The Office of the Papacy in Scripture

[Randy_Carson]

The book of Hebrews writes in detail about the cessation of the sacrifical system and of the old covenant. E.g. Hebrews 8.

Oh. That’s it?

I was hoping that you would show us that the Temple had been destroyed as plainly as you are demanding that the papacy be shown to you.

Fair’s fair, right?

I mean, everything of significance JUST HAS TO BE IN THE BIBLE, doesn’t it?

Unless, of course, the early Christians relied upon the Church and not a book…

No, that can’t be it.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Acts 15 provides no reference to Peter as head of the church, only that God chose by his mouth to first preach to Gentiles.

No appointed PM in scripture or at least Peter and Paul did not know it.

Theology can be based on what IS written. No singular bishop claims to be head of the whole church before Damasus.

Does everyone besides me see that Daniel has no lucid responses at this point - just personal opinions and assertions.

He’s exhausted, beaten, swinging wildly and missing.

He’s like the boxer that has been beaten to a pulp but simply won’t stay down.

It’s over, Dan.

Pick another topic and start a new thread.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Two points were raised: destruction of temple AND cessation of the sacrificial system. The first is clearly prophesied, and the second clearly taught in Hebrews.

Hebrews 7:27
Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself.

Is Peter the “great priest over the house of God.”

Hebrews 10

1The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. 2If it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. 3But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, 4because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
5Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:
"Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me;
6with burnt offerings and sin offerings
you were not pleased.
7Then I said, ‘Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—
I have come to do your will, O God.’ " 8First he said, “Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them” (although the law required them to be made). 9Then he said, “Here I am, I have come to do your will.” He sets aside the first to establish the second. 10And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. 13Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, 14because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.

15The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says:
16"This is the covenant I will make with them
after that time, says the Lord.
I will put my laws in their hearts,
and I will write them on their minds." 17Then he adds:
“Their sins and lawless acts
I will remember no more.” 18And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin. 19Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, 20by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, 21and since we have a great priest over the house of God,

Nope. No mention of the destruction of the Temple there.

Sure, a Christian interpretation of how Christ’s sacrifice is superior, but nothing about the Roman army, etc.

Surely, this would have been included in scripture since according to your standard EVERYTHING important had to be there from the beginning.

 

[PRmerger]

The scripture is my authority and needs no interpretation.

Firstly, Daniel, your authority tells you that it indeed needs interpretation. See Acts 8:30 in which the Ethiopian eunuch, a learned man, declares that he needs guidance in interpretation of the Scriptures.

Secondly, do you need any more proof than the over 40,000 Christian denominations, each interpreting the Bible in its own way, that you cannot simply read Scripture and declare doctrine?

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

I always find that interesting that Protestants view the Emperor Constantine and his actions as the “imperialization”.

Do you realize what Constantine did? Constantine legalized Christianity and returned property to them. Prior to that time period, Christianity was illegal, under penalty of death. Christians were martyred up until that time. Once Christianity was legalized, Constantine eventually made it the national religion, which began a connection between Church and state.

Daniel, you still haven’t produced any writings, from any source, that deny there was a leader of Christ’s Church. You simply reject our interpretation of many scriptures that we believe show the primacy of Peter. It appears, as you accuse Catholics, you have a theology based on the absence of something specifically stated. Show us something that indicates a rejection of one leader over the early Church, if you want to validate your view. Show us where anyone ordained themself into a position of making eccumenical decisions in the Church. Under your view, if it’s not there, it can’t be trusted to be truth.

I would even think it’s safe to guess that whatever Church you belong too, has a “supreme” leader by some title, even if it’s a single little Church, there’s a pastor leading the flock of that Church. I see irony in your argument, myself.

No. The church I belong to has only a plurality of prebyter/bishops serving each autonomous congregation, and there is no central office or head other than Christ alone. We base our beliefs only on what the scripture DOES say, not on what it does not say. There is no rejection of one leader over the early church nor for centuries thereafter
because there was none to reject since all acknowledged Christ as the only head. When someone did try to claim singular authority in scripture, he was rejected by John.

3 John 1:9
I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to be first, will have nothing to do with us. 10So if I come, I will call attention to what he is doing, gossiping maliciously about us. Not satisfied with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers. He also stops those who want to do so and puts them out of the church.

This is the spirit that arrogates to itself in a singular earthly pre-eminent head of the church, the right to excommunicate others, and this is the spirit of Catholicism as seen also in Victor, Stephen, and Damasus.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Firstly, Daniel, your authority tells you that it indeed needs interpretation. See Acts 8:30 in which the Ethiopian eunuch, a learned man, declares that he needs guidance in interpretation of the Scriptures.

Secondly, do you need any more proof than the over 40,000 Christian denominations, each interpreting the Bible in its own way, that you cannot simply read Scripture and declare doctrine?

The particular case of the eunuch was that he was perhaps unaware of the events that had recently occurred in Jerusalem and needed someone to connect the prophecy of Isaiah 53 to those events.

 

[PRmerger]

Oh.

Have you answered this one:

Does the Bible teach sola scriptura?

:clapping:

I think the answer is: :nope:

The question, Daniel, is a valid one, as you are asking whether the Papacy is evident in Scripture. The question then logically follows, where does it say that it has to be found in Scripture? Surely if all doctrines must be found solely in Scripture–such a very, very important concept to your theology–Scripture would explicitly declare so. Yes?

 

[PRmerger]

The particular case of the eunuch was that he was perhaps unaware of the events that had recently occurred in Jerusalem and needed someone to connect the prophecy of Isaiah 53 to those events.

Or we could interpret it another way: that a learned man is showing that he cannot interpret the Sacred Scriptures without guidance.

Now what do we do when 2 people read the same passage and interpret it differently?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

No. The church I belong to has only a plurality of prebyter/bishops serving each autonomous congregation, and there is no central office or head other than Christ alone. We base our beliefs only on what the scripture DOES say, not on what it does not say. There is no rejection of one leader over the early church nor for centuries thereafter
because there was none to reject since all acknowledged Christ as the only head. When someone did try to claim singular authority in scripture, he was rejected by John.

So, you belong to a denomination with LOTS of leaders over individual Churches? Same difference Daniel. Each Church has it’s own leader. One more question about your Church, if you don’t mind. When was it founded?

You have based your belief that Peter was not a leader on the absence of scriptures. Where are the supporting scriptures for your belief that there was not a primary leader in the early Church?

3 John 1:9
I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to be first, will have nothing to do with us. 10So if I come, I will call attention to what he is doing, gossiping maliciously about us. Not satisfied with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers. He also stops those who want to do so and puts them out of the church.

This is the spirit that arrogates to itself in a singular earthly pre-eminent head of the church, the right to excommunicate others, and this is the spirit of Catholicism as seen also in Victor, Stephen, and Damasus.

Oh, for a minute I thought you were providing a scripture to show a person who had ordained themself to make eccumenical decisions.

Daniel, please don’t try to say your Church would never ex-communicate anyone. It happens in Protestant Churches all the time, so you’ve chosen another weak point in my opinion.

Even the Apostles believed in ex-communication Daniel.

**1Co 16:22 If any man love not our Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema, maranatha.

Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.

Gal 1:9 As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.**

Daniel, is there a reason you won’t identify your denomination? Is there something you don’t want us to ask questions about? Are you hiding something? Where does scriptures tell us to “hide” any part of the truth when sharing the Gospel?

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Does everyone besides me see that Daniel has no lucid responses at this point - just personal opinions and assertions.

He’s exhausted, beaten, swinging wildly and missing.

He’s like the boxer that has been beaten to a pulp but simply won’t stay down.

It’s over, Dan.

Pick another topic and start a new thread.

If indeed Peter was the head of the church with successors as the voice of Christ and the basis of unity, where is this voice during the turbulent years of persecution and heresy before Constantine? Someone will say, “They went to their deaths as martyrs.” But so did the apostles, yet we have their writings well-preserved for us. Where are the writings of the popes from 60 AD to 325 AD? (Clement’s letter is not from him as a singular bishop but from the church of Rome to the church of Corinth, not to the singular bishop of Corinth.) We have something recorded ABOUT some of the other alleged popes but not a single written word FROM them. But correct me if I am mistaken. I would find their writings most interesting.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The particular case of the eunuch was that he was perhaps unaware of the events that had recently occurred in Jerusalem and needed someone to connect the prophecy of Isaiah 53 to those events.

Daniel! The emphasis in your quote above is mine. Are you basing an interpretational belief on speculation without a clear a concise answer?

If we cannot speculate that Christ made Peter the leader of the Church, by giving him the keys and the power to bind and loose without being able to ask Christ or the Apostles, as you said in a previous post, please explain how you suddenly have the authority to make a determination of what the eunuch knew or didn’t know? Wouldn’t we have to have the eunuch or Philip available to tell us precisely what was going on there?

 

[PRmerger]

Daniel! The emphasis in your quote above is mine. Are you basing an interpretational belief on speculation without a clear a concise answer?

If we cannot speculate that Christ made Peter the leader of the Church, by giving him the keys and the power to bind and loose without being able to ask Christ or the Apostles, as you said in a previous post, please explain how you suddenly have the authority to make a determination of what the eunuch knew or didn’t know? Wouldn’t we have to have the eunuch or Philip available to tell us precisely what was going on there?

:yup:

Or at least there should be a Scripture verse that says the eunuch was unaware of events, since everything we know has to be from the inspired writings, right?

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

So, you belong to a denomination with LOTS of leaders over individual Churches? Same difference Daniel. Each Church has it’s own leader.

No. Each individual church has a plurality of presbyter/bishops with deacons

One more question about your Church, if you don’t mind. When was it founded?

33 AD on the first Pentecost after the resurrection of Christ.

You have based your belief that Peter was not a leader on the absence of scriptures. Where are the supporting scriptures for your belief that there was not a primary leader in the early Church?

Peter was A leader but not THE leader. There was indeed a primary leader in the early church: Christ alone.

Daniel, please don’t try to say your Church would never ex-communicate anyone. It happens in Protestant Churches all the time, so you’ve chosen another weak point in my opinion.

Even the Apostles believed in ex-communication Daniel.

No single individual arrogates to himself the power to excommunicate.

**1Co 16:22 If any man love not our Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema, maranatha.

Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.

Gal 1:9 As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.**

The Holy Spirit condemns those mentioned above.

Daniel, is there a reason you won’t identify your denomination? Is there something you don’t want us to ask questions about? Are you hiding something? Where does scriptures tell us to “hide” any part of the truth when sharing the Gospel?

Those of my group refer to themselves as Christians and most often as churches of Christ. We do not regard ourselves as a denomination but as the church of the bible. I have shared this before.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Daniel! The emphasis in your quote above is mine. Are you basing an interpretational belief on speculation without a clear a concise answer?

If we cannot speculate that Christ made Peter the leader of the Church, by giving him the keys and the power to bind and loose without being able to ask Christ or the Apostles, as you said in a previous post, please explain how you suddenly have the authority to make a determination of what the eunuch knew or didn’t know? Wouldn’t we have to have the eunuch or Philip available to tell us precisely what was going on there?

During the infancy of the church, there were those having spiritual gifts, and in this case Philip was told by the Spirit to join himself to the chariot. It is scriptural to help someone understand the scriptures, but this is far different than arrogating to oneself the sole right to do so.

 

[MonFrere]

Also, if Peter was appointed head of the church and the voice of Christ on earth with successors, where was this voice during the period of persecution?

I don’t know your point here. If memory serves me correctly the first several bishops of Rome were actually martyrs – not exactly the position one would want if one wanted to “live long and prosper”. So, for the first couple centuries the “voice of Christ of earth” was silenced by death.

MonFrere

 

[mark_a]

We base our beliefs only on what the scripture DOES say, not on what it does not say.

Not quite.

You base your beliefs on your interpretation of what scripture says.

And the more peculiar your interpretation, the more likely signature clicks turn into dollars.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

No. Each individual church has a plurality of presbyter/bishops with deacons

Now Daniel, I don’t feel you are being totally forthright here. There is one person who is in charge of the others.

33 AD on the first Pentecost after the resurrection of Christ.

Nice try Daniel, but so far, other than scriptures that came from the Catholic Church, you’ve offered no Church writings from the history of your Church. Where are the writings of this Church of yours from the past 2000 years? Remember the absence of evidence argument you made, surely you wouldn’t put your faith into a Church with no writings to support that that was the real Church.

Peter was A leader but not THE leader. There was indeed a primary leader in the early church: Christ alone.

All the Apostles were leaders, but Peter was singled out by Christ. He called him Kipha (Aramaic for rock) and said upon this rock I will build my Church. He did this with none of the other Apostles. He told Peter, He would give him the keys to the kingdom of heaven, which He did not do with any other Apostle, and told him, first, that whatever he bound and loosed on earth would be made so in heaven. He also singled Peter out and told him 3 times to feed His sheep before ascending to heaven.

I can understand your concern over what we’ve explained to you. If Peter was the leader, then your Churches presbyters/bishops or deacons do not have an Apostolic successive authority. If they don’t have that authority, they could be teaching a gospel different than what the Apostles taught, and we know what the Apostles said about that.

No single individual arrogates to himself the power to excommunicate.

**1Co 16:22 If any man love not our Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema, maranatha.

Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.

Gal 1:9 As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.**

The Holy Spirit condemns those mentioned above.

I’m not exactly understanding your point here?

Those of my group refer to themselves as Christians and most often as churches of Christ. We do not regard ourselves as a denomination but as the church of the bible. I have shared this before.

Is it a Pentecostal Church? I remember attending a Church of Christ that was Pentecostal when I was a teenager. Of course it couldn’t be. I’ve not been able to locate any information on a Church of Christ that was founded prior to the early 1800s at best. Most were founded in the 1900s.

Doesn’t your Church have a website where we could read the tenets, doctrines, etc. etc.?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

During the infancy of the church, there were those having spiritual gifts, and in this case Philip was told by the Spirit to join himself to the chariot. It is scriptural to help someone understand the scriptures, but this is far different than arrogating to oneself the sole right to do so.

Well there you go contradicting yourself again. You tell us your interpretation is correct over our and even said the Apostles and prophets granted you that authority, even though you did not provide any scriptures to support that claim.

If you’re telling us our interpretation is incorrect and yours is correct as if you are helping us to understand the scriptures, aren’t you arrogating yourself the sole right to do so? It certainly appears that way.

I was just pointing out that for someone who claims the authority of interpreting scriptures correct over the Catholic interpretation, it was ironic to see you say “perhaps” which is not the clear concise evidence you have been demanding of us and is speculative at best, or reading something in scriptures that is not clearly stated, as you say about Peter’s primacy.

Now you use the example of an Apostle teaching scriptures to say, “It is scriptural to help someone understand the scriptures…” How did you receive Apostolic succession.

I think Randy was right. You’re not making lucid responses anymore.

 

[PRmerger]

Nice try Daniel, but so far, other than scriptures that came from the Catholic Church, you’ve offered no Church writings from the history of your Church. Where are the writings of this Church of yours from the past 2000 years? Remember the absence of evidence argument you made, surely you wouldn’t put your faith into a Church with no writings to support that that was the real Church.

This, Prodigal, is an excellent point. Daniel is looking for evidence of a papacy in the writings of the early church. ** Yet his church has no voice, no written evidence until the 1800s? **

Is this correct, Daniel? Do you have anything written by any of your church’s theologians from, say, the Middle Ages?

When you cite this theologian’s writings, will you be able to provide evidence that this theologian was a member of the same denomination you belong to? (I suspect that you may attempt to provide a writing of an obscure reformist theologian, and disingenuously claim him as your own, but I hope you won’t do that…)

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

I don’t know your point here. If memory serves me correctly the first several bishops of Rome were actually martyrs – not exactly the position one would want if one wanted to “live long and prosper”. So, for the first couple centuries the “voice of Christ of earth” was silenced by death.

MonFrere

The gates of hell (by your definition) prevailed? Surely they lived long enough to write some words of assurance to the churches. The apostles lived under severe persecution and were also martyred, yet we have their writings well-preserved for us. This point is the achilles heal of the papacy theory.