Rock I will build my Church.”
To the most respected theologians of the early Church, the Massive Foundation Rock of
Matthew 16:18 was not Peter, but Peter’s statement of FACT – “Thou art the Christ, (Jewish Messiah) the Son of the living God.” That Jesus was and is the Messiah promised in Genesis, that He was and is the Son of God incarnate, are, in fact, the very foundation of Christianity. And that is exactly what was taught in opposition to Calixtus 1 by Cyril, Hilary, Tertullian, Jerome, (producer of the Latin Vulgate Bible), Basil, Ambrose, Augustine, Leo the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, and the much-honored Greek scholar, Chrysostom. "

hello Brooklyn,
The meaning of this scripture has been a subject of debate for centuries. There are three or four versions of what the keys represent. However, I tend to believe , as you seem to also, that the meaning is Peter’s confession of who Jesus Christ is.
Peter received insight and faith from the Lord and is the first to confess who Jesus Christ is. Verse 16 reads, “You are the Christ, the son of the living God.”

God bless,
bluelake

 

[plain_me]

That is also what I have always heard.

So I’ll give you Matthew 16:18 is singular and speaking directly to Peter.

I will also concede Matthew 18:18 is not speaking to all believers, but only the Apostles.

Now, before you get too happy about my concessions,…

In Matthew 18:18 where Jesus is speaking to all the Apostles, this is where you have stated proof for papal infallibility:

I never saw that before! This we know all the Apostles wrote and spoke truth or they could not be considered divinely inspired. They were protected from error.

But it disproves papal infallibility as Peter was not the only one protected from error.

(I should acknowledge this doesn’t settle the issue of the keys.)

Ginger

I’m a bit confused here, and please tell me to butt out if y’all are having a private convo; but I don’t know where on earth you two got this idea that all the apostles were protected from error in everything that they did. Obviously, they were divinely inspired to write the Scriptures as the Spirit carried them along:

knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
(2Pe 1:20-21 ESV)

This does not include their actions or speech in all points as is proved by Galatians 2:

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?” We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified. But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we too were found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! For if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor. For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.
(Gal 2:11-21 ESV)

Very obviously, Peter was in error and even leading people astray from the truth of the Gospel itself! This was no minor mistake. Paul said that Peter was distorting the pure message of the Gospel as those whom he anathamatized were in chapter 1 of the same book. He used Peter as an example of someone leading people into heresy. Doesn’t sound like Peter was preserved from error, but this doesn’t automatically translate into the apostles not being able to be considered divinely inspired. They were divinely inspired in all that they put down on paper (or papyrus), and that’s all we have any assurance of.

Oh, and I assume that the concession to the singularity of speech directed towards Peter in chapter 16 is speaking of the fact that Jesus just happened to be addressing Peter specifically and not necessarily when referring to him as a rock. Correct?

 

[bluelake]

The third point is the definition of the words.

The RC says feminine and masculine forms of the same word.

**KJB **online Bible (not really the best source, but will do for now) says:

PETROS:
Peter = “a rock or a stone”

1. one of the twelve disciples of Jesus

PETRA:

1. a rock, cliff or ledge

a) a projecting rock, crag, rocky ground

b) a rock, a large stone

c) metaph. a man like a rock, by reason of his firmness and strength of soul

Why the diferent definitions? If it is the feminine and masculine forms of the very same word, why isn’t the definition the same?

SEE ALSO:
Vine’s expository dictionary): Petra denotes “a mass of rock,” as distinct from Petros, “a detached stone or boulder,” or a stone that might be thrown or easily moved.

ginger,
You seem to be using the interpretation of ‘rock’ as the main emphsis of Mt.16:13-20
I tend to believe it is Peter’s confession “You are the Christ, the son of the Living God.”

God bless ,
bluelake

 

[LionHeart777]

Plain_me,

Doesn’t Augustine’s quote also refute OSAS and/or Persaverance of the Saints (as Calvinists see it.)?

 

[plain_me]

I think you have confused some things, so let’s clarify, okay?

The sacrament of holy orders is conferred in three ranks of clergy: bishops, priests, and deacons.

Bishops (episcopoi) have the care of multiple congregations and appoint, ordain, and discipline priests and deacons. They sometimes appear to be called “evangelists” in the New Testament. Examples of first-century bishops include Timothy and Titus (1 Tim. 5:19–22; 2 Tim. 4:5; Titus 1:5).

Priests (presbuteroi) are also known as “presbyters” or “elders.” In fact, the English term “priest” is simply a contraction of the Greek word presbuteros. They have the responsibility of teaching, governing, and providing the sacraments in a given congregation (1 Tim. 5:17; Jas. 5:14–15).

Deacons (diakonoi) are the assistants of the bishops and are responsible for teaching and administering certain Church tasks, such as the distribution of food (Acts 6:1–6).

The Greek word for priest is ιερεὺς (hieroos) and the word for elder is πρεσβύτερος (presbuteros), but these two words are not the same. You may know of some example in the NT, Randy, that I’m not aware of, but I don’t think that any of the inspired writers used these two words interchangeably. On the other hand, the word for bishop/overseer (ἐπίσκοπον–episkopon) and the word for elder is used interchangeably:

[SIGN]Now from Miletus he (Paul) sent to Ephesus and called the elders of the church to come to him. And when they came to him, he said to them…Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.
(Act 20:17-18a, 28 ESV)

By the way, I used this sign in order to distinguish my quotations from yours. Well…and I’ve been wanting to use it for something…
[/SIGN]

In the apostolic age, the terms for these offices were still somewhat fluid. Sometimes a term would be used in a technical sense as the title for an office, sometimes not. This non-technical use of the terms even exists today, as when the term is used in many churches (both Protestant and Catholic) to refer to either ordained ministers (as in “My minister visited him”) or non-ordained individuals. (In a Protestant church one might hear “He is a worship minister,” while in a Catholic church one might hear “He is an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion.”)

It seems as if your referring only to the term deacon. What you say is true about the fact that the word translated as deacon can be used to refer to other people besides “deacons” because the word itself actually only means minister or servant or helper. The reason the word is translated as “deacon” is in order to distinguish a regular servant or minister from one who is a servant or minister in regards to the church. It’s just like the word translated as church (ἐκκλησία) can also be legitimately translated as assembly or gathering or assembly when not referring to the religious organization we know as the church.

When you say “In the apostolic age” I think of the time in which the apostles themselves lived, but I don’t know of any example of them using the terms for elders and priests in the same way. Once you demonstrate this, we can consider the validity of your argument, but for now we’ll have to say that it seems as if your trying to abuse the terms for your own agenda.

What we can say, however, is that according to the apostle Paul’s use of the terms in Acts 20 we have grounds upon which to question any writer (including the earliest writers) who would try to bend these words and try to make some distinction that wasn’t there at the time in which Paul originally penned the Spirit’s divine words.

 

[plain_me]

Plain_me,

Doesn’t Augustine’s quote also refute OSAS and/or Persaverance of the Saints (as Calvinists see it.)?

Nope.

 

[plain_me]

ginger,
You seem to be using the interpretation of ‘rock’ as the main emphsis of Mt.16:13-20
I tend to believe it is Peter’s confession “You are the Christ, the son of the Living God.”

God bless ,
bluelake

Are you saying that the main emphasis of the passage is the confession? If so, I think Ginger would agree with that. The question, though, is whether the word “rock” is referring to the confession or to Peter.

This actually brings up a concern that I have. If Randy is arguing from the perspective that the authority of the ECFs is what determines the interpretation of Scripture then why doesn’t he agree that the confession is the antecedent of rock? That’s what the majority of the ECFs believed. Here’s a link to a reply that an Eastern orthodox priest that I was discussing this issue with posted with a reference: amazon.com/tag/christianity/forum/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx77WQHU8YS50Z&cdMsgNo=9&cdPage=1&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=TxJ6H1WEPD5EQG&cdMsgID=Mx1LCVQ7F54VUW9#Mx1LCVQ7F54VUW9

Even without the link, though, I’m pretty sure that this is a well known fact that most Roman Catholics would concede. It just doesn’t make a whole lot of sense that a RC would appeal to the ECFs as authoritative and echo the words of Trent that forbids interpretation of the Scriptures contrary to the unanimous consent of the ECFs (even though there is no such thing), and then they will disagree with the majority teaching on the matter (the closest thing they’ll ever have to a unanimous consent!). :hypno:

 

[Luke65]

Is an Elder, overseer or Deacon a priest, especially in the Catholic sense as we see today? Of course not.Nope. good try. There is a specific and separate Greek term with distinct definitions in regards to priest.

Indeed. In fact, here it is:

“But I have written very boldly to you on some points so as to remind you again, because of the grace that was given me from God, to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles, ministering as a priest the gospel of God, so that my offering of the Gentiles may become acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.” (Romans 15:15-16)

Yes, that is the Greek word used for the Jewish Levite priests (and Melchizedek and Christ). So, St. Paul is telling us that he ministers as a “priest”, or in the “priestly service” as some have it, under the New Covenant as the Levites ministered as priests under the Old Covenant. So, as was pointed out, there were three levels of priesthood under the Law of Moses, just as there are three levels of priesthood under the Law of Christ…

“For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law.” (Hebrews 7:12)

Here’s an article I wrote in response to those who attack the Catholic Church because of scandals in the clergy. Look beyond that to the underlying principle…I think it will be comforting to you.

In addition to the Scriptures which Randy has provided, and it is comforting to know that our Lord told us these things ahead of time, I highly recommend, for all Christians, the book Trial, Tribulation and Triumph by Desmond Birch. This is the best book on Catholic prophecy from only Church-approved sources - Fathers, Doctors, Saints, approved apparitions, etc. And remember, “Do not despise prophecy.” (1 Thess. 5:19) And you will see not only that all of this was foretold, but that it was foretold to come in the 20th century - many centuries ago! I imagine this is because…

“He will revive us after two days; He will raise us up on the third day, that we may live before Him.” (Hosea 6:2)

“But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years…” (2 Peter 3:8)

There are many tares among the wheat, but there are folks out there that need you.

Indeed. We’re in a war here! And we need to all be one. The Catholic Church needs zealous, Bible-believing soldiers of Christ like you guys as much as you need Her. And don’t even get me started on the Sacraments! You will see more clearly than you ever dreamed of. :yup: But here’s the problem…

“Lord… In your field we see more weeds than wheat.” ~ Pope Benedict XVI

Come home, Catholics. Come home, Protestants. Lord, hear our prayer. :bowdown:

 

[Luke65]

The Greek word for priest is ιερεὺς (hieroos) and the word for elder is πρεσβύτερος (presbuteros), but these two words are not the same. You may know of some example in the NT, Randy, that I’m not aware of, but I don’t think that any of the inspired writers used these two words interchangeably.

See above.

 

[Ginger2]

Whoa…

You really can’t step away from a discussion for a couple of days, can you? I had to get some work done til late a couple nights, and when I decided to come back and get caught up I was pretty overwhelmed. Afer scrolling through this last page with Randy’s book posted all the way down the page :hypno:I decided that I’m not gonna be able to catch up with this one. :sad_bye:

I would, however, like to join another discussion just starting up if anyone is interested. I’m not even sure what this thread has morphed into, but if someone wants to give me a summation then I might be able to join back in, I guess. If anyone cares to allow me back into the discussion, that is…

That’s why I don’t read thru all the posts. If there are pagas, I skim thru to find my name. (posters quoted me)

It means I sometimes miss something, but if anyone thinks it is important - they will be sure to point it out. Usually saying I intentionally ignored the question.

Which is sometimes true. I don’t feel I have to address every comment everyone makes - especially when it’s something I have repeated answered over the several years I have participated in this forum.

But I understand your leaving…I have left a couple threads for the same reason, myself.

See you in another thread!!!

 

[Ginger2]

See it?

In verse 19, Jesus says the same thing to Peter individually…

I have always seen this “what you bind…” I have not been clear on its precise meaning. The Bible must be consistent in all its teachings. (Plus I am not convince it was solely Peter at the verse 19, I gave you that point for the time being because I want to focus on Mat 18: tense of “shall be” or have been")

… that we have already agreed that He stated to the Apostles collectively.

I misspoke. Collectively I took as all the Apostles were given this authority - each to teach infallibly, but not to say they were only infallible as a team, save Peter.

…Jesus promises infallibility to Peter individually in Matthew 16 and to the Apostles collectively in Matthew 18 using the exact same words in both places.

I say, All the Apostles had the Authority to teach infallibly as they were spread out teaching individually or in two’s and three’s immediately after Pentecost.

The Bible doesn’t specifically state where each Apostle went directly after Pentecost, but it becomes obvious they did not stay together as a group.

So, they each went out - without Peter to advice them, without telephone to get the correct answers for hard questions - they each went out and taught the Gospel of Christ.

Paul started preaching before ever meeting Peter. How was Paul able to teach infallibly without consulting Peter - and so shortly after regaining his sight!

So this is not a matter of a council, or group being infallible ONLY as a collective group or under the leadership of a pope.

Each Apostle wrote his Gospel infallibly under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The pope didn’t proof read the material, nor did they get together to discern what to write. They each wrote infallibly under divine inspiration, and not all of them were lead Apostles, either. :yup:

Ginger

 

[Ginger2]

I’m a bit confused here, and please tell me to butt out if y’all are having a private convo; but I don’t know where on earth you two got this idea that all the apostles were protected from error in everything that they did. Obviously, they were divinely inspired to write the Scriptures as the Spirit carried them along:

This does not include their actions or speech in all points as is proved by Galatians 2:

Right now, I am working thru the correct interpretation of Matt 18:18. It is easier and sometimes more productive to argue one point at a time rather than be arguing 3 or 4 at the same time.

So, I conceded some points to find agreement on at least one or two.

I have not conceded succession, and neither of us said they could not make mistakes.

Peter did not teach anything in Gal 2. He behaved inappropriately by snubbing one group of Christians to avoid conflict with another group of Jewish Christians.

You are correct in that Paul taught correcting Peter’s behavior. And it is good to point out, this teaching was recorded in the written Word.

I am going somewhere with this, but need to take it one step at a time. It is easy to become confused and jump to false conclusions. First things first; an accurate rendering of the text and then an application consistent with the whole of Scriptures. This often takes time to do properly.

I am not saying Peter or any human being did everything perfect. I am simply trying to figure out what is actually taught in these Scriptures.