The Office of the Papacy in Scripture

  • Thread starter Thread starter Daniel_Keeran
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
(continued from last post)

This is the Pope: Prime Minister of Christs Kingdom, and Pastor of the flock. With that in mind, the Papacy is ALL THROUGH the scriptures. Now, throw into that mix the fact there is ample evidence in the New Testament that Peter was first in authority among the apostles. Whenever they were named, Peter headed the list (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13) ; sometimes the apostles were referred to as “Peter and those who were with him” (Luke 9:32). Peter was the one who generally spoke for the apostles (Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6), and he figured in many of the most dramatic scenes (Matt. 14:28-32, Matt. 17:24-27, Mark 10:23-28 ) . On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the crowds (Acts 2:14-40), and he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7). It is Peter’s faith that will strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32) and, as I said, Peter is given Christ’s flock to shepherd (John 21:17). An angel was sent to announce the resurrection to Peter (Mark 16:7), and the risen Christ first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34). He headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26), and he received the first converts (Acts 2:41). He inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23). He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11). It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48 ) .

So, as Cyprian of Carthage said in 251 A.D. (almost a hundred years before Constatine):

"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]). … On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was , but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" - The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).
 
Daniel_Keeran said:
This is a thread on whether or not the office of the papacy with qualifications for successors is mentioned in scripture.
  1. Such a fundamentally important central role as the papacy, in order to be true, would be a central repeated theme of writings by the first Christians: Luke, James, John, Paul, and Peter himself, yet there is not a single mention.
Click to expand...
Most here in this website favor Biblical literalism as a way of making the Bible “reliable,” but in doing so they strip the Bible of most of its meaning.

Of course, the literal level of meaning “works” on the issue raised here in the “You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church” verse. Efforts to avoid the implication of that verse just aren’t convincing. Peter will be “the boss,” and why appoint him head of “the Church” if there is to be only one Peter in the Chair of Peter? I.e., it applies to the whole line after Peter.

The figurative, or typological, level of meaning is far richer in content on this issue, however.

1 While the crowd was pressing in on Jesus and listening to the word of God, he was standing by the Lake of Gennesaret.
2 He saw two boats there alongside the lake; the fishermen had disembarked and were washing their nets.
3 Getting into one of the boats, the one belonging to Simon, he asked him to put out a short distance from the shore. Then he sat down and taught the crowds from the boat.
4 After he had finished speaking, he said to Simon, “Put out into deep water and lower your nets for a catch.”
5 Simon said in reply, “Master, we have worked hard all night and have caught nothing, but at your command I will lower the nets.”
6 When they had done this, they caught a great number of fish and their nets were tearing.
7 They signaled to their partners in the other boat to come to help them. They came and filled both boats so that they were in danger of sinking.
8 When Simon Peter saw this, he fell at the knees of Jesus and said, “Depart from me, Lord, for I am a sinful man.”
9 For astonishment at the catch of fish they had made seized him and all those with him,
10 and likewise James and John, the sons of Zebedee, who were partners of Simon. Jesus said to Simon, “Do not be afraid; from now on you will be catching men.” Luke 5:1-10.

Now, let’s do a line-by-line analysis… ** **

1 While the crowd was pressing in on Jesus and listening to the word of God, he was standing by the Lake of Gennesaret.
2 He saw two boats there alongside the lake; the fishermen had disembarked and were washing their nets. Both “two” and “boats” are Biblical types, or symbols, for “the Church.” (That is why the text refers to “two” boats, by the way.) So, this Bible story will concern the Church in a figurative way.
3 Getting into one of the boats, the one belonging to Simon, he asked him to put out a short distance from the shore. Then he sat down and taught the crowds from the boat. Ah-hah! Note well the trouble Scripture takes to let us know that the boat taken is “Simon’s” boat – Peter’s Church! “Sitting” is the Biblical type, or symbol, for “presiding.” So, we are loonking at a typological word picture of Jesus presiding in “Peter’s Church,” and of the real teaching of Jesus coming from “Peter’s Church.”
4 After he had finished speaking, he said to Simon, “Put out into deep water and lower your nets for a catch.”
5 Simon said in reply, “Master, we have worked hard all night and have caught nothing, but at your command I will lower the nets.” Note well Peter’s role, here – God talks to Peter; then Peter commands the boat Church symbol.
6 When they had done this, they caught a great number of fish and their nets were tearing.
7 They signaled to their partners in the other boat to come to help them. They came and filled both boats so that they were in danger of sinking. Fish from large bodies of water in Bible typology are us – sinners in the Sea of Damnable Souls. Nets = the Clothing Type = religious beliefs, or faith. So, tearing nets would be faith torn asunder. I believe that the great heresies and schisms are being portrayed, here. In effect, we are looking at a word picture of the history of the Church…Peter’s Church has so much initial success that the faith begins to be torn asunder by the heresies and schisms, from the effect of sheer numbers. Other churches move-in and help with the catch. (Aren’t all of the churches in danger of “sinking,” now, by the way?)
8 When Simon Peter saw this, he fell at the knees of Jesus and said, “Depart from me, Lord, for I am a sinful man.”
9 For astonishment at the catch of fish they had made seized him and all those with him,
10 and likewise James and John, the sons of Zebedee, who were partners of Simon. Jesus said to Simon, “Do not be afraid; from now on you will be catching men.” Ah-hah! Note who Jesus addresses, here.

There are other word pictures implying Petrine Primacy.
 
Daniel_Keeran said:
The word of God is the seed of the kingdom, so wherever it is sown in honest sincere hearts, it bears fruit. I believe in a succession of the word of God, not so-called apostolic succession never mentioned in scripture.
Click to expand...
Oy! So you’re asking for historical proof of the papacy’s existence yet you cannot provide any historical proof of your church’s existence from even something as late as the Middle Ages???

That, Daniel, is hypocritical. You set Catholicism up to a standard to a standard in which your church cannot follow.
 
Evidence for monarchical episcopacy:
1-See all the letters of Ignatius of Antioch.
2-See him referring to Polycarp as the bishop of Ephesus.
3-See Polycarp forwarding his letters to the church of Phillipi, explicitly praising its contents.
4-See St. Clement’s reference to a special group of chosen bishops who were given the charge over the church after it became clear to the apostles that they would have to appoint successors to their authority in the church.
5-See St. Clement interfering in the affairs of The church at Corinth, in much the same way the apostles often intervened in the affairs of churches they were in communication with.

Evidence for the papacy:

1-St. Clement’s intervention with the issues in the church of Corinth.
2-St. Victor’s exommunication of the eastern bishops over the date of easter.
3-Tertullian’s reference to Pope Callixtus who justified his stance on allowing adulterers forgivness and access back into church communion. Something Turtullian was very much against.
4-See Pope Callixtus’ condemnation of both Sebellius and St. Hyppolitus on Trinitarian issues.
5-See Pope Stephen’s condemnation of Cyprian and the church of Carthage over the issue of apostate Christians.

In all these cases we see the church of Rome acting in authoritative manner throughout the history before Damasus. We also see the church fathers developing their understanding of the role of Peter, and also the role of his successor. This central role alocated to Peter by Christ was constantly confirmed to Christians as residing in the office of the bishop of Rome as the successor to Peter in the episcopal office and by virtue of Rome being the place where both Peter and Paul were martyred, and thus under their special protection.

In all of this, I admit a development of doctrine, the pattern of which is contained in the Bible, especially in acts 15, as well as other passages illustrating the authority and initiative of Peter, and also his humility.

God bless
Ut
 
Daniel_Keeran said:
No, only a plurality of presbyter/bishops that the letter to the Corinthians called First Clement speaks of, also in Phhilippians 1:1.

You could check out www.wbschool.org and www.biblegateway.com
Click to expand...
I’m not fully buying the concept of a plurality leadership there Daniel. Maybe I could be convinced if you could provide me a link to your Church’s website, and not some generic Protestant website. While I could check out those urls and have been on Biblegateway before, they do not represent a denomination or sect of Protestantism. I would hate to think you’re avoiding providing us an opportunity to read about your Church for some reason. To send us to a generic website really appears to be less than honest. Does your Church have a website Daniel?
 
On the issue of development of doctrine, the church fathers were just as likely to quote from scripture as to quote from tradition. In fact, most of the issues I described above are issues that are not explicitly described in scripture. Even acts 15 was a decision arrived at without reference to any explicit passage from scripture.

For example,

1-Where in scipture can we find the recommendations described in Diadache?

2-Where in scripture was there a resolution to the date of Easter, or even Christmas for that matter?

3-Where is scripture do we find an explicite solution to the Trinitarian problem faced by Calixtus over the nature of Christ and the trinity? He accumed Hypolitus of being a di-theist, and Sebellius of being a modalists, thus establishing orthodox trinitarian doctrine in an explicite fashion for the first time in history. Where do we find this in scripture?

4-Where do we find in scripture a list of forgivable versus excummunicable offenses as was the issue faced with by Callixtus?

5-The same issue was tackled by Stephen with regard to the issue of heretical baptism. Where is it defined in scripture concerning the validity of baptism of heretic?

All of these issues were decided and became part of the accepted body of tradition, based on decisions which involved popes, and other bishops who debated with one another, and often argued fiercely, but eventually established the traditional line of orthodoxy we know today.

The fate of those churches that reject historical developments of doctrine, or have no mechanism for determining valid from invalid development is a perpetual disunity or a watering down of doctrine to the point were all anyone can agree about is that they love Jesus.

God bless
Ut
 
We are fortunate to have ancient writings from Pope St. Peter (#1) and Pope St. Clement (#4) - who Dan conveniently rejects as a singular Bishop of Rome - and we also have writings about EVERY pope since Peter from Hegesippus and Irenaeus among others.

As a result, we know that these early authors testified to the fact that the VOICES of the popes were being HEARD down through the centuries even if history and the ravages of time have not been so kind as to spare the WRITINGS of these men for our benefit. And yet, the pope, as the living VOICE of Christ, continues to speak the same truths today that were first spoken by the earliest representatives of Christ.

Augustine illustrated this principle when he wrote, “Rome has spoken; the matter is settled” (Sermon 131:10). And in 451 A.D. at the Council of Chalcedon, after the tome of Pope Leo I on Christ’s two natures was read aloud, the bishops in attendance cried out, “This is the faith of the fathers…Peter has spoken thus through Leo…”.

Thus, the early Church had no doubt that the voice of Peter and thus of Christ was heard through Peter’s successors, and neither do we today.

However, Dan, true to his Protestant roots, demands that everything be in writing, and thus he reveals his not only his sola scripturist bias but his disdain for the Word of God which encourages us to “hold fast to the traditions” that were passed on by “word of mouth” just as surely as those put to paper with pen and ink.

In this way, he sets aside the Word of God for the sake of his own man-made tradition.
 
Tertullian on Apostolic Succession

“[The apostles] founded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches. Every sort of thing must necessarily revert to its original for its classification. Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive Church, [founded] by the apostles, from which they all [spring]. In this way, all are primitive, and all are apostolic, while they are all proved to be one in unity” (*Demurrer Against the Heretics *20 [A.D. 200]).

“[W]hat it was which Christ revealed to them [the apostles] can, as I must here likewise prescribe, properly be proved in no other way than by those very churches which the apostles founded in person, by declaring the gospel to them directly themselves . . . If then these things are so, it is in the same degree manifest that all doctrine which agrees with the apostolic churches—those molds and original sources of the faith must be reckoned for truth, as undoubtedly containing that which the churches received from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, [and] Christ from God. Whereas all doctrine must be prejudged as false which savors of contrariety to the truth of the churches and apostles of Christ and God. It remains, then, that we demonstrate whether this doctrine of ours, of which we have now given the rule, has its origin in the tradition of the apostles, and whether all other doctrines do not ipso facto proceed from falsehood” (ibid., 21).

“But if there be any [heresies] which are bold enough to plant [their origin] in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [their first] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men—a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter” (ibid., 32). *[Note the singular bishops of Smyrna and Rome - Randy]
*
“But should they even effect the contrivance [of composing a succession list for themselves], they will not advance a step. For their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles [as contained in other churches], will declare, by its own diversity and contrariety, that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man; because, as the apostles would never have taught things which were self-contradictory” (ibid.).

“Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic Church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic. But in truth they neither are so, nor are they able to prove themselves to be what they are not. Nor are they admitted to peaceful relations and communion by such churches as are in any way connected with apostles, inasmuch as they are in no sense themselves apostolic because of their diversity as to the mysteries of the faith” (ibid.).

+++

Perhaps Dan will take up Tertullian’s challenge and prove to us that his own denomination is of Apostolic origin.

But I doubt it.
 
While the 1st Epistle of Clement does only say it is from “the Church of God which sojourns at Rome,” it is from correspondence of Bishop Dionysius of Corinth that we know Clement wrote and dispatched it. This is the same Clement presented in the list of successors of Peter and mentioned by Paul in Philippians. It is also necessary to note that use of plural ‘we’ does not necessarily place individual authority in question, as typified by St. Paul in 1 Cor 1:23; 4:10; 2 Cor 1:12; 8:1; Gal 1:8 and by God in Gen 1:26. Further, Bishop Dionysius says that the letter of Bishop Soter of Rome along with Clement’s was read in liturgy on Sunday (fl. ca. 170 AD), a thing not to be taken lightly, and he concludes by extolling the deeds of Soter and the Roman Church, e.g. “furnishing an abundance of supplies to the saints, and encouraging the brethren from abroad with blessed words, as a loving father his children.”

Here’s something else: if the Bishop of Rome was not important, why did St. Polycarp, a man in his 80’s, travel to Rome in ca. 150 AD to consult with her bishop about the date of Easter? Why not Corinth or Antioch or Ephesus, apostolic churches founded by Paul and much closer to Polycarp’s parish in Smyrna? We have all this from Irenaeus’ Against Heresies through Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History. I think it significant that not one of the contemporary witnesses of the Quartodeciman controversy denies Victor the ability to cut off entire churches from communion: they merely exhort him not to (St. Irenaeus being one). St. Irenaeus was from the East, heard St. Polycarp preach, and grew up with the Quartodeciman Paschal practice, yet he too stood by the decision of the Bishop of Rome. It is remarkable that the Quartodeciman practice faded and the practice of the Roman Church triumphed.

As far writings *from *popes, there is some correspondence from 2nd and 3rd century popes quoted in Eusebius, and we have some knowledge of “papal decrees” in responses and writings of Tertullian, Cyprian, and Fermillian.

Finally, even William Webster, who has made a career of refuting the Papacy, admits that no father denies that Peter had a primacy or that there is a Petrine succession.
 
Daniel_Keeran said:
This is a thread on whether or not the office of the papacy with qualifications for successors is mentioned in scripture.
  1. In order for the papacy or an earthly head of the church with successors to be true as a definer and protector of truth, it would logically have to be described from the beginning of the church in the apostolic period and not as a later development.
  2. For the office of papacy to be true, it would need to be described with qualifications for successors, in the inspired writings among the gifts given by Christ for church unity when he ascended into heaven in Ephesians 4:7-16, yet the papacy is conspicuously absent.
  3. Such a fundamentally important central role as the papacy, in order to be true, would be a central repeated theme of writings by the first Christians: Luke, James, John, Paul, and Peter himself, yet there is not a single mention.
  4. Although “head of the church” is a phrase, office, and title in scripture, only Christ and never Peter was ever referred to as such.
  5. Peter is not explicitly identified as the head of the church in the Jerusalem council in Acts.15; rather James makes the closing summary, although even James is not identified as sole head or bishop of the Jerusalem church.
  6. Peter is never identified in scripture as the singular bishop of the Jerusalem diocese or of any diocese.
  7. If there was an infallible head of the church and voice of Christ on earth with successors after Peter, there are no claims, writings, or pronouncements from them until Victor blunders onto the scene with his error, even though the period was fraught with heresies, and the entire NT was written when the apostles and church were persecuted from the beginning.
If the church was intended to be built on none other than the pope or person of Peter, why is he not mentioned at all by one of the most important first Christians in the following passage speaking of who the church is built upon?

Ephesians 2:19-22 “Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.”
Click to expand...
So Daniel,
After multiple months and multiple threads on the Papacy, it comes down to this.
You state that if the primacy of Peter were really true, then it would
a) have been true from the beginning
b) have a list of requirements in scripture
c) be mentioned multiple times in scripture
d) be claimed by Peter.

We have collectively addressed this in a number of ways:
  1. Showed you the scriptural references to Peter’s primacy.
    a) Discussed 3 main references to Jesus annointed Peter the leader
    > Matt 16: 17-19 Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
    Luke 22: 31-32: Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers."
    Click to expand...
    John 21: 15-17: When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” He then said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” (Jesus) said to him, "Feed my sheep.
    Click to expand...
We further demonstrated that Peter is recognized as both the leader of the jews and gentiles (therefore everyone):
The Jews: Gal 2: 7-9: On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter to the circumcised, for the one who worked in Peter for an apostolate to the circumcised worked also in me for the Gentiles, and when they recognized the grace bestowed upon me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas their right hands in partnership, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.
Click to expand...
The Gentiles: Acts15: 7-8: After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, "My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the holy Spirit just as he did us.
Click to expand...
to be continued
 
They were being hunted to death, so they couldn’t write anything before they died? I am not convinced.
Click to expand...
I believe that Clement’s letter to the Corinthians gives one insight into the lack of writing:

“…Owing, dear brethren, to the sudden and successive calamitous events which have happened to ourselves, we feel that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the points respecting which you consulted us…”
(from: newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm and accessed 6/ 6/ 09)

This is decisive evidence that there was no singular Bishop of Rome, by the way? Why does the “corporate” language exlude this possibility?

You seem to be inferring this, Daniel… In an ettempt to tou your own standard back on you I can ask, Where does this (above) passage specifically state that there is no singular Bishop of Rome?
 
We demonstrated Peter taking a leadership role among the apostles in Acts:

Acts 1: 15-21: He leads them in picking Judas’ replacement:
During those days Peter stood up in the midst of the brothers (there was a group of about one hundred and twenty persons in the one place). He said, “My brothers, the scripture had to be fulfilled which the holy Spirit spoke beforehand through the mouth of David, concerning Judas, who was the guide for those who arrested Jesus. He was numbered among us and was allotted a share in this ministry. He bought a parcel of land with the wages of his iniquity, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle, and all his insides spilled out. This became known to everyone who lived in Jerusalem, so that the parcel of land was called in their language ‘Akeldama,’ that is, Field of Blood. For it is written in the Book of Psalms: ‘Let his encampment become desolate, and may no one dwell in it.’ And: ‘May another take his office.’ Therefore, it is necessary that one of the men who accompanied us the whole time the Lord Jesus came and went among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day on which he was taken up from us, become with us a witness to his resurrection.”

Acts 2: 14-41 He leads them at Pentacost:
Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice, and proclaimed to them, “You who are Jews, indeed all of you staying in Jerusalem. Let this be known to you, and listen to my words. These people are not drunk, as you suppose, for it is only nine o’clock in the morning. No, this is what was spoken through the prophet Joel: ‘It will come to pass in the last days,’ God says, ‘that I will pour out a portion of my spirit upon all flesh. Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your young men shall see visions, your old men shall dream dreams. Indeed, upon my servants and my handmaids I will pour out a portion of my spirit in those days, and they shall prophesy. And I will work wonders in the heavens above and signs on the earth below: blood, fire, and a cloud of smoke. The sun shall be turned to darkness, and the moon to blood, before the coming of the great and splendid day of the Lord, and it shall be that everyone shall be saved who calls on the name of the Lord.’ You who are Israelites, hear these words. Jesus the Nazorean was a man commended to you by God with mighty deeds, wonders, and signs, which God worked through him in your midst, as you yourselves know. This man, delivered up by the set plan and foreknowledge of God, you killed, using lawless men to crucify him. But God raised him up, releasing him from the throes of death, because it was impossible for him to be held by it. For David says of him: ‘I saw the Lord ever before me, with him at my right hand I shall not be disturbed. Therefore my heart has been glad and my tongue has exulted; my flesh, too, will dwell in hope, because you will not abandon my soul to the netherworld, nor will you suffer your holy one to see corruption. You have made known to me the paths of life; you will fill me with joy in your presence.’ My brothers, one can confidently say to you about the patriarch David that he died and was buried, and his tomb is in our midst to this day. But since he was a prophet and knew that God had sworn an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants upon his throne, he foresaw and spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah, that neither was he abandoned to the netherworld nor did his flesh see corruption. God raised this Jesus; of this we are all witnesses. Exalted at the right hand of God, he received the promise of the holy Spirit from the Father and poured it forth, as you (both) see and hear. For David did not go up into heaven, but he himself said: ‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.”’ Therefore let the whole house of Israel know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Messiah, this Jesus whom you crucified.”
Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and they asked Peter and the other apostles, “What are we to do, my brothers?” Peter (said) to them, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit. For the promise is made to you and to your children and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call.” He testified with many other arguments, and was exhorting them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand persons were added that day.

Peter doing the first healing (Acts 3: 1-7)
Now Peter and John were going up to the temple area for the three o’clock hour of prayer.
And a man crippled from birth was carried and placed at the gate of the temple called “the Beautiful Gate” every day to beg for alms from the people who entered the temple. When he saw Peter and John about to go into the temple, he asked for alms. But Peter looked intently at him, as did John, and said, “Look at us.” He paid attention to them, expecting to receive something from them. Peter said, “I have neither silver nor gold, but what I do have I give you: in the name of Jesus Christ the Nazorean, (rise and) walk.” Then Peter took him by the right hand and raised him up, and immediately his feet and ankles grew strong.
 
Peter speaking for the apostles to the Sanhedrin (Acts 4: 5-11)
On the next day, their leaders, elders, and scribes were assembled in Jerusalem,
with Annas the high priest, Caiaphas, John, Alexander, and all who were of the high-priestly class. They brought them into their presence and questioned them, “By what power or by what name have you done this?” Then Peter, filled with the holy Spirit, answered them, "Leaders of the people and elders: If we are being examined today about a good deed done to a cripple, namely, by what means he was saved, then all of you and all the people of Israel should know that it was in the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarean whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead; in his name this man stands before you healed. He is ‘the stone rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone.’
Peter exercizing discipline in the community (Acts 5:1-11)
A man named Ananias, however, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property. He retained for himself, with his wife’s knowledge, some of the purchase price, took the remainder, and put it at the feet of the apostles. But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart so that you lied to the holy Spirit and retained part of the price of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain yours? And when it was sold, was it not still under your control? Why did you contrive this deed? You have lied not to human beings, but to God.” When Ananias heard these words, he fell down and breathed his last, and great fear came upon all who heard of it. The young men came and wrapped him up, then carried him out and buried him. After an interval of about three hours, his wife came in, unaware of what had happened. Peter said to her, “Tell me, did you sell the land for this amount?” She answered, “Yes, for that amount.” Then Peter said to her, “Why did you agree to test the Spirit of the Lord? Listen, the footsteps of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.” At once, she fell down at his feet and breathed her last. When the young men entered they found her dead, so they carried her out and buried her beside her husband. And great fear came upon the whole church and upon all who heard of these things.

Peter dealing with the first heretic Acts 8: 18-23
When Simon saw that the Spirit was conferred by the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money and said, “Give me this power too, so that anyone upon whom I lay my hands may receive the holy Spirit.” But Peter said to him, “May your money perish with you, because you thought that you could buy the gift of God with money. You have no share or lot in this matter, for your heart is not upright before God. Repent of this wickedness of yours and pray to the Lord that, if possible, your intention may be forgiven. For I see that you are filled with bitter gall and are in the bonds of iniquity.”
 
stephraim said:
While the 1st Epistle of Clement does only say it is from “the Church of God which sojourns at Rome,” it is from correspondence of Bishop Dionysius of Corinth that we know Clement wrote and dispatched it. This is the same Clement presented in the list of successors of Peter and mentioned by Paul in Philippians. It is also necessary to note that use of plural ‘we’ does not necessarily place individual authority in question, as typified by St. Paul in 1 Cor 1:23; 4:10; 2 Cor 1:12; 8:1; Gal 1:8 and by God in Gen 1:26. Further, Bishop Dionysius says that the letter of Bishop Soter of Rome along with Clement’s was read in liturgy on Sunday (fl. ca. 170 AD), a thing not to be taken lightly, and he concludes by extolling the deeds of Soter and the Roman Church, e.g. “furnishing an abundance of supplies to the saints, and encouraging the brethren from abroad with blessed words, as a loving father his children.”

Here’s something else: if the Bishop of Rome was not important, why did St. Polycarp, a man in his 80’s, travel to Rome in ca. 150 AD to consult with her bishop about the date of Easter? Why not Corinth or Antioch or Ephesus, apostolic churches founded by Paul and much closer to Polycarp’s parish in Smyrna? We have all this from Irenaeus’ Against Heresies through Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History. I think it significant that not one of the contemporary witnesses of the Quartodeciman controversy denies Victor the ability to cut off entire churches from communion: they merely exhort him not to (St. Irenaeus being one). St. Irenaeus was from the East, heard St. Polycarp preach, and grew up with the Quartodeciman Paschal practice, yet he too stood by the decision of the Bishop of Rome. It is remarkable that the Quartodeciman practice faded and the practice of the Roman Church triumphed.

As far writings *from *popes, there is some correspondence from 2nd and 3rd century popes quoted in Eusebius, and we have some knowledge of “papal decrees” in responses and writings of Tertullian, Cyprian, and Fermillian.

Finally, even William Webster, who has made a career of refuting the Papacy, admits that no father denies that Peter had a primacy or that there is a Petrine succession.
Click to expand...
And one other question:

Why did the church at Corinth appeal to Clement, Bishop of Rome, when the Apostle John was still alive?
 
Peter traveling the countryside, healing and even bringing back a person from the dead: Acts 9:

As Peter was passing through every region, he went down to the holy ones living in Lydda. There he found a man named Aeneas, who had been confined to bed for eight years, for he was paralyzed. Peter said to him, “Aeneas, Jesus Christ heals you. Get up and make your bed.” He got up at once. And all the inhabitants of Lydda and Sharon saw him, and they turned to the Lord. Now in Joppa there was a disciple named Tabitha (which translated means Dorcas). She was completely occupied with good deeds and almsgiving. Now during those days she fell sick and died, so after washing her, they laid (her) out in a room upstairs. Since Lydda was near Joppa, the disciples, hearing that Peter was there, sent two men to him with the request, “Please come to us without delay.” So Peter got up and went with them. When he arrived, they took him to the room upstairs where all the widows came to him weeping and showing him the tunics and cloaks that Dorcas had made while she was with them. Peter sent them all out and knelt down and prayed. Then he turned to her body and said, “Tabitha, rise up.” She opened her eyes, saw Peter, and sat up. He gave her his hand and raised her up, and when he had called the holy ones and the widows, he presented her alive. This became known all over Joppa, and many came to believe in the Lord.

Pronouncing the first Dogma at the council of jerusalem: (acts 15: 7-11
After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, “My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the holy Spirit just as he did us. He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts. Why, then, are you now putting God to the test by placing on the shoulders of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they.”

We have also seen that Paul went to confer Peter before strarting his ministry Galations 1: 15-19
But when (God), who from my mother’s womb had set me apart and called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, so that I might proclaim him to the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; rather, I went into Arabia and then returned to Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to confer with Cephas and remained with him for fifteen days. But I did not see any other of the apostles, only James the brother of the Lord.

And Paul went back to him to verify that he was not running in vain: (Galatians 2:1-2)
Then after fourteen years I again went up to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also. I went up in accord with a revelation, 3 and I presented to them the gospel that I preach to the Gentiles–but privately to those of repute–so that I might not be running, or have run, in vain

It seems like if we put all that together, we have the leadership commission, and a pretty good job description right out of scripture. (and this is only a fraction of the 195 mentions of Peter in the New Testament).

While we believe that this more than adequately proofs the point of Peter’ primacy, we also note that this is supplemented by Church tradition and the writings of the ECFs.

Frankly, I think we have more than met the obligation that you laid on us.
 
A friend of mine responded to Dan’s post by private email as follows:
“yet we have their writings well-preserved for us.”

Oh, no, we don’t. Less than half of them wrote something that has been preserved. In fact, a great many manuscripts were lost during various persecutions. During Nero and Diocletus’s persecutions, for example, many were collected up and burned. The Bible as we know it today is not absolutely based on originals that came from the writers’ hands. The Old Testament had been passed along orally for thousands of years before Moses and others finally wrote it down. The New Testament itself in Paul’s letters refers to other letters of Paul that are not found in it. Our Lord Jesus, moreover, wrote nothing down Himself nor directed His followers to do so. Are we to conclude from that that the Bible is not from God? Of course not. However, the Bible represents a type of development in doctrine just as much as the papacy does. There was no Bible in a single canonized volume before Pope Damasus I had St. Jerome compile a Latin translation at about 400 AD. Note: It was a pope who ordered this done. The writings existed, copied from copies by that time, as the originals had no doubt been destroyed or had decayed, but it was the pope who commanded that they be made into the first Bible.

Now, as to the Achilles’ Heel in Sola Scriptura: While there exists Scriptural evidence of the papacy in seed form within the NT (One does not need to see the word “pope” to recognize it, any more than one needs to see the term “Holy Trinity” to recognize it as God.), there exists no similar seed form for the doctrine that the Scriptures alone form our sole living teaching authority separate from the men to whom Christ granted His authority. This idea is unsustainable primarily because for the simple reasons that these writings took almost a hundred years to complete and were not intended to replace those teaching and preaching, there was no single canon of accepted Scripture for over a century and probably longer, the printing press wouldn’t be available to facilitate the spread of the Scriptures for fourteen hundred years after Christ, and the great majority of the population (and many still today throughout the poorer nations of the world) was illiterate. If the Gospel was to be preached to all men (including the poor) as Christ wanted, then the Apostles were poorly equipped and the world long unready if writing and reading had to be the sole source and means of that transmission.

Some of the more educated proponents of Sola Scriptura elaborately defend their unScriptural permission by claiming that the Apostles and other early teachers were necessary until “enscripturation” was completed with the writings of John. Yet, they admit that Christ and the Apostles didn’t follow Sola Scriptura or teach it. Then, to deflect attention from the evident contradiction in their idea of Scriptural use and authority and the early Church’s (and Christ’s, for that matter), they try to claim that the idea of things like the papacy aren’t found in Scripture so they must not be Christian doctrine. This is self-serving and self-contradictory.

Christ gave Peter some things apart from the others: His special promise to pray for him during difficult times so that Peter could strengthen his fellow Apostles, the affirmation that Peter and his confession of faith would be the Rock upon which the Church would be built, and the keys. He said specifically in Mt. 16:18-19: And I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this Rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven; and whatever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven. {Emphasis added)
Click to expand...
(cont.)
 
Keys, if one examines the Scriptures, are a symbol of great authority:
Click to expand...
And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call My servant Eliakim the son of Helcias, and I will clothe him with your robe, and I will strengthen him with your sash, and will give your power into his hand; and he shall be as a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. And I will lay the Key of the House of David upon his shoulder; and he shall open and none shall shut; and he shall shut and none shall open. And I will fasten him as a peg in a Sure Place(the Papal Office), and he shall be for a Throne of glory to the house of his Father. And they shall hang upon him all the glory of his Fathers house, many kinds of vessels, every little vessel, from the vessels of cups even to every instrument of music. (Isaiah 22:20-24)
This authority is Christ’s own, as we read in Rev.3:7-8:
"And to the angel of the Church at Philadelphia write: Thus says the Holy One, the True One, he who has the Key of David. he who opens and no one shuts, and who shuts and no one opens: I know thy works. Behold, I have caused a door to be opened before thee which no one can shut, for thou hast scanty strength, and thou hast kept My Word and hast not disowned My Name.

Christ gave this authority to Peter when He gave him the keys in Matthew 16. He also, along with praying for Peter, promised to remain with His Church until the end of time. He also commissioned Peter in John 21 to take over as shepherd, to feed His lambs and tend His flock, while we know that Jesus Christ is the Shepherd. This shows that it is possible for there to be the Head of the Church Who is Christ and a visible head to act for Him in the person who occupies Peter’s office.

The words in Ephesians 2 refer to the Gentiles and are addressed to them. Paul was explaining that the new Covenant included them, not outlining the entire structure of the Church. (It is interesting that the Scriptures are not mentioned there as part of that foundation.) And in Ephesians 4:11-15, we find a very strong statement by Paul as to the things needed for Christian maturity and the building up of the Kingdom, yet strangely, Scripture is not listed.

Since Scripture was not listed in either of those places, are we then to conclude it forms no part of the foundation of Christianity and is not necessary to help a Christian mature? No Catholic believes that. We are able to infer that Scripture is essential, even if it isn’t explicitly mentioned in those texts. Otherwise, if this proves that there’s no pope, it also proves we don’t need Scripture as a basis for Christianity and as a help to growing as a Christian.
 
PRmerger said:
Oy! So you’re asking for historical proof of the papacy’s existence yet you cannot provide any historical proof of your church’s existence from even something as late as the Middle Ages???

That, Daniel, is hypocritical. You set Catholicism up to a standard to a standard in which your church cannot follow.
Click to expand...
I posted the historical info before. You can google “Hans Grimm History churches of Christ Europe.” His family was converted in the early 12th century. The history is unimportant if you take a position that God knows those who are his and that the word of God is the seed; therefore one should not refer to a pseudo-historical line of successors as does the Catholic church that then must defend its standard.
 
Randy_Carson said:
A friend of mine responded to Dan’s post by private email as follows:

(cont.)
Click to expand...
I don’t see anything I have not responded to in earlier posts. If Peter was head of the church with successors, where is the paper trail of these successors??
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
I’m not fully buying the concept of a plurality leadership there Daniel. Maybe I could be convinced if you could provide me a link to your Church’s website, and not some generic Protestant website. While I could check out those urls and have been on Biblegateway before, they do not represent a denomination or sect of Protestantism. I would hate to think you’re avoiding providing us an opportunity to read about your Church for some reason. To send us to a generic website really appears to be less than honest. Does your Church have a website Daniel?
Click to expand...
The churches of Christ do not have an official website since they do not have a central office or earthly head. There are numerous websites by individual congregations. Biblegateway is owned I think by Abilene Christian University that was startted by members of the church. There are also several churches of Christ online directories. There is also Preacherfiles owned by an individual and numerous other websites.

In Rome during the time of “First Clement” there was no singular bishop, and Catholic scholars do not dispute this fact. You can look up Catholic commentaries for this. Ignatius is the first to refer to singular bishops; even the Didache knows only a plurality of bishops and deacons.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top