J
jmcrae
Guest
Christ has died. Christ is risen. Christ will come again.
- Status
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I don’t consent to being judged by you.
Now, previously you wrote:
I have answered your questions…extensively in posts 226-230 & 233-235.
Can I expect you to “continue” in the near future?
Y
yankee_drifter
Guest
Randy,
I wasn’t judging you. Please show me where I passed judgment. I merely asked for (in your own words), the meaning of the gospel of Jesus Christ. I’m sure we are agreed that its much more than just Christ’s death, burial and resurrection.
I wasn’t judging you. Please show me where I passed judgment. I merely asked for (in your own words), the meaning of the gospel of Jesus Christ. I’m sure we are agreed that its much more than just Christ’s death, burial and resurrection.
C
crazzeto
Guest
I sure do, but we’ll have to go through this point to point to convince you. But if you want a single passage of scripture to start you down this direction, here is the best one:
drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=61&ch=3&l=15&f=s#x
In other words, it is the church not the bible which upholds and defends the faith.
drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=16&l=18&f=s#x
If the teachings of the Church were not infallible, then the church would be teaching error. If the church were teaching error, then it could be said that the gates of hell has prevailed against the church. If that is the case, then the church’s foundation, the Rock (Cepha, Peter) would crublem and the church would dissolve. It hasn’t for 2,000+ years.
In matters of theology, no they haven’t changed. Documenting this, again requires much research. I suggest you go to www.vatican.va to start your search. In matters of morality, well the reality of the world is changing. The basis of morality doesn’t change, but teachnig on morality must reflect the times. Teachings on globalization wouldn’t have made sense back in 1,000 AD, not even in 1,500 really… By 1960 it started making sense (and we saw our first encyclicals) and by this year it has become truely firmly implanted hence the newer encylcicals.
Several instances of this
drbo.org/chapter/60002.htm
and yet again
drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=61&ch=3&l=15&f=s#x
Here is the best example:
drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=50&ch=20&l=21&f=s#x
How did God send Jesus? With all authority in heaven and earth, so how is Jesus sending the apostles? With the same authority which God the father sent Jesus.
drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=62&ch=2&l=2&f=s#x
C
crazzeto
Guest
More over, regarding succession:
drbo.org/chapter/62001.htm
drbo.org/chapter/62002.htm
drbo.org/chapter/63001.htm
drbo.org/chapter/62001.htm
Paul entrusted the truth to Timothy, and again how authoritative is this? Paul idenitifies it with the holy spirt, and we already know previously the christ sent the apostles with all authroity in heaven and on earth
drbo.org/chapter/62002.htm
Timothy is to apoint others as he has been ordained, by Paul. In fact if you read this carefully, right here you see at least 4 generations of apostolic succession.
drbo.org/chapter/63001.htm
drbo.org/chapter/61001.htm
Paul left Timothy when he went to Macedonia in order to ensure no one teaches any other doctrine (thus, doctrine is important as well). How would this passage make sense if there was no apostolic succession? Why should the people at Ephesus listen to Timothy if Timothy lacked any real authroity?
Y
yankee_drifter
Guest
Crazetto,
The RCC uses one passage to try and prove Peter was chosen “vicar of Christ”: Matt 16:18. Here the Lord said: Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church. The Savior did NOT say: Upon YOU Peter. He said only: upon this rock.There have been no unanimous consensus among RC that the rock means Peter. Neither were the early church writers unanimous in their interpretation. (this is easily verifiable) Many are divided and say the rock is either Christ or Peter’s confession of faith when he said: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” There is no other support throughout the NT of Peter having a role similar to that of a pope. No collaboration of this from any of the other apostles. A doctrine cannot be made upon one sole passage which is not substantiated further. Christ made no mention of wanting apostolic succession continued down through the ages. This is why we must not go beyond what is written.
Paul writes: “For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor.3:11). Christ is the cornerstone of the foundation which includes the prophets and the apostles, who gave divinely inspired testimony of Jesus Christ (Eph. 2:20). Clearly this foundation was laid and completed in the first century. Once a builder lays a foundation, he does not continue to add to it. Yet the RCC continues to add to its foundation (The Mormons do the same thing) with claims of apostolic succession, infallible papal pronouncements and evolving tradition. The council of Trent, which is a complete summary of RC doctrines mentions nothing about papal infallibility.
Paul speaks of no subordination, but rather he rebukes Peter publicly. In fact, Acts 4:13 tells us that Peter was unlearned, a commoner who possessed no official position or special abilities.
To show the meaning of Matt16:18 we need only to allow the apostles themselves to speak. Acts 4:11, 1 Cor 3:10,11 Eph 2:20-22, 1 Pe 2:4-8 all tell us that Christ alone is the rock. The apostles never spoke or wrote of anyone but Jesus Christ as the chief cornerstone on which the church would be built. Even OT believers looked to the Lord as the rock (Deut 32:4,31 2 Sam 22:3, 47, Ps 78:35) To build a church upon a man is blasphemy. Other have tried it and they are a cult who teach another gospel.
Peter was not qualified to lead the entire church. (Matt 16:23, 26:75 Gal 2:11-14)
Peter admits some of Paul’s writings are hard to understand and acknowledges Paul’s writings as scripture.
He held the same rank as many others 1 Pe 5:1-5.He said he too was a fellow elder.
He was an evangelist to the Jews around the areas of Jerusalem, not pope of Rome. (Gal 2:7,8)
Instead of issuing orders, he took orders (Acts 8:14)
He forbade anyone to kneel before him (Acts 10:26).
He was married (Matt 8:14,15)
Christ chose no man to take His place on earth, but the Holy Spirit (John 16:7-16)
The RCC uses one passage to try and prove Peter was chosen “vicar of Christ”: Matt 16:18. Here the Lord said: Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church. The Savior did NOT say: Upon YOU Peter. He said only: upon this rock.There have been no unanimous consensus among RC that the rock means Peter. Neither were the early church writers unanimous in their interpretation. (this is easily verifiable) Many are divided and say the rock is either Christ or Peter’s confession of faith when he said: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” There is no other support throughout the NT of Peter having a role similar to that of a pope. No collaboration of this from any of the other apostles. A doctrine cannot be made upon one sole passage which is not substantiated further. Christ made no mention of wanting apostolic succession continued down through the ages. This is why we must not go beyond what is written.
Paul writes: “For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor.3:11). Christ is the cornerstone of the foundation which includes the prophets and the apostles, who gave divinely inspired testimony of Jesus Christ (Eph. 2:20). Clearly this foundation was laid and completed in the first century. Once a builder lays a foundation, he does not continue to add to it. Yet the RCC continues to add to its foundation (The Mormons do the same thing) with claims of apostolic succession, infallible papal pronouncements and evolving tradition. The council of Trent, which is a complete summary of RC doctrines mentions nothing about papal infallibility.
Paul speaks of no subordination, but rather he rebukes Peter publicly. In fact, Acts 4:13 tells us that Peter was unlearned, a commoner who possessed no official position or special abilities.
To show the meaning of Matt16:18 we need only to allow the apostles themselves to speak. Acts 4:11, 1 Cor 3:10,11 Eph 2:20-22, 1 Pe 2:4-8 all tell us that Christ alone is the rock. The apostles never spoke or wrote of anyone but Jesus Christ as the chief cornerstone on which the church would be built. Even OT believers looked to the Lord as the rock (Deut 32:4,31 2 Sam 22:3, 47, Ps 78:35) To build a church upon a man is blasphemy. Other have tried it and they are a cult who teach another gospel.
Peter was not qualified to lead the entire church. (Matt 16:23, 26:75 Gal 2:11-14)
Peter admits some of Paul’s writings are hard to understand and acknowledges Paul’s writings as scripture.
He held the same rank as many others 1 Pe 5:1-5.He said he too was a fellow elder.
He was an evangelist to the Jews around the areas of Jerusalem, not pope of Rome. (Gal 2:7,8)
Instead of issuing orders, he took orders (Acts 8:14)
He forbade anyone to kneel before him (Acts 10:26).
He was married (Matt 8:14,15)
Christ chose no man to take His place on earth, but the Holy Spirit (John 16:7-16)
J
jmcrae
Guest
If Christ didn’t want Apostolic authority to extend beyond their lifetime then why did He bother to establish it in the first place? Why not simply have all authority end at the moment of His ascension into Heaven, instead of having it linger on for another 60-70 years, and then vanish for all time? He need not have called any of the Disciples in the first place, if His plan was to have all members of His church to be equal with one another, having no authority to look to than their own understanding.
The most powerful King of all time said, “In the multitude of counsellors, there is wisdom.” That St. Paul rebuked St. Peter does not mean that St. Peter was not the Pope, any more than Nathan’s rebuke of David means that David was not the King of Israel.
Just as when the President says “My fellow Americans” it means that he holds no special authority over them … oh, wait; he’s the most powerful man in the free world …
Bishops do this sort of thing all the time - it’s part of their job. They get called to give the baptized the Sacrament of Confirmation - that is, to lay hands on them and pray for them to receive the Holy Spirit. St. Peter was called to do this for the Samarians because he had the authority to do it, unlike those who were calling him, who only had authority to baptize. That whole section (apart from the details concerning Simon Magus) is a perfect description of the Sacrament of Confirmation as it’s practiced in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church today.
As a god, no. The Pope also does not think himself to be a god. Also, I am not aware of anyone kneeling to the Pope in modern times, generally speaking.
Relevance?
The custom of having unmarried clergy didn’t arise until later.He’s not “taking Christ’s place.” He is transmitting the teachings of Christ, by means of the Church.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
No, you weren’t…yet. And what I actually said was, “I don’t consent to submitting my understanding of the gospel to you in order for you to determine whether or not it meets your approval.”
Not in so many words, of course.
It’s just classic evangelical-speak…“If you died tonight, do you know with certainty that you would go to heaven?”, etc., etc. That’s for unbelievers, of course. With believers of other denominations, you have to be more subtle. “Hey, brother, share your testimony with me…”, and then you get to evaluate whether his witness contains all the appropriate buzzwords that are part of your own denominational tradition.
As a Catholic, no matter what I say, it will probably be insufficient (even if the disagreement is simply over vocabulary) and will provide you with an opportunity to demonstrate that YOU have memorized the Four Spiritual Laws (or whatever), and that I need to get saved (in your estimation).
Been there. Done that.
Now, either we get back to your game of Twenty Questions, or we’re done.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I’ll deal with this misinterpretation first, then move on the the OTHER passages that Catholics use to prove. Gosh, talk about an embarassment of riches…
THIS time…I’m going to let the Protestant scholars whose names you may know and whose writings are in the books on your shelves PROVE YOU WRONG.
I have two dozen quotes to choose from…here are five for starters:
Protestant Scholars Agree: Peter is the Rock
W.F. Albright and C.S. Mann
“[Peter] is not a name, but an appellation and a play on words. There is no evidence of Peter or Kephas as a name before Christian times….Peter as Rock will be the foundation of the future community. Jesus, not quoting the Old Testament, here uses Aramaic, not Hebrew, and so uses the only Aramaic word that would serve his purpose. In view of the background of v. 19…one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as meaning the faith, or the messianic confession, of Peter. “To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter,” Albright says, “among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence. The interest in Peter’s failures and vacillations does not detract from this pre-eminence, rather it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure, his behavior would have been of far less consequence. Precisely because Peter is pre-eminent and is the foundation stone of the Church that his mistakes are in a sense so important, but his mistakes never correspond to his teachings as the Prince of the Apostles.” (The Anchor Bible; Matthew [Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1971], 195)
Peter as the Rock will be the foundation of the future community, the church. Jesus here uses Aramaic and so only the Aramaic word which would serve His purpose. In view of the background in verse 19, one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as the faith or the confession of Peter. (Ibid.)
Donald A. Carson (Baptist)
“On the basis of the distinction between ‘petros’ . . . and ‘petra’ . . . , many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Peter is a mere ‘stone,’ it is alleged; but Jesus himself is the ‘rock’ . . . Others adopt some other distinction . . . Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken ‘rock’ to be anything or anyone other than Peter. . . The Greek makes the distinction between ‘petros’ and ‘petra’ simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine ‘petra’ could not very well serve as a masculine name . . . Had Matthew wanted to say no more than that Peter was a stone in contrast with Jesus the Rock, the more common word would have been ‘lithos’ (‘stone’ of almost any size). Then there would have been no pun - and that is just the point! . . . In this passage Jesus is the builder of the church and it would be a strange mixture of metaphors that also sees him within the same clauses as its foundation . . .” (Expositor’s Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984], vol. 8: Matthew, Mark, Luke (Matthew: D.A. Carson), 368)
Oscar Cullman (Protestant Scholar)
“But what does Jesus mean when He says: ‘On this rock I will build my church’? The idea of the Reformers that He is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable in vew of the probably different setting of the story. For there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of ‘thou art rock’ and ‘on this rock I will build’ shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first. It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom he has given the name Rock. He appoints Peter, the impulsive, enthusiastic, but not persevering man in the circle, to be the foundation of His ecclesia [church]. To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected.” (Oscar Cullman, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, (ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich), [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1968], 6:108).
Donald Hagner (Contemporary Evangelical)
"The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny [that Peter is the rock] in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock . . . seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy" (Word Biblical Commentary 33b:470).
David Hill (Presbyterian)
“It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church…Attempts to interpret the ‘rock’ as something other than Peter in person (e.g., his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely.” (The Gospel of Matthew, New Century Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972], 261)
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Peter – The Rock and the Keeper of the Keys
"When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 16:13-19)
"When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 16:13-19)
- Peter’s understanding that Jesus was the Son of God did not come from working it out on his own. Instead, God the Father infused this revelation into Peter’s mind thus imprinting His seal of approval upon this humble fisherman. Jesus recognized that Simon had already been anointed by His Father in this way and declared, “Blessed are you.” The Father had blessed Simon with knowledge of the Son.
- Jesus gave him the name, “Kepha”, an Aramaic word that means “rock”. In the original, the passage would read, “You are kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church.” Jesus also announces the establishment of His Church, and clearly delineates Kepha as its leader. Although Jesus spoke Aramaic, the New Testament was written in Greek, and “Kepha” would have been translated into the Greek words for “rock” which are “petra” or “petros”. “Petra” is the feminine form of the masculine word, “petros”. Petros is more suitable for a man. Therefore, from “petros” we derive the English name, “Peter”. For us modern readers then, Jesus’ pronouncement reads, “You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church.” What is it about Peter’s character that caused Jesus to compare him to something as solid as rock? Isn’t this the same Peter who Jesus called “Satan” just a few verses later? (cf. Mt 16:23) Isn’t this the same Peter who would deny the Lord three times after his arrest? (cf. Lk 22:34) Surely this unstable character is anything but solid rock upon which a Church could be built; yet, Jesus sees something deeper in Peter’s character, and His choice would be vindicated when Peter ultimately received a martyr’s crown via crucifixion.
- The Church to be built was not of human origin. Jesus did not say, “You are Peter, and upon this rock you must build a church.” He said, “I will build my church.” Inaugurated by the Father, built by the Son and led by the Holy Spirit, the Church is a human institution of divine origin.
- For this reason, “the gates of Hell will not overcome” the Church, and for over 2,000 years the Church, lead by the Apostolic Successors of Peter, has faithfully borne witness to the gospel.
- Jesus gives to Peter “the keys of the kingdom of heaven”. This alludes to the prophecy of Isaiah that reads, "In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.” (Isaiah 22:22) In ancient times, a king might choose a second in command or prime minister who literally wore a large key as a symbol of his office and who spoke with the authority of the king. Jesus gives Peter the authority to speak in His name and extends his authority beyond the earthly realm when he gives Peter the “keys to the kingdom of heaven.”
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Gee, I don’t think so.
Peter’s Role as Vicar of Christ’s Church Proved from Scripture
In John 21:15-19, the resurrected Christ, commands Simon Peter three times to “feed my lambs” and “tend my sheep.”
15When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?” “Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed (bosko)* my* lambs.” 16Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me?” He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Take care of (poimanao) my sheep.” 17 The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.” Jesus said, "Feed (bosko)my sheep.
In this passage, we can see that Jesus leaves Peter in charge of feeding, tending and caring for His sheep. Who feeds, tends and cares for sheep? A shepherd!
Unfortunately, many non-Catholics object to the Catholic understanding that Peter was given this unique leadership position, and they cite a passage from earlier in this same Gospel wherein Jesus presents Himself as the Good Shepherd, and says there is to be but “one flock and one Shepherd.” (John 10:11-16) Therefore, the immediate question springs to mind: If Christ is the Good Shepherd, why can’t He “feed” and “tend” His own sheep?
Of course, Jesus is God, and He is clearly capable of taking care of His own flock – even after He ascends to heaven. So, why does He appoint Peter to this role? Obviously, all sheep belong to Christ, and they do not cease to belong to Jesus after the ascension. Yet, Peter is told to “feed” and “tend” them. Jesus commissions Peter to act as His “stand-in” or “vicar” after the ascension. Jesus will remain the one Shepherd, yet Peter will “feed” and “tend” the sheep, in the sense that Jesus will not be physically present to do it. Thus, Peter will be the visible, vicarious shepherd of the flock.
Because of the implications of this earthly authority and the unique Catholic claims for the papacy, non-Catholics seek alternative explanations for Jesus’ words. One attempt is to claim that Peter simply has the same authority to care for the flock of Christ that all of the other apostles had. However, this argument fails for two reasons.
First, the extent of the authority Jesus gave to Peter can be seen quite clearly in the original Greek. For example, the word which is used for “feed” in John 21 is bosko – a word which the Jewish historian Philo of Alexandria, and other 1st Century writers, use to denote “spiritual nourishment.” Similarly, the word “tend” is poimanao – the same Greek word which is translated as “rule” in passages such as Matt 2:6, Rev 2:27, Rev. 12:5, and Rev. 19:15, where it is applied to Jesus Himself. Peter, like Jesus, is to “rule” over the sheep, and to “supply them with spiritual nourishment.” Thus, Peter is established as the vicarious shepherd (i.e., “supreme pastor”) of the Church in Christ’s physical absence.
While it may be argued that any shepherd would have similar responsibilities for his sheep and that the Bible is full of passages using the relationship between sheep and shepherd as a metaphor for our relationship with God, in the context of the New Testament, only Peter received this unique appointment directly from Christ Himself. Jesus took great care to identify Peter’s new responsibility as head of the Church with His own role as Head of the Body, the Church. No other Apostle received this focus.
Second, in Luke’s Last Supper account, we see quite clearly that Peter was singled out to play the role of a leader and unifier among the Apostles. The passage is as follows:
Luke 22:31-32
“Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers. 33But he replied, “Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death.” 34Jesus answered, “I tell you, Peter, before the rooster crows today, you will deny three times that you know me.”
In Luke 22:31-32, Satan sought to destroy all of the Apostles, but Jesus prayed for Simon Peter alone that Peter might strengthen all of the other Apostles whose faith would be shaken, as well. Clearly, Peter is not merely “one Apostle among others.” Rather, he is also responsible for the welfare of all. That is a special ministry – the ministry of the vicarious shepherd. No other Apostle is given the responsibility for caring for the Twelve in this way, and this assignment is all the more significant when we consider that in the following verses (v. 33-34), Jesus predicts Peter’s three-fold denial. Despite Jesus’ foreknowledge of Peter’s denials, Jesus prays for and assigns to Peter the task of caring for the others.
In summary, we know that Jesus is the Good Shepherd and that there is one Shepherd and one flock (cf. John 10). Yet, in the passage from John 21, we can see that Jesus leaves Peter in charge of feeding, tending and caring for His sheep. Peter becomes the shepherd who will lead the flock after Jesus’ ascension. Therefore, while Jesus is forever our Good Shepherd reigning from heaven, He has made provision for us by naming someone else to stand in His place, to be His vicar, here on earth. The Vicar of Christ established by Jesus is the Pope of the Catholic Church.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Another Protestant classic. Here you go…
1 Peter 5:1 – Peter a “fellow elder”
Didja ever notice how Protestants try to minimize Peter by pointing to 1 Peter 5:1 where Peter calls himself a “fellow elder” and claiming that Peter was nothing special because he considers himself equal to all the other elders?
Is it possible that the fifth chapter of 1 Peter is all about humility, and that Peter is modeling the very behavior he is exhorting others to exhibit?
1 Peter 5:1-7
1To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed: 2Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; 3not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. 4And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away. 5Young men, in the same way be submissive to those who are older. All of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, because, "God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble." 6Humble yourselves, therefore, under God’s mighty hand, that he may lift you up in due time. 7Cast all your anxiety on him because he cares for you.
Do you think that maybe, just maybe, some of the recipients of this letter might have been moved by seeing that Peter of all people had humbled himself by calling himself a mere “fellow elder”? Might they have been inspired to practice some humility, also?
I understand that modern day Protestant preachers on TV like to blow their own horns, but this is not what Jesus instructed the Apostles to do:
Mark 9:33-35
33They came to Capernaum. When he was in the house, he asked them, “What were you arguing about on the road?” 34But they kept quiet because on the way they had argued about who was the greatest.
35Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, “If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all.”
Peter was first among the Apostles, and he viewed himself as the servant of all - a “fellow elder” - just as Jesus had taught him to do. Peter’s unwillingness to trumpet his own importance is evidence that he truly was “first” among the Twelve.
A new low in Protestant apologetics.
Celibacy is a discipline, not a doctrine.
See my explanation of John 21 above. Sheesh.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
So?
On Peter, Paul and Hypocrisy
In their effort to deny the primacy of Peter and the doctrine of papal infallibility, many non-Catholics point to Paul’s rebuke of Peter over the issue of eating with Gentiles as recorded in the Paul’s Letter to the Galatians.****
Galatians 2:11-14
11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. 14When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?
In this passage, we see that Paul opposed Peter for not practicing what he preached. Although Peter may have been wrong to draw back from eating with the Gentile believers, we must note that is apparently James, and not Peter, who was the leader of the “circumcision group” in Jerusalem. Thus, those who assert that it was James, and not Peter, who was the real leader of the Church must answer for this error. However, Peter’s actions do not constitute formal teaching, and the doctrine of infallibility does not apply to Peter’s private opinions or behavior. Therefore, this passage does nothing to disprove either Peter’s primacy or the doctrine of papal infallibility. Peter, like his successors, was not above reproach nor impeccable.
However, it must also be noted that Paul was not above taking prudent measures out of fear of those who held to the tradition of circumcision, either. One such measure is found in the following passage:
Acts 16:1-3
1He came to Derbe and then to Lystra, where a disciple named Timothy lived, whose mother was a Jewess and a believer, but whose father was a Greek. 2The brothers at Lystra and Iconium spoke well of him. 3Paul wanted to take him along on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.
Paul wrote that “circumcision means nothing” (1 Corinthians 7:19, Galatians 6:15). Moreover, in the same letter in which Paul accused Peter of hypocrisy and boasted of having opposed Peter to his face, he writes the following:
Galatians 5:2-3
2Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law.
Imagine how Timothy must have felt when he first heard these words. He had let himself be circumcised by the very man who condemned the practice. Was Christ of no value to Timothy at all as a result of being circumcised?
This was not the only time that Paul had acted out of fear of the Jews. Later in the book of Acts, we find the following:
Acts 21:17-26
17When we arrived at Jerusalem, the brothers received us warmly. 18The next day Paul and the rest of us went to see James, and all the elders were present. 19Paul greeted them and reported in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. 20When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. 21They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. 22What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, 23so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow. 24Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everybody will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law. 25As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.” 26The next day Paul took the men and purified himself along with them. Then he went to the temple to give notice of the date when the days of purification would end and the offering would be made for each of them.
Clearly, the brothers in Jerusalem were concerned that some harm might come to Paul from those who knew that Paul taught against circumcision. Paul agreed to purify himself according to Jewish customs and to pay the expenses of those who were purified along with him rather than openly admit that circumcision was of no value. Was this a wise course of action? Assuredly as subsequent events indicate.
However, it cannot be denied that Paul was preaching one thing (at least in private to Gentile Christians) while practicing another—the very thing he accused Peter of doing.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
That’s perfect…just what Jesus wanted.
[1 Corinthians 1:27](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Corinthians+1:27&version=NIV)
But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Hmmmm…really? Depends on your point of view, I suppose…
Galatians 1:18-19
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.
Why did Paul need to meet Peter?
Galatians 2:1-2
1Fourteen 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.
Paul went to Jerusalem to double-check his gospel with Peter in Jerusalem?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I think some clarification on the use of metaphors is needed here.
Many non-Catholics object to the idea that Peter was the rock upon which Jesus promised to build the Church, and they offer various alternative interpretations of the rock as being Jesus himself, Peter’s confession of faith, and the curious hybrid Peter and his confession. To support their denial of Jesus’ establishment of Peter as the head of the Church, non-Catholics frequently cite other scripture passages in which Jesus is called the “chief cornerstone” and the apostles collectively being described as foundation stones. These arguments are based upon a misunderstanding of the use of metaphors within the pages of scripture. Author Stephen Ray, himself a former Evangelical and convert to Catholicism, addressed this problem in his book, Upon This Rock:
“In this metaphorical description, Jesus himself could not be the foundation, because in this illustration he presents himself as the builder. The following is very important. In Scripture Jesus is variously depicted as the foundation (1 Cor. 3:11), the builder (Mt. 16:18), the cornerstone (Acts 4:11), and the temple itself (Rev. 21:22). We also see the apostles and/or believers as the foundation (Eph. 2:20, Rev. 21:14), the builders (1 Cor. 3:10), the stones, lithos, not petra (1 Pet. 2:5), the building (1 Cor. 3:9), and the temple (Eph. 2:21). Many illustrative are used to explain various aspects of the Church. One cannot simply substitute one descriptive figure of speech for another in any one illustration thereby mixing metaphors. It does great violence to the textual illustration itself and is a good example of roughshod “proof-texting”, wrongly “dividing the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15). The Bible does not set up a dichotomy—either Jesus or Peter; rather, it presents us with both Jesus and Peter as foundation stones. Jesus is establishing the man who will be the focal point of unity within the Church, the foundation. He who builds upon sand has a structure that crumbles (Mt. 7:24-27). Jesus builds his Church upon the rock of his choice, and, by his protection, the Church has stood the test of time. The powers of hell have failed to destroy or corrupt her” (Stephen Ray, Upon this Rock, [San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999], 36.)
In this same book, Ray also cites Protestant George Salmon, author of The Infallibility of the Church which he wrote to undermine the teachings of the Catholic Church. On the matter of metaphorical usage, Salmon wrote at length:
“It is undoubtedly the doctrine of Scripture that Christ is the only foundation [of the Church]: “other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 3:11). Yet we must remember that the same metaphor may be used to illustrate different truths, and so, according to circumstances, may have different significations. The same Paul who has called Christ the only foundation, tells his Ephesian converts (2:20):—“Ye are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone.” And in like manner we read (Rev. 21:14):—“The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them the names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb.” How is it that there can be no other foundation but Christ, and yet that the Apostles are spoken of as foundations? Plainly, because the metaphor is used with different applications. Christ alone is that foundation, from being joined to which the whole building of the Church derives its unity and stability, and gains strength to defy all the assaults of hell. But, in the same manner as any human institution is said to be founded by those men to whom it owes its origin, so we may call those men the foundation of the Church whom God honoured by using them as His instruments in the establishment of it; who were themselves laid as the first living stones in that holy temple, and on whom the other stones of that temple were laid; for it was on their testimony that others received the truth, so that our faith rests on theirs; and (humanly speaking) it is because they believed that we believe. So, again, in like manner, we are forbidden to call anyone on earth our Father, “for one is our Father which is in heaven.” And yet, in another sense, Paul did not scruple to call himself the spiritual father of those whom he had begotten in the Gospel. You see, then, that the fact that Christ is called the rock, and that on Him the Church is built, is no hindrance to Peter’s also being, in a different sense, called rock, and being said to be the foundation of the Church; so that I consider there is no ground for the fear entertained by some, in ancient and in modern times, that, by applying the words personally to Peter, we should infringe on the honour due to Christ alone.” (George Salmon, The Infallibility of the Church [London: John Murray, 1914], 338-339).
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Yankee-
Didn’t we do this dance once before?
You throw out a zillion anti-Catholic ideas in a single post, and I answer your points one at a time.
I am obviously reading your posts in order to help you, but do you even bother to read the responses?
I just gave you nine answers…enough to pray about for several months…
Maybe it’s time to stop typing and start reading good Catholic books.
Didn’t we do this dance once before?
You throw out a zillion anti-Catholic ideas in a single post, and I answer your points one at a time.
I am obviously reading your posts in order to help you, but do you even bother to read the responses?
I just gave you nine answers…enough to pray about for several months…
Maybe it’s time to stop typing and start reading good Catholic books.
P
Philthy
Guest
Hey Randy -
Thanks for all the strong work. Unfortunately the issue of failing to dialogue is not new…
Posts 186 and 187…
Thanks for all the strong work. Unfortunately the issue of failing to dialogue is not new…
Posts 186 and 187…
…You dont seem to be able to respond to anything that is offered to you in the way of rebuttal…are you hear to monologue or dialogue?
S
SPH1
Guest
But there is a difference in “electing” someone who you wish to serve in office and the actual conferring of the power.
Example: The US President may NOMINATE a candidate for a position, but the conferring of the POWER in the appointment comes from, say, the Senate or Congress. Or again, the Electoral College in elections: the people vote for who they wish, but the Electoral College confirms the choice…and the actual power to be President comes at the swearing in.
So, although someone might “elect” who they wish to serve as Bishop or Priest, the actual AUTHORITY comes via ordination…the laying on of hands.
S
SPH1
Guest
It is a fallacy for Protestants to use the various “Churches” mentioned in the NT as somehow promoting Protestantism and destroying Catholicism. The only way Protestantism can be found in the NT is if EACH CITY & TOWN had dozens of independent, autonomous Churches (house churches…parishes), often disagreeing with one another on pretty much anything and everything.
Take the Seven Churches of Revelation. Are we to believe that in all of Asia there literally were only 7 house churches? Not likely. Probably numerous “churches” in each city*. Yet the letter was written as if there were only one Church in each city. Christ himself, in Revelation, used the Diocesan model. A confirmation of Catholicism.
One thing the NT definitely does not support is the denominationalism of Protestantism, with numerous conflicting churches in the same town.
- We know that Rome had several “house Churches”. Without looking it up, St. Paul specifically mentions one house church in Rome, and by implication there were others. Yet only one Church at Rome.
- Status