Matthew 16
v. 13) When Jesus came into the coasts
of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His Disciples, saying, “Whom do men say that I
the Son of Man am?”
v. 14) And they said, “Some say that you
are John the Baptist: some, Elijah; and others, Jeremiah, or one of the
Prophets.”
v. 15) He said unto them, “But whom say
you that I am?”
v. 16) And Simon Peter answered and
said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.”
v. 17) And Jesus answered and said unto
him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood have not revealed it
unto you, but My Father which is in Heaven.”
v. 18) And I say also unto you, “That
you are Peter and upon this rock I will build My Church; and the gates of Hell
shall not prevail against it.”
v. 19) “And I will give unto you the
keys of the Kingdom of Heaven: and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be
bound in Heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in
Heaven.”
Introduction
This article is the second in
this series, and it’s topic is not a new one.
This debate has been raging for centuries, and many gallons of ink have
been spilled in defending the arguments on both sides, Catholic and
non-Catholic alike. But we would like to
examine the Catholic view of this passage and offer some food for thought on
this topic.
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
“The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the
‘rock’ of his Church. He gave him the
keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock…” [directly referring here to Matthew 16:18]. (CCC #881)
“The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, is
the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the
bishops and of the whole company of the faithful. For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his
office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full,
supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always
exercise unhindered.” (CCC #882)
The Catholic Church claims
that Peter alone is the rock upon
whom Jesus built His church. And from
that “foundation” grows this giant structure which is known today as the
Catholic Church, with Peter as its Supreme Pontiff (pope), whose successors
will enjoy the gift of infallibility and “universal power” over the whole
church, and will each be known as the “Vicar of Christ.” He will be headquartered in Rome, with his
multi-layered hierarchy of priests, monsignors, bishops, archbishops, cardinals,
and popes, not to mention other sub-categories, e.g., nuns, monks, abbots, etc. All this mostly arises out of an eisegesis of the passage above. Eisegesis is reading something into the passage rather than allowing
the text to speak for itself.
So, let’s analyze the passage
in question.
“Petros” and “Petra”
There are two important Greek
words in Matthew 16:18 relevant to this topic, “petros” and
“petra.” Jesus stated, “You
are Peter [“petros”] and upon this rock [“petra”] I will build My church.” According to Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance
(Complete and Unabridged), “petros” (Strong’s #4074) means “piece of
rock.” On the other hand, “petra”
(Strong’s #4073), means “mass of rock.” So,
we immediately see that there is a distinction between these two words. And, by the way, Strong is not the only
scholar who makes such a distinction.
See here:
Yes, Peter’s name means “rock”
(actually, “piece of rock”) and he was indeed, in a sense, a rock. We’re not denying that. But it’s like saying that a man’s son is “a
chip off the old block” when he resembles his dad. In the same way, Peter resembles Jesus (in purpose
and behavior) and is therefore named Peter (“petros”). In other words, it is simply a play on words,
where Peter is a representative of Jesus.
Just as there is a resemblance between Jesus and Peter, there is a
resemblance between “petra” and “petros,” but again, “petros” and “petra” are
two different words with similar, but distinct, meanings.
But Catholics are trying
their best to say that Peter alone (CCC #881) is the “petra,” the rock and foundation
upon which the church is built. Was
Jesus really saying that only Peter is the foundation of the church (along with
all the “hierarchy” and “infallibility” attachments) or did He mean something
else?
Matthew 16:16-18
Let’s look at it more
closely. In v. 16, Peter makes an
extremely important statement, confessing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of
the Living God. Ok, now notice the tiny
word, “it” in v. 17: “flesh
and blood has not revealed IT unto
you,” referring to what Peter said in v. 16. In v. 18, Jesus points to this same “it” when
He says, “Upon THIS rock.”
These two tiny words (“it” and “this”), we believe, are the key
to this whole argument. “It” (v. 17) and
“this” (v. 18) are pointing to the same thing.
They are pointing to Peter’s statement of who Jesus is. THAT is what the church of Jesus Christ is
built upon – the revelation that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, the Christ. He is the object
and focus of the good news (the
gospel) of salvation. So, it is that
truth, that revelation of Peter’s statement about Jesus, or better yet, Jesus Himself, that is the foundational Rock,
not Peter. We’re not trying to take
anything away from Peter, but we want to be faithful and accurate with God’s Word.
If God intended to identify Peter as the rock, then why doesn’t the
inspired Greek text say, “You are Peter and upon you I will build My church”?
This would have removed all doubt.
If Peter is the intended foundation, then why would Jesus use two different words in the Greek (“petros”
and “petra”) with two different meanings?
Again, this a play on words and God intended to distinguish the two from each other. Related, but not the same.
The Gender Argument
But Catholics will say that
“petros” is masculine and it wouldn’t
be right to call Peter a feminine name like “petra.” Yes, “petros” is masculine, but this gender
argument doesn’t hold water, because the feminine “petra” is also used in other verses (Romans
9:33; 1 Corinthians 10:4; 1 Peter 2:8 – see below) in describing Jesus Himself (certainly a male).
But the inspired author could have easily avoided any “gender issues” by
simply saying, “You are petros and upon this petros I will build My
church.” Problem solved. But no, the inspired Greek doesn’t say
this. So, this “gender objection” falls
flat.
Consistency in Scripture
“Petra” refers to Jesus here
in Matthew
16:18 just as much as it refers to Jesus here:
“As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion
a stumblingstone and rock [“petra”] of offence: and whosoever believeth on him
shall not be ashamed.” (Romans 9:33)
And here:
“And did all drink the same spiritual drink:
for they drank of that spiritual Rock [“petra”] that followed them: and that
Rock [“petra”] was Christ.” (1 Corinthians 10:4)
And also here:
“And a stone of stumbling, and a rock
[“petra”] of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being
disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.” (1 Peter 2:8)
Notice who is speaking in this
last verse. This was written by
Peter. Of all people, Peter himself would have known if he was
the “rock,” the foundation of the church.
If Peter really did have a “special office,” different than, and above
all the other apostles, then why doesn’t anything in Peter’s epistles reflect
that idea? In fact, we see equality with the other apostles there,
instead (1 Peter 5:1).
The Phantom Aramaic
But Catholics will say that
Jesus spoke Aramaic, and that the book of Matthew was actually first written in
Aramaic, not Greek. They tell us the
Aramaic word for rock is “Kepha” (or “Cephas,” which is the name Jesus earlier gave
to Peter – John 1:42). Supposedly,
the Aramaic uses the same word for “Peter” and for “rock.” They say that this verse in Aramaic would read,
“You are Kepha, and upon this Kepha I will build My church.” So Catholics believe that this proves that
the apostle Peter and “the foundational rock” are one and the same.
But this is a very weak
argument, since we don’t have any
manuscript copies of Matthew in Aramaic.
Why would the Catholic Church refer to something that doesn’t even exist? This is pure speculation and it only shows
the weakness of their argument.
Besides, in John
1:42, when Jesus said, “Thou art Simon
the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, a
stone [petros],” we can see that the
Aramaic “Cephas” is translated into the Greek “petros” anyway, not “petra.” In Scripture, the two terms (“petra” and
“petros”) are never used interchangeably.
The bottom line here is that the inspired language that God used for the
New Testament is Greek. And Greek is a very specific language… which distinguishes between “petros” and “petra.” So, this argument also fails.
Thrones and Foundations
And if Peter really did have
primacy over all the other apostles, then why is this not mentioned or implied
in Matthew
19:27-28, or Luke 22:29-30, where Jesus tells the apostles that they will
sit on twelve thrones? In both cases,
Jesus had opportunity to make Peter’s status over all the others clear, but He mentions nothing of the sort. Nothing is said about Peter’s throne being
special, or different than any of the others.
Again, in Revelation 21:14, the walls of the city of New Jerusalem have
twelve (seemingly equal) foundations with the apostles’ names on them, but it
never implies that Peter’s foundation would be special or stand out in any way
above the foundation of the other apostles.
Strange, if Matthew 16 were implying otherwise.
An Argument Settled
In Luke 9:46-48, the
disciples are arguing about who is the greatest among them. It is interesting that in this same chapter,
just a few verses earlier (Luke 9:18-21), we have the parallel
passage to Matthew 16, where Peter is supposedly made the “rock.”
But when the disciples
started arguing here (v. 46), Jesus didn’t say, “Hey guys,
we’ve just gone through this already! I
just told Peter that HE was the rock, that HE was the greatest among you! Why are you arguing about this. Have you already forgotten?” No, Jesus says nothing at all like this. He simply points out their need for humility
(v.
47-48). This clearly
demonstrates that there was no apostle who was above all the other apostles.
Papal Claims
The papacy’s extraordinary
claims require extraordinary proof. The
Catholic Church would need far more than this eisegesis of Matthew 16 to prove anything
like a papacy, with all its accompanying (unbiblical) attachments. Peter was indeed one of the leaders of the
apostolic circle and he even was a “rock,” but he didn’t have the office or the
type of primacy that the Catholic Church gives him.
Ephesians 2:20 would have been an excellent place for Paul to point
out Peter’s primacy over all the others.
But instead of mentioning Peter only, Paul speaks of apostles (plural)
and prophets (plural) as being the foundation of the church.
The reason that they were the
foundation is because they were the first to receive the message of the
gospel. They were the pioneers of the
foundational revelation given to the church, and this is the message of
salvation through Jesus Christ alone, who is THE Rock. Neither this passage nor any other in
Scripture singles Peter out as a separate foundation.
Emphasis on Peter?
So, the emphasis in Matthew
16 is NOT on Peter. Jesus said, “Whom
do men say that I the Son of Man am?”
He didn’t ask, “Hey Peter, whom do men say that YOU are?” Just because Peter grasped the revelation of
who Jesus was, doesn’t make him a pope.
And it’s not like Jesus’
question about His identity (just above) was a test for all the apostles, and
only Peter got the answer right. That’s
not likely. It wasn’t that none of them
except Peter knew the correct answer, it’s just that Peter would often speak first.
He was impetuous, that is, he would often act or speak quickly, without
first thinking things through - sometimes with good results, and sometimes with
bad - for example, Matthew 14:25-31; 16:21-23; 17:1-5; 26:33-35; John
13:6-9; 18:10-11; 21:5-7. But that
was Peter’s nature.
And for the record, pointing
out special things that Peter did also does not
demonstrate a papacy. We could just as
well point out the many special things that the apostle Paul did, but no one is
claiming that he’s a pope.
Conclusion
The issue is not whether
Peter is some type of “rock” or some kind of “foundation.” Protestants already believe that both can be
applied to him. But the real question is
this: Can you biblically demonstrate
that Peter is above or greater than all
the other apostles, as the Catholic Church insists? We firmly believe that the answer is no.
But even if it could be proven beyond
a doubt that Peter is the “petra” in Matthew 16, the foundation upon which
the church is built, it is STILL not Peter
apart from the other apostles. You
can say that Peter is a rock in some way, but you cannot biblically isolate
Peter, as a foundation, from the rest
of the apostles (Ephesians 2:20; Revelation 21:14).
Once again, Catholics are
reading way too much into this passage.
Matthew 16 is simply about our Lord building, heading and sustaining His
church, as Christians proclaim the good news of salvation (the gospel of Jesus
Christ) and set people free through knowing Him and trusting in His work on the
cross.
We will continue with this
series next month.
Interesting approach.
ReplyDeleteDid you notice in Matt 16 that Christ begins with a blessing to Peter? "Blessed are you Simon bar Jona, flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father in Heaven"? While your statement that Peter answered first because he was impetuous may have some bearing on Peter's personality and character flaws, the real impetus for Peter's statement is that he was inspired by God the Father. Have you wondered why this was - and, that Christ publicly pointed this out to everyone present?
Out of all 12 Apostles, God the Father chose Peter to make the announcement. Simply ignoring this part of the inspired Word of God falls short in your argument.
But, one of the biggest problems with the 'Solo Scriptura' approach is that each person can interpret Scripture as he is so inclined. Scripture is difficult to interpret correctly - and, this in no small measure accounts for there being thousands of religious groups, all claiming to be Christian, and claiming to correctly interpret Scripture - and all contradicting one another on what a passage means. They all can not be right because there is no group with which all agree. The only item that they do agree upon is that the Catholic Church is wrong. Truly, this multiplicity of interpretations is chaos - and not a reflection of the Truth being One.
Finally, Protestants will soon be celebrating Martin Luther's break with the Catholic Church 500 years ago. The Catholic Church was 1,500 years old at the time of Luther's break - and the papacy can be traced back to Peter. And,it should not be forgotten that Luther ultamately accepted the entire New Testament from the Catholic Church. From a historical stand-point, it was the Catholic Church that established the Canon of Scripture - not Luther, it was the Catholic Church that presented formal leadership in continuing the position of the Apostles and their successors, the Bishops to govern Christ's Church, it was the Catholic Church who clearly demonstrated that even publicly corrupt and openly sinful men being made Pope could not destroy Christ's Church. While it would be hoped that the Pope would be an example of Christ's virtues - it is the Holy Spirit, and not a mere man, that is entrusted with the guiding Christ's Church to its Harbor in Heaven.
God bless
Tom from LA
Hello Tom in LA,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comment.
Out of curiosity, does the LA stand for Los Angeles or Louisiana? The reason I’m asking is because I’m from Louisiana, that’s all.
Anyway, Tom, you made several interesting points. You asked if I noticed that this whole discussion in Matthew 16 started with a blessing to Peter (v. 17). Actually, the context here starts in v. 13, as I pointed out in the article above where Jesus says, “Whom do men say that I the Son of Man am?” THIS is what this passage is all about, Jesus Christ and His gospel. If this is mainly about Peter, why didn’t Jesus say, “Peter, whom do men say that YOU are?”
And yes, I agree that Peter was indeed inspired when he said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God” (v. 16). No problem there. But we can’t assume that Peter was the ONLY one who knew the answer to Jesus’ question. As I said in the article, he was often quick to answer; sometimes to his benefit, sometimes not. This time, it happened to be good. I believe your point was that “the real impetus for Peter's statement is that he was inspired by God the Father,” here. But immediately after this, Peter puts his foot in his mouth when he questions Jesus’ statement about His suffering and dying (v. 21-23). Was this, too, inspired by God? You see, Tom, you can’t be selective in pointing out just the good things Peter did here and then insist that this is all about Peter and his role. We are not ignoring Peter here, but it is outright eisegesis to read anything like a Catholic papacy into this context.
You brought up the “problems” with “Solo Scriptura” (we actually believe in Sola Scriptura). Tom, I don’t know if you are familiar with this blog, but we have many articles on Sola Scriptura here, from which you can understand our position. Please feel free to check them out. Hopefully, they can erase some of the confusion you and others may have. You can start here:
http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2013/03/quick-notes-on-sola-scriptura-part-1.html
Concerning divisions caused by Sola Scriptura, please see here:
http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2010/12/sola-scriptura-and-divisions.html
You also mentioned that the papacy traces back to Peter, but I encourage you to see one of our articles here on Apostolic Succession:
http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2009/12/apostolic-succession.html
You also mentioned that Luther accepted that the entire New Testament was given to us by the Catholic Church. Luther should not be idolized by anyone, since he made his share of mistakes. But see this article on whether the Catholic Church gave us the Bible:
http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/search?q=did+the+catholic+church+give+us+the+Bible
Tom, it is not my intention to just throw a bunch of links at you, but you represent a very common group of Catholics along with their questions. I simply share these links to avoid having to answer the same questions being presented over and over by many different people.
Tom, although we disagree, I really do appreciate your questions and comments. It is good to get to understand one another. I am not personally offended by anything you said, but I think that it is important to address these issues. Please feel free to ask any more questions, or ask for clarification, if needed. And if something I said was inaccurate, please correct me. I am certainly fallible, and not above criticism; we all have things to work on. But, to let you know the truth, I really do care about Catholics. That’s why this blog exists. Thanks again, Tom.
In His Name,
Russell
We are able to answer on Peter 's primacy without even Mentioning Matthew 16:13-19.
ReplyDeleteBefore i go on, no one else knew the Answer but Peter alone because it was revealed direct to him by God it was not guesework and this inspiration was not for every circumstance that he speak.
1. John 21:15-19, Christ the Good Shepherd leaves His Sheep in the Care of Simon, which included as well the other Apostles.
2. Luke 22:30-31, Our Lord prayed for Simon only(not all the apostles) that his faith may not fail but that when returns HE SHOULD STRENGTHEN his breathren. It looks clear even from reading the Acts of the Apostles that Peter had his primacy
3. Matthew 17:24-27 those who received tribute money came directly to Peter and not any other Apostle. This was a tribute for the leader onlybut Jesus tells Peter to pay it for Jesus and for Peter
Greetings Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, you claimed that “no one else knew the Answer but Peter alone,” referring to Matthew 16:13-19. But do you have evidence for this assertion?
You said that Catholics are able to defend Peter’s primacy (and by extension, the papacy) without even mentioning Matthew 16. And you gave these passages as proof: John 21:15-19, Luke 22:30-31, and Matthew 17:24-27.
Starting with John 21:15-19, this was simply Jesus extracting from Peter a three-fold confession of faith to “offset” Peter’s three-fold denial of Him. The only reason this was specifically to Peter is because of his SHORTCOMINGS, not because of his greatness as a pope. “Feed My sheep / lambs” applies to EVERY pastor of the church, not just Peter.
Concerning Luke 22:30-32, Jesus prays for Peter because He KNEW BEFOREHAND that Peter would mess up. And the reason that Peter could strengthen his brethren was because when the other apostles would see how badly Peter failed, and how that even he (Peter) could be forgiven after his tragic denial, then the others could see the great mercy of God and be encouraged. This passage is not about the greatness of Peter.
Now, Matthew 17:24-27 proves nothing but the desperation with which Catholics have to try and prove the papacy. Again, as I demonstrated in the article, the apostles knew nothing of a primacy of Peter over all the others, else why would they be arguing about who is the greatest? (Luke 9:46-48)
Yes, Peter was certainly a leader in the early church, but there is no biblical proof that he was above all the others.
If these passages that you offered (together with Matthew 16) are among the best of the “biblical evidence” of the doctrine of the papacy, then that doctrine is in serious trouble.
Greetings Russel
Deletethe proof is there, it was given to him direct from the Father, and Jesus actually calls him blessed after that showing that among the 12 only he could give the answer through the power of the Holy Spirit.
Perhaps first of all may you kindly explain why do you think that it "was simply Jesus extracting from Peter a three-fold confession of faith to “offset” Peter’s three-fold denial of Him."i am yet to hear the real proof that it was merely an extraction of faith. Secondly Peter was not the only one who had their defects, e.g. all the disciples run away upon Jesus 's arrest so Jesus would have to do this for everyone. thirdly its very clear that Peter was the only one who received direct from Our Lord the command Feed my lambs, Shepherd and feed my Sheep, can you please just highlight another whom Jesus Personally did say that to? why does the question from Jesus include a comparance with the other disciples "do you love me more than these"
on Luke:30-32 he actually knew that ALL would one way or the other mess up thats why He says "31 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:
32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren."
its clear that Satan desired all of them but Jesus only prayed for Peter firstly that his faith wont fail and secondly that strengthen(verb). Jesus did not intend to use Peter as an example here, read well Jesus says "strengthen thy brethren". reading John 21:15-19 and Luke 22:31-32, your interpretation of extracting a confession of faith does not add up because Jesus had already prayed for Peter that his faith does fail and Jesus already knew it would not fail.
on Matthew 17:24-27, can you tell why the tax collectors went to Peter rather all the other Apostles? Can you tell me why Jesus would pay Peter and Himself only excluding other apostles?
Deletethe way the other Apostles would write the Gospels shows that they knew of the Primacy of Peter.
One of the Ones that I like is where it Calls Peter the First Apostle….
And I can not find anywhere where in the Bible where Peter is the First
Apostle…except in 99% of the list naming the apostles to account for why he is
called the first.
He was In all Probability the 5th Apostle to be called by Jesus and at Best the
third to Join Jesus the first 2 in probability B eing James and John..the next 2 in
Actuality being originally Disciples of John the Baptist. One of which was
Andrew, Peters Brother. Who went to Peter later…
So FIRST in order doesn't apply to Peter…which means Him Being called the
First apostle BY the apostles and authors of scripture MUST indicate a different
meaning
Could it mean a Position of Leadership as in the second to Jesus the leader of
Jesus followers??
reading from Acts 1 to 15 alone shows that he was the leader, when all the apostles are around he was the one who spoke for the rest. His name appears more often than all the apostles combined in the NT.
Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this
rock I will build my church; an d the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
According to the Protestant thinking, Jesus says I tell you are Peter, and
then turns around and points himself and says on this rock. Why did He had
to say i tell you, you are Peter if the next sentence is not related to Peter?
If you to read very well you will notice that from the moment Jesus says
thou art Peter, all the things that follow are attributed to Peter .
The most common objection is that Jesus is the rock so Peter cannot be
called rock. Yes its true Jesus is THE rock but the rock that Peter is was
given to him by Jesus. Jesus is God and can give to whoever he wishes even those attributes relating to Him alone. Look into the people who were
changed names by God. The easiest example is Abram to Abraham,
because he was to be the Father of all Nations. Yet here protestants they
just say he was told that you are Peter and it does not have any
relationship to what was going to be said afterwards .
The Keys
Matthew 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of
heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven:
and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
This relates well with Isaiah 22:20-22.
Isaiah 22:20 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant
The Keys
DeleteMatthew 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of
heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven:
and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
This relates well with Isaiah 22:20-22.
Isaiah 22:20 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant
Eliakim the son of Hilkiah: 22:21 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. 22:22 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.
Jesus was alluding to that verse when He was giving keys to Peter and note
in Isaiah 22, it talks of a government, which means the keys had a
relationship with legislative authority.
Hello Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I would have to say that I agree completely with Russell on issues like these. All you really did was gloss over his arguments by repeating yourself. In fact, you did absolutely nothing to refute anything he said and made several irrelevant statements. So why did you post your comments in the manner that you chose?
Paul instructed ALL bishops to "feed the sheep" (Acts 20:28). The Apostle Peter placed himself at the same level of authority as every other bishop in the church, told them not to lord it over God's heritage, and emphatically stated that all are commissioned to feed the flock (1 Peter 5:1-5).
You also argued for papal primacy by stating that Peter is always listed first among the apostles. In the alphabet, a comes before b and so on. One comes before two and so on. In a case like this, you cannot deduce that any of the figures in the above demonstration are higher or lower in authority. In other words, a logical sequence does not necessarily prove superior authority. James is listed first in Galatians 2:8-9.
Acts 1 through 15 only demonstrates that Peter was a prominent leader, as Russell ALREADY stated earlier. But what about Acts 1:23-26? Peter was not in charge of that decision of church government. What about Acts 8:14? James was the leader in Acts 15 and he quoted Scripture. the essential components of papal supremacy are totally absent from the pages of Scripture. In fact, there is not even a hint of an infallible one-head bishop structure in the entire New Testament.
The "keys" are simply the authority to proclaim the gospel of salvation to the world (Acts 14:27; Romans 1:16). And we have ALL been given the authority to preach the Truth (1 Peter 2:5-9).
You need to actually PROVE that the keys in Matthew 16 and Isaiah 22 are related to each other or identical because both events are two different contexts. Notice that the first passages says "keys", whereas the second says "key". There is clearly a distinction. Jesus has that "key" today (revelation 3:7).
We are not to think of men above the authority of Scripture, as your church does (1 Corinthians 4:6). We are to compare all the teachings of our church leaders to the Bible (Acts 17:10-12). It is the ONLY safe method of determining truth in a time of deception (Luke 1:1-4). This is the NORM throughout the Scriptures. They are thus the final, sufficient authority for the church today (John 20:30-31; 2 Timothy 3:15-17).
Jesse
You accused me of glossing over and then you went on and glossed over all my questions, not refuting anything at all.
DeleteFirst of all, you conveniently quoted Acts 1:23-26 instead of quoting from verse 15 when the issue begins it is Peter who decided that Judas should be replaced.
Acts 15 again it Verse 7, Peter rose up and said something and after he talked they were silent. If you read well Peter had already decided the matter that Gentiles were not to be forced to do what Jews were required to do, And James starts with the following words
Acts 15:14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
This means whatever James said afterwards where conclusions from Peter‘s declaration and gave his judgement according to Peter‘s Declaration.
What are the essential components that you are claiming that they are absent there?
About Peter being the First Apostle, you just glossed over the question and did not address the question at all.
James was listed first in Galatians 2:8-9 because that was the norm that the bishop of one area is listed first then someone else.
“The "keys" are simply the authority to proclaim the gospel of salvation to the world (Acts 14:27; Romans 1:16). And we have ALL been given the authority to preach the Truth (1 Peter 2:5-9).”
I agree with you In Acts 14:27 what they simply did was to open a door which was not locked because Peter had unlocked the doors for the gentiles read earlier chapters.
After Jesus said i will give to you the keys, he then said, Matthew 16:19 and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Which is legislative authority, he could bind and he could loose, so where are you relating the keys which can bind and loose to just preaching the Gospel? The Bible says whatsoever you shall bind and whatsoever you shall loose, that’s not limiting to preaching only that’s inclusive of legislative power.
Who said that men have Authority above scripture? Having binding and loosing powers is it being above scriptures?
In Rev 3:7 it is said the Key of David and go and read Isaiah 22, its the kingdom of David. Jesus his Kingship is in the line of David and thats the same Kingdom He established in Matthew 16. All the passages has something to do with binding and loosing or shutting and opening . I do not know where you are getting confused there. Using you own interpretation, “Notice that the first passages says "keys", whereas the second says "key". There is clearly a distinction. Jesus has that "key" today (revelation 3:7).” Does it mean the keys given to Peter are different to the one Jesus has because in Rev 3:7 it says key not keys? You are missing the point here, all these passages show what the key(s) represents legislative power, that is how they are related.
All the teachings of the Church leaders are to be compared to the Word of God, not the Bible which is only a part of the Word of God(written Word). So its both written Word and Oral Word.
1 Timothy 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
The pillar and bulwark of Truth is the Church not Bible.
It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to the perfect apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.
Delete2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels.
THIS IS HOW TRUTH IS KNOWN FROM ERROR ACCORDING TO THOSE FROM THE EARLY CHURCH NOT THE NEW METHOD YOU ARE PROPOSING TO US 2000 YEARS LATER
Jesse,
ReplyDeleteWell said! I especially like your statement that the keys are simply the authority to proclaim the gospel of salvation to the world. This is the WHOLE POINT of this series of articles!
Thanks
Hello Anonymous,
ReplyDelete(Part 1 of 2)
Concerning your two comments on September 29, we had pretty much already covered the majority of what you said there. But there were a few things that were new, which I will address now.
You asked me to explain Peter’s three-fold confession to offset his three-fold denial. This should be so obvious to even the new Christian who studies the Word of God. It is absolutely undeniable that Peter denied knowing Jesus three times. And three times, back to back, Jesus is extracting from him a confession of repentance, faith and restoration. I think anyone can connect the dots here, if he wants to be honest.
You mentioned that all the other apostles also ran away and deserted Jesus, and asked me why didn’t Jesus have to ask them ALL the same thing He asked of Peter? Because Peter, after bragging that he would never deny Jesus, went on to deny Him THREE TIMES… none of the others did this. THAT’S why Jesus confronted Peter (your “pope”) with these questions. As I said earlier, these three questions from Jesus are not about Peter’s GREATNESS, but his need for forgiveness and restoration as a pastor of the flock.
Ok, concerning calling Peter “the first,” we don’t have an issue with seeing Peter as one of the leaders among the apostles, as I clearly stated earlier, both in the article itself and in this “comments” section. He was indeed in the “inner circle.” He was a leader of sorts within the group, a “first among equals.” But this is a far cry from the Catholic expression of a papacy. The Catholic papacy is just not a biblical concept.
You said that Peter’s name appears more than all the other apostles’ names. That’s really nit-picking and shows a lack of real evidence for the papacy. Consider that Paul is mentioned in the New Testament just as many times as Peter (maybe more), and furthermore, he wrote two-thirds of the New Testament, as opposed to Peter’s two books! If it were the other way around and Peter had written most of the New Testament, Catholics would certainly be pointing to THAT as evidence of the papacy! But does that make PAUL a pope? Of course not. He also did many, many great things for the gospel of Jesus Christ, probably more things than Peter did! In fact, he even publicly confronted and rebuked Peter about his behavior (Galatians 2:11-14), not a very proper thing to do for a “subordinate.” But that doesn’t make Paul “over” all the other apostles.
You asked me to explain Peter’s three-fold confession to offset his three-fold denial. This should be so obvious to even the new Christian who studies the Word of God. It is absolutely undeniable that Peter denied knowing Jesus three times. And three times, back to back, Jesus is extracting from him a confession of repentance, faith and restoration. I think anyone can connect the dots here, if he wants to be honest. You did not answer the question you just assumed that it’s obvious, that the 3 are connected, do the verses show that they are connected or you are assuming. And can you kindly answer the following questions I asked head on:
DeleteIt’s very clear that Peter was the only one who received direct from Our Lord the command Feed my lambs, Shepherd and feed my Sheep, can you please just highlight another whom Jesus Personally did say that to? Why does the question from Jesus include a comparing with the other disciples "do you love me more than these?"
There is something i am missing here, are we talking about Peter‘s Greatness or His primacy? These are two different things. He did not need to be restored as the pastor of the flock because it was only after the resurrection that Jesus made Him a pastor of the flock, all the verses before were promising to give him the role .e.g. i will give to thee the keys, i will built my church and after you have returned strengthen your brethren?
First among the Equals that’s what Peter, there we agree. Where we do not agree is what that means. So can you explain what that means from your point of view?
About Peter and Paul as you used in the argument shows that you do not know much about what the Catholic Church teaches concerning the Papacy at all, Popes for the past 2000 years have been rebuked by those lower than them and they listened to them. You just proved your ignorance on the topic, you need to know first what we believe before you comment on these things.
(Part 2 of 2)
ReplyDeleteBut with the exception of Judas, there is no other apostle who had such a high percentage of blunders when he is mentioned than Peter. Yes, he is mentioned much more often, but his percentage of mistakes is higher. But of course, this doesn’t stop the Catholic Church from making him a pope. The point is, this is simply nit-picking, because Catholics will use ANYTHING to try and make Peter look not only good, but BETTER than the other apostles.
You also asked a good question that I don’t hear addressed. Why exactly did Jesus say, “I also say unto you that you are Peter…” Why did Jesus tell him his name? Didn’t Peter already know His name? Yes, there was indeed a name change earlier as mentioned in the article above. And Jesus was simply reciprocating, that is, returning the compliment, so to speak. Peter had said, “You are the Christ,” and now, Jesus is saying, “You are Peter,” (Petros) a piece of the Rock, a chip off the old block.
And finally, your last comment about Isaiah 22. This is a common argument which Catholics believe to be a convincing one. But briefly, we want to say that there are indeed some similarities between Isaiah 22 and Matthew 16, but this doesn’t prove they are one and the same. Actually, there are several different keys (or sets of keys) within Scripture. Just because there are “keys” involved in both cases does not make them identical. Notice in Isaiah 22, God is giving the key (singular) of the house of David to Eliakim. This seems to have Jewish Messianic overtones, concerning God’s promise to the “house of David,” and very possibly more of a reference to God’s dealings with Israel. Matthew 16 speaks of the keys (plural) of the kingdom of Heaven to be used by the CHURCH. We see no reason to believe that the key of David MUST be the same as the keys of the kingdom of Heaven. The first has to do with the promises to Israel, and the second has to do with the promises to the church of Jesus Christ. Matthew 16 and Isaiah 22 are certainly not an exact parallel; and neither are the two specific enough to conclude that they are the same.
We do not even for one second try to make Peter better than the other Apostles but we just give him what is due to him as it was given by Our Lord, who gives according to His Infinite wisdom. Do you think we worry about his mistakes not at all because it was our Lord‘s choice to give him the keys, to give him His sheep, to make him the First Apostle, to pray for him to be the strength of his fellow apostles etc. etc. what our Lord chooses we begin to love as well so do not make silly accusations against Catholics.
Delete“And Jesus was simply reciprocating, that is, returning the compliment” seriously is that the best you give for an answer? Be serious. Yes they was already a name change, I agree but
1. why did Jesus start a sentence saying “Thou art Peter” if the following words are not related to Peter, and Peter already that he is to be called Peter from the first moment he met Jesus.
2. Why the change in the first place, Abraham was change because of a reason and Jesus just changed his name for fun?
On the keys as I have already pointed out, this was the Davidic Kingdom and Jesus was prophesied to sit on the throne of David when the Angel Gabriel, Revelations 3:7 tell us that Jesus holds the key of David, did Jesus literary sit on the Throne of David on earth?
You will notice the use of the keys in all the cases where about binding and loosing, shutting and unlocking. The one who has the keys has final authority no one overrides him and this clear in scripture. Your argument of key being singular is irrelevant the bottom line is that the keys represent legislative authority.
Unless you just do not want to admit the bible is clear that Jesus gave Peter gave the primacy to Peter over all the Apostles by Just looking at the keys given to him, Jesus Praying for him alone to be the strength of the Apostles and commission him alone to be the shepherd of his Flock.
Hi Russell,
ReplyDeleteI've got your back!
Jesse
Hello again Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteYou accused me of “assuming” when I stated that Jesus’ three-fold questions to Peter were to offset Peter’s three-fold denial, as though this were some kind of unacceptable, strictly-Protestant concept. But any quick internet search will reveal that this is a common idea throughout many churches, even in Catholic circles. In fact, according to the footnotes in the (Catholic) New American Bible (copyright 1987) on John 21:15-17, we see:
“The threefold confession of Peter is meant to counteract his earlier threefold denial.” (Page 1168)
So, your argument is not just with me, but with Catholic sources, as well.
You then emphasized the fact that Peter was the only one who DIRECTLY received a command from Jesus to “Feed My lambs,” and “Shepherd My sheep.” So what? As Jesse and I both pointed out to you, Scripture tells us that ALL pastors / elders / church leaders are responsible to feed His sheep. But if the “three-fold” argument above is correct (and it is), then this command to feed His sheep was not at all to LIFT PETER ABOVE ALL THE OTHERS. Rather, it was to HUMBLE him. Listen, with your logic, we could also say, “But Peter is the only one of the apostles whom He called ‘Satan,’ right (Matthew 16:23)? Therefore, since Peter was directly SINGLED OUT here, Peter must have a special satanic role.” I know this is not the case, but I’m just showing how ridiculous this idea is, if carried to its logical conclusion. One can understand the correct meaning of these “singling out” events only by respecting the immediate context AND the context of the whole of Scripture.
Concerning “first among equals”: According to Wikipedia:
“It is typically used as an honorary title for those who are formally equal to other members of their group but are accorded unofficial respect, traditionally owing to their seniority in office.”
According to Orthodoxwiki.org:
“Primus inter pares, or first among equals, is a Latin phrase indicating that a person is the most senior of a group of people sharing the same rank or office. Usually, the role is considered a necessary inclusion in a system in which all parties are equal.”
You had an issue about my comparing Peter to Paul and accused me of being ignorant of Catholic teaching. I am fully aware that popes can, and have been, rebuked in the past. But that point of mine was only one of several examples of Paul’s “primacy.” You either missed the whole point of all I said in that paragraph above, or you ignored it (I hope it’s the former). If you are looking for certain acts or accomplishments to prove “primacy,” then Paul has a better “resume” than Peter does. If that’s what determines a papacy, then the honor should go to Paul, not Peter. But in this case, Catholics seem to ignore Paul’s life, sufferings, and accomplishments, in order to over-emphasize Peter, so that the doctrine of the papacy can exist. Again, the point is that Catholics are inconsistent with Scripture.
The rest you said is pretty much re-hashing what we talked about earlier. Anonymous, I’m sensing what seems to be desperation in your comments. You’re simply repeating over and over the typical Catholic eisegesis, but trying to do it with greater emphasis each time. This won’t make it come true.
I also noticed that you deferred to Tradition (the “Oral Word”) when you were talking to Jesse. But, this too, is a losing battle. See here:
http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2010/05/what-about-tradition.html
"The rest you said is pretty much re-hashing what we talked about earlier. Anonymous, I’m sensing what seems to be desperation in your comments. You’re simply repeating over and over the typical Catholic eisegesis, but trying to do it with greater emphasis each time. This won’t make it come true." this is what you say when you fail to answer questions i have asked you, those are just simple questions you are failing dismally to address.
Delete"You accused me of “assuming” when I stated that Jesus’ three-fold questions to Peter were to offset Peter’s three-fold denial, as though this were some kind of unacceptable, strictly-Protestant concept. But any quick internet search will reveal that this is a common idea throughout many churches, even in Catholic circles. In fact, according to the footnotes in the (Catholic) New American Bible (copyright 1987) on John 21:15-17" a common view does not mean its true view even if it is coming from Catholics, Catholics are subject to explain things they believe as much as Protestants are and does common view take away the assumption? no it does not.
"So, your argument is not just with me, but with Catholic sources, as well." you are correct my argument is not only with you, all those whole hold that opinion should not assume but give substance to it.
"If you are looking for certain acts or accomplishments to prove “primacy,” then Paul has a better “resume” than Peter does" that was my point exactly, we do not look at what Peter did but what Our Lord said to Him, what He did add up on what our Lord gave to him. here its not the primacy of Acts but the Primacy of Authority as was given by Jesus.
do you think that we use dictionary definitions for our Definitions, thats your point of view. now your homework you have to find out what First among equal means in Catholic Theology.
was that Deferring to Oral Tradition, it was an answer to another assumption by Jesse "It is the ONLY safe method of determining truth in a time of deception"
i will be answering your assumptions on Tradition on the link you gave, those are weird unscriptural assumptions Mr Inspired Russell
DeleteHello Anonymous,
DeleteI decided to check the link provided by Russell to see what your response to the materials prompted would be. But you haven't yet. So I guess that I will be waiting to see your arguments in that article. In the meantime, I will comment on a few things that you said.
First of all, you said that I made an assumption when I said, "It is the ONLY safe method of determining truth in a time of deception". If Scripture cannot be the only safe method of determining truth, then what is? Blind submission to an apostate organization is a dangerous and ungodly mindset. Do not be like the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. Have you even read the context of Luke 1:1-4?
You said, "do you think that we use dictionary definitions for our Definitions, thats your point of view. now your homework you have to find out what First among equal means in Catholic Theology".
That's convenient. Only the cults get to redefine the meaning behind words to make things fit their theology. Stop playing word games and get on with reality.
You can mock us by calling names such as "inspired", but it will not get you anywhere. Such cheap tactics only demonstrate your serious lack of maturity.
Jesse
blind is too a big word because Catholicism does not teach blind obedience at all, can you prove that it teaches blind obedience. its your duty to prove that its the only safe way since you are the one claiming it so give substance to it. Catholics believe in 2 sources of Revelation Written and Oral all which given from the Apostles up to the death of the last Apostle and with a divinely appointed Shepherd to teach.
DeleteAnonymous,
DeleteYes, Catholics believe in the “written” and the “oral,” but the problem is, they can’t give us a meaningful definition of what that “oral” body of revelation is. Tell us where to find it. All of it. And remember, it MUST have equal inspiration with Holy Scripture.
Roman Catholicism teaches teaches complete submission of the intellect and will. This is true no matter what. Just read the Council of Trent's rulings on such issues.
DeleteJesse
I think you just do not want to listen the body of Oral Revelation is seen in the lives of those who lived in the early Church. I will give examples was Sola Scriptula taught and lived by the Apostles and those who followed after them, to find out about that we simply go and find out about the lives of the apostles and those who came after them because what they were taught is shown in how they lived and we find out that there was no SS hence SS is not part of the early Church therefore using oral tradition alone we know that the Doctrine SS is false, Russel only assumes that it kicked in after the death of the Last Apostle but he does not produce any evidence to show that. We normally use the expression "taught Always and Everywhere" Another Example would be about the divinity of Jesus Christ. The Arians believed that He was mere human but it was declared that He is fully Human and fully Divine and remember the canon of scripture was not yet settled when this was declared, they refered to Apostolic Tradition, what has been taught always and everywhere.
DeleteOral tradition has equal inspiration because the teachings have their source from Jesus and the Apostles. Does the Word of God cease to be inspired because it is not written down?
To simplify things for you on oral tradition these are teachings passed on from the Apostles through oral communication. Thats a simple definition
DeleteGreetings,
DeleteI don't have a problem with tradition, as long as it agrees with the principles of the written Word of God (1 Corinthians 15:1-8;Galatians 1:8-9). But can you give us an inspired table of contents identifying which traditions we are supposed to heed to?
Even the early church had problems with heresy and division. So we must stick to the inspired writings to judge error.
Jesse
1. the Oral Word has to be compared to Written Word, they are equal, why not the Written Word being compared to the Oral Word to see if the Written Word is in line after the oral Word came before the written Word, who gave you that standard
Deletethe verses you quoted there do not say anything about the written Word being the standard for the Oral Word.
the Early Church had problems with Heresy and Divisions, but if we read the history of the early Church you do not get such A thing to stick to ONLY inspired writings to judge error, especially knowing the fact that there was no canon until the fourth century.
Hello Anonymous,
DeleteI think that you completely missed the point of my argument. I cited 1 Corinthians 15:1-8 and Galatians 1:8-9 to demonstrate that there is a distinction between genuinely inspired oral revelation and the traditions of men. Although you traditionalists claim extra-biblical oral traditions, you guys cannot even come up with even one phrase of what Jesus or the apostles said, that is not recorded in Scripture. Thus, the Scriptures are the only accurate recorded of the teachings of the original church. Can you provide us with an inspired table of contents identifying which traditions we are supposed to heed to?
We are to judge the oral traditions to the written standard because they can be altered. In other words, written documents are set in stone, whereas unwritten words are subject to PERVERSION. If the Scriptures cannot be the sufficient guide for faith and morals, then how do we know which oral traditions are correct? How could we know that we are in the correct church? How would we know that we ourselves are not embracing heresy? How could we know that anything concerning doctrine is TRUE AT ALL?
Jesus gave us an example to follow in Matthew 15:1-9 and Mark 7:1-13. We are to judge all traditions to the WRITTEN Word of God, regardless of their alleged pedigree. When He was tempted by Satan in the dessert, He responded by saying, "IT IS WRITTEN..." (Matthew 4:1-11)! The Bereans searched the Scriptures to see what was true in Acts 17:10-12. Psalm 119 contains an ENTIRE chapter dedicated to the personal devotion to the Scriptures. Why? Because they contain what we need to know to please God. This is the NORM throughout the Scriptures. Why would you ask such foolish questions in light of the facts?
Most of the earliest fathers quoted the Scriptures to prove their points. And the phrase "tradition" in their writings either means non-essential issues or traditions derived right off the teachings and principles of the Bible.
I really resent your claim that the early church had NO Bible complied until the fourth century. The Apostle Peter recognized Paul's writings as inspired. In fact, the apostles had their writings circulated to other churches even as they lived. How could your claims posses any truth when the Old Testament canon was compiled hundreds of years before Christ's birth? We could develop practically the entire New Testament canon from the writings of the first three centuries alone. The exception to the rule would include minor grammatical marks or tiny phrases of minor importance.
For a total knockout blow to your claims regarding the canon of Scripture, see the following article:
http://www.bible.ca/cath-bible-origin.htm
What is the point in spouting off on irrelevant issues?
Jesse
Hi Anonymous,
ReplyDelete(Part 1)
You repeatedly accused me of "glossing" over your questions. Could you please expound on this idea? You need to be much more specific because I am not following you. You even used my own words to mock me. This tells me that you were angered by some of the things that I have told you. On the contrary, I believe that I have shown the fallacies behind your claims.
First, I am going to deal with your ridiculous statements about Book of Acts. Concerning Acts 1:15, the replacement of Judas was already foretold by Scripture (Acts 1:16) and was therefore not Peter's decision. My comments from the previous post still apply. Although Peter was present at the Jerusalem council of Acts 15, he was STILL NOT IN CHARGE OF THE FINAL DECISION (Acts 15:19). James had the final say and quoted Scripture to keep the gathering in accordance with God's will (Acts 15:15-17), which does harm to your position. How come you never explained Acts 8:14? Peter was a prominent leader, but he was not the ONLY one with roles in the church.
You asked me to identify which components of papal authority are unbiblical. Really, this is self-evident. The Scriptures say nothing about the one-head bishop structure, papal infallibility statements, future successors to the apostles, and the list goes on.
You also claimed that I never addressed anything about Peter being listed first among the apostles. This is completely laughable and flies right in the face of everything that I said about this. Contrary to your false accusations, I clearly demonstrated that a logical sequence does not automatically grant authority and cited Galatians 2:9 to give an exception to the rule. According to your reasoning, should James be a pope as well? How can you have two legitimate popes at once?
You did not address anything at all, you are just glossing over.
DeleteHello Anonymous,
DeleteThis is a double standard because I could make the exact claim regarding your arguments. You need to demonstrate why you believe such. Until then, it is you bears the onus.
Jesse
Jesse you completely ignored my comments on Acts Chapter 15 and i will put them here again for you to here.
DeleteActs 15:6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter. 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
1. Notice here there was much disputing, showing that there was confusion on what was true or not.
2. Peter rose and everyone went silent,
3. Acts 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 15:11 But we believe that through the grace of the LORD Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
4. After Peter had spoken, there were no more disputes, show any if you can.
5. After Barnabas and Paul had Spoken thats when James spoke(its weird that in Peter ‘s case it said Peter rose while in James ‘s case it said answered, Peter declared as James himself said but James had to ask the audience to listen to him
6. Note very well here, buy the time James spoke, Peter had already declared infallibly the truth that a yoke should not be put on the gentiles, James ‘s decision which he then utters was on what action should we take since we now know that a yoke is not to be placed on the Gentiles. Peter declared the Position that should be believed and James later taught how to implement it by not bothering the gentiles and showing them the things they are to observe.
7. If it was actually James ‘s declaration as you assume, then Peter as mentioned in Galatians 2 would not have been a hypocrite when certain men from James appeared. James would have been happy to see his declaration being implemented. Reading Galatians 2 when Peter was accused of hypocrisy(teaching one thing and living another) and then conclude that the declaration is from James is contrary to each other. Just to Note Paul also is blamed of hypocrisy here because what he Peter for he did it himself Acts 16:3 “Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.”
Acts 1:15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)
1. Peter stood among the 120, and declared again, explaining what Scripture meant and whom it pointed out to.
2. He decided the criteria of Choosing the men and no one objected.
3. This chapter also shows the Apostolic Succession characteristics as Judas as it clearly tells of Judas ‘s bishoprick. Its lame to say that those succeed the Apostles should have the requirements that Peter demanded here
Acts 1:21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 1:22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.
Its lame because its an office which is ongoing and Paul explains that office later on with different qualifications in 1 Timothy 3. I wonder in which office do Protestants operate from? After all Paul the Apostle did not even hold those qualifications yet he was a bishop and ordain others bishops.
CONTINUED (Part 2):
ReplyDeleteThe concept of church leaders having legislative authority in divine matters is without proof and is foreign to Scriptural teaching. Binding and loosing does indeed pertains to the spread of the gospel. "Binding" is opening the door of salvation to converts (Romans 1:16), "loosing" is closing the door of salvation to those who reject the truth of the gospel (2 Thessalonians 1:9-10). That is the CENTRAL MEANING behind Matthew 16:16-18. We all enter the church by confessing Jesus as Lord (Matthew 16:16; Romans 10:9-13). Although there are a few similarities between Isaiah 22 and Matthew 16, the first key pertains to the promises to Israel, whereas the second one has to do with the promises to the church of Jesus Christ. As I stated before, there is a distinction between the two contexts. Apostolic authority was passed on through the inspired writings of the apostles, not apostolic succession. It is faithfulness to God's Word which determines the truth of a church, not apostolic succession or how old something is.
You then quoted 1 Timothy 3:15 in an attempt to prove that the church has final authority in divine matters. But the phrase "pillar and ground of the truth" simply means that we are the supporter and proclaimer of the gospel message. The church which supports and upholds the truth, is distinguished from the truth that she upholds. That "truth" is the gospel message contained within Scripture (John 17:14-17).
Notice the verse in context (1 Timothy 3:14-15). The Apostle Paul said that he was writing so that we may know how to act appropriately in the household of God. In other words, he was writing to tell the church how to behave. The church is to SUBMIT to the Scriptures. Thus, we have a good case for Sola Scriptura.
How do you know which oral traditions are inspired? How do you know that the pope is infallible? Can you identify which supposedly Catholic traditions that we are supposed to obey in texts such as Thessalonians 2:15? Can you even come up with ANY word of what Jesus and the apostles said, that is not recorded in the Bible? How do you know that the Catholic church is the only true church? Can you explain why you disagree with Russell's explanation of John 21:15-17 as being "Jesus extracting from Peter a three-fold confession of faith to “offset” Peter’s three-fold denial of Him"?
It is indeed strange that you continue to repeat yourself with completely irrelevant arguments to the article. How come you never addressed any of my arguments in favor in Sola Scriptura?
Popes and other ministers are subordinate to the testimony of Scripture, which prevents division and arrogance(1 Corinthians 4:6). We are to compare all the teachings of our church leaders to the Bible (Acts 17:10-12). They contain the commandments of the Lord (1 Corinthians 14:37)and instructions to salvation (John 20:31). They bring complete hope, joy, and assurance of eternal salvation (Romans 15:4;1 John 1:1-4;1 John 5:13). They are the standard to which NOTHING can be added or taken away (Proverbs 30:5-6; Revelation 22:18-19). Scripture is the ONLY safe method of determining truth in times of deception (Luke 1:1-4). This is the NORM throughout the Scriptures. They are thus the final, sufficient authority for the church today (2 Timothy 3:15-17).
Jesse
How do you know if any of the books you claim as inspired are in actual fact inspired? How do you know that Mark, Luke and other books are scripture?
DeleteSola Scriptula is not scriptural at all the Apostles never taught it and its not found in the bible at all i do not need to address a tradition founded by Martin Luther about 1500 years after Jesus went to heaven its simply an innovation alien to Jesus and the apostles.
Well, here we go again.
DeleteThe early church simply recognized the canon of Scripture. They did not determine what was inspired. In other words, they simply recognized the ALREADY inspired documents. Christ's "sheep" will heed to His voice (John 10:27)and will therefore be able to see which writings are of His character and wisdom, that is, God-breathed.
Let me ask you a series of questions in return. How do you know which oral traditions are inspired? Do you have an inspired "table of contents" identifying which "oral traditions" that we are supposed to obey? If the answer is "Rome", then we have a perfect case of circular reasoning. How do you know that the pope is infallible and that your church is the only true church? If you answer that specific question, then on what basis do you know that you are correct? How did the Jews know that books such as Genesis and 2 Kings were inspired? Why didn't God provide them with a list of books? How did Luke identify the Book of Isaiah without the help of the Catholic Church (Luke 4:16-20)? What about the Apostle Peter (2 Peter 3:15-16)? Books such as Job and Hebrews have unknown authors and they still made it into the canon. Are you willing to disregard the inspiration of such books, since we do not know how to identify these books? Not knowing the title or author of a book does nothing to the contents inside the writings and is NOT a requirement for salvation.
By the way, we are to use Scripture to judge the truthfulness of "tradition" (Matthew 15:1-9; Mark 7:1-13). Jesus provided us with an example to follow.
How come you failed to address the biblical arguments that I made for Sola Scriptura and my comments on apostolic succession? So much for you extraordinary claims regarding "history"!
Jesse
"The early church simply recognized the canon of Scripture." This is an example of Tradition or Oral Tradition, its not in the Bible yet you believe it and you agree with what they agreed on. your statement though is not fully true because from the Early Church they were disputed books like Jude, James,2 Peter and Revelations, so to say they "simply" recognized is false.
Deleteyou provide a series of questions without answering mine, is it because you cannot answer my questions.
do you actually think i have failed to answer your "Biblical arguiments" for SS? first answer my questions above
Hello Sipho (once known as "anonymous"),
DeleteI don't quite know what you mean when you say that I gave an example of "oral tradition". But I will try my best to respond to your claims.
As I already told you before, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura permits for traditions, as long as they are consistent with Scriptural instruction. All it teaches is that Scripture alone is the only infallible rule of faith for the church. Other authorities such as traditions and catechisms are valid, as long as they do not conflict with the Written Word of God. But they are not infallible as Scripture is.
Of course, we got the names of the books of the Bible by outside traditions and documents. But this admission does nothing to help your case because the information presented is not infallible and/or God-breathed as Scripture is. My points above still apply equally to your claims.
I brought up a series of questions to demonstrate the illogical nature of your double-standard. Just as I accept the canon of Scripture as infallible by faith (at least, partly), you accept your three-legged "stool" by the same amount of faith.
Your counterclaim that the early church questioned the authenticity of books such as Jude and 2 Peter is quite exaggerated and does nothing to damage my logic. Even if it did(which it does not), I could still answer you by saying that those who may have rejected such books did so because they were NOT AS FAITHFULL TO GOD"S WILL as others. Only a FEW of the writings had SOME doubts. But they were still regarded as inspired by most in the church during the early centuries.
I have no choice but to conclude that you are unable to address my arguments for Sola Scriptura because you have said NOTHING about them so far. You prove ABSOLUTELY NOTHING when you gloss over arguments and ramble on about irrelevant topics. Now back to the issue of Matthew 16 or give it up.
Jesse
"As I already told you before, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura permits for traditions, as long as they are consistent with Scriptural instruction. All it teaches is that Scripture alone is the only infallible rule of faith for the church. Other authorities such as traditions and catechisms are valid, as long as they do not conflict with the Written Word of God. But they are not infallible as Scripture is."
Deletethe Point is since you say Oral Tradition is not inspired or infallible it means you are relying on on an authority/source which is fallible to claim that certain books are inspired.
"Just as I accept the canon of Scripture as infallible by faith (at least, partly), you accept your three-legged "stool" by the same amount of faith." your faith is fallible but how do you know infallibly which books are actually inspired, so the infallible rule does not have a standard to measure if it is really inspired or if the books in it are inspired. this is important, what if the books you think are inspired and are in actual fact not inspired.
Your counterclaim that the early church questioned the authenticity of books such as Jude and 2 Peter is quite exaggerated and does nothing to damage my logic. Even if it did(which it does not), I could still answer you by saying that those who may have rejected such books did so because they were NOT AS FAITHFUL TO GOD"S WILL as others. Only a FEW of the writings had SOME doubts. But they were still regarded as inspired by most in the church during the early centuries.
1. you are agreeing that animosity of the Church Fathers/ Early Church matters, and are you saying we should take their word as final in determining the Canon and why should we do that
2. who judged that those few were not FAITHFUL TO GOD 's WILL as the others, you cannot say its Bible since they were not agreeing on something outside the Bible but actually what should be in it?
3. since they is no infallible source to know whether, Jude or 2 Peter or Mark is inspired or not my question remains, why do you claim that which you cannot prove to be inspired to be the infallible rule of Faith.
on addressing your SS statements, i am only going to ask you these questions which i have been asking with no answer. Are your interpretations of the Bible and Conclusions that the Bible is the Only Infallible of Faith(Sola Scriptura), Infallible? is your interpretation of scripture the standard of what is scriptural? why do you call Catholic interpretations scriptural when we differ on interpretations? This whole thing about Catholicism and Protestantism spring from different interpretations so would assist me on that one. who is the standard on the interpretations, if there is non then you have no right to accuse the CC of interpretation the way it does the Bible
Hi Sipho,
DeleteGod can indeed use fallible beings as instruments to accomplish His missions. And such is the case with the inspired writings and the canon as we have it today. Your faith is also fallible. So how do you know that your church is the one true church? How do you know if your pope is infallible? How do you know if you are correctly interpreting the official teachings of your church leaders? God has given us freewill and He therefore expects us to do what is right. How do you know that your "infallible standard" is "infallible"? Just because we are liable to error does not mean that we will ALWAYS be wrong about our choices.
1.)"Are you saying we should take their word as final in determining the Canon and why should we do that?"
No, the church fathers were not infallible and could thus embrace error and/or fall away from the faith. I am just saying that we are obligated to use our judgment to the best of our ability. Of course, God would not make something impossible for us to accomplish. Otherwise, He is unfair.
2.) "Who judged that those few were not FAITHFUL TO GOD 's WILL as the others, you cannot say its Bible since they were not agreeing on something outside the Bible but actually what should be in it?"
I don't know exactly what you mean by the last part of your statement. But I would say that we shall know them by their fruits (Matthew 7:20).
3.)"Since they is no infallible source to know whether, Jude or 2 Peter or Mark is inspired or not my question remains, why do you claim that which you cannot prove to be inspired to be the infallible rule of Faith."
Knowing the authors of a book is not a requirement for salvation. Neither does it inflict any harm to the inspiration of material presented inside. Books such as Jo, Hebrews, and a few others have unknown authors and the Church of Rome has failed to tell us who they are. Are you willing to reject those books? The fact that they made it into the canon anyway is consistent with my answer above. How did the Jews know that the Old Testament books were inspired without an infallible authority? Answer all of my questions. You are in reality presenting a false dilemma and double standard.
I would love to continue our discussion, but much of what I have said would simply be repetition. Let's allow the reader to decide who has the better of the arguments.
God bless.
Jesse
Hi Sipho,
DeleteGod can indeed use fallible beings as instruments to accomplish His missions. And such is the case with the inspired writings and the canon as we have it today. Your faith is also fallible. So how do you know that your church is the one true church? How do you know if your pope is infallible? How do you know if you are correctly interpreting the official teachings of your church leaders? God has given us freewill and He therefore expects us to do what is right. How do you know that your "infallible standard" is "infallible"? Just because we are liable to error does not mean that we will ALWAYS be wrong about our choices.
1.)"Are you saying we should take their word as final in determining the Canon and why should we do that?"
No, the church fathers were not infallible and could thus embrace error and/or fall away from the faith. I am just saying that we are obligated to use our judgment to the best of our ability. Of course, God would not make something impossible for us to accomplish. Otherwise, He is unfair.
2.) "Who judged that those few were not FAITHFUL TO GOD 's WILL as the others, you cannot say its Bible since they were not agreeing on something outside the Bible but actually what should be in it?"
I don't know exactly what you mean by the last part of your statement. But I would say that we shall know them by their fruits (Matthew 7:20).
3.)"Since they is no infallible source to know whether, Jude or 2 Peter or Mark is inspired or not my question remains, why do you claim that which you cannot prove to be inspired to be the infallible rule of Faith."
Knowing the authors of a book is not a requirement for salvation. Neither does it inflict any harm to the inspiration of material presented inside. Books such as Jo, Hebrews, and a few others have unknown authors and the Church of Rome has failed to tell us who they are. Are you willing to reject those books? The fact that they made it into the canon anyway is consistent with my answer above. How did the Jews know that the Old Testament books were inspired without an infallible authority? Answer all of my questions. You are in reality presenting a false dilemma and double standard.
I would love to continue our discussion, but much of what I have said would simply be repetition. Let's allow the reader to decide who has the better of the arguments.
God bless.
Jesse
you completely avoided what i asked on question 1 and went on to answer a question you created on your own.
Deleteon question 2 is asking you to make substance to your statement "Your counterclaim that the early church questioned the authenticity of books such as Jude and 2 Peter is quite exaggerated and does nothing to damage my logic. Even if it did(which it does not), I could still answer you by saying that those who may have rejected such books did so because they were NOT AS FAITHFULL TO GOD"S WILL as others. Only a FEW of the writings had SOME doubts. But they were still regarded as inspired by most in the church during the early centuries."
my question is what if the those who rejected the books are actually the ones who were faithful? How do you judge that they were not faithful?
on 3. i was not taliking about the authors i was talking about the contents, so i ask again
3. since they is no infallible source to know whether, Jude or 2 Peter or Mark is inspired or not my question remains, why do you claim that which you cannot prove to be inspired to be the infallible rule of Faith.
how can you know that the book of Matthew, book of Mark, Book of John, 2 Timothy are actually inspired not just ordinary writings? how do you know that the books are actually scriptures.
i am not here for the reader to find out who has better arguments but i here to learn thats why i am asking questions, of which so far you are failing to answer.
its funny that People make a blog about answering Catholic Claims and when you read through their articles and debates, they have no clue of what Catholicism teaches they just have a lot of assumptions about Catholicism, i just encourage you to attack what you know for now you are attacking what you assume to be the Teachings of the Catholic Church. you attacking what you think the CC teaches. If you really want to know what the CC teaches go to a Traditional Catholic website like the one by Fr Ripperger or SSPX website. do not assume things
ReplyDeleteHello Perfect,
DeleteDo you have any proof to support any of your allegations? Why do you believe that we have misrepresented official Catholic doctrine? I will be looking forward to an answer.
Thanks,
Jesse
all the articles here misrepresent Catholicism one way or the other. the proof is there. Read the articles from this Blog and then go and do a research on the same areas very well you will see it
DeleteHello Perfect,
DeleteWhat do you mean? Russell quotes from official Catholic sources such as the New Catholic Encyclopedia and the catechism. Surely, these all bear the imprimatur stamp and thus accurately represent the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. In fact, he has even quoted portions from various Roman apologists from Catholic Answers. Your claim that he does not know what he is talking about cannot simply be true and is just a smokescreen to prevent you from seeing the light.
I KNOW from experience that Russell accurately presents the doctrines of Romanism. I used to attend a Catholic parochial school and it taught EXACTLY what Russell has said throughout the blog. I have even read books by Scott Hahn. These references match PERFERCTLY to what Russell has taught about the Church of Rome. Thus, your argument is with them, and not us. By the way, Russell once belonged to the Catholic Church. I myself almost converted.
Jesse
(CONTINUED)
DeleteSaying,"Oh, the proof is there", does not answer my question at all. As a matter of fact, this is strictly known as "begging the question". You are assuming that Russell's arguments are without evidence when you fail to provide anything yourself! Interesting. How can I learn to "see the light" from Russell's "clouds of deception"? "Thank you" for "helping" me so much!
Jesse
the way you interpret Catholic Teachings, is it accurate as you claim? quoting something does not mean you are faithfully going to present as it should be. for example when you talk of Oral Tradition you talk of it from your point of view not Catholics 's point of view.
DeleteHell Perfect,
DeleteSo, now it goes from needing a "pope" to infallibly interpreting Scripture to needing a "pope" to infallibly interpret official Catholic sources, which are not inspired at all? Do I also need a pope to infallibly interpret the books that I read on a regular basis as well?
I know that Russell accurately presents the Catholic doctrines because OF MY RELIGIOUS TRAINING IN A CATHOLIC SCHOOL. It is IDENTICAL to what I have been taught. What you need to do is deal with Russell's arguments against Romanism.
Jesse
People intepret things according to their background and especially for protestants most of them have hatred for Catholicism, which affects how they see things. In the Catholic Church we intepret things as they have always been intepreted always and everywhere from the time of the apostles, first learn how we do it then you can say whatever you want from there.
DeleteYour religious training may have been at the hands of someone who is in the same boat as your who does not know much about Catholicism, i suffered the same fate until i studied on my own.
Perfect,
DeleteI would NEVER dare to say such about the devout Catholics who educated me. And I have a heart for everybody. It is my desire that all would come to salvation with God in heaven. And I really do believe that the same is true with our brother Russell.
No, I don't expect you to "buy into" what I have to say about anything. Such insults are totally ridiculous. You have your own mind and will thus have to give account unto God for your deed, as we all have to do.
Jesse
Hello Perfect,
ReplyDeleteThank you for confirming the fact that Catholicism has its divisions and disagreements. I've been saying this for a long time.
Russel
Deleteyes it has its divisions, but we have only two divisions those affected by a heresy known as Modernism/liberalism and Traditional Catholics. what about Protestants how many divisions they have thousands yet they have ONE INFALLIBLE RULE OF FAITH which makes us all Catholics wonder if they read the same bible at all(I THINK YOU HAVE TO EXPLAIN TO ME HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE because if the Catholics were wrong as protestants say then they would be only one protestant Church and one Catholic Church), in the Catholic Church this is not going to last long just like what happened in the cases of heresies like Arian Heresies where divisions are bound to happen but modernism will fall and we be one again. for protestants there is no clue. but you missed the point Russel its about you not having no clue of Catholicism and yet you run a blog to answer Catholic Claims, how can you answer that you know of, how do you attack something you cant see. You are attacking the Shadow of the Catholic Church. first you need to know what we believe from our view, learn learn what we believe from the Best sources we have. learn to think like we do and understand us then once you really understand us then w can start talking. you may claim that you are a ex catholic, yes who was and is still ignorant of Catholicism
Perfect Mug,
ReplyDeleteDivisions are inevitable in any group because we are all human. But having fewer divisions is not the criteria for a particular group to have the truth.
And I resent the fact that you keep saying that I “have no clue” about Catholicism. And I’m not saying this out of pride. I have much to learn and I know that. But I have been part of, and have been studying MAINSTREAM Catholicism for a long time. They have had much more influence than you. Maybe your brand of Catholicism could have more truth than mainstream Catholicism, but it is obvious that you still hold to some of the same errors that they do.
When you are willing to admit that, then, as you said above, “We can start talking.”
it still amazes me that the infallibility that you deny the Catholic Church you actually embrace it yourself and you assume that others interpretation of scripture is wrong if it does not agree with yours thats funny. anyway try to study Traditional Catholicism, it was actually the mainstream catholicism until Vatican 2 Council. I highly recommend Fr Ripperger and Dr Robert Sungenis for your learning. I have met many Catholics who claim to be Catholics yet they have no clue of what Catholicism is, so its no offense that i tell you a protestant that you do not know Catholicism when i have met Catholics(actually the majority of them are ignorant) who do not know Catholicism at all. You have a big research to do. i would kindly request you to rufute in one of your writings the Presentations by FR Ripperger on Tradition https://sentrad.org/multimedia/ and his book the binding force of tradition https://www.google.co.zw/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiYp9OzmMfPAhXEWxoKHWHMBl4QFggmMAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FBinding-Force-Tradition-Chad-Ripperger-ebook%2Fdp%2FB00CDX64J8&usg=AFQjCNEjxjpg9Axz7syOZL_KeHXemrF_iw&sig2=UyUn054i_gFu2RMnzFrogQ&bvm=bv.134495766,d.d2s
DeleteHi Perfect Mug,
DeleteThe "branches" of Catholicism you mentioned above can be broken down into smaller categories and can thereby be used to enhance the appearance of the divisions within your church. You guys even disagree on important issues such as abortion, contraception, gay marriage, divorce, and female priests. This is nowhere near "unity".
The things that you brought up in your post can be applied equally to you. On what basis can you disagree with Russell? By what authority or supreme knowledge do you say that he knows "nothing" about the religion that he once he once belonged to?
If Sola Scriptura cannot be the correct method of determining truth because of religion division among churches who claim to use this method, then does this not also disqualify the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox's Churches' method of using tradition, since they are divided against each other?
www.reformedapologeticsministries.com/
Jesse
Mug,
DeleteWhat Jesse said just above about the Catholic and Orthodox churches being disqualified by their own divisions is absolutely right.
Just before Jesse’s comment above, you accused me of embracing infallibility while denying it to the Catholic Church. I never, ever said that I was infallible. In fact, if you read my articles, you will see that I said over and over that NO ONE in the post-apostolic church is infallible.
And yes, we pretty much ALL assume our interpretations are right. Why is that “funny”? I could say the same thing about you, that you think my interpretations are wrong, because they don’t agree with yours. This is a common double standard with Catholics concerning interpretation. The thing is, we ALL have to interpret Scripture, but depending on an “infallible” church to do the job for you doesn’t help. You still have to interpret what THEY say.
then you have no right to accuse the Catholic Church of the way it interprets scripture since neither yours and ours are inspired? thats what is funny, you want us to agree with your interpretation yet you are fallible. if the Catholic Church is fallible, then the claims they have comes from interpretating scripture they way they do and your claims that it is wrong are fallible as well so there is no need for this article or this blog, because there is no one who is infallible to know whose intepretation is correct.
DeleteJesse
Deletethose disagreements are result of modernism, nothing else.
its showing in his articles that he knows nothing about Catholicism, he only talks about things he assumes to know about Catholicism.
Mug,
DeleteYour mistake is in assuming that one has to be infallible to know something. I never said that. As I said, even if we can’t have infallible certainty, God can give Christians SUFFICIENT certainty. You keep missing that simple point.
Everybody,
ReplyDeleteI have been inundated with comments (for which I am thankful) on this article, as well as some other articles on this blog, so please allow me some time to get to each one, since I have a fairly busy schedule. Another thing, please leave a name at the end of each comment (even if it's a fake name), so that we can know which "Anonymous" that we are addressing. I think that there will be less confusion that way.
Thanks, everyone, and God bless.
And it’s not like Jesus’ question about His identity (just above) was a test for all the apostles, and only Peter got the answer right. That’s not likely. It wasn’t that none of them except Peter knew the correct answer, it’s just that Peter would often speak first. He was impetuous, that is, he would often act or speak quickly, without first thinking things through - sometimes with good results, and sometimes with bad - for example, Matthew 14:25-31; 16:21-23; 17:1-5; 26:33-35; John 13:6-9; 18:10-11; 21:5-7. But that was Peter’s nature.
ReplyDeleteJesus said it plainly after Peter had respond that this was not any ordinary knowledge but direct from the Father, so i do not know where is this interpretation coming from. we already know that Peter was the one who always responded first, in all the cases Jesus never said it was knowledge from the Father. it was not according to Peter 's ability but it was just divine inspiration.
But even if it could be proven beyond a doubt that Peter is the “petra” in Matthew 16, the foundation upon which the church is built, it is STILL not Peter apart from the other apostles. You can say that Peter is a rock in some way, but you cannot biblically isolate Peter, as a foundation, from the rest of the apostles (Ephesians 2:20; Revelation 21:14).
ReplyDeleteCatholics do not work with solas like Protestants,Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide like you think. the Church does not deny that all the apostles were a foundation of the church and this does not take away the priviledges that Peter had which were communicated to him by Jesus.
Perfect,
DeleteHave you read ANY of the comments from the discussion taking place APART from your comments? I am very curious.
Jesse
Yes i am reading, its just that you expect me to buy into your comments
DeletePerfect,
DeleteNo, I do not expect you to do anything of the sort. Such allegations are completely foolish. You can (and have to) make your own decisions. But remember, we all have to give account for our deeds on judgment day (2 Corinthians 5:10; 1 Peter 1:17)
Jesse
Mug,
DeleteYou said just above:
“the Church does not deny that all the apostles were a foundation of the church and this does not take away the priviledges that Peter had which were communicated to him by Jesus.”
We agree that all the apostles were a foundation of the church. Ok, good. But you are still ASSUMING that Peter had some kind of “priviledges” from this passage APART FROM the other apostles. It just ain’t so!
You see, that’s the problem with the Catholic understanding of this Matthew 16 passage. There is so much that is READ INTO the text that is just not there (eisegesis). See the new article I just posted, “Matthew 16 – Keys, Binding and Loosing.”
Hello Perfect,
ReplyDelete(Part 1)
I will try to be as polite as possible. But notify me if I sound at all harsh.
Concerning Sola Scriptura and divisions, you are confusing the misuse of Scripture with the insufficiency of Scripture. Divisions within Protestantism occur mainly as a result of refusing to obey the clear testimony of the Bible, not its "difficulty". The ones that you accept as "genuine Christians" all agree on the ESSENTIAL doctrines, which is permitted in Scripture (Romans 14:1-12).
While you may claim that the disagreements within the realm of Catholicism occur only as a result of "modernism and nothing else", I believe that this is simply untrue and is an attempt to solve a predicament you have created for yourself. Even the fact that the Church of Rome has divisions AT ALL is very telling. According to your reasoning, I could also argue that the any divisions that take place within Protestantism from because of "sin and nothing else". Regardless, division is still division. It should NEVER be happening in the first place. You guys even disagree on important issues such as abortion, contraception, gay marriage, divorce, and female priests.
The fact that the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox churches are divided against each other provides another case against your apologists. You guys are divided, even on the issue of ATHORITY. Who is right, Perfect?
Jesse
(Part 2)
ReplyDeleteIf divisions disqualify my "rule of faith", then "tradition", the "Magisterium", and the Eastern Orthodox Church's "rule of faith" is also disqualified. This argument would apply to everything with division, including the writings of the church fathers!
The Church of Corinth was bitterly divided on doctrinal issues such as who had the ultimate authority (1 Corinthians 1:10-13) and what morality consists of (1 Corinthians 6:9-10). This obviously applies to the Christian church as a whole today. Notice that Paul rebukes the Corinthian Christians for following human leaders such as himself, Apollos, or Peter. How could he rebuke them for following "Pope Peter" if the Church of Rome is the one true church and that we must obey it? The simple answer is that the Papacy did not exist back then and that we are all to be united in Christ ALONE (1 Corinthians 3:11). The apostle gives the solution for the church's problems: keep your thinking in accordance with God's will. We do this by sticking to the Bible, not the men who proclaim false doctrine (1 Corinthians 4:6). Divisions exist within the church today because of arrogance over unbiblical standards such as who sounds the best when preaching or what teachings sound good to the ears. Stick to Scripture, and your thinking will stay in accordance with God's will
Jesse
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThanks Jessie,
ReplyDeleteI will check it out soon!
Hi Russell,
ReplyDeleteHere's a potential counterargument that may be useful when discussing this matter with Roman Catholics:
"Listen to me, you who pursue righteousness and who seek the LORD: Look to the rock from which you were cut and to the quarry from which you were hewn; look to Abraham, your father, and to Sarah, who gave you birth. When I called him he was only one man, and I blessed him and made him many." (Isaiah 51:1-2)
The Old Testament once used a rock metaphor to describe Abraham. Does that mean the man was the first pope of the Roman Catholic Church? Another point worthy of consideration is how the Good News Bible renders Matthew 16:18:
"And so I tell you, Peter; you are a rock, and on this rock foundation I will build my church, and not even death will ever be able to overcome it." (Matthew 16:18)
What do you think?
http://www.catholicbridge.com/catholic/pope_peter_rock.php
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
ReplyDeleteThe link you sent does nothing whatsoever to refute this article. The "Aramaic argument" in this link has already been addressed in the article. The examples of "Peter's authority among the apostles" have also been addressed, as well. In the article, I admit that Peter was indeed a rock, in a sense, but Scripture in no way gives him the prominence that the Catholic Church insists he has.
The mistake in this article is from a lack of understanding of how Catholicism interprets scripture. Admittedly the average lay catholic makes the same mistake protestants do when we say Matthew 16.18 is not about Christ or Peter's faith. Catholicism sees multiple senses in Scripture. There is a moral sense, a prophetic sense, a spiritual sense and also a literal sense. The literal sense is the primary sense and in matt 16.18 the litteral sense is Peter. But from the standpoint of the spiritual sense Matthew 16.18 can be associated with Christ and certainly Peter's faith cannot be separated from the man himself and is key to his rockies.
ReplyDeleteI saw an article analyzing matt 16.18 in light of the church fathers once. It noted 51 citations or illusions to the passage. As your author indicates they did not just refer to Peter as the rock. I can't recall the exact numbers but some referred to chridt, some to Peter and a lesser number to Peter's faith.
What is interesting however is that some in different writing referred to two of the above and a few to ALL THREE. Were the fathers confused? Were they in disagreement? We see no argument in the early church regarding how the fathers interpreted the passage. That is because they were using the multiple senses of scripture to interpret the passage and all three in some sense are applicable.
Catechism of the catholic church
115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.
Patrick
Hello Patrick,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comment. There are indeed several different understandings of Matthew 16:18, but none of what you said refutes any single one of the points in the article.