The Office of the Papacy in Scripture

[mark_a]

5. We have the written NT, then nothing written from the “voice of Christ” for 300 years.

Asssuming this is true, would 300 years of silence invalidate the Churches that came directly thereafter?

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Asssuming this is true, would 300 years of silence invalidate the Churches that came directly thereafter?

It does not invalidate the churches but definitely does invalidate the theory of papacy as it is inconceivable that the successive voice of Christ would not be preserved in writing throughout all decades, centuries, and circumstances.

 

[paul_c]

Since we do not believe apostolic succession, we do not need a paper tral, but the Catholic church DOES need it.

Isn’t this tantamount to admitting that you guys just make it up as you go along? Why would anyone believe you are the true church of God if you can’t show your apostolic lineage?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

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.

Daniel, it appears you’re avoiding a direct question. Does your Church have a website? A yes or no answer will suffice, instead you tell me, “There are numerous websites by individual congregations.” Then you go off explaining Biblegateway.

You say Catholic scholars, but offer no sources or proof. Are they Catholics in good standing with the Church, or past Catholics, who normally have axes to grind for whatever reason?

You say your Church does not need a paper trail, am I to take it there is no writings, whatsoever, from your Church that you claim was started in 33AD? You have your own writings and have offered other 20th century writers to support points you’ve made, yet no one else in the Church of Christ wrote anything over a 2000 year period? That’s odd, very odd.

 

[paul_c]

Frequency or order of appearance of a name does not prove Peter was head of the church. I posted this before and will again now.

Paul, did you get your authority to preach, from the apostles in Jerusalem or from Peter?

Gal.1:15But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased 16to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus. 18Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get **acquainted with Peter **and stayed with him fifteen days. 19I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother."

Paul did you get your commision from Peter for from God?

Gal.2:1 Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. 2I went **in response to a revelation **and set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did this privately to those who seemed to be leaders, for fear that I was running or had run my race in vain. 3Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. 4This matter arose because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. 5We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you. 6 As for those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external appearance—those men added nothing to my message. 7On the contrary, **they saw **that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews. 8For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9 James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews. 10All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do. 11 **When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him **to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong…"

First of all, lets get off the frequency point. We showed you commission of Peter, recognition of Peter’s leadership by the other apostles, and then examples of how Peter actually let the Apostles. So stay on track. We answered your questions.

As for commissioning to preach. The Apostles were commissioned by Jesus (including Paul). Everyone after that was commissioned by the Church, led by Peter . Despite his claims, in Acts its clear that the church sent Paul out on his initial mission (Acts 11: 19-
Now those who had been scattered by the persecution that arose because of Stephen went as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to no one but Jews. There were some Cypriots and Cyrenians among them, however, who came to Antioch and began to speak to the Greeks as well, proclaiming the Lord Jesus. The hand of the Lord was with them and a great number who believed turned to the Lord. The news about them reached the ears of the church in Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas (to go) to Antioch. When he arrived and saw the grace of God, he rejoiced and encouraged them all to remain faithful to the Lord in firmness of heart, for he was a good man, filled with the holy Spirit and faith. And a large number of people was added to the Lord. Then he went to Tarsus to look for Saul, and when he had found him he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year they met with the church and taught a large number of people, and it was in Antioch that the disciples were first called Christians. At that time some prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch, and one of them named Agabus stood up and predicted by the Spirit that there would be a severe famine all over the world, and it happened under Claudius. So the disciples determined that, according to ability, each should send relief to the brothers who lived in Judea. This they did, sending it to the presbyters in care of Barnabas and Saul.
.

If you are asking my commission to preach. I have none and I do’n’t preach. I simply comment on the internet.

And by the way, Where did you get those scripture you quoted?

In the New American Bible usccb.org/nab/bible/galatians/galatians2.htm, Gal1: 18 says he went to CONFER with Peter not TO GET AQUAINTED with Peter as you quote above… That is a significant change , don’t you think?

In my Bible, Gal2: 2 says: I went up in accord with a revelation, 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.
this is a significant departure from what you wroted above:
2I went **in response to a revelation **and set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did this privately to those who seemed to be leaders, for fear that I was running or had run my race in vain

“to those in repute " clearly has a different meaning than " those who seemed to be leaders”.

Did you change the wording to suit your needs or did someone else?

 

[paul_c]

It does not invalidate the churches but definitely does invalidate the theory of papacy as it is inconceivable that the successive voice of Christ would not be preserved in writing throughout all decades, centuries, and circumstances.

Is it really so inconceivable that 1800 year old written records of a church which was being persecuted and their records destroyed would be lost? Don’t you think it makes sense that a lot more records exist after the persecutions stopped? And by the way, there are records for Clement, You just don’t want to recognize them because it invalidates your argument.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t want to get into a discussion of my daddy is bigger than your daddy.

Said the child who has no daddy. At least none that he can document!

 

[PRmerger]

Non-Catholic churches claim more than they can prove as well:

1. Claim #1: Scripture is the sole rule of faith, and anything not found explicitly in Scripture is a ‘tradition of men.’
2. Claim #2: Scripture needs no interpretation.
3. Therefore, there should be mention in Scripture to address these fundamental assertions.
4. The fact these are completely absent is proof the claims of sola Scriptura are false.
5. The fact that the opposite of each are found is proof the claims of sola Scriptura are false.

:bowdown2: Excellent argument, stephraim!

 

[mark_a]

It does not invalidate the churches but definitely does invalidate the theory of papacy

Is your claim to your own Protestant papacy any more valid?

as it is inconceivable that the successive voice of Christ would not be preserved in writing throughout all decades, centuries, and circumstances.

Can you provide a proof-text for that?

 

[stephraim]

1. But you also believe scripture is the only writing that is God-breathed.
2. I would rather take scripture as my source of authority than the writings of ECF’s and of Tradition that contain error.
3. Since all agree only scripture is inspired, why don’t we just go there to prove the papacy then support it with solid proof in a paper trail from papal successors?
4. Most of the “popes” were alive in office long enough to write something, but there is nothing from 300 years. What’s wrong with this picture?
   5. We have the written NT, then nothing written from the “voice of Christ” for 300 years.

1. Yes
2. Okay, but which interpretation of certain passages should I trust? For instance,
   a). Is baptism necessary? If so, is it regenerative? Why the disagreement on it?
   b). Is Christ really present in the Eucharist, or is it a mere memorial meal? How often should it be celebrated?
3. We have proved the papacy from Scripture, both typologically and literally, you just can not see it. Paper trail? We have spoken of numerous quotes and references to written documents of popes in many of the writings and correspondence of ECF’s.
4. Again, decrees and decisions of popes are quoted in various correspondence from that 300 year period.
5. The ‘voice of Christ’ did send out letters. We know that Clement’s and Soter’s letters were read during the liturgy in Corinth.

 

[stephraim]

:bowdown2: Excellent argument, stephraim!

Thank you. Occasionally, I have my moments.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Catholic author and apologist, Stephen Ray, responded to Daniel’s post via email to me today. I was given permission to post his responses here:

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.

Why does this have to be true? Wouldn’t this claim then be imposed on all development of doctrine such as the canon of Scripture. In other words, for the truth of sola scriptura to be true, it would logically have to have been in existence from the first, which of course not the case. Further, in my book Upon this Rock I demonstrate quite conclusively that the concept of the Primacy of Peter in Rome was quite well understood and practiced in the early Church. For the very few documents that survived the first centuries, we have a very strong case for the primacy of Rome.

1. 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.

How does he know it was NOT described with qualifications. We know that the Alexandrian Library in Egypt was massively stocked with books and documents that no longer exist. We unhappily lost much of what was written and practiced in the early Church. But, even saying that, does this fellow have any documentation from the early Church to affirm a 27 writing canon from the earliest years, or the word “Trinity”? He is very free with “it would logically have to be true” when he points at us but not so freely with his own position.

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.

And where do we find these same men repeating the express doctrine of a New Testament canon or the clearly expressed theologies of the two natures of Christ or the three Persons in the hypostatic union of the Trinity? In fact, there are many things that are taken for granted today that were not expressly stated in the NT. Protestants live with this every day with their traditions. Reading the writers of the NT within the context makes it pretty clear about the papacy if someone takes the blinders off.

1. Although “head of the church” is a phrase, office, and title in scripture, only Christ and never Peter was ever referred to as such.

This would, of course, be true in that the NT is more expressly interested in establishing who Jesus was in the documents of Scripture. One does not have to find something expressly stated in order to find it believed and universally practiced. I would suggest Dave Armstrong’s book about proofs of the Papacy from the Bible. Jesus is the head of the Mystical Church and baptized believers are the members. But the Church is not just an amorphous invisible blog or mist. It is a real organization of real people in the Body of Christ which needs to have an address to live out the faith like the Lord intended. Jesus left a shepherd, a head of the visible church as the source of unity and teaching. This can be substantiated in the NT unless one refuses to remove the blinders.

1. 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.

James quotes Peter and the OT as the infallible source of theology on the matter. It doesn’t to say Peter was the head expressly as it was quite clear to those who attended and by the theological determination who was the head. James was the bishop of Jerusalem sitting in the chair that was vacated by Peter to become the teacher of the world as St. John Chryostom says. Our friend makes too much of “explictely” and this can certainly and effectively be turned on him much more so than on us. His tradition falls far short if he wants to apply the same standard to himself. Too often Protestants judge Catholic practice by Protestant ideals. What happens if we judge Protestant practice by Catholic ideals?

1. Peter is never identified in scripture as the singular bishop of the Jerusalem diocese or of any diocese.

Peter alone was given the keys in Matthew 16 and singularly headed the Church in the book of Acts. It seems that there was a college of bishops that worked together with one at the lead. This is very likely regarding Peter. In Scripture no one is expressly stated as bishop of Jerusalem and yet anyone who knows history knows that this is what existed and from the earliest times.

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

1. 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.

Maybe our opponent has never heard of St. Clement? This guy really needs to read my book, Upon this Rock, which documents the primacy of Rome from the apostolic age.

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.”

In another place, Paul writes that it is Jesus that is the foundation, and does not mention Peter or any of the apostles. Does that mean that Paul is wrong in Ephesians or 1 Corinthians 3? We see various “foundations” in various metaphors used by NT writers. Peter is the rock in Matthew, Jesus in 1 Cor., the apostles and prophets in Ephesians, and the 12 apostles in Rev. One cannot draw all their conclusions about the Church and its leadership for one verse in Ephesians.

The Achilles Heal of the Papacy Theory

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.

Like I said, I gave pages and pages of documentation from the early Church. Just because one doesn’t read history or do their research does not mean it does not exist. I would also suggest that this friend read the Treatise on the Development of Doctrine by Cardinal Newman. The papacy can be demonstrated from the first centuries, but we also accept the concept of the development of doctrine (as must the Protestant, especially with the canon and their sola scriptura) which puts everything in its proper place. I am proud to be a Catholic rooted in Scripture and the early Church!

+++

I don’t expect Steve to be able to respond to every objection Daniel raises, but I am grateful for the time he took to respond to this one post.

 

[PRmerger]

Since all agree only scripture is inspired, why don’t we just go there to prove the papacy then support it with solid proof in a paper trail from papal successors.

We do go there. But we also want the fullness of God’s revelation, the entire Word of God.

Just like the atheist’s understanding of Truth is handicapped because he only accepts science and not faith/revelation, so, too is the Christian handicapped who only accepts Scripture and not the full Word of God.

 

[stephraim]

Does Irenaeus refer to the bishop of Rome in lofty phrases used of the papacy and that you claim for Peter? This would be interesting. Tertullian was FIRST to refer to the keys, then says they are given to all Christians, and he waffles on the authority of the bishop of Rome. Cyprian was a great innovator and smoozer (to compensate for running away in persecution?)

Irenaeus does say that “is is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church [of Rome], on account of its preeminent authority.” Irenaeus is very conservative in doctrine. He is not an innovator. Rome was the safeguard of doctrine, because of her “superior origin.” He also used the succession of bishops of Rome as “abundant proof that there is one faith…handed down in truth.”

Tertullian says the keys are given to all Christians during his semi-Montanist period. The Church does not deny that, by virtue of the confession of faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, all are partakers in holding the keys (the allegorical meaning); still, She knows that they were given to Peter alone (the literal meaning).

What were Cyprian’s innovations?

 

[mark_a]

I don’t expect Steve to be able to respond to every objection Daniel raises, but I am grateful for the time he took to respond to this one post.

Thanks for sharing Steve’s thoughts with all of us.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

+++

I don’t expect Steve to be able to respond to every objection Daniel raises, but I am grateful for the time he took to respond to this one post.

Great job Randy, errr Steve!

I have Steve’s book, Upon This Rock. I have watched several of his dvds and am a member on his forum. I also saw him on the Alex Jones dvd. Both men were Protestant pastors.

Now, how do we get others to take their blinders off?

Thanks Randy.

 

[BWNM]

In the first council of Christian Church in Jerusalem in 50-52 A.D when first Bishops (Apostles) have gather to discuss issues with ancient law as well teachings of Holy Gospels to Gentiles has with no doubt shown first hierarchy of the Holy Church and position of Saint Peter.

No other council probably where held again till beginning of first II century, in time when heresies started to arrive and faithful had to be strengthen in their faith. I would highly recommend reading of Eusebius Pamphili - Christian History.

Saint Peter was chosen as a leader of Apostles by Lord himself, questioning authority of that is very I must say disturbing, for in kind of way then why not start asking authority the whole Bishops of Church. And Lords words are enough for me.

God Bless

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Isn’t this tantamount to admitting that you guys just make it up as you go along? Why would anyone believe you are the true church of God if you can’t show your apostolic lineage?

Since baptism is into the body of Christ, the church, the true church of God is found wherever there is true baptism. (1 Cor.12:13).

1 Corinthians 12:13
For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.

One might have a visible or claimed succession from the apostles, but if the baptism is false, there is no church of God. Someone will say, “How do you know your interpretation is true?” By a careful and full study of the subject presented in scripture.

 

[MonFrere]

Great job Randy, errr Steve!

I would also like to thank Randy for taking such a lions share of his time on this thread. He convinced me to come over here at CAF from another forum. My contributions have been very sketchy in comparison - well under a dozen, I’m guessing. So, Kudos to you Randy.

I’m still convinced that Daniel would not be satisfied if a complete “paper trail” would be found among the ECF because I have found that with the ECF and their numerous quotations on the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist they still balk and make their excuses.

I’m convinced that the “key” that brings a person to accept Catholic truth is not intellectual. It’s not based on logic and reason. People, for whatever reason, believe what they choose to believe. Our fallen nature has so damaged our intellects and wills that we are on our own incapable of choosing correctly. Also, to really change ones thinking, one must honestly be in a “seeking mode” and open to new possibilities – or there’s also that moment when “something clicks” – outside that we simply do not change.

MonFrere