The Office of the Papacy in Scripture

[Prodigal_Son1]

Peter was the only one who denied Christ three times. The scripture is my authority and needs no interpretation. Where is Peter referred to as a singular head, pastor, shepherd, or anything else? The sole basis of unity? Where? Not in Ephesians 4.

You again avoid the questions asked of you and respond with more questions. It appears you have a single minded agenda. Your interpretation of scriptures is not infallible and private interpretation of scriptures is not Biblical. It is a man-made tradition.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

You again avoid the questions asked of you and respond with more questions. It appears you have a single minded agenda. Your interpretation of scriptures is not infallible and private interpretation of scriptures is not Biblical. It is a man-made tradition.

What is my agenda? The subject of this thread. You and others avoid dealing with the elephant in the living room: there is no word from or reference to the alleged voice of Christ on earth after Peter for many generations. Why? Because the papacy gradually developed and did not exist in the time of the apostles.

 

[James224]

Hi Daniel Keeran,

[SIGN]
Peter is not referred to as prime minister nor by any similar singular term in scripture. The keys can mean responsibility to open the kingdom which he did in Acts 2 and 10.
[/SIGN]

Peter is not referred to as Prime Minister but he was given the keys as those Imentioned in those verses.

Where does it talk about the keys in Acts 2 & 10?

May God bless,

James224

 

[Randy_Carson]

Yes it is a fair definition.

1. So where in scripture do we find Peter is called “supreme pastor” or “chief shepherd” or “head pastor” or by any similar phrase?
2. Where in scripture do we find Peter is given singular “power of jurisdiction” or any singular responsibility to “maintain universal unity and orthodoxy within the Christian Church” ?

His name and the reference to a “supreme pastor” are conspicuously absent in the very passage that tells us the basis of unity and orthodoxy in the church:

Ephesians 4:3 “Make every effort to **keep the unity of the Spirit **through the bond of peace. 4There is **one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called— 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6one God **and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. 7But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it. 8This is why it says: “When he ascended on high, he led captives in his train and gave gifts to men.” 9(What does “he ascended” mean except that he also descended to the lower, earthly regions? 10He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.) 11It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, 12to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 **until we all reach unity in the faith **and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.”

There is no reference to a “supreme pastor” on earth in the above passage or in any part of scripture.

Okay, Daniel.

Two can play this game. Catholics in this forum have written hundreds of posts in a good faith effort to show you why Peter is considered the vicar of Christ who is the head of the Church. The position that Peter held later came to called the “papacy” with Peter’s successors themselves being known as the “pope”. While these terms are not found in scripture, the fundamentals of the position of leader of the Church are evident.

On the other hand, you have decided to hide behind the false idea that everything must be found in scripture.

Prove that.

Prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that scripture teaches that the Bible alone is the sole rule of faith for the Christian.

The challenge is simple, Daniel.

Does the Bible teach sola scriptura?

If you can’t prove that it does, then I am under no obligation to prove anything to you about the papacy or infant baptism or any subject whatsoever exclusively from scripture.

Good luck.

 

[Randy_Carson]

We need to see reference to Peter as a singular something, not just one of several, and we do not find it anywhere in scripture.

But not the sole or singular one to do this.

Unify the apostles? No. Jews, Samaritans, Gentiles? Not as the only responsible person except in speaking to Cornelius. Peter was not the only one to “rule” on circumcision at the council of Jerusalem. There were also Paul and James that were equally as prominent. And no one deferred to Peter or referred to him as a singular anything, except as he said to be the one to first speak the gospel to the Gentiles. Peter only reported his experience; James ruled.

Peter may well have been in Rome. But he was never THE bishop of Rome as there were no singular bishops. Why is the papacy not in Ephesians 4?

Does the Bible teach sola scriptura?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Peter is not referred to as prime minister nor by any similar singular term in scripture. The keys can mean responsibility to open the kingdom which he did in Acts 2 and 10.

Does the Bible teach sola scriptura?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Peter was the only one who denied Christ three times. The scripture is my authority and needs no interpretation. Where is Peter referred to as a singular head, pastor, shepherd, or anything else? The sole basis of unity? Where? Not in Ephesians 4.

Does the Bible teach sola scriptura?

 

[Randy_Carson]

What is my agenda? The subject of this thread. You and others avoid dealing with the elephant in the living room: there is no word from or reference to the alleged voice of Christ on earth after Peter for many generations. Why? Because the papacy gradually developed and did not exist in the time of the apostles.

Does the Bible teach sola scriptura?

 

[MonFrere]

So we agree the papacy is NOT clearly identified in scripture.

No, we don’t agree. My point is that what YOU are wanting to see in scripture concerning a papacy is not necessary. Catholic understanding of the key scriptures in Matt et.al. is completely sufficient and the papacy as it has developed in the 2000 years of Christianity clearly can trace back to the words of Christ in Matthew.

Why I say YOUR view of the papacy is not necessary is because there are precedents of promises of God given to key individuals in the Old Testament that cannot be fleshed out in any detail from the words given to these individuals at the promises inception. I used the promise to Abraham that all nations on the earth will be blessed. When Abraham heard this promise I’m sure he never contemplated anything like the Incarnation of God and His sacrifice for the sins of humanity. In like manner, the promises given to St. Peter do not need any detail. The limited words of Christ recorded in Scripture is completely sufficient. The demands you are putting upon scripture - the necessity of the complete details of a papacy - is something you’re imposing as necessary to the scriptural texts when this is not necessary at all.

Acts 18:28 For he vigorously refuted the Jews in public debate, proving from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ.

Jews, trained as St. Paul was in the first century, were given vigorous training in learning to debate scripture in public. However, first century Judaism did NOT have within it a sola scriptura mindset. So, just quoting the above scripture above, without understanding the historical context of the training of first century Jews, is to actually give this scripture an interpretation that is actually FALSE. Scripture was not the ONLY venue for theological learning. Tradition was also a very important aspect of first century Judaism – and this is also clearly seen in the ECF.

2 Timothy 3:15
and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

Catholics have no problem with the face value of this scripture.

MonFrere

 

[MonFrere]

…the papacy gradually developed and did not exist in the time of the apostles.

Daniel,

This is really a non-starter. Theological concepts developed in clarity and complexity throughout the Old Testament. NOW - WITH HINDSIGHT we can see the Trinity, even in passages in the first verses of Genesis. King David asked - What is man that you are mindful of him? in the psalms. The author of Hebrews asks the same question - and in those @ 1000 years there is a more complete answer given by this writer.

The fact that Jesus said He was going to build His Church on St. Peter is really completely sufficient for the development of the papacy. Jesus’ words are the seed and the papacy is the flowering of that seed.

Again, the precedent of the development and fulfillment of promises gradually taking place through time was started in the Old Testament. God works slowly throughout history. The fact that this is also true of the papacy simply shows the consistency and immutability of God. There is a very interesting theme that’s brought to our attention by Catholic theologian, Dr. Scott Hahn. In his book - *A Father Who Keeps His Promises *- Dr. Hahn traces the major covenants of the Old Testament. Each covenant was brought to a greater population – from Adam to Noah to Abraham to Moses to David. The New Covenant was made with the whole world in mind. Again, this tracing of the covenants of God shows a greater and greater revelation being brought to mankind. There is DEVELOPMENT going on from the get go in Genesis 3 in the First Gospel where Satan is told he will be crushed. When God works through our space/time existence - this translates into the one word DEVELOPMENT.

MonFrere

 

[pipper]

Folks let me “cut to the chase”, as many here are aware of I was raised in the same denomination that Daniel is a current member of, and I am intimately familiar with the rhetoric they all use.

Daniel does not have a degree from a seminary, there is not a single seminary in his entire denomination, not one. They do have a few colleges with degrees in “bible” but that is it. To become a preacher in his sect all you have to do is be male, find a congregation whose elders will hire you, and you are a preacher, that simple. There are no educational requirements at all, and no-one in the “churches of Christ” is ordained. There are even congregations that are called “mutual edification” that have nom preacher at all, all the males take turns giving the “lesson”.

I smiled when someone asked which seminary he went to, and I also smiled when someone mentioned Christmas, they do not celebrate it or any other day on the Christian calendar, becuase they are not commanded in the bible. They really even transcend sola scriptura, since the beleive the bible is the literal “voice of God”. Remember they go by CENI.

Command
Example
and
Neccesary Inference

If anything is not COMMANDED by God (God = the bible) to them, If there is no explicit EXAMPLE, and no NECCSARY INFERENCE from “god” then it is forbidden.

And that is why he demands explicit reference for the Papacy, infant baptism or anything else.

For a good example of Daniel’s philosophy and to understand him and his hatred for the Catholic Church go to:

www.bible.ca

When you get there click on the skull and cross bones icon called false doctrines, then click on Roman Catholic Church

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Hi Daniel Keeran,

[SIGN]
Peter is not referred to as prime minister nor by any similar singular term in scripture. The keys can mean responsibility to open the kingdom which he did in Acts 2 and 10.
[/SIGN]

Peter is not referred to as Prime Minister but he was given the keys as those Imentioned in those verses.

Where does it talk about the keys in Acts 2 & 10?

May God bless,

James224

If the keys means Peter is appointed head of the church on earth, there should at least be some reference to this after the day of Pentecost in Acts 2, but there is absolutely NOTHING.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Okay, Daniel.

Two can play this game. Catholics in this forum have written hundreds of posts in a good faith effort to show you why Peter is considered the vicar of Christ who is the head of the Church. The position that Peter held later came to called the “papacy” with Peter’s successors themselves being known as the “pope”. While these terms are not found in scripture, the fundamentals of the position of leader of the Church are evident.

On the other hand, you have decided to hide behind the false idea that everything must be found in scripture.

Prove that.

Prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that scripture teaches that the Bible alone is the sole rule of faith for the Christian.

The challenge is simple, Daniel.

Does the Bible teach sola scriptura?

If you can’t prove that it does, then I am under no obligation to prove anything to you about the papacy or infant baptism or any subject whatsoever exclusively from scripture.

Good luck.

[SIGN]Your insistence on my proving sola scriptura leads to two obvious conclusions:[/SIGN]

1. **Nowhere in scripture **do we find Peter is called “supreme pastor” or “chief shepherd” or “head pastor” or by any similar phrase
2. **Nowhere in scripture **do we find Peter is given singular “power of jurisdiction” or any singular responsibility to “maintain universal unity and orthodoxy within the Christian Church” ?

His name and the reference to a “supreme pastor” are conspicuously absent in the very passage that tells us the basis of unity and orthodoxy in the church:

Ephesians 4:3 “Make every effort to **keep the unity of the Spirit **through the bond of peace. 4There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called— 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. 7But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it. 8This is why it says: “When he ascended on high, he led captives in his train and gave gifts to men.” 9(What does “he ascended” mean except that he also descended to the lower, earthly regions? 10He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.) 11It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, 12to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 **until we all reach unity in the faith **and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.”

There is no reference to a “supreme pastor” on earth in the above passage or in any part of scripture.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Daniel,

This is really a non-starter. Theological concepts developed in clarity and complexity throughout the Old Testament. NOW - WITH HINDSIGHT we can see the Trinity, even in passages in the first verses of Genesis. King David asked - What is man that you are mindful of him? in the psalms. The author of Hebrews asks the same question - and in those @ 1000 years there is a more complete answer given by this writer.

The fact that Jesus said He was going to build His Church on St. Peter is really completely sufficient for the development of the papacy. Jesus’ words are the seed and the papacy is the flowering of that seed.

Again, the precedent of the development and fulfillment of promises gradually taking place through time was started in the Old Testament. God works slowly throughout history. The fact that this is also true of the papacy simply shows the consistency and immutability of God. There is a very interesting theme that’s brought to our attention by Catholic theologian, Dr. Scott Hahn. In his book - *A Father Who Keeps His Promises *- Dr. Hahn traces the major covenants of the Old Testament. Each covenant was brought to a greater population – from Adam to Noah to Abraham to Moses to David. The New Covenant was made with the whole world in mind. Again, this tracing of the covenants of God shows a greater and greater revelation being brought to mankind. There is DEVELOPMENT going on from the get go in Genesis 3 in the First Gospel where Satan is told he will be crushed. When God works through our space/time existence - this translates into the one word DEVELOPMENT.

MonFrere

[SIGN]Elephant in the livingroom.[/SIGN]

1. So where in scripture do we find Peter is called “supreme pastor” or “chief shepherd” or “head pastor” or by any similar phrase?
2. Where in scripture do we find Peter is given singular “power of jurisdiction” or any singular responsibility to “maintain universal unity and orthodoxy within the Christian Church” ?

His name and the reference to a “supreme pastor” are conspicuously absent in the very passage that tells us the basis of unity and orthodoxy in the church:

Ephesians 4:3 “Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. 4There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called— 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. 7But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it. 8This is why it says: “When he ascended on high, he led captives in his train and gave gifts to men.” 9(What does “he ascended” mean except that he also descended to the lower, earthly regions? 10He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.) 11It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, 12to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.”

There is no reference to a “supreme pastor” on earth in the above passage or in any part of scripture.

 

[tukfryer]

Okay, Daniel.

On the other hand, you have decided to hide behind the false idea that everything must be found in scripture.

Prove that.

Prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that scripture teaches that the Bible alone is the sole rule of faith for the Christian.

The challenge is simple, Daniel.

Does the Bible teach sola scriptura?

If you can’t prove that it does, then I am under no obligation to prove anything to you about the papacy or infant baptism or any subject whatsoever exclusively from scripture.

Good luck.

[SIGN]It really is a telling SIGN when a professing christian has to resort to disregarding scripture[/SIGN]

Minimizing or disregarding the bible is most often used by non believers sad sad day.

 

[tukfryer]

No, we don’t agree. My point is that what YOU are wanting to see in scripture concerning a papacy is not necessary. Catholic understanding of the key scriptures in Matt et.al. is completely sufficient and the papacy as it has developed in the 2000 years of Christianity clearly can trace back to the words of Christ in Matthew.

Why I say YOUR view of the papacy is not necessary is because there are precedents of promises of God given to key individuals in the Old Testament that cannot be fleshed out in any detail from the words given to these individuals at the promises inception. I used the promise to Abraham that all nations on the earth will be blessed. When Abraham heard this promise I’m sure he never contemplated anything like the Incarnation of God and His sacrifice for the sins of humanity. In like manner, the promises given to St. Peter do not need any detail. The limited words of Christ recorded in Scripture is completely sufficient. The demands you are putting upon scripture - the necessity of the complete details of a papacy - is something you’re imposing as necessary to the scriptural texts when this is not necessary at all.

Acts 18:28 For he vigorously refuted the Jews in public debate, proving from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ.

The sola scripture they used to support Jesus and the NT covenant was the Jewish Law, Prophets and Psalms as you so nicely provide the reference for in your quotes.

These same men that Jesus opened their understanding that they might comprehend the Scriptures

44 Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the **Law **of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.” 45 **And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures. **

[SIGN]Looks like someone was busy writing the NT [/SIGN]

 

[fellowChristian]

[SIGN]It really is a telling SIGN when a professing christian has to resort to disregarding scripture[/SIGN]

Minimizing or disregarding the bible is most often used by non believers sad sad day.

By asking Daniel to prove something, Randy is disregarding scripture? Did you not understand the challenge? Randy is not disregarding scripture he is just asking Daniel where in scripture does it say that.

Did you know that…

Jesus never commanded anyone to write a book?

Only 3 out of 12 Apostles wrote.

The word “Bible” is not in the Bible. (Does that mean you can’t believe it?)

The word “Trinity” is not in the Bible.

The Bible did not exist until after almost 400 years after Jesus ascended.(What did Christians follow?)

King James VI & I ( King James version) wasn’t even born until after 1,166 years later.

(King James’ name isn’t in the Bible either)

If there were no Protestants or non-denominational churches in 400 a.d. who decided which books and letters should be put into one book?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

What is my agenda? The subject of this thread. You and others avoid dealing with the elephant in the living room: there is no word from or reference to the alleged voice of Christ on earth after Peter for many generations. Why? Because the papacy gradually developed and did not exist in the time of the apostles.

Oh it, the leadership of His Church, existed, but apparently you cannot see it from your private interpretation.

**Eph 4:11 And he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and other some evangelists, and other some pastors and doctors: **

1Co 12:28 And God indeed hath set some in the church; first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly doctors: after that miracles: then the graces of healings, helps, governments, kinds of tongues, interpretations of speeches.
1Co 12:29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all doctors?

As you demand the Bible phrase something according to your standards, please show us an example of anyone ordaining themselves to any position within His Church.

We accept what scriptures tell us, others cannot without giving up a self-imposed authority. One can be fully obedient to Him, while others choose obedience subject to their lifestyle first.

You have been asked where your infallible authority comes from, since according to you only your interpretation is correct, but you produce nothing. That’s right, while you push aside the authority of the Catholic Church, you assume an authority upon yourself, but refuse to discuss it.

Since the Bible does not phrase a leadership position to your satisfaction, I wondered last night if you believe in the Trinity? It’s a legimate question, as I’ve met some Pentecostals that reject the Trinity because it’s not expressed to their satisfaction. You stay on one subject, hammering away, but do not share your doctrines of truth as taught by your Church. Is there a reason for this?

 

[Randy_Carson]

[sign]Your insistence on my proving sola scriptura leads to two obvious conclusions:[/sign]

1. **Nowhere in scripture **do we find Peter is called “supreme pastor” or “chief shepherd” or “head pastor” or by any similar phrase
2. **Nowhere in scripture **do we find Peter is given singular “power of jurisdiction” or any singular responsibility to “maintain universal unity and orthodoxy within the Christian Church” ?

His name and the reference to a “supreme pastor” are conspicuously absent in the very passage that tells us the basis of unity and orthodoxy in the church:

Ephesians 4:3 “Make every effort to **keep the unity of the Spirit **through the bond of peace. 4There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called— 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. 7But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it. 8This is why it says: “When he ascended on high, he led captives in his train and gave gifts to men.” 9(What does “he ascended” mean except that he also descended to the lower, earthly regions? 10He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.) 11It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, 12to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 **until we all reach unity in the faith **and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.”

There is no reference to a “supreme pastor” on earth in the above passage or in any part of scripture.

Wrong.

My insistence that you first prove to us that the Bible is the sole rule of faith for believers results from the fact that you have already been given overwhelming evidence - enough to convince any jury - yet you continue to deny it.

Consequently, you must now prove to me from the Bible Alone that I must meet the Bible Alone standard that you have established.

Otherwise, your standard is a “tradition of men” and not from God.

 

[sodak]

Still no universal pope or singular head or shepherd or pastor in Ignatius or Eusebius. If there was one, he must have not been very important or at least no one seemed to think he was important enough to mention. Very odd indeed if he was the voice of Christ on earth.

Or they thought it was so obvious that there was no need. You have unanswered questions from post 78.

1. Why does it have to be in the Bible (similar to Randy’s sola scriptura question, which I notice you haven’t answered).
2. Which Bible? And why? And yes, it does matter.