The Universal Church

[mcq72]

And when there is no answer, as you recall, in that instance you bring up, who settled the argument? Peter

Well i would hope so, after all, the Lord gave him a dream about Gentiles being clean by the blood, and it seems Peter struggled with Judaizers still after that, not wanting to be seen by Jews when he was with Gentiles.
He had to repent of this.

But yes, his testimony settled the matter, as it should have, James making the ruling.

non sense term invented by those who didn’t like the authority Jesus set up.

If one is first all aren’t equal and if all are equal none can be first.

Well, when we get to heaven Peter will have to set many straight , that he was still an apostle, not above the rest, and was only first when he served the others.

Revelation gives Peter no special mention above the other eleven in laying down the church foundation.

 

[mcq72]

James is the bishop of Jerusalem . Jesus made Peter over all the Church

So when Jesus earthly ministered, did he call for a conference to settle matters on truth, and let others dictate the implementation?

The fact that they had to council to settle dispute shows precisely what Peter was not, head authority, vicar of Christ.

He was one of twelve apostles, even “leader in service”. His name and influence was only equaled and possibly exceeded by Paul.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

And when there is no answer, as you recall, in that instance you bring up, who settled the argument? Peter

Well i would hope so, after all, the Lord gave him a dream about Gentiles being clean by the blood, and it seems Peter struggled with Judaizers still after that, not wanting to be seen by Jews when he was with Gentiles.
He had to repent of this.

But yes, his testimony settled the matter, as it should have, James making the ruling.

non sense term invented by those who didn’t like the authority Jesus set up.

If one is first all aren’t equal and if all are equal none can be first.

Well, when we get to heaven Peter will have to set many straight , that he was still an apostle, not above the rest, and was only first when he served the others.

Revelation gives Peter no special mention above the other eleven in laying down the church foundation.

Really?

Peter is mentioned way more times, than anyone else in scripture.

Besides,

On this side of eternity,

Jesus didn’t ask for anyone’s vote in the matter. He established Peter as the greatest among the apostles. Jesus set up Peter’s office. Peter is the one Jesus will give the keys of the kingdom to. Peter is the leader.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

James is the bishop of Jerusalem . Jesus made Peter over all the Church

So when Jesus earthly ministered, did he call for a conference to settle matters on truth, and let others dictate the implementation?

The fact that they had to council to settle dispute shows precisely what Peter was not, head authority, vicar of Christ.

He was one of twelve apostles, even “leader in service”. His name and influence was only equaled and possibly exceeded by Paul.

You are trying to rewrite history contrary to how it played out. Peter’s office, The papacy, has been here for 2000 yrs. As has the Catholic Church.

 

[lanman87]

James is the bishop of Jerusalem . Jesus made Peter over all the Church.

AND

James followed Peter’s lead

That doesn’t explain why James made the judgement. The scripture play out as there is a debate going on 6 The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. 7 And after there had been much debate,

Then Peter stands up and says “Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, 9 and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. 10 Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11 But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.”

Then they fall silent and listen to Barnabus and Paul 12 And all the assembly fell silent, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.

Only then, after listening to the debate and the reports from Peter, Paul and Barnabus does James make his judgement.

To see Peter’s voice as anything more than a single voice among many is looking at this scripture through Catholic colored glasses.

If Peter was what Catholics claim he was then there would have never been a debate. He would simply have declared what the church was going to do and given instructions to the church.

 

[steve-b]

James is the bishop of Jerusalem . Jesus made Peter over all the Church.

AND

James followed Peter’s lead

lanman87:

That doesn’t explain why James made the judgement. The scripture play out as there is a debate going on 6 The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. 7 And after there had been much debate,

Then Peter stands up and says “Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, 9 and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. 10 Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11 But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.”

Then they fall silent and listen to Barnabus and Paul 12 And all the assembly fell silent, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.**

Only then, after listening to the debate and the reports from Peter, Paul and Barnabus does James make his judgement.

Who specifically, did God choose, from among THEM? Peter
Did Barnabus and Paul even address the issue? No. They related signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.

AND

As for the Judaizers ,

who came from James, THEY were bent on circumcision for EVERYONE, Jew & Gentile, in order to be brought into the faith…

lanman87:

To see Peter’s voice as anything more than a single voice among many is looking at this scripture through Catholic colored glasses.

And to answer THAT,

Peter , as you can see, just reminded THEM (the apostles), AGAIN, that God chose Peter from among THEM to be the voice…

AND

Re: Catholic, and since we are quoting from Acts,

Acts 9:31 the church throughout all ἐκκλησία καθ’ ὅλης τῆς

Translation:
ἐκκλησία (ecclesia) = church
καθ’ (kata)= according to ,
ὅλης (holos)= whole / all / complete / universal ,
τῆς (ho)= the ,
= the Kataholos Church = the Catholic Church.

AND

We see that name from the 1st century, in writing, from direct disciples of John. As in, Bp Ignatius, and Bp Polycarp, contemporaries of each other and disciples of John. Both use the name Catholic Church in their writings

lanman87:

If Peter was what Catholics claim he was then there would have never been a debate. He would simply have declared what the church was going to do and given instructions to the church.

That’s what Peter did. He just did it in council

 

[adamhovey1988]

I believe that I would say they are in an imperfect Union with the Church, via their baptism. It’s interesting you mention this, because I actually found something on the side of the road from a Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, for All Saints Day, and almost everything in there with a few exceptions, is something Catholics could agree with, of course I would argue they don’t have valid priesthood, so they would not have a valid Eucharist, but I digress. I would say that everyone who was baptized is Catholic, even if they don’t know it.

 

[lanman87]

Did Barnabus and Paul even address the issue? No

I disagee, the topic was the Gentiles and if they are also saved by Christ. What Paul and Barnabus said concering how God was working in the gentiles was very relevant.

Peter , as you can see, just reminded THEM (the apostles), AGAIN, that God chose Peter from among THEM to be the voice…

Where does he do that?

That’s what Peter did. He just did it in council

The why does it specifically say that James made the judgement?

 

[Lenten_ashes]

There are several early church writing that point to bishops (plural) being over a church instead of a single bishop.

We have multiple Bishops in my city. One is the head, the other the auxiliary.

 

[mcq72]

Really?

yes , Revelation does not give special mention to Peter being above other apostles in laying foundation of church.

“And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.” Rev. 21:14 or

“And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone ;” Eph 2:20

“To the elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder…” 1Peter5:1

Peter is mentioned way more times, than anyone else in scripture.

Well, yes, his name(s) are almost mentioned/written as many times as Paul’s are.

Jesus didn’t ask for anyone’s vote in the matter.

nor did He council, as Peter and popes do.

He established Peter as the greatest among the apostles.

well, this is not to be argued, not boasted …what , are we like the apostles in arguing such?

Jesus set up Peter’s office.Peter is the leader.

well, Jesus has set up everyone’s works in Christ/church, since before the foundations of the earth.

Peter was an apostle (as were 12 others). Yes he was leader. Any group will naturally have a leader, without making an office out of it. I call it group dynamics. Jesus indeed counted on this.

Peter is the one Jesus will give the keys of the kingdom to

yes, but the others were not keyless nor clueless.Totally agree Peter was first to speak, first to act , first to judge. I would not ruin it by making an office out of being great or first or key holder…just asking for trouble as evidenced in papal history. Jesus indeed prepared Peter for his role as He did the others, but still is not as explicit in announcing greatness was only Peter’s, and leaves it open ended, letting each apostle to be servant of the others…like"to him that hath an ear, let him hear"

Again Peter was leader, used keys, did many firsts in storming a dark kingdom, just don’t make an office out of it, that is transferred by man.

You are trying to rewrite history contrary to how it played out.

well “playing out” , as development, is certainly part of church history.

 

[mcq72]

Did Barnabus and Paul even address the issue?

no, they are just the reason why there was a council in the first place…it would be a conflict of interest to persuade Judaizers, for he was very invested only towards the arrived outcome…he did not circumcise gentiles as a rule.

Peter , as you can see, just reminded THEM (the apostles), AGAIN, that God chose Peter from among THEM to be the voice…

well, Peter was never so lording over as to remind them who was boss.

For sure Peter relayed the reality , of his dream, and of the outcome of Cornelius and His family. Indeed who could buck against God giving the the dream to Peter, and God baptizing Cornelius and family upon just hearing the gospel from Peter.

That’s what Peter did. He just did it in council

Precisely, in council.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Did Barnabus and Paul even address the issue? No

I disagee, the topic was the Gentiles and if they are also saved by Christ. What Paul and Barnabus said concering how God was working in the gentiles was very relevant.

The issue was specifically about circumcision of Gentiles.

Peter , as you can see, just reminded THEM (the apostles), AGAIN, that God chose Peter from among THEM to be the voice…

lanman87:

Where does he do that?

Lk 22:
24 A dispute also arose among them, which of them was to be regarded as the greatest. 25 And he said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and those in authority over them are called benefactors. 26 But not so with you; rather let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves. 27 For which is the greater, one who sits at table, or one who serves? Is it not the one who sits at table? But I am among you as one who serves.

28 “You are those who have continued with me in my trials; 29 as my Father appointed a kingdom for me, so do I appoint for you 30 that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

31 “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you,[d] that he might sift you[e] like wheat, 32 but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.”

Comments:
Jesus said one of THEM would be the greatest, and would be the one to lead ἡγούμενος is the only apostle Jesus identifies by name. Simon/Peter

open the link for the full definition of "lead". Add up ALL the points mentioned. It clearly points to Peter…and what we would call later, the papacy

AND

note: the links for the word "you". The tense changes from plural to singular when Jesus switches from talking to the apostles, then He talks talks to Peter…showing the apostles who is the greatest among THEM, ergo answering their argument they are in.

That’s what Peter did. He just did it in council

lanman87:

Then why does it specifically say that James made the judgement?

For space, may I offer this quick read HERE

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Really?

yes , Revelation does not give special mention to Peter being above other apostles in laying foundation of church.

On the contrary, why did Jesus change Simon’s name to ROCK (Peter) and will give Peter the keys to the kingdom?

SEE

HERE

&

HERE

mcq72:

“And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.” Rev. 21:14 or

“And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone ;” Eph 2:20

The apostles were also described as foundation stones in a sense (Eph. 2:20, Rev. 21:14), meaning that Christ is not the only person the Bible speaks of as being the Church’s foundation. In one sense the foundation was Christ, in another it was the apostles, and in another it was Peter. In Matthew 16:18 Christ has Peter in mind. Christ would be the Church’s invisible foundation since he was returning to heaven, from where he would invisibly rule the Church. He needed to leave behind a visible authority, one that people could locate when searching for religious truth. That visible authority is the papacy, the office of Peter.

Peter is mentioned way more times, than anyone else in scripture.

mcq72:

Well, yes, his name(s) are almost mentioned/written as many times as Paul’s are.

God changed Simon’s name to Rock, to designate His new office. God didn’t change Saul’s name to Paul

HERE

 

[steve-b]

He established Peter as the greatest among the apostles.

mcq72:

well, this is not to be argued, not boasted …what , are we like the apostles in arguing such?

AND

one’s actions speak louder than words.

Jesus set up Peter’s office.Peter is the leader.

mcq72:

well, Jesus has set up everyone’s works in Christ/church, since before the foundations of the earth.

Peter was an apostle (as were 12 others). Yes he was leader.

He was made THE leader over all the other leaders.

mcq72:

Any group will naturally have a leader, without making an office out of it. I call it group dynamics. Jesus indeed counted on this.

Jesus established one of THEM to be the leader.

Peter is the one Jesus will give the keys of the kingdom to

mcq72:

yes, but the others were not keyless nor clueless.Totally agree Peter was first to speak, first to act , first to judge. I would not ruin it by making an office out of being great or first or key holder…just asking for trouble as evidenced in papal history. Jesus indeed prepared Peter for his role as He did the others, but still is not as explicit in announcing greatness was only Peter’s, and leaves it open ended, letting each apostle to be servant of the others…like"to him that hath an ear, let him hear"

The difference here, is I’m following what Jesus established.

You are trying to rewrite history contrary to how it played out.

mcq72:

well “playing out” , as development, is certainly part of church history.

Heresies and schisms are part of history too.

AND

They are condemned in scripture

Tit 3:10 -11“ As for a man who is factious αἱρετικὸν hairetikos , after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, 11 knowing that such a person is perverted ἐξέστραπται and sinful; he is self-condemned αὐτοκατάκριτος .”

IOW

one who is disposed to form sects, heresies, schisms , factions, etc and after being corrected, and won’t change, is in big trouble

 

[mcq72]

Heresies and schisms are part of history too.

AND

They are condemned in scripture

So is condemning believers wrongly part of History.

one who is disposed to form sects,

Takes two to tango.

The Didache says to not create a schism by pacifying those that contend. It is not always one sided.

The reformers received nothing but a hardened heart from the CC, right up to Sec Vat, where some softening occurred perhaps.

The difference here, is I’m following what Jesus established

Well the O’s and P’s say same thing.

Jesus established one of THEM to be the leader.

Yes and no…some predestination, some free will in this matter, and of course foreknowledge.

He was made THE leader over all the other leaders.

The CC understanding of “made” and
“leader” has always been contested .

one’s actions speak louder than words

Precisely what Jesus was saying to all the apostles…wanna be great? be the least ( that is initiative/attitude of position in action).

God changed Simon’s name to Rock, to designate His new office. God didn’t change Saul’s name to Paul

Yes, i think He called him that right at the beginning of being called…rock/ stone.

Not sure how that has anything to do with Paul being metioned more in bible against you saying Peter is mentioned more.

The apostles were also described as foundation stones in a sense (Eph. 2:20, Rev. 21:14), meaning that Christ is not the only person the Bible speaks of as being the Church’s foundation. In one sense the foundation was Christ, in another it was the apostles, and in another it was Peter. In Matthew 16:18 Christ has Peter in mind. Christ would be the Church’s invisible foundation since he was returning to heaven, from where he would invisibly rule the Church. He needed to leave behind a visible authority, one that people could locate when searching for religious truth. That visible authority is the papacy, the office of Peter.

Yes, agree to the three possible instances of foundation. However, you totally lose me when you change the visible authority of the apostles, even of Peter visibly acting as a type of leader, into prototype of, foundation for, man appointed popes.

 

[lanman87]

31 “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you,[d] that he might sift you[e] like wheat, 32 but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.”

I was speaking about the Acts 15 passage.

For space, may I offer this quick read HERE

I read the link. It is a lot of supposition and dancing around to try and fit the Catholic view of Peter’s primacy to the text. Plainly reading the scripture says that Peter was a delegate and debater (along with Paul and Barnabas and others) and made his case to the council and James is the one who decided what to to do. No amount of scriptural gymnastics will change that fact.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Did Barnabus and Paul even address the issue?

no, they are just the reason why there was a council in the first place….it would be a conflict of interest to persuade Judaizers, for he was very invested only towards the arrived outcome…he did not circumcise gentiles as a rule.

In the end, It takes one voice over all the others to resolve conflict

Peter , as you can see, just reminded THEM (the apostles), AGAIN, that God chose Peter from among THEM to be the voice…

mcq72:

well, Peter was never so lording over as to remind them who was boss.

For sure Peter relayed the reality , of his dream, and of the outcome of Cornelius and His family. Indeed who could buck against God giving the the dream to Peter, and God baptizing Cornelius and family upon just hearing the gospel from Peter.

Peter opened the faith up to the gentiles via Cornelius and family being baptized…

AND

That was a big move. Considering Jesus originally gave this instruction to His apostles HERE

That’s what Peter did. He just did it in council

Precisely, in council.
[/quote]

And he could have made that decision without a council. Just look at what Peter did opening the faith up to the gentiles.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Heresies and schisms are part of history too.

AND

They are condemned in scripture

So is condemning believers wrongly part of History.

were these wrongly accused?

Example: HERE

"believers" as you can see, are the ones who went off the rails.

one who is disposed to form sects,

mcq72:

Takes two to tango.

One is true the other is NOT.

 

[mcq72]

In the end, It takes one voice over all the others to resolve conflict

Yes Jesus chose Peter in this matter, and gave him the dream and told him to see Cornelius.

God still chooses and annoints men and women for “missions”.

As I have said before, dont make a continuing office for it. Succesive Roman bishops were not neccesarily of same annointing as Peter.

And he could have made that decision without a council. Just look at what Peter did opening the faith up to the gentiles.

Yes he could have and not sure why he didn’t. After all Paul made the same decision in his ministry to gentiles. He did not force Judaism and circumcision on Gentiles.

were these wrongly accused?

So once rightly accused always rightly accused? The church was wrong in some of its accusations against Huss and Wycliffe.

It’s an off the rail thing to declare only others can go off the rail, and never “us”.

 

[mcq72]

One is true the other is NOT.

Agree, but it is how you treat others that sometimes counts…does one pacify contentions or does one lord over etc…