The Office of the Papacy in Scripture

[Prodigal_Son1]

Titus had a spiritual gift; he is called an “evangelist” like Philip, which was one of the gifts Christ gave to men mentioned in Ephesians 4. Titus was not a singular bishop nor a prototype of such. He DID have authority as an evangelist to speak God’s word and tell people how to live a holy life, giving up sin, how one qualifies to be a bishop or deacon, etc.

…and to ordain priests, as he was ordained.

Tit 1:5 For this cause I left thee in Crete: that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting and shouldest ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee:

We should also consider the Greek Interlinear version of the last verse of Titus, as well as the King James Versions.

Tit 3:15

**(IGNT+) ασπαζονταιG782 [G5736] SALUTE σεG4571 THEE οιG3588 THOSE μετG3326 WITH εμουG1700 ME παντεςG3956 ALL. ασπασαιG782 [G5663] SALUTE τουςG3588 THOSE WHO φιλουνταςG5368 [G5723] LOVE ημαςG2248 US ενG1722 IN “THE” πιστειG4102 ηG3588 FAITH. χαριςG5485 GRACE “BE” μεταG3326 WITH παντωνG3956 ALL υμωνG5216 YOU. αμηνG281 AMEN. "προς"G4314 TO "τιτον"G5103 TITUS "της"G3588 OF THE "κρητων"G2912 OF “THE” CREATIONIST "εκκλησιας"G1577 ASSEMBLY "πρωτον"G4413 FIRST "επισκοπον"G1985 OVERSEER "χειροτονηθεντα"G5500 [G5685] CHOSEN. "εγραφη"G1125 [G5648] WRITTEN "απο"G575 FROM "νικοπολεως"G3533 "της"G3588 NICOPOLIS "μακεδονιας"G3109 OF MACEDONIA.

(KJV+) AllG3956 thatG3588 are withG3326 meG1700 saluteG782 thee.G4571 GreetG782 them that loveG5368 usG2248 inG1722 the faith.G4102 GraceG5485 be withG3326 youG5216 all.G3956 Amen.G281 It was written to Titus, ordained the first bishop of the church of the Cretians, from Nicopolis of Macedonia.

(KJVA) All that are with me salute thee. Greet them that love us in the faith. Grace be with you all. Amen. <It was written to Titus, ordained the first bishop of the church of the Cretians, from Nicopolis of Macedonia.>**

 

[utunumsint]

Evangelization is the duty of us all. It was not a specific office. But Titus has this added mandate “He also tells Titus in 2:15 “Say these things. Exhort and correct with all authority. Let no one look down on you.””

Sounds to me that he did have authority, and that the presbyter/bishops were accountable to him.

God bless,
Ut

I just wanted to further this point for a moment.

My central thesis is that the close colaborators of the Apostles were the successors to the authority of the Apostles. They were given authority over whole regions and cities, in much the same way as Paul gives authority to Titus over the island of Crete.

Now, we know from Tradition that Clement’s letter to the Corinthians was written by the same Clement mentioned in Phillipians 4:3

Yes, and I ask you also, my true yokemate, to help them, for they have struggled at my side in promoting the gospel, **along with Clement and my other co-workers, whose names are in the book of life. **

It is not hard to imagine this Clement, who is especially named as a co-worker of Paul, joining the bretheren in Rome, taking on the headship of this church through his close connections with Paul and the other Apostles, such as Peter. As one who shared in the labours of the Apostles, he would have been a unique source of information on the true Gospel of Christ as taught by the Apostles.

And so, like Peter, even though he never names himself as head of the church, he still held Apostolic authority, even thirty years after the deaths of both Peter and Paul. What is more, it is evident that the people in Corinth new that he held this authority.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Daniel of course you are correct. This statement from Peter makes him the leader of the Apostles to the Gentiles but not the Jews… This quote from Paul in Galations 2: 7:8:
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,
Demonstrates that Peter was also the leader of the Jews . So we have validation scripturally that Peter is the leader of the Apostles for both jew and non-Jew, (i.e. everyone.

Since when does the absence of data prove that the inverse is true beyond a doubt? This is a ridiculous statement. The absence of data only proves that you have no data. In this particular case, as described above. there is actually data that disproves your theory.

And I see you have amended your timeline since the last time, so obbviously you are recognizing some of the errors we are pointing out. That speaks well of you. But you are still neglecting Clement, which moves your timeline of documented papal leadership from Rome up into the 1st century.

Being chosen to first speak to the Gentiles does not make Peter THE leader of the apostles. Paul says Peter was apostle to the Jews as he Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles. This does not make Peter the head of the church any more than it makes Paul head of the church.

The letter called First Clement supports the high regard for the church in Rome but does not support the existence of a head of the church in the singular bishop of Rome as there was none in this period.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

I just wanted to further this point for a moment.

My central thesis is that the close colaborators of the Apostles were the successors to the authority of the Apostles. They were given authority over whole regions and cities, in much the same way as Paul gives authority to Titus over the island of Crete.

Now, we know from Tradition that Clement’s letter to the Corinthians was written by the same Clement mentioned in Phillipians 4:3

It is not hard to imagine this Clement, who is especially named as a co-worker of Paul, joining the bretheren in Rome, taking on the headship of this church through his close connections with Paul and the other Apostles, such as Peter. As one who shared in the labours of the Apostles, he would have been a unique source of information on the true Gospel of Christ as taught by the Apostles.

And so, like Peter, even though he never names himself as head of the church, he still held Apostolic authority, even thirty years after the deaths of both Peter and Paul. What is more, it is evident that the people in Corinth new that he held this authority.

God bless,
Ut

It is only evident that the church in Corinth wanted the advice of the church in Rome. One can only speculate about the reason. It is also evident that at that time only a plurality of bishops and deacons existed in Corinth and in Rome. Of course, one would expect later writers to read their current situation back into the situation in Rome. When the singular bishop had emerged later, writers from that period would say the writer of the letter to Corinth was Clement the bishop of Rome and successor of Peter, etc.

Titus is not identified in the NT as the bishop of Crete, and he was never instructed to appoint a successor to himself but only to appoint a body of prebyters, not a singular bishop, in each church.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

…and to ordain priests, as he was ordained.

Tit 1:5 For this cause I left thee in Crete: that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting and shouldest ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee:

We should also consider the Greek Interlinear version of the last verse of Titus, as well as the King James Versions.

Tit 3:15

(IGNT+) ασπαζονταιG782 [G5736] SALUTE σεG4571 THEE οιG3588 THOSE μετG3326 WITH εμουG1700 ME παντεςG3956 ALL. ασπασαιG782 [G5663] SALUTE τουςG3588 THOSE WHO φιλουνταςG5368 [G5723] LOVE ημαςG2248 US ενG1722 IN “THE” πιστειG4102 ηG3588 FAITH. χαριςG5485 GRACE “BE” μεταG3326 WITH παντωνG3956 ALL υμωνG5216 YOU. αμηνG281 AMEN. "προς"G4314 TO "τιτον"G5103 TITUS "της"G3588 OF THE "κρητων"G2912 OF “THE” CREATIONIST "εκκλησιας"G1577 ASSEMBLY "πρωτον"G4413 FIRST "επισκοπον"G1985 OVERSEER "χειροτονηθεντα"G5500 [G5685] CHOSEN. "εγραφη"G1125 [G5648] WRITTEN "απο"G575 FROM "νικοπολεως"G3533 "της"G3588 NICOPOLIS "μακεδονιας"G3109 OF MACEDONIA.

(KJV+) AllG3956 thatG3588 are withG3326 meG1700 saluteG782 thee.G4571 GreetG782 them that loveG5368 usG2248 inG1722 the faith.G4102 GraceG5485 be withG3326 youG5216 all.G3956 Amen.G281 It was written to Titus, ordained the first bishop of the church of the Cretians, from Nicopolis of Macedonia.

(KJVA) All that are with me salute thee. Greet them that love us in the faith. Grace be with you all. Amen. <It was written to Titus, ordained the first bishop of the church of the Cretians, from Nicopolis of Macedonia.>

???
Titus 3:15 doesn’t say any of the above. Nowhere in the NT is Titus called a bishop or a presbyter.

Titus 3:15 says: Everyone with me sends you greetings. Greet those who love us in the faith.Grace be with you all.

 

[utunumsint]

It is only evident that the church in Corinth wanted the advice of the church in Rome. One can only speculate about the reason. It is also evident that at that time only a plurality of bishops and deacons existed in Corinth and in Rome. Of course, one would expect later writers to read their current situation back into the situation in Rome. When the singular bishop had emerged later, writers from that period would say the writer of the letter to Corinth was Clement the bishop of Rome and successor of Peter, etc.

Titus is not identified in the NT as the bishop of Crete, and he was never instructed to appoint a successor to himself but only to appoint a body of prebyters, not a singular bishop, in each church.

But you do agree now that Titus was given a position of authority over the church of Crete, and that his authority comes from Paul, an apostle, right?

God bless,
Ut

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
Daniel of course you are correct. This statement from Peter makes him the leader of the Apostles to the Gentiles but not the Jews… This quote from Paul in Galations 2: 7:8:
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,
Demonstrates that Peter was also the leader of the Jews . So we have validation scripturally that Peter is the leader of the Apostles for both jew and non-Jew, (i.e. everyone.

Since when does the absence of data prove that the inverse is true beyond a doubt? This is a ridiculous statement. The absence of data only proves that you have no data. In this particular case, as described above. there is actually data that disproves your theory.

And I see you have amended your timeline since the last time, so obbviously you are recognizing some of the errors we are pointing out. That speaks well of you. But you are still neglecting Clement, which moves your timeline of documented papal leadership from Rome up into the 1st century.

Being chosen to first speak to the Gentiles does not make Peter THE leader of the apostles. Paul says Peter was apostle to the Jews as he Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles. This does not make Peter the head of the church any more than it makes Paul head of the church.

The letter called First Clement supports the high regard for the church in Rome but does not support the existence of a head of the church in the singular bishop of Rome as there was none in this period.

We’ve heard this all before. We’ve also heard you say that having the keys to the kingdom of heaven doesn’t mean that he was being given the leadership. And that being the rock on which Jesus built his church doesn’t make him the leader. And being told after the resurrection to tend to Jesus’s flock doesn’t make him the leader. And just because he acted as leader in driving the need to replace Judas didn’t make him the leader. And just because he spoke for the apostles at pentecost and gave the new converts direction didn’t make him the leader. And we also heard that just because he made the definitive ruling on Christians not having to follow the Jewish laws at the Council of Jerusalem didn’t make him the leader. And that just because he was mentioned 10X more than any other apostle in the new testament didn’t make him the leader. That’s a lot of denying the obvious. Too bad you are too blinded to see it.

As for your comments about singular bishops. Just because he used the royal 'we" in describing his position and that of his church, doesn’t mean he wasn’t in charge. You see what you want to see. That doesn’t make it the truth.

I notice that you didn’t respond to my point:

Since when does the absence of data prove that the inverse is true beyond a doubt? This is a ridiculous statement. The absence of data only proves that you have no data. In this particular case, as described above. there is actually data that disproves your theory.

Hopefully you understand this and stop arguing that something can’t be true if its not explicitly said. The fact that there are no statements in scripture that say specifically. Peter is the head of the church, does not mean its not true. It merely means it isn’t written that way in scripture.

 

[jlhargus]

No I dont think I missed the point. I was referring to His last words on the cross.
Is the work of God entirely finished No. But what is finished is your path to salvation to be completed on the day of Christ.

Philippians 1:3 I thank my God upon every remembrance of you, 4 always in every prayer of mine making request for you all with joy, 5 for your fellowship in the gospel from the first day until now, 6 being confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ;

You are right in your observation of the last supper, the scripture supports it also. But the finished part at the cross is the door to salvation, The blood of the passover lamb on the door post in Egypt saved from the sting of the angel of death and being passed over. Completed "finished in Christ for all men / women. Separated from death and given life in the Spirit. Ending the need for temple sacrifices, one perfect sacrifice one time for all time.Lets not confuse salvation with the glory that we have yet to see.

Jesus said It is finished

To see how Jesus uses this word you must look at other places in Scripture where he also used this word

• Luke 12:50 But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I constrained till it be accomplished!
• Luke 18:31 Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished.
• Luke 22:37 For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have a fulfillment.
• John 19:28 After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, said, I thirst.
• John 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up his spirit.
• Acts 13:29 And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulcher.
• Galatians 5:16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh.
• 2 Timothy 4:7 I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith:
• Revelation 10:7 But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he has declared to his servants the prophets.
• Revelation 11:7 And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascends out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.
• Revelation 15:1 And I saw another sign in heaven, great and marvelous, seven angels having the seven last plagues; for in them is completed the wrath of God.
• Revelation 15:8 And the temple was filled with smoke from the glory of God, and from his power; and no man was able to enter into the temple, till the seven plagues of the seven angels were fulfilled.
• Revelation 17:17 For God has put in their hearts to fulfill his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.

Jesus finished what He had come to do. It is a completed work. He said “the Son of man did not come to be ministered to but to minister and to give His life a ransom for many”

The price was “paid in full” it was “done”, “there was nothing left for Him to do nor for you and me to do”

Paul tells us in Colossians 2:14 that Jesus “blotted out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;”

It is finished; the moment of His death was the moment of our salvation

“it is finished” and then He deliberately and willingly “gave up the Spirit” but ONLY AFTER He had finished

JL: 1Cor15:17 And IF CHRIST BE NOT RAISED, your faith is vain; YE ARE YET IN YOUR SINS. {Caps added}

It is finished, does not mean the sacrifice is complete. For the victim it is finished, the victim is dead and the blood of the victim has been shed, but the atonement has not been made. The atoning blood had to be taken by the High Priest into the Holy of Holies and sprinkled on the mercy seat, before God, or as the first passover sprinkled on the door, to save those for whom it is offered. Christ the sacrificial victim, had to be resurrected and ascend into heaven. Not as victim but as our High Priest to enter into the Holy of Holies made without hands with his atoning blood taking his seat at the right hand of God the Father. Plus the sacrificed lamb had to be eaten.

 

[jlhargus]

The interpreter is the Holy Spirit.

But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you,
and ye need not that any man teach you:
but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things,
and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you,
you shall abide in him. I John 2:27

JL: 1Jn2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. 19 THEY WENT OUT FROM US, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us 20 But YE HAVE AN UNCTION FROM THE HOLY ONE, and YE KNOW ALL THINGS. 21 I HAVE NOT WRITTEN unto you BECAUSE YE KNOW NOT THE TRUTH, but because YE KNOW IT, and that no lie is of the truth. 22 … 23… 24 LET THAT therefore ABIDE IN YOU, WHICH YE HAVE HEARD FROM THE BEGINNING. IF THAT WHICH YE HAVE HEARD FROM THE BEGINNING shall REMAIN IN YOU, YE also SHALL CONTINUE IN THE SON, AND in the FATHER. 25 And this is the promise that he hath promised us, EVEN ETERNAL LIFE. 26 These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you. 27 But THE ANOINTING which YE HAVE RECEIVED OF HIM ABIDETH IN YOU, and YE NEED NOT that ANY MAN TEACH YOU: but as THE same ANOINTING TEACHETH YOU ALL THINGS, AND IS TRUTH, and is no lie, and even AS IT HATH TAUGHT YOU, YE SHALL ABIDE IN HIM.

THE ANOINTING (UNCTION) YE HAVE RECEIVED OF HIM=that is grace and wisdom from the Holy Spirit, the seven gifts. the Holy Spirit gives the wisdom, to LET THAT ABIDE IN US, WHICH WE HAVE HEARD FROM THE BEGINNING. Note not what we have read and formed our own opinion. In other words the gospel as preached by the SENT Apostolic Fellowship, the Church the pillar and ground of truth. That which we have HEARD from the beginning, if we allow it to abide in our hearts and mind we know the truth and will not be deceived, by those teaching another gospel. ANOINTING TEACHETH YOU ALL THINGS. The anointing teaches those of the Household of God to remain faithful to the word (that abideth in them, that which they have RECEIVED FROM THE BEGINNING, as proclaimed in the Church by her lawful ministers who have been SENT. In unity with them we share in the Holy Spirit promised to lead the Church in all truth and have the knowledge necessary not to be deceived and led astray by those who went out from the Church, they are not SENT ministers, but go out on their own authority, teaching another gospel of their own opinion.

What did people do the first time the gospel was preached by Peter? Acts2:41 Then THEY THAT gladly RECEIVED HIS WORD were BAPTIZED: and the same day there WERE ADDED UNTO THEM about three thousand souls. 42 And THEY CONTINUED steadfastly IN the APOSTLES’ DOCTRINE and FELLOWSHIP, and in BREAKING OF BREAD, and in PRAYERS. [Those that received his word were baptized. They were brought into the Church by baptism and CONTINUED steadfastly in the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Fellowship.] 1Cor 1:9 God is faithful you were called into THE FELLOWSHIP OF his Son JESUS CHRIST 10 I appeal to you BREATHREN by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that all of you AGREE that there be no dissensions among you that you BE UNITED in the same mind and THE SAME JUDGMENT. 1Jn 4:6 We are of God Whoever knows God LISTENS TO US and he who is not of God DOES NOT LISTEN TO US BY THIS WE KNOW the spirit of TRUTH and the spirit of ERROR [Therefore we do not listen to men, who go out on there own authority, the spirit of error, to be taken in by false teachers and every wind of doctrine men can devise through sola scriptura, that tower of babel, confusing the one faith langueage scattering people of faith into myriads of groups, by a tradition of men made a doctrine of God around 1521 AD.] You can have hit and miss truth, along with your own guesses, with its split on split. I will stay with the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth, 1 TM 3:14.

[Eph3:7 Whereof I was made A MINISTER, ACCORDING TO THE GIFT of the grace of God given unto me BY the effectual working OF HIS POWER. 8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; 9 And TO MAKE ALL MEN SEE what is THE FELLOWHIP of THE MYSTERY, which from the beginning of the world hath been HID IN GOD, who created all things by Jesus Christ: 10 To the intent THAT NOW unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places MIGHT BE KNOWN BY THE CHURCH THE MANIFOLD WISDOM OF GOD,]

 

[jlhargus]

Im afraid that in your case… the Magisterium will reveal even this to you.

JL: That SENT Magisterium was good enough for Paul, why should it not be good enough for all? Paul even checked his teaching with that SENT Apostolic Fellowship. [Gal2:1 Then fourteen years after I WENT UP AGAIN TO JERUSALEM with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. 2 And I went up BY REVELATION, and COMMUNICATED UNTO THEM that GOSPEL which I PREACH among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, LEST BY ANY MEANS I SHOULD run, or HAD RUN, IN VAIN.] Paul knew his teaching had to agree with that Magisterium. [Mt18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but IF HE NEGLECT TO HEAR THE CHURCH, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.]Remember Korah who accused Moses of setting himself over the people as a prince. [Nb16:13 Is it a small thing that thou hast brought us up out of a land that floweth with milk and honey, to kill us in the wilderness, except THOU MAKE THYSELF altogether A PRINCE OVER US? Nb 16:28 And MOSES SAID, HEREBY YE SHALL KNOW that THE LORD HATH SENT ME to do all these works; for I have not done them of mine own mind.] Korah learned the hard way that Moses was SENT just as Christ was Sent by the Father and Christ SENT the apostles who SENT others in an unbroken line by laying of of hands. That Apostolic Magisterium Christ sent has the promise to be led into all truth by the Holy Spirit, Jn16:13.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

???
Titus 3:15 doesn’t say any of the above. Nowhere in the NT is Titus called a bishop or a presbyter.

Titus 3:15 says: Everyone with me sends you greetings. Greet those who love us in the faith.Grace be with you all.

Do you deny Titus being instructed to ordain priests as he had been ordained in Titus 1:5? The Greek word used was “presbuteros”, which translates into English as , presbyter or elder.

πρεσβύτερος
presbuteros
pres-boo’-ter-os
Comparative of πρέσβυς presbus (elderly); older; as noun, a senior; specifically an Israelite Sanhedrist (also figuratively, member of the celestial council) or Christian “presbyter”: - elder (-est), old.

**pres·by·ter (przb-tr, prs-)
n.

1. A priest in various hierarchical churches.

a. A teaching elder in the Presbyterian Church.
b. A ruling elder in the Presbyterian Church.
3. An elder of the congregation in the early Christian church.

---

[Late Latin, from Greek presbuteros, from comparative of presbus, old man; see per1 in Indo-European roots.] **

**(IGNT+) τουτουG5127 χαρινG5484 FOR THIS CAUSE κατελιπονG2641 [G5627] I LEFT σεG4571 THEE ενG1722 IN κρητηG2914 CRETE, ιναG2443 THAT ταG3588 λειπονταG3007 [G5723] THE THINGS LACKING επιδιορθωσηG1930 [G5672] THOU MIGHTEST GO ON TO SET RIGHT, καιG2532 AND καταστησηςG2525 [G5661] MIGHTEST APPOINT καταG2596 πολινG4172 IN EVERY CITY πρεσβυτερουςG4245 ELDERS, ωςG5613 AS εγωG1473 I σοιG4671 THEE διεταξαμηνG1299 [G5668] ORDERED :

(KJV+) For this causeG5484 G5127 leftG2641 I theeG4571 inG1722 Crete,G2914 thatG2443 thou shouldest set in orderG1930 the things that are wanting,G3007 andG2532 ordainG2525 eldersG4245 in every city,G2596 G4172 asG5613 IG1473 had appointedG1299 thee:G4671

(KJVA) For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:**

The Titus 3:15 is listed in the Greek Interlinear the way I copied it, and two of the King James Versions. It’s more a footnote that was copied. The Douay-Rheims and the Aramaic translations do not have that inclusion.

 

[geekborj]

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.”

It seems you are looking for the actual Office of Peter. Here it is:

1. Acts 1:20ff talks about the Office of Judas (Escariot). Hence, every Apostle is an office.
2. By virtue of #1, there is such thing as an Office of Peter.
3. The qualifications for the person for Office is God chosen through men.
4. Your #5 argument does not weaken the role of Peter as primary to the Apostles, it only shows that James was probably the presiding officer during the council.
5. Christ built his Church by putting the first rock (Kepha) just like when the Lord built his People by putting the first rock (Abraham). There should be no problem considering members of the Church as rocks building the same church. There is no question that Peter was the first rock that the Rock placed. There should be no problem if others are built upon that first rock so that even so, still being laid on the same Rock as Cornerstone.

 

[jlhargus]

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.

JL: it is logically described from the beginning in the apostolic period, by Apostolic Tradition whether by oral word or scripture. Just as the Trinity is described by both from the beginning. Just as the Trinity was developed theologically over a period of several hundred years, so was the papacy. Tell me can you produce evidence, TRINITY, was used by the apostles or did they ever call God one being in three persons? Even which books were inspiried scripture were descerned over several hundred years. Yet you claim it as your sole authority. Which begs the question, what authority would have been used before the canon?

Lk 22:29 And I MAKE A COVENANT WITH YOU just AS MY FATHER HAS MADE A COVENANT WITH ME, FOR A KINGDOM, so I appoint for you [all apostles] that you may eat and drink at my table IN MY KINDOM AND SIT ON THRONES… (Jesus the new king in David’s line gives the apostles royal authority and entrusts the church to them and in Lk 22:31 Jesus said, Satan has asked for you [all the apostles] that he [Satan] might sift them [all apostles] like wheat. Christ then said, but I have prayed for you [Peter singular] that your [Peter singular] faith fail not. When Peter is converted HIS FAITH WILL NOT FAIL, he also is TO STRENGTHEN HIS BRETHREN, universal pastor. Christ has guaranteed Peter’s faith he is not only to FEED Christ’s sheep and lambs, but strengthen his brethren. That would be ALL the sheep and brethren of Christ. Making Peter a visible rock of stability for the church on earth guaranteed by the invisible Rock, Christ.)

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.

JL: Why would Eph4:7-16 have to include anything other than what it says? Other books show Peter was given the keys, told HIS FAITH WOULD FAIL NOT, told to FEED Christ’s sheep, etc… There are several different list of gifts listed by Paul, yet they are not an exhaustive list. Have you ever read the qualifications for a Bishop? The successors to the Apostles are called bishops although they can properly be called apostles. Peter was an Apostles, however Peter alone received the keys of heaven plus the authority to bind and loose apart from the others. The others did not receive keys, they did receive the authority to bind and loose as a collective group, Mt18:18, which also included Peter. Long story short, for the others to lawfully bind and loose they must be in union with the faith and holder of the keys, Peter or his successors.

 

[jlhargus]

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.

JL: Why? So if something is not a central repeated theme by Luke, James, John, Paul or Peter it is not fundamentally important. You claim scripture is the sole authority, yet not once do James, John, Paul or Peter himself or those very scripture anywhere once say they are the sole authority. In fact your very source of authority, the scripture, tell us the Church is the pillar and ground of truth, and if we fail to hear the Church we are to be treated as an unbeliever.

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.

JL: Christ is the head of the Church, just as any king is head of his kingdom. Peter is his first minister. The main minister who administers the kingdom along with the other ministers of the kingdom, in the name and authority of the king.

THE KEYS to the Kingdom of God or Davidic kingdom are given in IS 22:19 And I will drive thee from thy station, and from thy state shall he pull thee down. 20 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah: 21 And I WILL CLOTHE HIM WITH THY ROBE, and STRENGTHEN HIM WITH THY GIRDLE, and I WILL COMMIT THY GOVERNMENT INTO HIS HAND: and HE SHALL BE A FATHER to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. 22 And THE KEY OF THE HOUSE OF DAVID will I LAY UPON HIS SHOULDER ; so HE SHALL OPEN AND NONE SHALL SHUT, and HE SHALL SHUT, AND NONE SHALL OPEN. - [The keys are given by the king of Israel in David’s line to the Prime Minister. [I added CAPS to the above and following]

The following snips I have taken from the book Jesus, Peter & The Keys A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy, by Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgree and David Hess, Queenship Publishing Company

FF BRUCE who taught NT Biblical Exegesis a the University of Manchester in The Hard Saying of Jesus, (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity, 1983), 143-144 (Isaiah 22:22). so in the new community which Jesus was about to build, Peter would be, so to speak, chief steward. (Pg 41 Jesus, Peter & The Keys)

W.F. ALBRIGHT and C.S. Mann, the Anchor Bible: Matthew, (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971), 196: Isaih xxii 15 ff. Undoubtetly lies behind this [Mathew 16:19] saying… (Pg 41 Jesus, Peter & The Keys)

INTERVARSITY PRESS produced a commentary analyzing Isaiah 22:22 and its relationship to Matthew 16:19, “The image of keys (plural) perhaps suggests not so much the porter, who controls admission to the house, as the steward, who regulates its administration (Is 22:22, in conjunction with 22:15. The issue then is not that of admission to the church (which is not what the kingdom of heaven means; see pp. 45-47) but an authority derived from a delegation of God’s sovereignty.” Craig S. Keener, the IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament, Intervarsity Press, 1993), 256. (Pg 43 Jesus, Peter & The Keys)

THE KEEPER OF THE KEYS his authority within the house as administrator and teacher (cf. Isa. 22:20-25, which may have influenced Matthew here). M. Eugene Boring, “Matthew,” in Pheme Perkins and others, eds., The New Interpretter’s Bible. Vol. 8, (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1995), 346. (Pg 43 Jesus, Peter & The Keys)

THE KEYS OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN: the phrase [from Matthew 16:19] is almost certainly based on Is. 22:22… D. Guthrie and others, The New Bible Commentary, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1953 [reprinted by Inter-Varsity Press], 837. (Pg 44 Jesus, Peter & The Keys)

JL: When an absolute king gives his authority to his Prime Minister, the king does not surrender his power he only delegates the minister to act in his name and with his aurhtority. So there is no problem with Rv 3:7 or any scripture showing Christ as key holder. Christ still holds absolute power (keys) by right and has delegated authority to his First Minister to act in his name by giving of the keys.

 

[jlhargus]

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.

JL: You are correct Peter is not EXPLICITLY identified as the head of the Church in the Jerusalem Council, but it is IMPLICIT. The apostles and elders gathered to consider the matter, should Gentiles be circumcised Acts 15:6, After much debate, Peter rose and told how God chose him, that from his mouth the Gentiles should hear the word and believe, and said why put a yoke on disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? Acts 15:7-10. Then he gave the defining teaching,-- WE BELIEVE we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they (Gentiles) were, Acts 15:11. AFTER PETER HAD SPOKEN THE ASSEMBLY KEPT SILENCE, the debate was over and settled, Acts 15:12.

Then the assembly listened to Paul and Barnabas relate the signs and wonders God did through them among the gentiles, Acts 15:12. After Paul and Barnabas spoke, James replied, "Symeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for his name. And with this the words of the prophets agree, as it is written, I will rebuild the dwelling of David which has fallen, Acts 15:13-21, that the rest of men may seek the Lord, all the Gentiles called by my name, Acts 15:17, (in other words, a regenerated spiritual Universal (Catholic) Davidic Kingdom and the King the Son of David, Jesus, will build a new Temple for all nations, for God his Father. Christ appointed ministers and gave the keys to the kimgdom to the chief minister St Peter.

JAMES DID NOT MAKE THE DECISION but summed up the evidence from scripture, for Peter’s definitive teaching. James goes on and says, Therefore my judgment (opinion) is, and proposes a pastoral compromise of rules or laws for discipline in churches where there is a mixed Jewish and Gentile fellowship, to prevent divisions or offense. The council letter sent out said “This seems good to the HOLY SPIRIT AND to US”, Acts 15:28.(In council the Church speaks with the authority of God the Holy Spirit, Acts 15:25).

Those in Antioch when they heard the letter rejoiced at the exhortation, Acts 15:30-31. Why? because it came by God the Holy Spirit through the magisterium, the teaching authority of the Church, the Apostlic College or Fellowship, those who the people of God knew Christ said, he who hears you hears me, those Christ sent to teach the whole world and promised to be with till the end of the ages, sending the Holy Spirit to guide them in all truth. The one body of Christ the Church the pillar and ground of truth, which the gates of hades shall not prevail against.

False Teachers: Notice how this division in Antioch came about; We have heard some persons from us (Apostolic Fellowship) have troubled you, although we gave them no instructions, Act 15:24. These men, not sent by the church, went out on their own authority from the fellowship, teaching as doctrine their own opinion from the law=scripture. Why did they cause confusion in Antioch? Was it because they were perceived to have been sent by the Apostolic Fellowship since they came from Jerusalem and therefore their teaching was thought to be authoritative? Is that why Antioch would not even listen to Paul who was an apoltle? In order to settle the dispute they sent Paul and others to the Apostolic Fellowship in Jerusalem to settle the doctrinal dispute.

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

JL: Correct, I’m not aware that Peter was ever considered bishop of Jerusalem.

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.

JL: How about Clement? You will need to be more specific here, you seem to be rambling.