The Office of the Papacy in Scripture

[Randy_Carson]

He chose to make Peter His prime minister and the vicarious shepherd of the flock? If so, neither Peter nor anyone else knew it, or if they did know, they kept it as a “secret Tradition.”

Yeah, right.

All the Apostles present when Jesus asked, “Who do you say that I am” were COMPLETELY in the dark about the fact that Jesus had given Peter the keys to the kingdom.

And John who was following Jesus and Peter along the beach when Jesus told Peter to tend (rule) and feed (nourish) the flock, was so ignorant of this incident (and its significance) that he alone recorded it in his gospel some 30+ years later.

:nope:

You’re down to empty assertions, Daniel.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

**Yes a head IS a necessity. And the only singular shepherd or leader or head of the church on earth, identified in scripture is Christ alone. No NT writer says otherwise. **

Ephesians 1:10
to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment—to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ.

Ephesians 1:22
And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church,

Ephesians 4:15
Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ.

Ephesians 5:23
For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.

Colossians 1:18
And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.

Colossians 2:10
and you have been given fullness in **Christ, who is the head **over every power and authority.

Colossians 2:19
He has lost connection with the Head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow.

1 Peter 5:4
And when the **Chief Shepherd **appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away.

1 Peter 2 24
He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed. For you were like sheep going astray, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.

If Peter knew he was appointed to be the earthly Shepherd of the church, he could have found humble ways to state this just as he stated: “God **made a choice **among you that the Gentiles might hear from **my lips **the message” (Acts 15:7).

Christ is the head of His Church. He rules from His throne in heaven. In His earthly absence, He assigned the keys to the kingdom of heaven to Peter. David was on a throne established by God and Isaiah 22:22 tells us the duties of the prime minister, or keeper of the keys. 1 Chronicles 9 details the keys.

You say Peter could have found humble ways to state, just as he stated, “God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message.” Why now does Peter have to be boastful and keep repeating this? It’s there Daniel and when it’s pointed out, you demand more.

Act 1:15 In those days Peter rising up in the midst of the brethren, said (now the number of persons together was about an hundred and twenty):

The Church had grown to about 120 and they all accepted Peter’s primacy. It was not demanded that Peter repeatedly assert himself, until the Church had grown to over a billion people.

As you demand that more be shown to confirm Peter’s leadership, and staying on topic, please show me any writings, scriptures or otherwise, where the early Christians denied Peter’s position.

 

[utunumsint]

There is inspired revelation from God in which God tells his people things he did not tell them before. The problem with the papacy is that it is not defined WITHIN inspired revelation from God.

It does not always happen in the way of direct revelation.

For example, Stephen did not know that traditional Jewish Laws no longer had to be observed. He died before the Jerusalem council could determine this.

But what was left was a crucial example of the counciliar nature of the church.

1-A disputed question presented itself to the people of God.
2-A council of elders (presbuteroi) and bishops (episcopoi) was convened to debate the issue.
3-The issue was settled through the intervention of those entrusted with the keys, and specifically with the one on whom the church would be built.

This pattern has been repeated again and again throughout history to settle important disputes over matters where scripture is not clear. This way unity was preserved.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Randy_Carson]

If keys can have more than one meaning, then we must look to what occured after the keys are given, to understand what it means.

No.

First, YOU must look at what the keys meant when referenced in Is. 22:22 to understand WHY Jesus used that imagery.

Maybe then we’ll have something to talk about.

So, here it is, Daniel…another question you won’t bother to answer:

What does Jesus’ reference to Is. 22:22 tell us about Peter’s role in the kingdom of God?

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

It does not always happen in the way of direct revelation.

For example, Stephen did not know that traditional Jewish Laws no longer had to be observed. He died before the Jerusalem council could determine this.

But what was left was a crucial example of the counciliar nature of the church.

1-A disputed question presented itself to the people of God.
2-A council of elders (presbuteroi) and bishops (episcopoi) was convened to debate the issue.
3-The issue was settled through the intervention of those entrusted with the keys, and specifically with the one on whom the church would be built.

This pattern has been repeated again and again throughout history to settle important disputes over matters where scripture is not clear. This way unity was preserved.

God bless,
Ut

When was the next ecumenical council after Jerusalem in which there were inspired apostles?

 

[Randy_Carson]

When was the next ecumenical council after Jerusalem in which there were inspired apostles?

You ask a lot of questions, but you don’t answer any put to you.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

No.

First, YOU must look at what the keys meant when referenced in Is. 22:22 to understand WHY Jesus used that imagery.

Maybe then we’ll have something to talk about.

So, here it is, Daniel…another question you won’t bother to answer:

What does Jesus’ reference to Is. 22:22 tell us about Peter’s role in the kingdom of God?

One runs the risk of reading into Is.22:22 meanings that Jesus did not intend. In order to tell us what meanings Jesus intended, we need Jesus or even an apostle or other inspired person, to tell us what part of the meaning of keys in Is.22:22 is intended by Jesus use of “keys”. Lacking this, we must look to what occurred afterward.

 

[utunumsint]

When was the next ecumenical council after Jerusalem in which there were inspired apostles?

As St. Clement some clearly demonstrates in chapter 42 of his first epistle to the Corinthians, the Apostles appointed the bishops as their successors.

The apostles have preached the gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus says the Scripture in a certain place, I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.

It was such as these who emulated the pattern provided to them by the Apostles to settle disputes.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

You ask a lot of questions, but you don’t answer any put to you.

I try to answer all questions and even repeat many answers. Sometimes I do not answer a question if I have already answered it repeatedly.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

If keys can have more than one meaning, then we must look to what occured after the keys are given, to understand what it means.

Christ clarified what the keys meant. Whatsover thou shall bind upon the earth shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

I had another thought on your question of why didn’t Peter humbly state his position more than in Acts 15:7. Think on this, one can go through the entire New Testament and read all that is written that Christ said in what, 3 to 5 hours, or less? Christ spent 3 years in His ministry. How much could He have said in that amount of time? How many books would it have taken to write it all down? The same goes for Peter, except Peter spent how many years as an Apostle, 35 or 40 years? Where are the 30 or 40 years of writings, about any Apostle and what all they said? How many books would that have filled? If one applied themself to read the entire New Testament, how long would it take?

You compare Peter to just another Apostle among the others. How many Apostles helped write the New Testament? Where are the writings about all the 12 in the New Testament? Did some of them lose their Apostleship? They are not written about and some of those that were had very little mention at best.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

One runs the risk of reading into Is.22:22 meanings that Jesus did not intend. In order to tell us what meanings Jesus intended, we need Jesus or even an apostle or other inspired person, to tell us what part of the meaning of keys in Is.22:22 is intended by Jesus use of “keys”. Lacking this, we must look to what occurred afterward.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

As St. Clement some clearly demonstrates in chapter 42 of his first epistle to the Corinthians, the Apostles appointed the bishops as their successors.

It was such as these who emulated the pattern provided to them by the Apostles to settle disputes.

God bless,
Ut

“…to be **bishops and deacons **of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus says the Scripture in a certain place, I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.”

There were NO singular bishops mentioned in this letter. It does not tell the Corinthians to obey their singular bishop, and bishops are the same as presbyters. For similar language, look at Philippians 1:1

You avoid my question about the next ecumenical council after Jerusalem.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Christ clarified what the keys meant. Whatsover thou shall bind upon the earth shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

I had another thought on your question of why didn’t Peter humbly state his position more than in Acts 15:7. Think on this, one can go through the entire New Testament and read all that is written that Christ said in what, 3 to 5 hours, or less? Christ spent 3 years in His ministry. How much could He have said in that amount of time? How many books would it have taken to write it all down? The same goes for Peter, except Peter spent how many years as an Apostle, 35 or 40 years? Where are the 30 or 40 years of writings, about any Apostle and what all they said? How many books would that have filled? If one applied themself to read the entire New Testament, how long would it take?

You compare Peter to just another Apostle among the others. How many Apostles helped write the New Testament? Where are the writings about all the 12 in the New Testament? Did some of them lose their Apostleship? They are not written about and some of those that were had very little mention at best.

Peter never humbly states he was the ONE Shepherd appointed by Christ.

 

[utunumsint]

I try to answer all questions and even repeat many answers. Sometimes I do not answer a question if I have already answered it repeatedly.

Then perhaps you wont respond to my answer.

Maybe you could answer this question: can you tell me where it says in scripture that disputed questions are no longer to be settled in this manner?

God bless,
ut

 

[utunumsint]

“…to be **bishops and deacons **of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus says the Scripture in a certain place, I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.”

There were NO singular bishops mentioned in this letter. It does not tell the Corinthians to obey their singular bishop, and bishops are the same as presbyters. For similar language, look at Philippians 1:1

You avoid my question about the next ecumenical council after Jerusalem.

I’m not sure I see the relevance of your point about plural bishops. Do you not see the possibility of having multiple bishops in once city, especially one as large as Corinth?

As for the council question, I would consider the easter controversy as a good example of the next ecumenical council, although the debate was carried out via letters.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

One runs the risk of reading into Is.22:22 meanings that Jesus did not intend. In order to tell us what meanings Jesus intended, we need Jesus or even an apostle or other inspired person, to tell us what part of the meaning of keys in Is.22:22 is intended by Jesus use of “keys”. Lacking this, we must look to what occurred afterward.

If we need Jesus or some other inspired person, meaning an author of scriptures, to explain all things men disagree about, through private interpretation, we may as well stop reading the Bible.

God built a Church by choosing and ordaining men for a purpose, to act on His behalf in His earthly absence. God promised to be His Church until the consummation of the world and to send the Holy Spirit to make all things, He taught, known to those in authority of Church. If those promises had been made to all individuals, there would be no disagreements and all would be of full accord and of one mind and judgment. We have someone to tell us what the meaning of the keys is and it is His Church, the pillar and ground of truth.

Eph 3:10 That the manifold wisdom of God may be made known to the principalities and powers in heavenly places through the church

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Peter never humbly states he was the ONE Shepherd appointed by Christ.

Acts 15:7 is humbly spoken and you seem to admit it was an instance, but still not enough according to your standards.

Christ stated it for Him, in the presence of witnesses, who wrote down what they heard Him say, afterall Christ is the Head of the Church and Peter was His appointed prime minister in His earthly absence.

Also, I cannot help but notice you did not address my thoughts of how little is actually written about 30 to 40 years of active ministry, or the lack of writings about the rest of the 12.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I try to answer all questions and even repeat many answers. Sometimes I do not answer a question if I have already answered it repeatedly.

Oh.

Have you answered this one:

Does the Bible teach sola scriptura?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Oh.

Have you answered this one:

Does the Bible teach sola scriptura?

If he has, I have missed it.

 

[paul_c]

Jesus said, “I will destroy this temple…” and “not one stone will be left upon another.”

Actually it did figure prominently in the preaching of Paul and of the writer of Hebrews.

Not likely. Paul was martyred before the temple was destroyed.