Which Church??

[Chong]

Paul refers to Peter as Cephas in 1 Corinthians and Galatians and in several places. Also in John 1:42

The gospel indicates the Davidic line is passed spiritually and to the person of Jesus Christ who passed this spiritual blessing to Peter person and faith.

Initially, Peter was the leader as he speaks on behalf of the others on Pentecost, later he fades out.

Actually he is the leader of the Church and there are elders or Bishops in all the Churches.

Acts 11:30 - Elders at the church of Antioch.

Acts 14:23 -Paul and Barnabas appoint "elders in every church.

Acts 15:2, 4, 6, 22, 23; 16:4 - Elders at the church in Jerusalem.

Acts 20:17, 28 - Elders/bishops at the church of Ephesus.

Acts 21:18 - Elders at the church in Jerusalem.

Philippians 1:1 - Bishops in the church of Philippi.

Further in Matthew since obviously that is back in play Jesus builds the Church on Peter and gives [him alone] the Keys which I’m sure you’ll agree no-where and no-one else is given the Keys? Surely thats no small thing? And “after” 16:17 being Blessed by God.

John 21- Jesus entrusts His sheep to Peter.

Luke 22 Jesus tells Peter to strengthen his brothers.

Acts 1:15 to 26 Peter presides over the meeting that elected Mathias to replace Judas.

Acts 2:14 Peter preached the first public sermon (Pentecost)

Acts 3:6 Peter performs the first miracle after Pentecost

Acts 5:1-11 Peter inflicts the first punishment

Acts 10:9-16 Its revealed to Peter that the gentiles can be admitted to the Church.

Acts 10:44-48 Peter baptized the first gentiles

Matthew 10:2-4, Mark 16:19, Luke 6:14-16. Acts 1:13, Peter is first?

True.

James concurs with Peters ruling.

But James speaks last in Acts15:19 and his ruling becomes the moral code, and not Peter’s ruling. The letter that was written contained James words and not Peter’s words per se, though its based on Peter’s experience of gentiles receiving the Holy Spirit without being circumcised.

James is mentioned first here because he is the elder of the Church in Jerusalem. There is no other significance as the contrast is above with Peter.

Gal 2:11: But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. Gal 2:12: For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

James seems to have sent some Jews to Antioch and Peter know it. Peter’s behavior even negates the resolution of the Jerusalem council in that he showed partiality with the uncircumcised. If Peter was the HEAD by then, he should have showed a greater level of authority from the men sent by James. On the contrary he acted as if he feared a reprimand from his apparent ‘senior’.

All the Apostles had veto power, there’s nothing to that.

Amen, based on the OT scriptures and the teaching of Jesus.

 

[Randy_Carson]

**John 17:20-21
20 “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. **

Jon, Topper, et. al.,

Jesus prayed for all believers than we might be one just as He and the Father are one, and He tells us something very important about the purpose of this unity: our unity is or was to be a sign to the world that Jesus was sent by the Father.

When that unity is shattered by disagreement, heresy or open schism, the witness of Christianity is called into question, and souls may be lost who otherwise might have come to believe in our Savior.

I think we can all agree on this. But problem goes deeper and has multiple layers. Not only non-believers but even Christians of various denominations justify themselves on the basis of Church unity or lack thereof. For example, I have heard it said by some, 'I will come to believe in the Catholic Church when the Orthodox are re-united with it." And so, these folks pass the buck, so to speak, to someone else and refuse to take responsibility for their own actions.

Is there anyone one figure in the history of Christianity (at least in the West) who represents what division and disunity looks like more than the original Protestant, Martin Luther? Putting aside all questions of whether Luther was right or not, to this very day, his name evokes images of breaking with the past and starting something new because of disagreements with the established order.

And so, for those who continue to bear his name, our Lutheran brothers and sisters, one has to ask whether the very honoring of the man does not continue to perpetuate the very division against which Jesus prayed?

Could a Baptist, Calvinist or Anglican say, “Well, I will become a Catholic when the Lutherans - the namesake of the Father of Protestantism - are reunited with Rome?”

Reunion may occur when whole churches iron out their differences. But until those glorious days, individual believers have the responsibility for their own small participation in tearing down of the body of Christ.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, l got it. But what I don’t understand is how then did anyone at all know what was God’s word or the true gospel before the RC Church got around to authenticating everything. And did they have some automatic, no fail method like a divining rod or dowsing stick to pick from a hundred different books?

Firstly, would you mind not nesting your responses in my answers please? It makes it difficult to see your responses and to respond to them.

Now, to answer your question: the Church “knew what was God’s word or the true gospel” through…

SACRED TRADITION.

 

[JustaServant]

Well, in order to compare something to the Bible, you have to already have the Bible, right?

A question fundamentalists will not and cannot answer.

 

[zz912]

Both c and “C” were used for quite awhile.Small c did not disappear in second century. Everyone agrees the term came to separate gnostics, non christians from christians, not differing views within christians. The visible, and non visible distinction were or are much later paradigms/development dealing with the latter.

What differing views were these? Please be specific.

 

[zz912]

I get your point, but Jesus seems to be referring to another object and not Peter as a person when he says, “…on this rock I’ll build my church”.
The keys are given yes, but the church is to be built on a rock. The contention is what is this rock?

“You are Kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my church.”

No, it doesn’t seem like Jesus is referring to another object. The “rock” is the one He JUST renamed to “Rock”.

 

[zz912]

Peter’s character made him the de facto leader of the apostles.

No, Jesus appointing him as leader made him leader. Jesus giving Peter special, unique authority made him leader.

This is documented in various places where he influenced the others, and also talked on their behalf.

It’s documented that Peter exercised authority as Pope to do so.

However, as we read in Gal 2:9, the pillars of the apostolic church were 3, (James, Peter and John). James is mentioned first implying that he had a bigger role.

No, it doesn’t. ONE time Peter is listed after James. In EVERY OTHER REFERENCE, Peter is listed first among the Apostles. And Peter’s name appears more times than all the other Apostles COMBINED. You are REALLY grasping at one specific verse to justify your personal theology while ignoring all the verses that destroy your theology.

Peter wrote two letters. He has not mentioned that he was a key bearer, or say who would be his successor. On the contrary, he encourages the believers to endure suffering to to live holy lives as they had become born again in Christ.

How does that support your argument at all? Because Peter wrote less, that means he wasn’t the leader? I don’t see the logic in that. And why would Peter be required to include his claims of authority in every letter he writes? His authority wasn’t challenged (although it is now), so why would he waste time and space writing to support something no one questioned?

Paul, surprisingly wrote to his first successor Timothy, reminding him of his calling, and giving counsels. He also wrote to his 2nd successor Titus, giving him instructions of how he should carry out the ministry.

So you do acknowledge that authority in the Church is handed on by the bishops. Good for you to recognize this truth. Why do you not submit in obedience to the bishops?

 

[zz912]

That portion of inspired scripture is not Aramaic but Greek. The Greek differentiates between the two and effectively has been debated as to what is proper interpretation for almost two milennia.

Nope, just the last 500 years.

 

[zz912]

How can a book, or a series of books such as the bible, be self authenticating? If someone asks me how I know if the bible is the authentic word of God all I need to do is tell them that the bible tells us that it is authentic with no spurious books or information?

Funny, but that’s the same argument Muslims use for declaring the Koran is God’s word.

 

[zz912]

Yes, a new name Peter, a stone of ordinary size.
This scenario is detailed only in the book of Matthew. From then, Simon son of Jonah was referred to as Peter, or Cephas. At no one time do we see any reference to him as rock.

Ummmm, Cephas is a translation of Kepha, which MEANS rock. And Peter is a translation of Cephas.

So EVERY time you see him referenced as Cephas or Peter, that IS referencing him as rock.

 

[zz912]

Initially, Peter was the leader as he speaks on behalf of the others on Pentecost, later he fades out.

No he doesn’t. Acts merely records the travels of Paul and Luke in spreading the Gospel. Since Luke was with Paul, he could write more about those events. It doesn’t mean that Peter faded out. In fact, he later declares in his letter that Paul’s letters are Scripture. So it seems he is still exercising IMMENSE authority.

But James speaks last in Acts15:19 and his ruling becomes the moral code, and not Peter’s ruling. The letter that was written contained James words and not Peter’s words per se, though its based on Peter’s experience of gentiles receiving the Holy Spirit without being circumcised.

So you agree that James’ words a based upon the declaration of Peter. So James was espousing what Peter had declared.

Gal 2:11: But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. Gal 2:12: For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

James seems to have sent some Jews to Antioch and Peter know it. Peter’s behavior even negates the resolution of the Jerusalem council in that he showed partiality with the uncircumcised. If Peter was the HEAD by then, he should have showed a greater level of authority from the men sent by James. On the contrary he acted as if he feared a reprimand from his apparent ‘senior’.

Peter is concerned about winning over the men to Christ, and showing deference to them so they will not be upset. Peter acts in a manner he shouldn’t have, and was called out on it by Paul. It doesn’t mean that Peter was under their authority, or under the authority of James. And it doesn’t mean that Paul had more authority than Peter. Right now I can rightfully call out the Pope if he were to do something improper or sinful. That doesn’t mean that I am now his superior or that he has lost authority.

You are simply reading your personal theology into the text, and not actually reading what the text says.

 

[eazyduzit]

Firstly, would you mind not nesting your responses in my answers please? It makes it difficult to see your responses and to respond to them.

Now, to answer your question: the Church “knew what was God’s word orletl the true gospel” through…

SACRED TRADITION.

First, sorry about my clumsy posting. I’m traveling with only a small tablet. Everything is very frustrating. Wish I had a desktop.

OK I should have known Sacred Tradition would come up. It automatically puts all questions to rest. Just with its mention. Its power is unlimited. Its authority is absolute. Yada, yada, yada.
But just so I’ll feel better, could you reveal when it became a factor. Who started it? Is it about secret knowledge or what?

I know you might refer it back to Paul’s mention of tradition. But Paul was talking only about HIS tradition. How do I know that only his very specific tradition was precisely followed at all times. What guarantee do we have? Paul was very strict on this.

Help me start out on this.

 

[PRmerger]

First, sorry about my clumsy posting.

Not a problem.

However, there are numerous threads detailing how to post using the QUOTE features, so it might be helpful for you to review these.

OK I should have known Sacred Tradition would come up. It automatically puts all questions to rest. Just with its mention. Its power is unlimited. Its authority is absolute. Yada, yada, yada.

What if I replaced the above with Sacred Scripture. What would be your response?

That is: “Sacred Scripture automatically puts all questions to rest. Just with its mention. Its power is unlimited. Its authority is absolute. Yada, yada, yada”

But just so I’ll feel better, could you reveal when it became a factor. Who started it? Is it about secret knowledge or what?

It became “a factor” when Christ established His Church. Christ started it. The Apostles received it.

No, it is not about “secret knowledge or what”.

I know you might refer it back to Paul’s mention of tradition. But Paul was talking only about HIS tradition.

How is his tradition any different from the kerygma. Do you believe he was preaching a different gospel than what Christ revealed?

How do I know that only his very specific tradition was precisely followed at all times. What guarantee do we have?

Well, if you can’t believe that it was “followed at all times”, then you have to doubt that the Church got it right in discerning the 27 books of the NT.

Do you doubt that the Church got it right? Do you think perhaps 3 John isn’t actually the Word of God? You do know that the entire epistle mentions Jesus…not a single time. Not. A. Single. Time.

By that, do you believe 3 John ought to have been declared not inspired?

And the corollary to that: do you believe the the epistles of Clement are actually theopneustos and the Church got it wrong in rejecting his letter?

No? You believe the 27 book canon of the NT is correct?

Then you believe this because you trust in Sacred Tradition.

 

[eazyduzit]

No he doesn’t. Acts merely records the travels of Paul and Luke in spreading the Gospel. Since Luke was with Paul, he could write more about those events. It doesn’t mean that Peter faded out. In fact, he later declares in his letter that Paul’s letters are Scripture. So it seems he is still exercising IMMENSE authority.

So you agree that James’ words a based upon the declaration of Peter. So James was espousing what Peter had declared.

Peter is concerned about winning over the men to Christ, and showing deference to them so they will not be upset. Peter acts in a manner he shouldn’t have, and was called out on it by Paul. It doesn’t mean that Peter was under their authority, or under the authority of James. And it doesn’t mean that Paul had more authority than Peter. Right now I can rightfully call out the Pope if he were to do something improper or sinful. That doesn’t mean that I am now his superior or that he has lost authority.

You are simply reading your personal theology into the text, and not actually reading what the text says.

I’m going with Chong on this one, because he agrees with with what St. Peter said in 1Pt. 2:6, identifying Jesus as the Chief Cornerstone.

 

[joe371]

OK I should have known Sacred Tradition would come up. It automatically puts all questions to rest. Just with its mention. Its power is unlimited. Its authority is absolute. Yada, yada, yada.

I know you might refer it back to Paul’s mention of tradition. But Paul was talking only about HIS tradition. How do I know that only his very specific tradition was precisely followed at all times. What guarantee do we have? Paul was very strict on this.

Help me start out on this.

Every single Protestant church adheres to tradition, along with scripture, if in fact they embrace sola scriptura.

Which passage tells me that Paul was only talking about his tradition only?

2 Thessalonians 2:15: So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

2 Thessalonians 3:6:Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.

Would you agree that the truth of the Christian faith has been given primarily to the leaders of the Church beginning with the apostles via the guidance of the Holy Spirit who protects this teaching from corruption (John 14:25-26, 16:13), or was the truth of the Christian faith given to each and every baptised Christian.

 

[joe371]

I’m going with Chong on this one, because he agrees with with what St. Peter said in 1Pt. 2:6, identifying Jesus as the Chief Cornerstone.

All catholics agree with Chong when it comes to identifying Jesus as the Chief Cornerstone

 

[GaryTaylor]

ISt. Peter said in 1Pt. 2:6, identifying Jesus as the Chief Cornerstone.

You would be right as the verse is also in Isaiah 28:16

Therefore, thus says the Lord GOD:
See, I am laying a stone in Zion,
a stone that has been tested,
A precious cornerstone as a sure foundation;
whoever puts faith in it will not waver.

and…

[28:16] A stone in Zion: the true and sure foundation of salvation, i.e., the presence of God, who had chosen and founded Zion as his city (Ps 78:68–69; Is 14:32) and had chosen the Davidic dynasty to rule over his people (Ps 78:70–72; Is 9:1–6; 11:1–10). Cornerstone: the assurance of salvation, rejected by the people of Judah in the prophet’s time, is picked up in Ps 118:22 and later applied to Christ; cf. Mt 21:42; Lk 20:17; Acts 4:11; Rom 9:33; 1 Pt 2:7. Chapters 28–31 alternate between threats of the danger of rebelling against Assyria (with implied trust in Egypt) with assurances of the power and protection of the Lord. USCCB

So also from C-Answers…

1 Pet. 2:4-8) does not disprove that here Peter is the foundation. Christ is naturally the principal and, since he will be returning to heaven, the invisible foundation of the Church that he will establish; but Peter is named by him as the secondary and, because he and his successors will remain on earth, the visible foundation. Peter can be a foundation only because Christ is the cornerstone.

In fact, the New Testament contains five different metaphors for the foundation of the Church (Matt. 16:18, 1 Cor. 3:11, Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:5-6, Rev. 21:14). One cannot take a single metaphor from a single passage and use it to twist the plain meaning of other passages. Rather, one must respect and harmonize the different passages, for the Church can be described as having different foundations since the word foundation can be used in different senses.

 

[eazyduzit]

Not a problem.

However, there are numerous threads detailing how to post using the QUOTE features, so it might be helpful for you to review these.

What if I replaced the above with Sacred Scripture. What would be your response?

That is: “Sacred Scripture automatically puts all questions to rest. Just with its mention. Its power is unlimited. Its authority is absolute. Yada, yada, yada”

It became “a factor” when Christ established His Church. Christ started it. The Apostles received it.

No, it is not about “secret knowledge or what”.

How is his tradition any different from the kerygma. Do you believe he was preaching a different gospel than what Christ revealed?

Well, if you can’t believe that it was “followed at all times”, then you have to doubt that the Church got it right in discerning the 27 books of the NT.

Do you doubt that the Church got it right? Do you think perhaps 3 John isn’t actually the Word of God? You do know that the entire epistle mentions Jesus…not a single time. Not. A. Single. Time.

By that, do you believe 3 John ought to have been declared not inspired?

And the corollary to that: do you believe the the epistles of Clement are actually theopneustos and the Church got it wrong in rejecting his letter?

No? You believe the 27 book canon of the NT is correct?

Then you believe this because you trust in Sacred Tradition.

I think you have a slight misunderstanding of what sacred scripture is. Clement could definitely have been inspired when he wrote. But the Bible claims its very words are God-breathed. That’s what makes them the Logos of God. Clement may have been inspired, but that doesn’t make his words the Logos.

 

[joe371]

I’m going with Chong on this one, because he agrees with with what St. Peter said in 1Pt. 2:6, identifying Jesus as the Chief Cornerstone.

Yes, the Pope is a sinner and confesses his sins to Jesus.

 

[PRmerger]

I think you have a slight misunderstanding of what sacred scripture is. Clement could definitely have been inspired when he wrote. But the Bible claims its very words are God-breathed. That’s what makes them the Logos of God. Clement may have been inspired, but that doesn’t make his words the Logos.

Yes. Whenever we talk of inspiration, as it applies to this discussion, we mean theopneustos.

So, again, the ONLY way you know that 1 Clement is not theopneustos is because…

you submit to the authority of the CC which discerned that it was NOT inspired.