Friend and neighbor Father Andrew Greeley, sociologist, novelist, and columnist, reminded me in a recent e-mail that he liked to be called a "Catholic," not a "Roman Catholic."
In his January 2nd Chicago Sun-Times column, he elaborates: "My crowd has been calling themselves 'Catholic' for 17 centuries. The adjective "Roman" added in the American context is a slur, sometimes unintentionally conveyed in the tone of the one using it. It hints that we are somehow foreign and perhaps subversive. It came into use when the 'publics' started to recite the Nicene Creed and their leaders had to explain that the 'one, holy, catholic and apostolic church' of the creed wasn't us." He then goes on to comment on how the media have allowed some "Evangelicals" to preempt the space once labeled "Christian."
There is no question that Protestant meanies in America once spit out variants such as "Roman" (without "Catholic") or "Romish" or "Romanist" or, worse, "Papist" or "Jesuitical," with purely pejorative intent. Turn over a plank and you may still find some creepy-crawly critters, anti-Catholic to the core, who speak or write that way.
But I would argue that today, "Roman" is used neutrally or even positively. First, it is not an "American" usage; as shown in almost all ecumenical documents involving Roman—oops!—Catholics with the World Council of Churches. There, "Roman Catholic Church" is standard, as it is when there is dealing with the distinct Eastern Catholic Churches. (There are also "Anglo-Catholics," and others who have some sort of identifier.) "Roman" also appears in some papal and conciliar documents issued from Rome. And we "publics" did not "start" using the Nicene Creed in recent America. "My crowd," Evangelical Lutherans, have recited, professed, and I hope lived the Nicene Creed with the "catholic" phrase in it for centuries.
Names are important, as I had to remind a friend who thought discussion of names was insignificant compared to cosmic events like " Iowa" and "New Hampshire." Wars start over pejorative and sometimes even innocently used labels. "Catholic" and "Roman Catholic" are not the only complexities these days.
More urgent, most urgent, is the task of dealing in a fair way with the many, many brands of Christians who get lumped together as "Evangelicals," especially in political discourse, where they get miscast simply as "the Christian right." More examples: Luther and Lutherans did not choose their name. None of us liked being label "ecclesial communities" instead of "churches" by Pope Benedict XVI, but we'll live with it. "Mainline Protestants" didn't and don't like their name, which is usually used pejoratively by non-Protestants, most of whom never liked and few ever use the accidentally applied term "Protestant" itself.
But hang around inter-faith and Christian ecumenical crowds and you will find that today "Roman" before the word "Catholic Church" is used mainly by its friends. You can tell by the tone, which is never condescending or motivated by suspicion of another crowd.
_______________________________________________
Martin E. Marty's biography, current projects, upcoming events, publications, and contact information can be found at www.illuminos.com.
Irenaeus,
You also have presented your case well; I appreciate your candor and mature dialogue. I am sure we both we be chatting again in the near future. I too may have to chime in on that one. Take care.
O4H,
I agree, and you have presented your position well and very diplomatically. So I will presume that we are done here for now. This was the first thread that I posted on. I am following the Pro-Gay Booklet's thread, and it is amazing the convoluted rationalizations going on over there. I finally had to chime in.
Irenaeus,
So why does having a chief bishop do so?
Scripture is absolutely silent about a chief bishop; as a matter of fact, this passage indicates that Christ is our true bishop –
For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls – 1Peter 2:25.
The Holy Spirit was sent to be our guide and teacher. It is He who lives within God’s people; -
For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God – Romans 8:14.
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you – John 14:26.
Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you – John 16:7.
The Word of God explicitly declares the will of God and the Holy Spirit is the one who empowers us to walk in harmony with its teachings. A chief bishop is not necessary for salvation nor is this office mentioned in the list of church structure –
And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues – 1Corinthians 12:28.
Most first century believers worshipped in many house churches and were led by the Spirit of God to proclaim the gospel. My point is; the Holy Spirit is the one who internally guides and leads the people of God.
But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth – Acts 1:8.
I guess we can continue to discuss this topic as long as you want to but it seems that we have expounded and elaborated our positions extensively.
O4H,
That there were more than one claimant to the office at a given time does not invalidate apostolic succession. In fact, right now, there are several rival claimants to the office. Pope Michael supposedly lives somewhere in Kansas. And Pope Pius XIII is somewhere in Washington state or Montana. Both of these men have websites explaining the validity of their claims.
Neither does the vacancy of an office invalidate apostolic succession. Remember that that point was made previously regarding the office and the office holder. Often, dioceses have been vacant for a couple of years before a successor bishop has been appointed; this is no different with the bishop of Rome, whether the office is vacant for several years or only several weeks.
O4H,
Regarding whether other bishops were called pope or ‘papa’ is irrelevant because even during those times it was understood who had the primacy of honor and jurisdiction. Similarly, it wouldn’t matter if the bishop of Rome were no longer called pope; he would still be the chief bishop of the Church.
Regarding Christ being the Head of His body, the church, a hearty Amen! I agree. Local congregations have a senior pastor (i.e., chief shepherd, local head, etc), but this does not mean that they are usurping the prerogative of Christ’s headship. So why does having a chief bishop do so? The Catholic Church whole-heartedly agrees that Jesus Christ is the ultimate and absolute Head of the Church. But just as King Hezekiah had a chief steward (i.e., vizier, prime minister, etc) who was in charge of the kingdom, especially in the king’s absence, so was Peter delegated authority to him by the King as chief steward. As chief steward, he had authority over the kingdom, especially during the King’s physical absence. Notice that King Hezekiah never relinquished his authority. The ultimate and absolute authority always remains with the king. Similarly, Jesus never relinquishes His authority; He merely delegates it to another (Peter) in His absence until He returns. Secondly, the office of prime minister, or chief steward, was a successive office and would REMAIN SO as long as the Davidic Kingdom continued. Therefore, Peter’s office, that of being chief steward or prime minister, would be one of succession. The king’s office was successive by virtue of lineage; the prime minister’s office was successive by appointment. Since Jesus resumes the kingship of the Davidic kingdom, then Jesus is allowed to delegate authority to a prime minister in his absence (as was the prerogative of the Davidic kings).
With regard to the faithful succession of apostolic teaching, again I would agree with you. Where we would disagree is where the apostolic teaching solely resides, which is why I believe we moved over to the canon of scripture earlier in this thread. I do not believe that the complete deposit of faith is contained explicitly in the NT scriptures. That was not the purpose of authors, and scripture never makes this claim for itself. For example, how do we as Christian’s know with absolute certitude (i.e., infallibly) that abortion is wrong? The scriptures never address the subject.
And yes, “our faith is in the things that are ‘not seen’” yet this did not help Paul, Barnabas, and others settle the dispute in the early church over circumcision of Gentile converts to Christianity. They did not appeal to the invisible headship of Christ for their clarification. They appealed to visible leadership.
Simply stated, neither is Rome's bishop today linked to Peter by any unbroken chain of successors. The supposed lineage has been often and irretrievably broken. There have been numerous times when multiple claimants to the papacy were seated in opposition one to another (antipopes). This office has also been sold to the highest bidder. Only looking back with the benefit of hindsight does Rome now pick one of them as the 'true pope'. There have also been many times when there was no bishop of Rome for years at a time (e.g. 304-308, 638-640, 1085-86, 1241-43, 1269-71, 1292-94, 1314-16, 1415-17).
Former Jesuit Peter De Rosa writes in Vicars of Christ, speaking of John Paul II:
In the Vatican's lists he is called the 263rd pontiff, but the number is not certain. There have been times when no one knew who was the rightful pope of several claimants. Moreover, it was only in the year 1073 that Pope Gregory VI forbade Catholics to call anyone pope except the Bishop of Rome. Before then, many bishops were fondly addressed as 'pope' or 'papa'.
Irenaeus,
As I mentioned earlier; to share with the apostles the same faith, to believe their word as found in the Scriptures, to receive the same Holy Spirit, is the only sense in which apostolic succession is meaningful, because it is in this sense only that men have fellowship with God in the truth.
The most meaningful apostolic succession for most Protestants, then, is the faithful succession of apostolic teaching. This is what is most important; the importance of doctrinal continuity in the Church as the scriptures reveal.
To begin with, the Scriptures tell us clearly, repeatedly, and thoroughly that Christ Himself is the Head of His Church (Colossians 1.18; 2.8-10, 18-19; I Corinthians 11.3; Ephesians 1.19-23; 4.14-16; 5.23). He Himself is the Head of His Body, and the Source of its unity. All of these Scriptures were written after Jesus had ascended to the right hand of the Father, and His Church remained on the earth. He was at that time the Head of His Church, and nothing has occurred to change that. He remains the Head of His Church today. Nowhere in the New Testament (or the Old) is there any indication that there is a second, "visible"—as Rome claims—head of the Body.
Christ is all sufficient. When He ascended to the right hand of the Father, the Holy Spirit came as His Vicar on the Earth (John 14.16-17, 26; 15.26; 16.7-13). The Church doesn't have a "visible head". Our faith is in the things that are "not seen" (see e.g., II Corinthians 4.18; 5.7; Hebrews 11.1) Peter wrote of Christ, "Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory: Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls." Paul wrote to the Colossians, "If ye then were raised with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God." Jesus is fully capable of fulfilling His office as Head of His Church while seated at the Father's right hand. He has not relegated that office to anyone else.
O4H,
I agree that I too have strayed off topic.
Yes, the Catholic Church (Latin rite and all eastern rites) claim apostolic succession as well as the various Orthodox churches. Whether there are certain Orthodox churches that teach “every bishop is a successor of Saint Peter and holds 'the Chair of Peter', whereas presbyters can be considered successors to the apostles” I do not know. Remember, the primacy of Peter is a special case of apostolic succession.
The following came from the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America website:
Apostolic Succession: The direct, continuous, and unbroken line of succession transmitted to the bishops of the Church by the Apostles. The bishops, who form a collective body (that is the leadership of the Church), are considered to be successors of the Apostles; and, consequently, the duties and powers given to the Apostles by Christ are transmitted through "the laying-on-of-hands" to the bishops and priests who succeeded them by ordination (cheirotonia) to priesthood.
Bishop: (Gr. Episkopos, Archiereas). A clergyman who has received the highest of the sacred orders. A bishop must be ordained by at least three other bishops and is considered a successor of the Apostles.
Nothing is said of the bishops specifically being successors of Peter.
Also, the succession of bishops and the handing on of apostolic teaching is not necessarily mutually exclusive. Both are true. In fact, in combating various heretical teachings, Tertullian states as much in the two statements below; the first speaking of the former while the second speaks to the latter…
“Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [their first] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men—a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter" (Tertullian - Demurrer Against the Heretics 32 [A.D. 200]).
"But should they even effect the contrivance [of composing a succession list for themselves], they will not advance a step. For their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles [as contained in other churches], will declare, by its own diversity and contrariety, that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man; because, as the apostles would never have taught things which were self-contradictory" (ibid.)
Irenaeus,
Sorry for getting back to you so late; I have been very busy. Thank God, the weekend has finally arrived.
I have not been alone with introducing or talking about different subjects during the course of our discussions. Directly or indirectly; we both have touched upon the subjects of tradition, scripture, the church, the role of bishops, infallibility, etc.
"Okay, let’s please stick to a narrower focus"
Apostolic Succession –
In pre Protestant Churches (Chaldean Church of Babylon, Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, Oriental Orthodoxy, Eastern Orthodox Church, Roman Catholic Church), Apostolic Succession is claimed as having been passed through unbroken lines of bishops beginning with the original Apostles. The Roman Catholic Church has traditionally been the most vocal in claiming unique legitimacy in terms of Apostolic Succession based on the assertion that Saint Peter, believed to be the rightful leader of the Church, was the first Bishop of Rome. Other communions such as Anglican and Oriental Orthodoxy claim legitimacy on a similar basis Western Christian groups, including the Roman Catholic Church, hold that bishops are successors of the apostles. The Roman Catholic Church further teaches that the unique successor of the apostle Peter is the bishop (pope) of Rome. Is this not the point that you are trying to make?
However, strict Eastern Orthodox theology and ecclesiology teaches that every bishop is a successor of Saint Peter and holds 'the Chair of Peter', whereas presbyters can be considered successors to the apostles. Most Protestant Churches would deny that the apostolicity of the Church rests on an unbroken episcopacy. They generally hold that one important qualification of the apostles was that they were chosen directly by Jesus and that they witnessed the resurrected Christ. According to this understanding, the work of these twelve (and the Apostle Paul), together with the prophets of the twelve tribes of Israel, provide the doctrinal foundation for the whole church of subsequent history through the Scriptures of the Bible. To share with the apostles the same faith, to believe their word as found in the Scriptures, to receive the same Holy Spirit, is the only sense in which apostolic succession is meaningful, because it is in this sense only that men have fellowship with God in the truth.
The most meaningful apostolic succession for most Protestants, then, is the faithful succession of apostolic teaching. This is what is most important; the importance of doctrinal continuity in the Church as the scriptures reveal.
O4H,
Okay, let’s please stick to a narrower focus, because I cannot possibly address in a timely fashion every new concern that you are bringing up. I would gladly do so, but I just don’t have the time. Until now, I have attempted to narrow the scope to apostolic succession and the early church prior to about 300 A.D in order to not be spread so thin, then we can move to another topic. We somehow then drifted off to the canon of scripture and the Church’s discernment of which early Christian writings were considered canonical. As soon as the term ‘infallible’ was brought up with regard to the Church’s discernment, instead of addressing the immediate point that was brought up, a list of cases throughout the history of the church supposedly demonstrating how the Catholic Church cannot possibly be infallible is then brought up.
So, getting back to the topic at hand, as stated prior, whether or not you want to call the ‘church’ of the first couple hundred years the ‘Roman Catholic Church’ is irrelevant. It has already been demonstrated that this early ‘church’ (call it the ‘xyz’ Church or the Christian Church, it doesn’t matter) whatever its name clearly taught apostolic succession. But based on your response about miracles and such, perhaps we are talking passed one another regarding what an apostolic successor means. I never claimed that the successors to the apostles were themselves ‘apostles’ in the sense that the Twelve were. Obviously, the witness of Jesus’ earthly ministry and the eyewitness testimony to having seen the risen Christ would eventually no longer be able to be fulfilled as the criteria as time progressed further away from when these events occurred. By apostolic successor is meant a person who has been discerned as a leader and been appointed and ordained as a presbyter or bishop by either an apostle or a bishop. There is not one example in the NT where a church leader (whether presbyters or a bishop) assumes the role for themselves; rather, they are appointed and ordained by the apostles and other already-appointed leaders. This is apostolic succession.
"Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry" (Clement's Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 90]).
In direct contrast to these “infallible” declarations, the Roman Catholic church is now saying the following regarding Muslims. Their contradiction is:
“The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. ‘The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day’ “(Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1994, p. 223).
Question: If Muslims can be saved on the basis of professing to hold to the faith of Abraham, why can’t the Jews?
Infallible; I think not. Only God has infinite understanding and makes no mistakes. That is why His Word is infallible (John 10:35) – it comes straight from him 2Timothy 3:16. Scripture never promised that there would be successors to Peter who would be divinely protected from error when speaking ex-cathedra. That is a man-made doctrine.
Another example would be Pope Liberius (352-366) who acquiesced to Arian demands by signing an Arianizing confession and agreeing to the excommunication of Athanasius.
Pope Zosimus (417-418) in an encyclical letter rebuked Augustine and the North African Church for their condemnation of Pelagius and his teachings. The North Africans then assembled a general synod of their own at Carthage in 418 A. D., at which some two hundred bishops were present. They passed a number of cannons specifically condemning the teachings of Pelagius. This was done in defiance of the decrees of Zosimus, giving clear evidence that the early Church did not believe the bishops of Rome were infallible. As a result of their opposition, Pope Zosimus reversed his position and condemned the Pelagian heresy.
Pope Honorius I (A.D. 625-638), who was soundly condemned by the Sixth General Council (680-681) for teaching the monothelite heresy in which he was also condemned by every pope until the eleventh century.
Pope Eugenius IV (1431-1447) facing the possibility of a renewed schism and a crises in his own authority, Eugenius IV finally accepted and fully approved the Council of Basel, which had reaffirmed the decrees of the Council of Constance revoking his previous bulls in opposition to it. The legates appointed by the pope swore to accept and defend its decrees. In this bull Pope Eugenius IV affirmed the Council’s teaching of the superiority of General Councils.
I might also mention the sad reality of “antipopes” in Roman Catholicism’s history. This refers to the fact that there have been times in Catholic history in which there has been more than one pope at a time. (Those interested in this aspect of Roman Catholic history should consult historical works on the Great Schism between A.D. 1378 and 1417 when there were rival popes at Avignon and Rome.) Scholars tell us that there have been about 35 antipopes in the history of the church.
Finally, the RCC teaches that there is no salvation outside of its church; “not only pagans, but Jews, heretics, and schismatics, can ever be partakers of eternal life, but are to go into the eternal fire ‘prepared for the devil, and his angels’ (Matt. 25:41), unless before the close of their lives they shall have entered into that Church;” – (Mansi, Concilia, XXXi, 1739.) (Pope Eugene IV, The Bull Cantate Domino, 1441). This goes hand in hand with Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctum, 1302 in which he state, “it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff”.
Scripture indicates that the church is built on the foundation of the prophets and apostles (Ephesians 2:20). Of course, once a foundation is built, no further foundation is needed. And because no further foundation is needed, there is no need for apostolic successors. The Bible clearly teaches that the apostles and prophets were foundational gifts, and there is not a shred of biblical proof that there were to be successors to the apostles in the RCC.
"Second, the Christian church recognized what was Scripture. It did not establish it. This is a very important point. The Christian Church recognizes what God has inspired and pronounces that recognition. In other words, they discover what is already authentic. Jesus said, "my sheep hear my voice and they follow me..." (John 10:27)."
The same Holy Spirit who moved upon men to pen down the inspiration of God’s Word was the same agent who caused the Church to discern and recognize which books were inspired and accepted. The general consensus had already been made by the divine content of the books themselves – again the church recognized the inspiration of the God’s Words. The contents of the apocryphal and many Gnostic gospels were never widely accepted by the Jews or early Christians because they “discerned” the lack of inspiration that these books required in order to be included with the rest of Scripture. The Old Testament scriptures were already accepted by the early church and most of the NT writers quoted from its pages.
Never made the claim that the NT writings became authentic by virtue of an ecclesiastical declaration.
This has been my point all along; God has preserved his word from the beginning –
For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven – Psalm 119:89.
You continuously used the word ‘infallibly’ – this term is used to prove that the RCC does not error when speaking in matters of the faith. I beg to differ; history proves otherwise – the Galileo debacle – when Galileo, using a telescope, posited the theory that the sun, not the earth, was the center of the solar system, this rocked the boat with the pope and the RCC, which held to the theological position of an earth-centered system. Galileo was promptly summoned by an Inquisition in 1632, was tried, and was pronounced “vehemently suspected of heresy.” From that point forward, he was forced to repeat the seven penitential psalms once a week for three years, and was held under house arrest until his death in 1642.
Irenaeus,
Sounds like you had a good time this past weekend; I was kind of curious as to what happened to you. I did not think that you would just vanish without commenting on my last post. Sorry, for my delay; I am getting over the flu this past week.
"And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another – 1Corinthians 4:6."
I am citing from the KJV.
We have covered this already; it is a known fact that the early church was NOT the RCC as many would like it to be. At any rate; the apostles themselves were unique, the uniqueness of the apostles is seen in the unique miraculous powers they possessed. The apostles were handpicked by God and were given special, unmistakable “signs of an apostles” (2Corinthians 12:12). These signs gifts included the ability to raise people from the dead on command (Matthew 10:8), heal incurable diseases (Matthew 10:8, John 9:1-7). On one occasion an apostle pronounced a supernatural death sentence on two people who had “lied to the Holy Spirit,” and they immediately dropped over dead (Acts 51-11).
Significantly, these miraculous powers ceased during the lives of the apostles. We read in Hebrews 2:3, 4, -
How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him; God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will? The supposed successors did not demonstrate these signs.
While the apostles and their miraculous confirmations have passed away, their authoritative teachings remain in authority in the pages of Holy Scripture. “The authority of apostolic writings has replaced the authority of the first-century apostolic writers. Jude 3 states, “Contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.” “The faith” refers to the apostolic body of truth that became regulative upon the church (see Acts 6:7, Galatians 1:23, 1Timothy 4:1).
“The faith” refers to “that which is believed, a body of faith or belief, a doctrine which was “once” delivered for “all” and handed down to the saints by the unique apostles of God. The “once for all” refers to something that has been done for all time, something that never needs repeating.
O4H,
I stated, “THE REVELATION THAT JESUS OF NAZARETH WAS THIS SAME CHRIST that was spoken of in the OT that was being made known through the apostles. THAT was the NEW revelation being preached.”
You responded, "I agree with your point. My point is, the apostles messages were and always have been in harmony with the scriptures."
And I would say the same thing regarding the teaching of apostolic succession.
O4H,
"Fourth, when the apostles wrote the New Testament documents, they were inspired by the power of the Holy Spirit. There wasn't any real issue of whether or not they were authentic. Their writings did not need to be deemed worthy of inclusion in the Canon of Scripture by a later group of men in the so-called Roman Catholic Church. To make such a claim is, in effect, to usurp the natural power and authority of God himself."
Again, no one here is stating that the NT documents were not written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. As to whether they were all recognized as such is a completely different matter. And as to whether the writings did not need to be ‘deemed worthy of inclusion in the Canon’ is easy for you to say since you are 2000 years removed with your NT books micely bound by Zondervan Press. But to state that the Church did not need to discern which books belong is intellectually and historically dishonest, for without an ‘infallible’ decision of the church, you would not know which books belong. After all, how do you know that 2 Peter or Jude or Hebrews belong in the NT canon? And if the list is fallible (i.e., the list may be in error), how do you know we have them all (or possibly too many as Luther thought)? Maybe the Gospel of Peter, the Acts of Paul, or the First Letter of Clement to the Corinthians should be included.
"Fifth, the Scripture says, "But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God" (2 Pet. 1:20-21). The Bible tells us that the Scriptures are inspired by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the very nature of the inspired documents is that they carry power and authenticity in themselves. They are not given the power or the authenticity of ecclesiastical declaration."
Never made the claim that the NT writings became authentic by virtue of an ecclesiastical declaration. This may be a poor analogy, but an investment-grade VVS1 diamond is a diamond regardless of whether or not I can recognize it out of a pile of other clear shiny gems. However, it takes a certified gemologist from GIA or IGI to discern the grade, quality and color for me to KNOW which diamond is a VVS1 apart from the other diamonds in the pile of lesser grade or even fakes.
O4H,
"Second, the Christian church recognized what was Scripture. It did not establish it. This is a very important point. The Christian Church recognizes what God has inspired and pronounces that recognition. In other words, they discover what is already authentic. Jesus said, "my sheep hear my voice and they follow me..." (John 10:27)."
Agreed. The Church did not give the scriptures their authority; rather, the Church discerned and recognized which writings were inspired. But did the Christian Church ‘infallibly’ recognize what God had inspired? Again, since the scriptures do not contain a divinely revealed and inspired Table of Contents, this demonstrates that an infallible decision had to be made (yes, by the guidance and direction of the Holy Spirit), which is OUTSIDE the NT.
"Third, the Roman Catholic Church did not give us the Old Testament, which is the Scripture that Christ and the apostles appealed to. If the Roman Catholic Church wants to state that it gave us the Bible, how can they claim to have given us the Old Testament, which is part of the Bible?"
The Catholic Church acknowledges that it received the Old Testament scriptures from the Jews, although the Church also claims to have been guided by the Spirit in discerning which Jewish canon was authentic.
O4H,
Sorry it took so long to respond. I was attending a work function last Thursday evening. Then Friday, we left out of town for the weekend with the in-laws. At any rate, I’m back with a few responses.
"And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another – 1Corinthians 4:6."
First, I don’t believe that ‘of men’ is in the Greek. Are you citing from the KJV?
"First of all, the Roman Catholic Church was not really in effect as an organization in the first couple hundred years of the Christian church. The Christian church was under persecution and official church gatherings were risky business in the Roman Empire. Catholicism as an organization with a central figure located in Rome did not occur for quite some time, in spite of its claim that they can trace the papacy back to Peter."
We have covered this before. Whether or not you want to call the ‘church’ of the first couple hundred years the ‘Roman Catholic Church’ is irrelevant. It has already been demonstrated that this early ‘church’ (whatever its name) clearly taught apostolic succession. In other words, you claim that the Catholic Church did not yet exist, and when quotations are cited from early church leaders speaking of a ‘Catholic’ doctrine (in this case, apostolic succession), you dismiss it as erroneous teachings of wayward or apostate leaders.
thelordismylight
What do you mean by 'baptism'?
The church hears the voice of Christ; that is, it recognizes what is inspired and it follows the word. It does not add to it as the Roman Catholic Church has done. Therefore, the Catholic Church is not following the voice of Christ.
Third, the Roman Catholic Church did not give us the Old Testament, which is the Scripture that Christ and the apostles appealed to. If the Roman Catholic Church wants to state that it gave us the Bible, how can they claim to have given us the Old Testament, which is part of the Bible? It didn't, so it cannot make that claim. The fact is that the followers of God, the true followers of God, recognize what is and is not inspired. The Jews knew what was inspired of God and they recognized what God had inspired. That is what those who are of God do.
Fourth, when the apostles wrote the New Testament documents, they were inspired by the power of the Holy Spirit. There wasn't any real issue of whether or not they were authentic. Their writings did not need to be deemed worthy of inclusion in the Canon of Scripture by a later group of men in the so-called Roman Catholic Church. To make such a claim is, in effect, to usurp the natural power and authority of God himself.
Fifth, the Scripture says, "But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God" (2 Pet. 1:20-21). The Bible tells us that the Scriptures are inspired by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the very nature of the inspired documents is that they carry power and authenticity in themselves. They are not given the power or the authenticity of ecclesiastical declaration.
“THE REVELATION THAT JESUS OF NAZARETH WAS THIS SAME CHRIST that was spoken of in the OT that was being made known through the apostles. THAT was the NEW revelation being preached.”
I agree with your point. My point is, the apostles messages were and always have been in harmony with the scriptures.
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so – Acts 17:11.
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica — The comparison is between the Jews of the two places; for the triumphs of the Gospel at Thessalonica were mostly among the Gentiles. See Act_17:2-4.
in that they received the word with all readiness of mind — heard it not only without prejudice, but with eager interest, “in an honest and good heart” (Luk_8:17), with sincere desire to be taught aright (see Joh_7:17). Mark the “nobility” ascribed to this state of mind.
searched the scriptures daily whether those things were so — whether the “Christian” interpretation which the apostle put upon the Old Testament Scriptures was the true one.
Irenaeus,
(although not every man has cooperated with that grace to act in a manner becoming of a presbyter or a bishop).
This is why “all” must be subjected to the Word of God; I agree that the office of a bishop does have meaning, however, the office or title itself means nothing if those in office are unwilling to be true to the Scriptures.
“Of course, I don’t have to be a bishop either to teach my children the scriptures, but in order for me to teach them correctly, and not just my private and personal interpretation, I need to teach them in accordance with apostolic tradition and the teaching office of the church, the pillar and foundation of truth.”
I am not talking about my private interpretation; I am talking about the Word of God being above apostolic tradition. We both agreed that history bears witness of those who have taught things contrary to Scripture. The Scriptures never contradict themselves – so, they have proven to be 100% reliable. The church is the pillar and foundation of biblical truth; any one or any “church” which teaches things that are not explicitly taught in the scriptures is missing the mark.
And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another – 1Corinthians 4:6.
First of all, the Roman Catholic Church was not really in effect as an organization in the first couple hundred years of the Christian church. The Christian church was under persecution and official church gatherings were risky business in the Roman Empire. Catholicism as an organization with a central figure located in Rome did not occur for quite some time, in spite of its claim that they can trace the papacy back to Peter.
Second, the Christian church recognized what was Scripture. It did not establish it. This is a very important point. The Christian Church recognizes what God has inspired and pronounces that recognition. In other words, they discover what is already authentic. Jesus said, "my sheep hear my voice and they follow me..." (John 10:27).
The Catholic Church believes that, being born of flesh and blood, we have a biological family. Through baptism we are SPIRITUALLY born and we gain a spiritual family, Jesus, God, The Holy Spirit, Mary, and all the Saints.
star2-
Through baptism of course.
O4H,
“‘Moses Seat’ - (Matthew 23:1-33) when Jesus said, ‘All therefore whatsoever’ - That is, all those things which they read out of the LAW and PROPHETS, (Isaiah 8:20) and all things which they teach consistently with them.”
I think that you missed the point I was making, which was that Jesus was referring to Jewish tradition since nowhere in the OT does it state that the Pharisees possess Moses’ seat nor does the OT speak of Moses’ seat being an authoritative prerogative of any Jewish body.
“This is a false assumption; the Jewish faith had been established throughout the known world.”
I never meant to state that no Gentiles understood or was even familiar with the OT. But certainly, there were many Gentiles who knew nothing of the Jewish scriptures.
With regard to my statement, “[I]t was Paul who INTERPRETED the OT prophecies concerning the Christ as pointing to Jesus,” you respond by saying that “This is another false assumption.”
Not at all, this was why Paul went through such great pains to preach even to those who not only knew the OT, but also knew about Jesus of Nazareth. For example, Agrippa knew about Jesus' death and (alleged) resurrection. ...But the fact that ‘these things’ were not ‘done in a corner’ and that they ‘had full knowledge’ does not necessarily mean that they believed – and in the case of Agrippa and some others, they did not believe. Those people that knew the OT knew of the prophecies concerning the Messiah, agreed? And we also agree that those same people also knew what happened to Jesus of Nazareth, for these events were not done in a corner. So their knowledge of these events is not being questioned. It was, however, THE REVELATION THAT JESUS OF NAZARETH WAS THIS SAME CHRIST that was spoken of in the OT that was being made known through the apostles. THAT was the NEW revelation being preached.
“It is always best to allow the passage to speak for itself instead of reading into the passage our personal preferences.”
I believe that the scriptures do speak for themselves. I only made the statement regarding the Greek because I don’t know how to read Greek, so I am relying on others when I read the translation of Acts 17:11. And commentaries from those who do know Greek state that the Bereans were regarded as more noble because that received the message with great eagerness. That is the primary reason for the noble character. That they diligently examined the scriptures was a result of their receiving the message with eagerness in order to determine whether what Paul was teaching made sense. Besides, what do you think the Bereans received from the apostle Paul? The Old Testament? No, they already had that. What they received was Paul’s new and final revelation that according to Paul himself was “NOT made known to men in other generations.” So this is not necessarily obvious to anyone diligently searching the OT scriptures; otherwise, how could Paul say that it was NOT known?
O4H,
“The first century church determined that these NT writings were inspired because it had the stamp of the apostles, which could be supported by living eye witnesses, and because of their early dating. The apostle Paul wrote his epistles in the 50’s AD and it describes the first century “biblical creed” in 1Corinthians 15:3-5 –”
The first century church determined SOME of the NT writings to be inspired. Other writings of the NT would be in dispute for some time before being officially declared one way or the other. This would be analogous to some in the church teaching that one must be circumcised first before becoming a Christian. Some in the church were teaching this; some were not. It took an official declaration by a church council to determine upon which side of the dispute orthodoxy fell. Similarly, it took a church council to make the official determination which books belong in the canon of the NT and which were to be excluded.
“You are correct when you said that the first churches in the east do not equate to the modern day Orthodox Church; my point was that the early first century church “recognized” the divine inspiration of scripture prior to formation of the Roman Catholic Church. The first century church was clearly not the Roman Catholic Church as many claim…. establishing Churches in major communities, with the first Churches appearing in Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem; hence the churches in the East.”
I beg to differ; the first century church was the Catholic Church (East and West were unified). Even if I grant your proposal that the Eastern Orthodox Church was the church that officially discerned the NT canon, you would have to admit that this church (the Orthodox Church) also teaches apostolic tradition and apostolic succession of bishops. In your estimation, where did they get such an unbiblical idea? By the way, there were numerous Easterns who were bishops of Rome: the 4th successor of Peter as Bishop of Rome - Evaristus (Greek), 7th - Telephorus (Greek), 8th - Hyginus (Athenian), 10th - Anicetus (Syrian of Emesa), 12th - Eleutherius (Greek of Nicopolis), 18th - Anterus (Greek), 23rd - Sixtus II (Athenian), 27th - Caius (Dalmatian), 30th - Eusebius (Greek of Calabria). The East and West were still unified during this time period.
O4H,
“An office does not sanctify anyone; it is the Word of God accepted by faith that transforms the heart. I guess we will have to agree to disagree when it comes to the office of a bishop and how they were to safeguard the truth. I say that it was the Word of God that permeated the hearts of faithful men in the church who in turn shared these same words to the rest of the church. While you believe the actual office takes precedence over the actual message – ‘the Word of God.’”
Remember, I am not saying that it is either/or, but both/and. Amen… the Word of God accepted by faith transforming the heart… this is absolutely true, but certain ones are to be designated the ‘official’ custodians of the deposit of faith. And the ‘office’ of bishop must have some meaning regarding both the grace and sanctity given the person in the 'office' to do this (although not every man has cooperated with that grace to act in a manner becoming of a presbyter or a bishop). Note that Timothy is charged with guarding the deposit of faith entrusted to him because he holds the office of bishop (the gift of God that is in Timothy by virtue of the laying on of hands), and he is to guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit (cf 2 Tim 1:6, 14). So notice it is Timothy’s responsibility and obligation by virtue of BOTH him being bishop AND his yielding to the Holy Spirit to help him safeguard that good deposit.
“I am sure that his grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice (2Timothy 1:5) actually taught him the scriptures. They did not need an official bishop to declare to the scriptures.”
Of course, I don’t have to be a bishop either to teach my children the scriptures, but in order for me to teach them correctly, and not just my private and personal interpretation, I need to teach them in accordance with apostolic tradition and the teaching office of the church, the pillar and foundation of truth.
irenaeus
Jesus is the Rock not Peter. Jesus doesn't build anything on a human being. He builds it upon Himself.
The body of Christ is not a denomination. It consists of all those who have placed their faith in the saving grace of God, not in the traditions/teachings of man.
One cannot even get saved unless he/she (hereafter referred to as he)
1) knows in his heart that he is a sinner worthy of damnation,
2) knows that Jesus, the Son of God, took God's judgment on Himself by dying on the cross so he wouldn't have to,
3) know that Jesus was raised from the dead,
4) accepts what Jesus did for him by turning to God in prayer and asking Jesus to forgive him of his sins, come live in his heart and be the Lord of his life.
If anyone has not experienced that in his/her life then that person is not saved. They are still lost in the sins.
“I don’t know that the grammar lends itself expressly to mean that the Bereans were more noble BECAUSE they searched the Scriptures.”
It is always best to allow the passage to speak for itself instead of reading into the passage our personal preferences.
“I would suspect that some of the Thessalonians did indeed search the scriptures and still did not believe.”
This would not negate the inspiration of scripture; the scriptures are for believers not unbelievers. Paul and the other apostles did preach that Jesus was the messiah; their message was an echoing of what the scriptures already said. The apostles received authority from Christ himself and they were unique in their calling and ministry.
Christianity first spread in the predominantly Greek-speaking eastern half of the Roman Empire. Paul and the Apostles traveled extensively throughout the Empire, establishing Churches in major communities, with the first Churches appearing in Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem; hence the churches in the East. Previous to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 by the Roman army, at which time the apostles were dispersed, the gospel had gone to Samaria, Ethiopia, Syria, Asia Minor, Greece, Italy, and India.
“Moses Seat” - (Matthew 23:1-33) when Jesus said, “All therefore whatsoever” - That is, all those things which they read out of the LAW and PROPHETS, (Isaiah 8:20) and all things which they teach consistently with them. He could not have desired them to do everything, without restriction, which the Jewish doctors taught; because he himself warns his disciples against their false teaching, and testifies that they had made the word of God of none effect by their traditions. See Matthew 15:6 - . . . . Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. You can read the first five books of the OT and clearly see that Moses penned down the Words of God.
“What of the Gentiles who knew nothing of the Jewish scriptures?”
This is a false assumption; the Jewish faith had been established throughout the known world. How did the wise men of the east hear about the coming messiah? Many gentile converts to Judaism can clearly be seen thought the scriptures, so to say that gentles knew nothing of the OT is incorrect. A good example of this would be the Ethiopian eunuch – Acts 8:27.
“But it was Paul who INTERPRETED the OT prophecies concerning the Christ as pointing to Jesus.”
This is another false assumption; to say that the people cannot understand the messianic prophecies apart from an “authority” figure. These messianic prophecies permeated the Jewish mind; I am sure that during the three and a half years of Jesus’ ministry, the Jewish people were discussing, debating, reviewing the OT messianic prophecies as the viewed the life of Christ. It is the Holy Spirit that guides and instructs the hearts and minds of men. At any rate, the Bereans “confirmed” Paul’s message “after” they verified his message from “scripture.” Why did they do this? We both agree that there have been leaders throughout history who have taught things contrary to scripture; this is why the Bereans reviewed the scriptures for themselves; this is why we must do the same. Again, the patterns we continually see are Jesus and the apostles referring to the “written” record. The Jews, who rejected Jesus as the messiah, did so because of their unbelief despite what Paul said. The only way to verify any message is to compare it with scripture.
“Yes, it was true that scriptures were inspired prior to the council, but nevertheless, the church had to discern which ones they were.”
I agree; the scriptures were inspired prior to the council; the NT is canonical – that is divinely inspired from the moment they were written. The church does make canons and the church does not make books inspired; God does – 2Timothy 3:16, 17. Again, a book is not canonical because a church puts its stamp on it; it is canonical because God breathed it and the church acknowledged it. The church merely “recognized” that the NT writings were intrinsically inspired by God. The first century church determined that these NT writings were inspired because it had the stamp of the apostles, which could be supported by living eye witnesses, and because of their early dating. The apostle Paul wrote his epistles in the 50’s AD and it describes the first century “biblical creed” in 1Corinthians 15:3-5 –
Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.
The passage above also addresses your comment on the development of doctrine; it is true that this development did not occur over night; however, unlike today with information so readily available at the touch of a finger, the early church did gradually distribute the epistles. I mean it did take some time for the epistles to be sent throughout the empire. The creeds only highlighted what was already described in the NT. It is presumptuous to say the first century church did not understand the doctrines that the NT clearly defined. You are correct when you said that the first churches in the east do not equate to the modern day Orthodox Church; my point was that the early first century church “recognized” the divine inspiration of scripture prior to formation of the Roman Catholic Church. The first century church was clearly not the Roman Catholic Church as many claim.
Irenaeus,
“First, I never said that the authority was solely due to the office, since we obviously know that there were some leaders in the early church that taught false doctrine. But the scripture makes clear that authority is tied to the office of bishop and presbyters; otherwise, there would have been no reason for such offices to exist.”
The only authority that truly defines and exemplifies the true position of bishop/presbyters is the Spirit behind the office. I agree that there were some leaders in the early church that taught false doctrine. Our Lord and the apostles demonstrated how false doctrines were to be exposed; it was by the Word of God – Hebrews 4:12. It is also true that “truth” does exist (namely God) and he has given us HIS WORD to sanctify the hearts of his children – John 17:17. An office does not sanctify anyone; it is the Word of God accepted by faith that transforms the heart. I guess we will have to agree to disagree when it comes to the office of a bishop and how they were to safeguard the truth. I say that it was the Word of God that permeated the hearts of faithful men in the church who in turn shared these same words to the rest of the church. While you believe the actual office takes precedence over the actual message – “the Word of God.”
“If someone is teaching another person, it is important to know the authority behind the one supposedly presenting the truth. Remember, Jesus was often challenged ‘by what authority’ was he doing such and such. Paul often times had to appeal to his authority as an apostle in order to establish some wait to his teaching. Paul charged Timothy to hold fast to what he learned because of both SCRIPTURE and FROM WHOM he learned the teachings that expounded the scriptures.”
What you are saying is that the messenger is greater than the message. It is actually the other way around; the message is the Word of God himself, will the servant boast of being greater than the message he was committed to preach? As I mentioned before; the Bereans were more concerned with WHAT Paul said more than WHO was teaching. This is evident by the fact that they searched the scriptures to VERIFY Paul’s claims. The Bible tells us that God is no respecter of persons – Acts 10:34. 2Timothy 3:15 says that Timothy, as a child knew the Holy Scriptures; I am sure that his grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice (2Timothy 1:5) actually taught him the scriptures. They did not need an official bishop to declare to the scriptures;
1Peter 2:9 says, - “But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;.”
star2,
"How can Peter be the "Rock" when scripture teaches that it is Jesus who is that "Rock"?"
How can Abraham be called "Rock" if God is the "Rock"? How can the apostles and prophets be the foundation when scripture teaches that Jesus is the foundation? It depends on the perspective and/or analogy being used.
Someone could argue that Jesus Christ is our paschal sacrifice (I Cor. 5:7, I Jn 2:2). Someone else could argue no, He is our High Priest (Heb. 4:14, 8:1). Well, guess what?… He is BOTH the sacrificial offering AND the one offering the sacrifice (depending on the perspective of focus).
Someone could argue that the Church is the body of Christ (Eph. 5:23, Col. 1:18). Someone else could argue no; the Church is the bride of Christ (Eph. 5:25-27). Well, … the Church is BOTH the body of Christ AND the bride of Christ (depending on the perspective of focus).
Someone could argue that the Church is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ as the chief cornerstone (Eph. 2:20). Someone else could argue no; the Church is built on no other foundation but Jesus Christ (I Cor. 3:11). Well, guess what?… BOTH are true (depending on the perspective of focus).
Someone could argue that Jesus is truly man (Jn. 1:14, I Tim. 2:5, Heb. 4:15). Someone else could argue no; Jesus is truly God (Jn 1:1-5, 18, Col. 1:15-17, Tit. 2:13). Well, … BOTH are true.
Someone could argue that Jesus is the Good Shepherd (Jn. 10:14). Someone else could argue no; Jesus is the Lamb of God (Jn. 1:29). BOTH are true.
Someone could argue that salvation is a reward (Matt. 25: 34-36, Rom. 2:6-7, Gal. 6:8). Someone else could argue no; salvation is a gift given freely (Rom. 6:23, Eph. 2:8-9). BOTH are true.
Do not present a dichotomy where there is none. All of these are true; however, if one is only true to the exclusion of the fidelity of the other one, then that person’s understanding is, at best, a half-truth.
That is why as a Catholic, we do not find a contradiction by saying that Peter is the Rock; but by this statement, we are not denying that Christ is the Rock. For us, both are true based on the perspective of focus. However, Protestants will say Peter is NOT the Rock precisely BECAUSE Christ is the Rock. In other words, Protestants will interpret one verse at the expense of another verse that does not fit into their theological system.
thelordismylight
How do you become born again of the Spirit of God?
thelordismylight
It is good to see you again my friend.
How can Peter be the "Rock" when scripture teaches that it is Jesus who is that "Rock"?
Scripture defines that Jesus is the "Rock" :
And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ – 1Corinthians 10:4.
Jesus is the Rock and He builds His Church upon Himself not a human being.
Re:It is still HIS church, he just built it around PETER.
For God to do this He has to take His Son's glory and praise and give it to Peter.
God says the following in His Word:
"I am the Lord: that is my name: and my glory I will not give to another, neither my praise to graven images." (Isaiah 42:8)
Star2-
That is completely incorrect. The Church IS illegitimate. Whether you like it or not YOUR church is built upon man's opinions of Jesus and the scripture. It is illegitimate because it is human. Jesus SAID that he built his church upon Peter. He did not say Himself, he said PETER! PETER PETER PETER! And upon this rock I build my church. It is still HIS church, he just built it around PETER. He did not say, well Peter, you ARE Peter, but I build this church upon myself. That would be stupid. It is like saying "You are you, and I build this church on me." If he was building it on himself he would not even have MENTIONED Peter. He may SAY IT TO PETER, but he would never say "Thou art Peter AND..." if Peter were not directly involved. Jesus did not try to complicate things. And what about the quote "I am with you always, from now unto the consummation of the world"? What about THAT? It means that there could not have been a day's interval between Jesus' saying that and the first church's birth. It means NO BREAKOFFS. Please explain THAT.
O4H,
Bereans cont'd.
I don’t know that the grammar lends itself expressly to mean that the Bereans were more noble BECAUSE they searched the Scriptures. Rather, the Bereans were more noble than the Thessalonians because they ACCEPTED THE MESSAGE WITH GREAT EAGERNESS while the Thessalonians (or at least most of them) did not accept the message at all. In fact, the Thessalonians later came to Berea, because Paul went to preach there, just to agitate and stir up the crowds (not a very noble thing to do either). The searching of the scriptures by the Bereans was incidental but was not necessarily why they were considered nobler. One could search the scriptures all one wants, but unless one accepts the message with eagerness, how could one be considered more noble. I would suspect that some of the Thessalonians did indeed search the scriptures and still did not believe. Would they also be considered noble simply because they searched the scriptures? No, of course not. What made them less noble than the Bereans was that they did not accept Paul’s INTERPRETATION of the scriptures - the same scriptures that BOTH the Jews of Berea and Thessalonica knew.
Since the OT did not explicitly state that ‘this Jesus’ was ‘the Christ,’ the Bereans could not have come to know this by the OT alone. They accepted BOTH Paul’s apostolic authority along with the corroborating evidence of the OT that Paul explained.
O4H,
"The Bereans, we are told in Acts 17:11 compared Paul’s oral message with the Word of God to make certain that it conformed to the inspired Scriptures. Only then would they accept it. If this was done with the teaching and preaching of an apostle, it is even more necessary for the teachings of those who are not apostles. Thus, where any teaching or tradition conforms to Scripture, it is to be received; and where it does not conform to Scripture, it is to be rejected."
First of all, those Bereans who searched the scriptures to verify that what Paul and Silas had said was true were those who already believed the OT. What of the Gentiles who knew nothing of the Jewish scriptures? What was to be their authority? Secondly, I don’t have all the scriptures memorized; so consequently, sometimes when someone quotes scripture on these threads, I have to ‘search the scriptures’ to verify that that’s indeed what scripture says and read it in context. But that in no way demonstrates that I believe that scripture is the sole authority apart from apostolic tradition. Thirdly, notice that it was Paul’s teaching authority AND scripture that are used in teaching the Bereans. The Bereans knew the OT, and they believed in the OT prophecies that pointed to the coming of a Messiah. But it was Paul who INTERPRETED the OT prophecies concerning the Christ as pointing to Jesus. Nowhere in the OT is the name ‘Jesus’ mentioned as the Christ. That was NEW revelation. It was Paul’s use of the OT (authoritative apostolic teaching) that set out to EXPLAIN and PROVE that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead (Acts 17:3). The Jews didn’t believe that the Messiah was to ‘suffer and rise from the dead.’ But Paul explains this first, then states that ‘This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Christ.’ Paul’s message was being applied to the ‘one called Jesus.’
O4H,
As to the development of doctrine, this has to be admitted by all Christians since it can be historically demonstrated that more precise definitions were required later. For example, while you and I would both agree that the Trinity is taught in scripture, we have to admit that it is deduced from certain truths in scripture and not explicitly taught in clear catechetical terms. Same with the canon of scripture: there was much debate for decades, even centuries, as to whether certain books should be included in the NT canon. That doesn’t mean that it suddenly became true only when it was later taught more clearly, but that a more precise teaching was needed when challenges arose.
"Jesus himself always quoted Scripture; he never quoted from the traditions of his day as having authority. He was always using the phrases – “it is written”, “have ye not read”, “how readest thou” and he stated in John 10:35 that the Scriptures cannot be broken. Finally, Rome did not give us the canon as many RC’s claim. It was the Eastern Orthodox Church that came up with the list of twenty-seven books of the New Testament first. The consensus by the Eastern Church was decided in 367, and the twenty-seven books were included in Athanasius Easter letter from Alexandria."
This is interesting considering that the Eastern Orthodox Church did not exist in 367 A.D. We have already covered this earlier in this thread. A church in the East does not equal Eastern Orthodox Church anymore than the fact that a number of early bishops of Rome were Greeks from the East would mean that the Eastern Orthodox Church is really the one who has a pope. But this aside, you still have to acknowledge that it was an official authoritative declaration by the Catholic Church (or, according to you, the Orthodox Church) discerning which books belong in the NT canon. So either the Holy Spirit guided the church in this matter (similar to the way that it guided the Council of Jerusalem) or they just accidentally got it right.
We also discussed already that Jesus and Paul both appealed to certain Jewish tradition as authoritative. For exmaple, Jesus referred to the ‘seat of Moses’ which is not contained in the OT regarding the teaching authority of the Pharisees.
O4H,
You state that the canon is a statement about what is INSPIRED. Fair enough, but the scriptures still do not tell you WHICH scriptures are inspired; i.e., the canon is a statement about what is inspired, but who is going to tell you what the canon is? If you were a new Christian and someone gave you a Bible, you are still trusting in some authority that assembled which books belong. No one gave you 50 or so manuscripts for you to study and then for the Holy Spirit to guide you into all truth - to the ones inspired through your personal discernment. You state that the canon “is not an object of revelation SEPARATE FROM Scripture, but is revealed and DEFINED by God’s action of inspiration.” Not sure what you mean by this, but the canon is certainly an object of revelation SEPARATE FROM scripture precisely because scripture does not REVEAL to us what scriptures are inspired. And I agree that the canon is revealed and DEFINED by God’s action – this occurred when the Church made a declaration of what scriptures were inspired. Yes, it was true that scriptures were inspired prior to the council, but nevertheless, the church had to discern which ones they were.
O4H,
Wow, that was a long post.
First, I never said that the authority was solely due to the office, since we obviously know that there were some leaders in the early church that taught false doctrine. But the scripture makes clear that authority is tied to the office of bishop and presbyters; otherwise, there would have been no reason for such offices to exist. There is truth; truth exists; there is an authority behind truth (namely God); and that authority can be, was, and is delegated. Yes, Paul was handing on divinely revealed teachings to all Christians, but in a particular way and in an official capacity, Paul handed on the sound doctrine to be safeguarded by those to whom he entrusted it. They were to act as custodians. Paul charged Timothy with the responsibility to guard the deposit of faith precisely because Timothy was bishop of the Church in Ephesus. Yes, all the Christians in Ephesus were admonished to hold to sound doctrine, but in an official capacity, Timothy as bishop (overseer) was charged with holding and teaching sound doctrine. Timothy had apostolic authority by virtue of both his office AND the divinely revealed truth handed down to him.
"It is evidently clear from the passages above, the WHAT was being taught was more important than WHO was doing the teaching."
This is not and either/or, but rather a both/and. It is not only WHAT was being taught, but WHO was doing the teaching. If someone is teaching another person, it is important to know the authority behind the one supposedly presenting the truth. Remember, Jesus was often challenged ‘by what authority’ was he doing such and such. Paul often times had to appeal to his authority as an apostle in order to establish some wait to his teaching. Paul charged Timothy to hold fast to what he learned because of both SCRIPTURE and FROM WHOM he learned the teachings that expounded the scriptures.
to all Catholics:
God never builds anything upon man. He builds it upon Himself. If He built it upon man, then the opinions of mankind is what Jesus would have built His church on. To build a church on what man say is to make that church illigitimate.
When Jesus asked His disciples who did men say He was, they answered Him, some say you are Elijah, others say that you are John the Baptist, and others that Prophet. If Jesus was going to build His church on what men thought then He could have built it on Elijah, John the Baptist or some other prophet. But no, He built it upon Himself. How's that? By the revelation that God gave Peter of who Jesus really was. (Unless you have had a revelation from God you cannot possibly understand that concept.)
Again, the people of Jesus' day had all kinds opinions of who Jesus was. Elijah, John the Baptist, some other prophet, and the Son of God. Only one was right. The one who got it right was Peter. Why was it right? Not because Peter had head knowledge that Jesus was the Son of God but because God gave Peter that revelation. Peter knew it from his heart by the Holy Ghost not from his head like the others did.
Jesus builds His church on revelation not on head knowledge.
Man's witness as to who Jesus is has no value. The only witness of who Jesus is that has ligitimate value is the witness of the Holy Ghost. Jesus does not build His church on what man says about Him, He builds it on what He says about Himself through the Holy Ghost. That is the only kind of church that is ligitimate.
The body of Christ is the Church of which Jesus is its head. This body consists of people who were born again of the Spirit of God through revelation and not through head knowledge.
Online4Him
Re:The Bereans, we are told in Acts 17:11 compared Paul’s oral message with the Word of God to make certain that it conformed to the inspired Scriptures. Only then would they accept it. If this was done with the teaching and preaching of an apostle, it is even more necessary for the teachings of those who are not apostles.
Amen to that brother!
Jesus himself always quoted Scripture; he never quoted from the traditions of his day as having authority. He was always using the phrases – “it is written”, “have ye not read”, “how readest thou” and he stated in John 10:35 that the Scriptures cannot be broken. Finally, Rome did not give us the canon as many RC’s claim. It was the Eastern Orthodox Church that came up with the list of twenty-seven books of the New Testament first. The consensus by the Eastern Church was decided in 367, and the twenty-seven books were included in Athanasius Easter letter from Alexandria.
The truths Paul first communicated to the churches in an oral fashion, especially the content of the gospel, he later committed to writing – and he explicitly warned believers in Colossae to ‘BEWARE LEST ANY MAN SPOIL YOU THROUGH PHILOSOPHY AND VAIN DECEIT, AFTER THE TRADITION OF MEN, AFTER THE RUDIMENTS OF THE WORLD, AND NOT AFTER CHRIST – Colossians 2:8.This is the definitive New Testament model for ascertaining truth. The Bereans, we are told in Acts 17:11 compared Paul’s oral message with the Word of God to make certain that it conformed to the inspired Scriptures. Only then would they accept it. If this was done with the teaching and preaching of an apostle, it is even more necessary for the teachings of those who are not apostles. Thus, where any teaching or tradition conforms to Scripture, it is to be received; and where it does not conform to Scripture, it is to be rejected.
The canon is a FUNCTION of Scripture, or to be more specific, it is a RESULT of the inspiration of Scripture itself. It is not an object of revelation SEPARATE FROM Scripture, but is revealed and DEFINED by God’s action of inspiration. This is a crucial point that has rarely been addressed by RC apologists. The canon is a function of the Scriptures themselves. The canon is not just a listing of books; it is a statement about what is INSPIRED. The canon flows from the work of the Author of Scripture, God himself. To speak of the canon outside of speaking of what is “God-breathed” is to miss the mark. Canon is not made by man; Canon is made by God. It is the result of the action of His divine inspiration. That which is “God-breathed” is canon; that which is not “God-breathed” is not canon. It’s just that simple. GOD DEFINES the canon not by giving some revelation outside of the SCRIPTURA but by giving the SCRIPTURA itself! The error lies in creating a dichotomy between the two things that cannot be separated, and then using that false dichotomy to deny SOLA SCRIPTURA.
2Thessalonians 2:15 says – Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye HAVE BEEN taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
The first thing we note is that this is a command to stand firm and hold fast to a SINGLE BODY OF TRADITIONS ALREADY DELIVERED TO THE BELIEVERS. The verse says, “hold the traditions which ye HAVE BEEN TAUGHT.” There is nothing FUTURE about this passage at all. Does Paul say to stand firm and hold fast to traditions that WILL be delivered? Does he say to hold on to interpretations and understandings that have not yet developed? NO, this oral teaching which he refers to has ALREADY BEEN delivered to the entire church, not just to the episcopate, not just to the bishops, but to EVERYONE in the Church at Thessalonica.
The passage is quite clearly speaking of the transmission of sound doctrine – not an authoritative office!-in the face of those who do not want to endure it. Although Timothy certainly possessed a legitimate office as overseer of the church at Ephesus, there is no mention of apostolic authority (in the sense of an office) being passed on to Timothy by Paul.
It is evidently clear from the passages above, the WHAT was being taught was more important than WHO was doing the teaching. Jesus himself said of those who were not part of his inner circle – And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is on our part – Mark 9:38-40. Whosoever this individual was; he surely did not get apostolic approval to work in for the Lord. It is apparent that the Holy Spirit moved upon this individual to preach and cast out devils.
It was the Holy Spirit that moved upon the apostles to speak and write the Words of God (2Timothy 3:16 & 2Peter 1:20-21); we can thus safely say, that what they wrote is infallible. This confidence cannot be said of those who followed after them. It is true that the apostles began their preaching before it was penned; however, the apostles themselves were in complete harmony with the testimony of the Old Testament message of the coming Messiah and his mission. All of the apostles quoted these OT messianic prophecies.
In reference to the nine other apostles, they were called to be apostles by Christ himself and they were able to demonstrate the truth that they preached from the scriptures (OT) and with signs and wonders. When the NT scriptures came into being; they were in complete harmony with the OT and the church recognized it to be so. The NT scriptures were written by the apostles themselves or a close associate of an apostle who also had firsthand account of the life of Christ.
The Christian church recognized what was Scripture. It did not establish it. This is a very important point. The Christian Church recognizes what God has inspired and pronounces that recognition. In other words, they discover what is already authentic. Jesus said, “my sheep hear my voice and they follow me…” John 10:27. The church hears the voice of Christ; that is, it recognizes what is inspired and it follows the word. It does not add to it as some have done.
Paul did praise those who heard him preach and commended them for searching the scriptures themselves, in order to see if his message was in harmony with the rest of scripture – These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so – Acts 17:11.
But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works – 2Timothy 3:14-17.
For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:
Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers – Titus 1:5, 9.
But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine:
These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee – Titus 2:1, 15.
In Sum, although Timothy and Titus were certainly ministers appointed by an inspired apostle, and though we might loosely refer to them as “successors” to Paul, it is more than abundantly demonstrated by the above passages that their authority over their respective churches was derived from their faithfulness to Paul’s teachings. In no way did their authority stand alone, as something inherent in their “office”. Finally, Paul’s express command was that the teachings – not the office – that had been entrusted to them by he himself were to be passed on to other faithful men. In the following passage; Paul does not seem to be passing on an office:
I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry. For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand – 2Timothy 4:1-6.
Ireneaus,
Forgive me for this long post; however, I noticed several key points that you mentioned concerning apostolic succession. Let me know if I missed something: 1-new leaders receiving authority, 2-the office, 3-preserved from error when teaching the faith, 4-well before anything was written, 5-nine other apostles, 6-Paul praised those who heard him preach, 7-oral teaching infallible, 8-how some writings were considered infallible & 9-the canon.
No one denies that the Apostles of Christ possessed authority over other believers. But what was that authority? Was it something that was tied to direct revelations given them by Christ (the receipt of which set them apart from everyone else in the Church), or was it simply an “office” instituted by the Lord and designed to be passed on dynastically, as was the Old Testament priesthood?
Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit – Ephesians 2:19-22.
This “building” composed of the saints of God is a non-successive structure, the base upon which the rest of the building is constructed. A foundation does not have “successors”, nor does it “develop” over time; it is a given from the start of the project. On the contrary, what does “develop” is the structure that rests on the foundation. What we do find being “passed on” to others in the pastoral epistles of Paul is most definitely not an office replete with successors, but a body of teaching that is said to originate from Christ himself. For example:
As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine, – 1Timothy 1:3.
If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things [warnings about false teachers], thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained. These things command and teach. – 1Timothy 4:6, 11.
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen – 1Timothy 6:20-21.
O4H,
“The Bible does not teach that the apostles were infallible, apart from what was written by them and incorporated into Scripture.”
That’s not exactly true… the apostles must have been preserved from error when officially teaching the faith, apart from anything they may have written, since they were obviously going around preaching to the infant church well before anything was committed to writing. It did not, only then, suddenly become true when pen was put to paper. Also, we do not have any record of any writings from about nine of the apostles, so are we saying that these were not reliable leaders since we cannot have any moral certainty that their teachings were correct when they were preaching? Paul also praised those to whom he was preaching for receiving his teaching not as the word of men, but as the Word of God. And this was true of his oral teaching before his letters were written, so these official teachings must have been infallible.
Second, the NT writings were discerned to be infallible by the church. While the Bible talks of the inspiration of scripture, it does not tell us which writings are inspired scriptures (i.e., there is no inspired Table of Contents). Someone had to gather the 50+ early writings and discern which ones were actually inspired by the Holy Spirit. The church discerned the 27 books that we currently have in the NT. More evidence of apostolic authority.
O4H,
Thank you for the well thought-out and cordial response. I am not denying much of what you have stated; e.g., the gift of the call is from the Holy Spirit, that Jesus is the cornerstone of the foundation of the church (per analogy given in Eph 2:19-20), that the ordained leaders were commended to the Lord, that errors could be and have been introduced by leaders themselves (as evidenced within Paul’s own time), but that does not speak against apostolic succession. The verses cited speak of the new leaders receiving their authority from the apostles; e.g., apostolic foundation (authority), appointment (ordained) and commissioned through laying on of hands, episkopee as being an ‘office’ which implies succession since a person ‘occupies’ an office, and upon the person leaving the ‘office,’ the 'office' remains to be occupied by another. Also, not one instance of a church leader taking upon the office of deacon, presbyter, or bishop on his own initiative apart from the apostles or their successors. When Paul asked Timothy to appoint presbyters or to not too quickly lay hands upon another (do not too quickly ordain a bishop without appropriate discernment), these are instructions from an ‘apostle’ to a ‘bishop’ whom the ‘apostle’ himself ordained, regarding ordination of successive presbyters and bishops… this is apostolic succession.
Regarding the deaconate: no, there is not a succession of deacons. Deacons are ordained by BISHOPS to a ‘lesser’ office. Note that deacons do not ordain deacons, so they still receive their authority from the bishop.
thelordismylight
Glad you are back. I have been mising you.
I went to that website. It didn't make any sense to me. Oh, well...just a dumb protestant? HaHa
Hey guys, I was on vacation. Hey visit this: http://carnenburg.myminicity.com.
Again, the Bible teaches that it is Scripture that is to be used as measuring stick to determine truth from error. In Galatians 1:8-9, Paul states that it is not WHO teaches but WHAT is being taught that is to be used to determine truth from error. While the Roman Catholic Church continues to pronounce a curse to hell “anathema” upon those who would reject the authority of the Pope, Scripture reserves that curse for those who would teach a different gospel (Galatians 1:8-9).
While the Roman Catholic Church sees apostolic succession as logically necessary in order for God to unerringly guide the Church, Scripture states that God has provided for His church through:
Scripture, (Acts 20:32; 2 Timothy 3:15-17; Matthew 5:18; John 10:35; Acts 17:10-12; Isaiah 8:20; 40:8; etc.) Note: Peter speaks of Paul’s writings in the same category as other Scripture (2 Peter 3:16),Christ’s unending high-priesthood in heaven (Hebrews 7:22-28),The provision of the Holy Spirit who guided the apostles into truth after Christ’s death (John 16:12-14), who gifts believers for the work of the ministry, including teaching (Romans 12:3-8; Ephesians 4:11-16), and who uses the written word as His chief tool (Hebrews 4:12; Ephesians 6:17).
While there have been good (humanly speaking) and moral men who have served as Pope of the Roman Catholic Church, including Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, the Roman Catholic Church teaching about the office of the Pope should be rejected because it is not “in continuity” with the teachings of the original church, that related to us in the New Testament. This comparison of any church’s teaching is essential, lest we miss the New Testament’s teaching concerning the gospel, and not only miss eternal life in heaven ourselves, but unwittingly lead others down the wrong path (Galatians 1:8-9).
Ireneaus,
It is always a blessing to visit with family; especially when you have not seen them in a while. The kids must have been excited or should I say both your parents and kids were excited. That is awesome :)
Acts 6:6 does speak of the ordination of deacons; 2Timothy 2:6, when read in the context of chapter 1 does reveal what the “gift of God” was; it is described in verses 13, 14 – “Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. That good thing which was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us. This “gift of God” was the Holy Spirit! It does not say anything of apostolic succession. Ephesians 2:19-20 speaks of the foundation which the house of God is built; it speaks of the apostles but also speaks of the prophets as well, will you then try to find a line of succeeding prophets from then till now? This verse goes on to say that JESUS CHRIST is the cornerstone on which the church is built, not on apostolic successors. 1Timothy 1 speaks of the office of a bishop in general terms and does not mention anything of apostolic succession, this chapter also mentions deacons, will you also claim a line of succeeding deacons from the first century? Acts 1:20-26 speaks of the ordination of Matthias in order to replace Judas. Jesus ordained the twelve, so it is only natural that they would ordain someone to replace Judas. Acts 14:23 is indeed speaking of the ordination of bishops from city to city and from province to province, however, the latter part of this verse says, “they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.” It is obvious that these bishops were ordained to lead believers in these areas and they were commended to the Lord, not to “THE church” or to a “head bishop” but to the LORD himself. Finally, 2Timothy 3:14, when read in the context of the entire chapter; indicates what Paul was speaking of, when he speaks of “the things” which thou hast learned. Verses 14-17 clearly speak of “the things” as being the Word of God – the Scriptures.
Nowhere does Scripture state that in order to keep the church from error, the authority of the apostles was passed on to those they ordained (apostolic succession). What Scripture DOES teach is that false teachings would arise even from among church leaders and that Christians were to compare the teachings of these later church leaders with Scripture, which alone is cited in the Bible as infallible. The Bible does not teach that the apostles were infallible, apart from what was written by them and incorporated into Scripture. Paul, in talking to the church leaders in the large city of Ephesus, makes note of coming false teachers, and to fight against such error does NOT commend them to “the apostles and those who would carry on their authority,” but rather he commends them to “God and to the word of His grace...” (Acts 20:28-32).
O4H,
Regarding apostolic succession and apostolic authority, there are many passages from scripture demonstrating this practice. I understand that it could be argue that any one passage on its own may not necessarily prove apostolic succession or the passing on of apostolic authority, but taken together they clearly demonstrate that this was indeed the practice of the NT church.
Act 6:6 – “They presented these men to the apostles who prayed and laid hands on them.” These are men being ordained as deacons.
2 Tim 1:6 – “I remind you to stir into flame the gift of God that you have through the imposition of my hands.” This is Paul reminding Timothy of his ordination (appointment) to the office of bishop.
Eph 2:19-20 – “… household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets…” The church’s authority is based upon the authority of God passed to and through the apostles.
1 Tim 3:1 – “This saying is trustworthy: whoever aspires to the office of bishop (episkopee) desires a noble task.” Note that this is referred to as an “office.”
Acts 1:20-26 – “May another take his office (episkopee).”
Acts 14:23 – “They appointed presbyters for them in each church…” No on ordains oneself or presumes to act as presbyter without first being ordained.
2 Tim 3:14 – “… Remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it…” Authority is derived from apostolic succession.
I know that this last one is not scripture, but it is still rather early: "Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry" (Clement's Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 90])
O4H,
The weekend went well. My parents were in town this weekend for a visit... primarily to see the grandkids I'm sure.
O4H,
Please see <http://www.catholic-legate.com/dialogues/peterinrome.html> for a somewhat reasoned response to your issues regarding Paul, his and Peter's role, and Paul's letter to the Romans.
irenaeus,
Just make the protestants and mormons happy - protestants: yes organized religion was bad until the protestant reformation. Mormons: yes, organized religion was bad until the new world and Joseph Smith. Let them stay in their revisionist history worlds.
irenaeus,
I believe it is ok to post a link.
Ireneaus,
Whew, long weekend; how was your weekend with your guests?
Nowhere in Scripture did Jesus, the apostles, or any other New Testament writer set forth the idea of “apostolic succession.” Further, neither is Peter presented as “supreme” over the other apostles. The Apostle Paul, in fact, rebukes Peter when Peter was leading others astray (Galatians 2:11-14). Yes, the Apostle Peter had a prominent role. Yes, perhaps the Apostle Peter was the leader of the apostles (although the Book of Acts records the Apostle Paul and Jesus’ brother James as also having prominent leadership roles). Whatever the case, Peter was not the “commander” or supreme authority over the other apostles. Even if apostolic succession could be demonstrated from Scripture, which it cannot, apostolic succession would not result in Peter’s successors being absolutely supreme over the other apostles’ successors.
Regarding John 21:15-17, if we go a little further back to Matthew 26:31-34; Jesus tells the disciples that they would be offended and become scattered as he is taken away. Peter states that he would not deny Christ but would rather lay down his life; Jesus then tells him that he is going to deny knowing the Lord. You know the rest of the story; Peter does deny the Lord three times. Now let’s go back to John 21, Jesus by asking Peter three times, “do you love me”, Jesus is merely restoring this fallen apostle back to the position from whence he fell. He needs to be encouraged and restored back to the ministry by hearing the words, “feed my sheep”. This passage says nothing of a special or an additional episcopal ministry.
(Galatians 2:11-14) - Here was Peter’s fault. He was convinced that God had pulled down the middle wall of partition that had so long separated the Jews and Gentiles, and he acted on this conviction, associating with the latter and eating with them; but when certain Jews came from James, who it appears considered the law still to be in force, lest he should place a stumbling-block before them he withdrew from all commerce with the converted Gentiles, and acted as if he himself believed the law to be still in force, and that the distinction between the Jews and the Gentiles should still be kept up. This passage says that Peter had come to Antioch; meaning, he was visiting when this scenario took place. It is apparent that this gathering composed of both Jews and Gentiles, however, this does not mean that Peter began a new phase of his ministry; Paul was already there. Anyway, there is nothing here supporting apostolic succession.
Are we allowed to post a link?
O4H,
"Here we have it in the clearest of language. It was Paul, NOT Peter, who was commissioned to be the chief Apostle to the Gentiles. … PETER is NOWHERE called the Apostle to the Gentiles! This precludes him from going to Rome to become the head of a Gentile community.”
Yes, Peter was called to be an aposlte to the circumcised, not specifically an apostle to the Gentiles, which was the ministry of Paul. However, Peter's primacy in the Church is not solely based on his ministry as an apostle. Rather, the primacy of chief steward is an additional prerogative in Peter's ministry held in addition to his office as an apostle. An apostle is someone who is called to preach the Gospel as a first-hand witness of Jesus Christ. In this, Peter was called to focus primarily on the circumcised (the Jews). However, his role as visible head and leader of the Church (Christ's ENTIRE flock - John 21:15-19) was an additional episcopal ministry, and, in this, we see him serving both Jews and Gentiles. Indeed, right there in Gal 2:11-14, Paul rebukes Peter for his failure to commune with both Gentiles as well as Jews while Peter is presiding as the bishop of Antioch (prior to his final sojourn to Rome). If Peter's episcopal ministry was only to Jews (if that's how Gal 2:7-8) is to be interpreted) then there would be no reason for Paul to get upset at Peter in Gal 2:11-14.
irenaeus,
I too am busy; will answer your post sometime this weekend.
Taj,
I am surprised you decided to comment here; seeing that you decided to leave without answering my last post. I am actually waiting for ireneaus to get back to me; he has been able to hold a mature and lasting conversation without dodging or neglecting to answer my questions. This has been a nice change.
I thought this fact was already common knowledge. I'll answer the question about if the world is round in my next posting. Bye
Is it even necessary to continue with the historical evidence which could go on for many more posts? Pope Paul VI was able to announce officially something that had been discussed in archaeological literature and religious publications for years: that the actual tomb of the first pope had been identified conclusively, that his remains were apparently present, and that in the vicinity of his tomb were inscriptions identifying the place as Peter's burial site, meaning early Christians knew that the prince of the apostles was there. The story of how all this was determined, with scientific accuracy, is too long to recount here. It is discussed in detail in John Evangelist Walsh's book, The Bones of St. Peter. It is enough to say that the historical and scientific evidence is such that no one willing to look at the facts objectively can doubt that Peter was in Rome.
In his Letter to the Romans (A.D. 110), Ignatius of Antioch remarked that he could not command the Roman Christians the way Peter and Paul once did, such a comment making sense only if Peter had been a leader, if not the leader, of the church in Rome.
Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (A.D. 190), said that Matthew wrote his Gospel "while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church." A few lines later he notes that Linus was named as Peter's successor, that is, the second pope, and that next in line were Anacletus (also known as Cletus), and then Clement of Rome.
Clement of Alexandria wrote at the turn of the third century. A fragment of his work Sketches is preserved in Eusebius of Caesarea's Ecclesiastical History, the first history of the Church. Clement wrote, "When Peter preached the word publicly at Rome, and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been for a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed."
Lactantius, in a treatise called The Death of the Persecutors, written around 318, noted that "When Nero was already reigning (Nero reigned from 54–68), Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked by that power of God which had been given to him, he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God."
Tertullian, in The Demurrer Against the Heretics (A.D. 200), noted of Rome, "How happy is that church . . . where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like John's [referring to John the Baptist, both he and Paul being beheaded]." Fundamentalists admit Paul died in Rome, so the implication from Tertullian is that Peter also must have been there. It was commonly accepted, from the very first, that both Peter and Paul were martyred at Rome, probably in the Neronian persecution in the 60s.
In the same book, Tertullian wrote that "this is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrnaeans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter." This Clement, known as Clement of Rome, later would be the fourth pope. (Note that Tertullian didn't say Peter consecrated Clement as pope, which would have been impossible since a pope doesn't consecrate his own successor; he merely ordained Clement as priest.) Clement wrote his Letter to the Corinthians perhaps before the year 70, just a few years after Peter and Paul were killed; in it he made reference to Peter ending his life where Paul ended his.
William A. Jurgens, in his three-volume set The Faith of the Early Fathers, a masterly compendium that cites at length everything from the Didache to John Damascene, includes thirty references to this question, divided, in the index, about evenly between the statements that "Peter came to Rome and died there" and that "Peter established his See at Rome and made the bishop of Rome his successor in the primacy." A few examples must suffice, but they and other early references demonstrate that there can be no question that the universal—and very early—position (one hesitates to use the word "tradition," since some people read that as "legend") was that Peter certainly did end up in the capital of the Empire.
irenaeus,
I have had this discussion with O4H many times, I personally believe he can't get beyond what he was taught when he was a seventh day adventist. Ok o4H, one more time 4 the record about Peter being in Rome:
here is, in the greeting at the end of the first epistle: "The Church here in Babylon, united with you by God's election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son, Mark" (1 Pet. 5:13, Knox). Babylon is a code-word for Rome. It is used that way multiple times in works like the Sibylline Oracles (5:159f), the Apocalypse of Baruch (2:1), and 4 Esdras (3:1). Eusebius Pamphilius, in The Chronicle, composed about A.D. 303, noted that "It is said that Peter's first epistle, in which he makes mention of Mark, was composed at Rome itself; and that he himself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon."
This is a test... can I post?
O4H,
Since I don't know who you are personally, perhaps these arguments came from you website... I found your rebuttal verbatim, so I suppose inorder to save some time, I will rebut from others rather than my own words. I will also respond back discussing biblical basis for apostolic succession, but may not be until later tonight as I have company staying with us this weekend.
irenaeus,
The burden of proof rest on you my friend; I ask you for biblical passages that you think support apostolic succession and then we can go from there. Fire away.
O4H,
"You speak of apostolic succession without proving that Peter was the first pope, which he was not, or that he was even in Rome. Let’s examine these points – "
You have it backwards my friend. I don't have to prove Peter was the first bishop of Rome prior to demonstrating apostolic succession. Successors of Peter is a particular case of apostolic succession... first we must establish the doctrine of apostolic succession first. Keeping this in mind and not reverting back to discussion of a universal priest for now, why does not Paul simply leave copies of his epistles (since these are NT ssriptures) with the Church in Ephesus rather than placing Timothy in charge as bishop? Timothy's presence and authority is unnecessary if Christians are to have recourse to the scriptures alone apart from apostolic authority.
Next, Paul had to appear before the throne of Caesar and was sentenced to die. Paul describes these circumstances at length in II Timothy. In regard to his trial, notice what Paul said in II Timothy 4:16. "At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men [in Rome] forsook me: I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge." This means, that Peter forsook Paul, for you say that Peter was very much present at Rome during this time! Peter once denied Christ, but that was before he was converted. To believe that Peter was in Rome during Paul’s trial is untenable!
Finally, Paul said: "Only Luke is with me" (II Tim. 4:11). The truth becomes very plain. Paul wrote TO Rome; he had been IN Rome; and at the end wrote at least six epistles FROM Rome; and not only does he NEVER mention Peter, but at the last moment says: "Only Luke is with me." Peter, therefore, was never Bishop of Rome!
Next, we find Paul not only wanting to establish the Church at Rome, but he emphatically tells us that his policy was NEVER to build upon another man’s foundation. "Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, LEST I SHOULD BUILD UPON ANOTHER MAN’S FOUNDATION"(Rom. 15:20). This statement alone is proof that Peter had never been in Rome before this time to "found" any church. Peter was Not in Rome.
Next, at the end of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans he greets no fewer than 28 different individuals, but never mentions Peter once! See Romans 16 --read the whole chapter! Remember, Paul greeted all these people, why didn’t he mention Peter? -- Peter simply wasn’t there!
Next, some four years after Paul wrote Romans, he was conveyed as a prisoner to Rome in order to stand trial before Caesar. When the Christian community in Rome heard of Paul’s arrival, they all went to meet him. "When THE brethren [of Rome] heard of us, they came to meet us" (Acts 28:15). Again, there is not a single mention of Peter among them. This would have been extraordinary had Peter been in Rome, for Luke always mentions by name important Apostles in his narration of Acts. But he says nothing of Peter’s meeting with Paul. Why? Because Peter was not in Rome.
Next, when Paul finally arrived at Rome, the first thing he did was to summon "the chief of the Jews together" (Acts 28:17) to whom he "expounded and testified the kingdom of God" (Verse 23). But what is amazing is that these chief Jewish elders claimed they knew very little even about the basic teachings of Christ. All they knew was that ‘‘as concerning this sect, we know that everywhere it is spoken against" (Verse 22). Then Paul began to explain to them the basic teachings of Christ on the Kingdom of God. Some believed -- the majority didn’t. Now, what does all this mean? It means that if Peter, who was himself a strongly partisan Jew, had been preaching constantly in Rome for years, AND WAS STILL THERE -- how could these Jewish leaders have known so little about even the basic truths of Christianity? No mention of Peter in Paul’s Letters.
Next, after the rejection of the Jewish elders, Paul remained in his own hired house for two years. During that time he wrote Epistles to the Ephesians, the Philippians, the Colossians, Philemon, and to the Hebrews. And while Paul mentions others as being in Rome during that period, he nowhere mentions Peter. The obvious reason is -- the Apostle to the circumcision wasn’t there!
Ireneaus,
You speak of apostolic succession without proving that Peter was the first pope, which he was not, or that he was even in Rome. Let’s examine these points –
First, "The gospel of the CIRCUMCISION was unto Peter; (For He that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles :)" (Gal. 2:7-8).
Here we have it in the clearest of language. It was Paul, NOT Peter, who was commissioned to be the chief Apostle to the Gentiles. And who was it that wrote the Epistle to the ROMANS? It certainly WASN’T Peter! "And when James, Cephas [Peter], and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace [i.e., the gift or office] that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision" (Gal. 2:9). Paul further mentioned his special office as the Gentile Apostle in II Timothy 1:11: "Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles."
PETER is NOWHERE called the Apostle to the Gentiles! This precludes him from going to Rome to become the head of a Gentile community.
Next, Paul specifically told the Gentile Romans that HE had been chosen to be their Apostle, not Peter. "I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable” (Rom. 15:16). How clear! Paul had the direct charge from Christ in this matter. He even further relates in Romans 15:18 that it was Christ who had chosen him "to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed."
PAUL Established the Only TRUE Church at Rome during the apostolic era.
Next, we are told by Paul himself that it was he -- not Peter –who was going to officially found the Roman Church. "I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established" (Rom. 1:11). The Church at Rome had not been ESTABLISHED. Of course you understand that NEITHER Peter nor Paul established the Catholic Church! But these proofs are given to illustrate that it is utterly impossible for PETER to have been in any way associated with ANY Church at Rome.
Ireneaus,
I am not putting words in your mouth; you keep referring to apostolic succession and I keep reminding you that the apostolic church never taught that there WAS or IS a universal priest which would preside over the church. To take a claim “apostolic succession” and bind believers to it without any explicit scriptural support should not only questioned but rejected all together. There are many passages of scripture where the LORD himself pronounces stern warning to those who would add or take away from his word, for example: “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you” - Deuteronomy 4:2, and “And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book” – Revelation 22:19.
You said, …“which is precisely why we need to hold fast to the apostolic authority in the church.”
The only way to detect deceivers from within is to take their message and compare it with scripture. Timothy was well suited defending the faith, seeing that his scripturally based disposition gave him the fortitude and knowledge to face any opposition. Jesus never quoted tradition as the source of truth but always used the “it is written” approach when speaking with others.
"Untrue; listen to 2Timothy 3:15 – “And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” According to this, Timothy would have declared nothing but scripture."
The OT scriptures are what I was referring to; remember I emphasized earlier that the apostolic church had the OT scriptures and it was not left in a theological abyss as you would have us believe. The fact that Paul placed Timothy in charge in Ephesus does not prove a universal priest was in existence. Timothy himself was not the standard by which truth was to be measured; it was and always has been the Word of God.
We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak; - 2Corinthians 4:13.
O4H,
"I agree with this statement, however, this is not the issue; the issue is – does Timothy or any other NT writer mention or teach a universal priest would preside over the church?"
I never said that this demonstrates a universal priest... what I said was there are passages that indicate apostolic succession, and you are refusing to address this as you keep going back to the idea of a universal priest. We cannot move on to primacy of the bishop of Rome until I understand your obstacle to apostolic succession.
O4H,
"My point is that the NT books were written before the year 100 A.D. and to assume I would not be able to read because of a high illiteracy rate is an assumption. If we are going on assumptions, then how do you not know that these NT books were not being circulated throughout the churches faster than you think? Anyway, the apostolic church did have the OT in their possession; so, they were not in a theological abyss as you make seem. "
To assume that you would be able to read the NT books or that you would have had them available to you is actually an assumption that is more untenable than mine. And whether the apostolic church had the OT in their possession is immaterial... - so did the unbelieving Jews. Also, the OT scriptures did not have near the force as the church spread to the Gentiles because the OT was not a foundation that the Gentiles had, so their possession of the OT did not help them much in the way of theology.
And even for the Jews or the God-fearing Gentiles who were familiar with the OT scriptures, it was only with the understanding of the New Covenant revelation that ‘sound doctrine’ could be taught. For example, not only was Herod Agrippa familiar with the OT, he also knew about Jesus' death and (alleged) resurrection. ...but the fact that 'these things' were not 'done in a corner' and that they 'had full knowledge' still didn’t help some of them believe. It was, however, THE REVELATION THAT JESUS OF NAZARETH WAS THIS SAME CHRIST that was spoken of in the OT that was being made known through the apostles and persuaded some to believe. THAT was the revelation being preached, and that teaching came down to the early church through the apostles and their protégés. The OT alone would have been insufficient to reveal this.
O4H,
"Untrue; listen to 2Timothy 3:15 – “And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” According to this, Timothy would have declared nothing but scripture."
Not exactly, the only scriptures that Timothy knew from his childhood were the OT scriptures, so he would not have been declaring NT scripture. Don't get me wrong, this was an excellent foundation, for it was through his knowledge of the OT scriptures along with Paul's teaching that he was to preserve. Timothy was to faithfully guard and hand on the faith. But the point that was being made was that, according to your position, those in the Church of Ephesus could have ingored instruction from Timothy (since TImothy cannot claim infallibility).
O4H,
" ‘with the church’ – no thanks; it would be unwise to substitute tradition for the Word of God. History proves that many unbiblical dogmas have been proclaimed by Rome and its fathers."
'with the church' - absolutely, and I never said substitute tradition for the Word of God... please do not put words in my mouth. I said to interpret the scripture ‘with the church’ in accordance with apostolic tradition. That is not SUBSTITUTING tradition for the Word of God. Besides, Paul tells us to hold fast to tradition and that the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. Now, we can later debate your position of how Rome later taught unbiblical doctrine, but baby steps first. We are talking about apostolic authority and apostolic succession in the first centuries of the early church.
"The book of Acts correctly testifies to what the church actually practiced and taught in the apostolic age and laid the foundation for the post-apostolic age. This book actually warns of wolves in sheep’s clothing who will seek to draw away disciples after them – "
The book of Acts only testifies in part to what the church actually practiced and taught. And yes, there will be wolves in sheep's clothing... the deceivers will come from within, which is precisely why we need to hold fast to the apostolic authority of the church. As noted in scripture, even many in the NT church were being led astray, which is why in one instance, Paul placed TImothy in charge in Ephesus - to guard the deposit of faith in opposition to the false teachers. Of course, Paul probably should have just given the Church in Ephesus a copy of all his epistles and let them read them for themselves, rather than use apostolic succession, and place TImothy in charge of the Church in Ephesus.
“Sure it does. Both epistles to Timothy focus on pastoral theology, so we’re not merely talking about teaching other people as in a Bible study – the epistle addresses good church order and good morals, and ensuring the teaching of ‘sound doctrine’ in his capacity as presbyter and bishop, especially against false teachers. Paul exhorts Timothy to guard the ‘deposit of faith.”
I agree with this statement, however, this is not the issue; the issue is – does Timothy or any other NT writer mention or teach a universal priest would preside over the church?
Act 20:28 does not mention bishop; unless you are referring to the word, “overseers.” This verse is speaking to the overseers, collectively; it says nothing of one universal priest or Vicar of Christ. Acts 1:20 is referring to Judas who apostatized and we know that Mathias took his place. Nothing in this text suggests a universal priest. Let us read 1Peter 5:1-4 in its context –
The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:
Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;
Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being examples to the flock.
And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.
These verses are speaking of “elders” in a plural sense, of whom Peter also says, he is an elder. He does not claim the titles of father, Vicar of Christ, or head of the church. He points to the true chief Shepherd in verse 4.
“…they certainly would not have listened to Timothy because Timothy, according to your position, cannot claim that he was infallible.”
Untrue; listen to 2Timothy 3:15 – “And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” According to this, Timothy would have declared nothing but scripture.
“But then how do you explain those who claimed primacy of the Church of Rome or more specifically, the primacy of the bishop of Rome prior to this time.”
As, I stated in my earlier posts; there is no scriptural evidence that speaks of a universal head, other than Jesus Christ. When Jesus gave us the Revelation or Apocalypse; he mentions seven churches specifically – Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea. It is ironic that he does not mention Rome or any universal bishop presiding there. Regarding Justinian’s decree - Source: Corpus Juris Civilis (The Civil Law, the Code of Justinian), by S.P. Scott, A.M., published by the Central Trust Company, Cincinnati, copyright 1932, Volume 12 [of 17], pages 9-12, 125.
“I have no problem with the dates you provided, although I’m not sure what your point is.”
You stated: “If you were living in Antioch around the year 100 A.D, your bishop would have been Ignatius who was a contemporary of Polycarp and a disciple of the apostle John, who may have been dead by then. You wouldn’t have had the NT yet, and if you did, you probably could not have read it (high illiteracy rate). Would you not have trusted Ignatius as your pastor based on his teachers and succession?”
My point is that the NT books were written before the year 100 A.D. and to assume I would not be able to read because of a high illiteracy rate is an assumption. If we are going on assumptions, then how do you not know that these NT books were not being circulated throughout the churches faster than you think? Anyway, the apostolic church did have the OT in their possession; so, they were not in a theological abyss as you make seem.
Irenaeus,
“Which is precisely why I need to interpret the scripture ‘with the church’ in accordance with apostolic tradition and not out of my own personal interpretation.”
‘with the church’ – no thanks; it would be unwise to substitute tradition for the Word of God. History proves that many unbiblical dogmas have been proclaimed by Rome and its fathers.
The book of Acts correctly testifies to what the church actually practiced and taught in the apostolic age and laid the foundation for the post-apostolic age. This book actually warns of wolves in sheep’s clothing who will seek to draw away disciples after them –
For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears – Acts 20:27-30.
Paul calls the “elders” from Ephesus (verse 17) and warned them - “also of your OWN SELVES shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.” Paul warned that from among the elders or bishops, men would arise to elevate themselves instead of God and lead some astray.
O4H,
“First, there is a difference between pastors or in this case, bishops whom the Scriptures speak of and the pope in Rome. There are only six verses that use the word “bishop” and they are found in Acts 1:20, Philippians 1:1, 1Timothy 3:1, 1Timothy 3:2, Titus 1:7, and 1Peter 2:25. None of these verses speak of a universal priest presiding over the church or speak of a time in the near future where there would be one. There are three verses where the word “head” or “head of the church” is used and all these verses always refer to Jesus Christ – Ephesians 1:22, Ephesians 5:23, Colossians 1:18.”
Acts 20:28 also uses that term “bishop” (episkopos). Acts 1:20, which you reference, also indicate apostolic succession and ties the office of apostle with that of bishop (episkope). I Pet 5:2 uses the same cognate as a verb (episkopeo), and I believe there are a couple more where the verb form is used. Leaving aside for a moment the idea of a chief bishop, do you not accept at least apostolic succession? After all, who are these first bishops of the NT church other than those ordained and appointed by the apostles. Do you not think that these bishops then in turn ordained and appointed approved and reliable men to succeed them in their ‘office’ (episkope)? Isn’t this apostolic succession?… e.g., Timothy and Titus are bishops who received their apostolic authority from Paul. Did they not in turn ordain and appoint presbyters, some of whom became bishops of particular churches? And so on...
O4H,
“Secondly, here is a list of the NT books and their approximate dates in which they were written; nearly all of them before the year 100AD.”
I have no problem with the dates you provided, although I’m not sure what your point is. That these writings were penned at these various dates does not mean that they had immediate circulation all around the known world at that time. So if you were living in Antioch around the year 100 A.D, you may not necessarily have had access to many of these writings. Your bishop would still have been Ignatius who was a contemporary of Polycarp and a disciple of the apostle John. Would you not have trusted Ignatius as your pastor based on his teachers and succession? If you lived in Ephesus at this time, Timothy would have already been dead… would you not have trusted one of the ‘reliable’ men that was instructed by Timothy?
“Sorry, this text does not support apostolic succession; the simple fact is that the NT does not support or even mention anything of a universal priest presiding over the church.”
Sure it does. Both epistles to Timothy focus on pastoral theology, so we’re not merely talking about teaching other people as in a Bible study – the epistle addresses good church order and good morals, and ensuring the teaching of ‘sound doctrine’ in his capacity as presbyter and bishop, especially against false teachers. Paul exhorts Timothy to guard the ‘deposit of faith.’ Of course, according to you, this would be of no avail since Timothy cannot claim infallibility.
O4H,
“Also, it is a fact of history, that the European barbarians caused the Roman Empire to collapse and ultimately caused the transfer of power to go from the emperors to the popes. There was a “void” to be filled with the emperors of the empire in full retreat and in 533AD, the emperor Justinian (Emperor of eastern Rome) decreed that the bishop of Rome should be recognized as the “Head of all the Holy Churches.” This “office” apparently seems to have been more of a political move rather than a divine ordination.”
But then how do you explain those who claimed primacy of the Church of Rome or more specifically, the primacy of the bishop of Rome prior to this time. Even if I were to accept your liberal dating, you’ve have already admitted that this acknowledgment had at least occurred more than 200 years prior to emperor Justinian. Also, could you please cite a reference to Justinian’s decree, as I am unaware of this? By the way, for the sake of brevity and simplicity, let’s stay with the first couple of hundred years of the church.
O4H,
“Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost – 2Peter 1:20, 21.”
Which is precisely why I need to interpret the scripture ‘with the church’ in accordance with apostolic tradition and not out of my own personal interpretation.
“The Church fathers cannot claim that they were moved by the Holy Spirit while they penned their thoughts; many of them were again, unorthodox in their theology.”
Again, I have never claimed that the early church fathers were infallible, but merely that they testify to what the church actually practiced and taught in the apostolic and post-apostolic age. And if those early Christians residing in Ephesus (say around 70AD) had your mentality, they certainly would not have listened to Timothy because Timothy, according to your position, cannot claim that he was infallible.
As to the unorthodox theology of the early church fathers, how do you know what is orthodox and what is heterodox? I am attempting to narrow the scope of the discussion for the sake of simplicity, and so what I have been discussing is apostolic succession and the primacy of the Church of Rome ONLY, in which ALL the early church fathers I named earlier, without exception, taught. So again I ask you, do you mean to tell me that every one of these early church fathers was proclaiming and teaching error with regard to apostolic succession and primacy of the Church of Rome?
continued:
Finally, you said,
“That’s true - some did fall away, and they were quickly called to task for their heterodoxy. But in the case of apostolic succession and the primacy of the Church of Rome, the witness of the early church fathers were unanimous.”
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost – 2Peter 1:20, 21.
The Church fathers cannot claim that they were moved by the Holy Spirit while they penned their thoughts; many of them were again, unorthodox in their theology. Also, it is a fact of history, that the European barbarians caused the Roman Empire to collapse and ultimately caused the transfer of power to go from the emperors to the popes. There was a “void” to be filled with the emperors of the empire in full retreat and in 533AD, the emperor Justinian (Emperor of eastern Rome) decreed that the bishop of Rome should be recognized as the “Head of all the Holy Churches.” This “office” apparently seems to have been more of a political move rather than a divine ordination.
continued:
“If you were living in Antioch around the year 100 A.D, your bishop would have been Ignatius who was a contemporary of Polycarp and a disciple of the apostle John, who may have been dead by then. You wouldn’t have had the NT yet, and if you did, you probably could not have read it (high illiteracy rate). Would you not have trusted Ignatius as your pastor based on his teachers and succession?”
Secondly, here is a list of the NT books and their approximate dates in which they were written; nearly all of them before the year 100AD.
Dates of New Testament Books
Gospel of Mark: +70 AD (conservative dating may be as early as 50)
Gospel of Matthew: +80-90 AD (conservative dating in the 60s although as early as the 40s)
Gospel of Luke: +80–90 AD (conservative dating in the 60s)
Gospel of John: +95–110 AD (conservative dating in the late 80s to early 90s)
Acts: +80–90 AD (conservative dating in 60s)
James: ca.70–200 AD (conservative dating ca.45–62 AD)
Colossians: +60 AD+
Corinthians: +57 AD
Ephesians: +65 AD
Hebrews: +60–90 AD
Epistles of John: +95-110 AD
Jude: +70–100 AD (conservative dating in the 60s or earlier)
First Peter: ca. 90–96 AD (conservative dating ca.64 AD)
Second Peter: 100–140 AD (conservative dating ca.64 AD)
Philemon: +56 AD
Philippians: +57–62 AD
Romans: +57–58 AD
Galatians: +54–55 AD (conservative dating in the late 40s)
Thessalonians: +50 AD
Timothy: +70–100 AD (conservative dating ca.60)
Titus: +70–100 AD (conservative dating ca.60)
Revelation: +81–96 AD (dating in the 60s as a minority view among conservatives)
Irenaeus,
“But Paul and John did not teach against apostolic succession or the primacy of the Church of Rome. In fact, 2 Tim 2:2 suggests apostolic succession.”
And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also – 2Timothy 2:2.
Sorry, this text does not support apostolic succession; the simple fact is that the NT does not support or even mention anything of a universal priest presiding over the church.
“So then we don’t need pastors in the church?”
First, there is a difference between pastors or in this case, bishops whom the Scriptures speak of and the pope in Rome. There are only six verses that use the word “bishop” and they are found in Acts 1:20, Philippians 1:1, 1Timothy 3:1, 1Timothy 3:2, Titus 1:7, and 1Peter 2:25. None of these verses speak of a universal priest presiding over the church or speak of a time in the near future where there would be one. There are three verses where the word “head” or “head of the church” is used and all these verses always refer to Jesus Christ – Ephesians 1:22, Ephesians 5:23, Colossians 1:18.
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your REMEMBRANCE, WHATSOEVER I HAVE SAID UNTO YOU - John 14:26. The last part of this verse is speaking in the past tense; so the Holy Spirit would remind the early church of WHAT JESUS said, not what church fathers have said.
O4H,
“I would rather choose the testimony of the apostle Paul and apostle John over the entire lot of church fathers who have often contradicted each other.”
But Paul and John did not teach against apostolic succession or the primacy of the Church of Rome. In fact, 2 Tim 2:2 suggests apostolic succession. And regarding apostolic succession and primacy of the Church of Rome, none of these early church fathers contradicted one another; not one. So again, you mean to tell me that Clement of Rome, Hegesippus, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, and Cyprian all got it wrong on these two issues.
“The only representative that Jesus talked about was the Holy Spirit; it is he that ministers in his behalf.”
So then we don’t need pastors in the church? Jesus did say of His disciples, “He who hears you, hears me; and he who rejects you, rejects me, and he who rejects me, rejects the One who sent me.” From Jesus, to the apostles, and to Paul, to Timothy, to reliable men, to others whom they will teach (cf 2 Tim. 2:2) - If you were one of those being taught by “others” who had been taught by the reliable men appointed by Timothy, would you say, “Well, I’m not going to listen and take instruction from you or from the ‘so called’ reliable men who taught you, or I’m not going to listen to Timothy, but only Paul; or maybe not even Paul; I’m only going to listen to Jesus.” Is that how you would respond? If you were living in Antioch around the year 100 A.D, your bishop would have been Ignatius who was a contemporary of Polycarp and a disciple of the apostle John, who may have been dead by then. You wouldn’t have had the NT yet, and if you did, you probably could not have read it (high illiteracy rate). Would you not have trusted Ignatius as your pastor based on his teachers and succession?
irenaeus,
"You mean to believe that Clement of Rome, Hegesippus, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, all got it wrong – every one of them? And not only that, not a single record challenging this teaching?"
I would rather choose the testimony of the apostle Paul and apostle John over the entire lot of church fathers who have often contradicted each other.
"The Catholic Church recognizes Jesus as the head of the Church with Peter and his successors acting as His Vicar on earth; i.e., vicar meaning representative, chief steward, prime minister, etc."
The only representative that Jesus talked about was the Holy Spirit; it is he that ministers in his behalf.
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you - John 14:26.
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you – John 16:13, 14.
As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them - Acts 13:2. So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed unto Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus - Acts 13:4.
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual - 1Corinthians 2:13.That good thing which was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us - 2Timothy 1:14.
Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into – 1Peter 1:12.
O4H,
“This is not an analytical treatise on church order; however, what is not mentioned throughout the NT is a universal priest; maybe it is because the NT believers recognized the Lord Jesus Christ as prophet, king, high priest, and the head of the church –”
The Catholic Church also recognizes the Lord Jesus Christ as prophet, high priest, king, and the head of the church, but none of those things preclude a chief bishop any more than those same things preclude a local bishop. And the Catholic Church would proclaim a loud “Amen!” to all the scripture references. Just as a side note, notice in a couple of the quotes you provided that one of the ministerial gifts of the church is prophet, yet you recognize that this does not conflict with Jesus being THE prophet. By the way, the ministerial gifts should not be confused with the ordained offices of the church – namely, bishop, presbyter, and deacon.
“In reference to all the Protestant churches who have various structures and governances; these churches only recognize Jesus Christ as the head of the church and his true representative – the Holy Spirit.”
The Catholic Church recognizes Jesus as the head of the Church with Peter and his successors acting as His Vicar on earth; i.e., vicar meaning representative, chief steward, prime minister, etc.
“The church fathers have not always taught orthodox Christianity, have not always agreed with one another on various issues and the early church fathers surely did not teach current RCC dogma. My point is the Scriptures never contradict themselves.”
That’s true - some did fall away, and they were quickly called to task for their heterodoxy. But in the case of apostolic succession and the primacy of the Church of Rome, the witness of the early church fathers were unanimous. You mean to believe that Clement of Rome, Hegesippus, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, all got it wrong – every one of them? And not only that, not a single record challenging this teaching?
Irenaeus,
You said: “the NT scriptures do not give a detailed and analytical treatise on church order, structure, and governance, for this was not its intent.”
This is not an analytical treatise on church order; however, what is not mentioned throughout the NT is a universal priest; maybe it is because the NT believers recognized the Lord Jesus Christ as prophet, king, high priest, and the head of the church –
And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence - Colossians 1:18.
And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues – 1Corinthians 12:29.
And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; - Ephesians 2:20.
And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; - Ephesians 4:11.
For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls - 1Peter 2:25
In reference to all the Protestant churches who have various structures and governances; these churches only recognize Jesus Christ as the head of the church and his true representative – the Holy Spirit. The church fathers have not always taught orthodox Christianity, have not always agreed with one another on various issues and the early church fathers surely did not teach current RCC dogma. My point is the Scriptures never contradict themselves.
O4H,
It’s not a matter of whether the testimony of the early church fathers takes precedence over the Word of God, and that is not at all what I’m proposing. As stated previously, the NT scriptures do not give a detailed and analytical treatise on church order, structure, and governance, for this was not its intent. This is also clearly demonstrated by all the Protestant churches who have various structures and governances all claiming to be modeled after the NT church, so it must not be that obvious. While the writings of the early church fathers are not taking precedence over the Word of God, they certainly witness to how the church actually was ordered and structured. And their witness is not against what scripture states either. This would almost be like someone saying that they believe that abortion is morally licit because the Bible does not explicitly state that “Thou shalt not have an abortion.” Never mind that the early church fathers witness to the fact the abortion was considered immoral by the early church. Their witness does not take precedence over the Word of God, but their witness is not against the Word of God either.
irenaeus,
I understand your position but again, tradition does not take precedence over the Word of God. Even if Peter did end up in Rome; this does not prove he was pope.
"Its certain that Peter spent his closing years in Rome. Although the NT appears silent about such a stay, it is supported by 1 Peter 5:13, where 'BABYLON' is a code-name for ROME, and by the strong case for linking the Gospel of Mark, who as Peter's companion (1 Pet 5:13) is said to have derived its substance from him, with Rome. To early writers like Clement of Rome (c. 95), Ignatius of Antioch (c. 107), and Irenaeus (c. 180) it was common knowledge that he worked and died in Rome." - John Norman Davidson Kelly; Protestant Canon of Chichester Cathedral and a Fellow of the British Academy; Member of the Academic Council of the Ecumenical Theological Institute, Jerusalem.
"That Peter as well as Paul was put to death at Rome under Nero is the UNANIMOUS testimony of Christian tradition so far as it touches this subject."
"That Peter and Paul were the most eminent of many Christians who suffered martyrdom in Rome under Nero is CERTAIN; that they were claimed as co-founders of the Roman church and that this, together with their martyrdom there, conferred great religious (as distinct from political) prestige on that church, is likewise CERTAIN...." - NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY (Doubleday and Co, 1971) by F.F. Bruce, p. 403,410
O4H,
“The scripture tell us what Paul was doing in Rome but they say nothing of Peter being in Rome; kind of ironic, don’t you think? Both scripture and history say nothing of Peter being the first pope in Rome. Iraeneus and Hyppolytus do not mention Peter being the first pope on their list. I respect and understand your position; however, I just do not see enough biblical support for this teaching. I also believe that the church fathers do not take precedence over the Word of God.”
First, history does say that Peter went to Rome and was martyred there, and in fact, there is no historical record claiming that Peter did not go to Rome or that he dies elsewhere. Second Irenaeus does not use the words “Peter was the first ‘pope’”, but as stated prior, he clearly states that the episcopacy (bishopric) was handed over to Linus. Also, it is clear that Irenaeus is speaking of the churches tracing their succession back to the apostles, and he uses the Church of Rome as an example. So what good would it have done for Irenaeus as his example to demonstrate apostolic succession to select a church who did not have an apostle as founder to whom to hand the episcopal office? Finally, I agree that the church fathers do not take precedence, and they certainly are not infallible, but they do provide historical testimony and corroborating witness to what was taught, believed, and practiced in the early church.
Irenaeus,
The scripture tell us what Paul was doing in Rome but they say nothing of Peter being in Rome; kind of ironic, don’t you think? Both scripture and history say nothing of Peter being the first pope in Rome. Iraeneus and Hyppolytus do not mention Peter being the first pope on their list. I respect and understand your position; however, I just do not see enough biblical support for this teaching. I also believe that the church fathers do not take precedence over the Word of God.
O4H,
“So, how could Linus be bishop of Rome while Peter was still alive if Peter was the first bishop of Rome. Papal succession occurrs after a pope's death right? Also, if Linus was bishop of Rome while Peter was alive, that would mean that Linus, not even an Apostle, had Papal supremacy over both Peter and Paul - two living Apostles.”
Linus was ordained to succeed Peter, after Peter dies. Clement makes mention of this in general regarding all the early leaders of the church when he states, “Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, IF THEY SHOULD DIE, other approved men should succeed to their ministry" (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).
O4H,
“How can Rome claim Peter as first Bishop of Rome, and an 'infallible' pope, when "fathers" of the church seem to be so ignorant of the fact?”
You are missing that Linus was the first SUCCESSOR to the episcopate of Rome, NOT necessarily the first episcopos of Rome (e.g., Pope Benedict XVI is the 266th pope, but he is the 265th successor to Peter). It is stated that the episcopate was handed over to Linus. Was it at that point that the office was created, or if it existed prior who occupied it before Linus? You bring up a good point, but the office of ‘pope’ is tied to the successor of Peter who happens to be the bishop of Rome. Of course, Catholics would profess that Peter was still the first pope while he was bishop of Antioch. Also, it could be that the term ‘bishop’ is causing the confusion, since it could be argued that Linus was the first bishop, not that Peter was not a bishop, but that Peter was an apostle (and Linus was not).
O4H,
“I would disagree; any Roman historian would know if Peter was the universal priest in Rome. Historians are silent.”
I disagree. There is no reason why Peter or any of the first several bishops of Rome would have had a high profile. Being bishop of Rome was certainly a death sentence in those early years. Peter eventually was discovered and arrested which is why he was eventually martyred in Rome. Same with Paul. There may be, but I am not aware of any, secular Roman historian discussing Paul, yet we know that he also was eventually martyred in Rome from church historians.
“The fact that the New Testament writers never speak of a universal priest within the church proves this office never existed during the apostolic age.”
It would be more accurate to state that the NT does not explicitly address the issue of a universal priest within the church. Argument from silence is not ‘proof.’ However, there is ‘proof’ that the office existed in the apostolic age through writings of the apostolic fathers. This is the reason that I have attempted to only quote from the early church fathers prior to mid-to-late 200s, especially the apostolic fathers (the first couple of generations after the apostles).
“It was not only Augustine who allowed for more than one meaning in Matt. 16:18; there are many other church fathers who agreed that Peter’s confession was the foundation which the church would be built; in this chapter the QUESTION is asked: Who do men say that I am? The ANSWER was JESUS IS THE CHRIST.”
The Catholic Church also teaches that Jesus is THE head of the church – Peter is His Vicar on earth, that Jesus is THE foundation of the church, and that Peter’s confession of faith is the rock upon which the church is founded. But just as scripture also calls Peter the rock upon which the church is built, and elsewhere that the foundation of the church is the apostles while Jesus is the chief cornerstone, the Catholic Church also teaches this. Also, Augustine et al did not teach against Peter being the rock. On the contrary, they actually mention Peter being the rock within their writings.
continued:
From: Anti Nicene Fathers, Volume VII, Book VI, Sec. IV, XLVI)Roberts, Alexander and Donaldson, James, Ante-Nicene Fathers: Volume VII:
"Now concerning those bishops which have been ordained in our lifetime, we let you know that they are these:--James the bishop of Jerusalem, the brother of our Lord; upon whose death the second was Simeon the son of Cleopas; after whom the third was Judas the son of James. Of Caesarea of Palestine, the first was Zacchaeus, who was once a publican; after whom was Cornelius, and the third Theophilus. Of Antioch, Euodius, ordained by me Peter; and Ignatius by Paul. Of Alexandria, Annianus was the first, ordained by Mark the evangelist; the second Avilius by Luke, who was also an evangelist. Of the church of Rome, Linus the son of Claudia was the first, ordained by Paul; and Clemens, after Linus' death, the second, ordained by me Peter.
According to these sources that Roman Catholicism trusts and by which they claim they base their interpretation of Scripture, we have harmony in citing LINUS as the FIRST bishop of Rome.
Clement: ""There is a letter in which this same Clement writing to James the Lord's brother, gives an account of the death of Peter, and says that he has left him as his successor, as ruler and teacher of the church; and further incorporates a whole scheme of ecclesiastical government. This I have not prefixed to the work, both because it is later in point of time, and because it has been previously translated and published by me. Nevertheless, there is a point which would perhaps seem inconsistent with facts were I to place the translation of it in this work, but which I do not consider to involve an impossibility. It is this. Linus and Cletus were Bishops of the city of Rome before Clement. How then, some men ask, can Clement in his, letter to James say that Peter passed over to him his position as a church-teacher. The explanation of this point, as I understand, is as follows. Linus and Cletus were, no doubt," Bishops in the city of Rome before Clement, but this was in Peter's life-time."
(St. Clement, Addressed to Bishop Gaudentis, from the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second series, Vol III. Roberts, Alexander and Donaldson, James, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series: Volume III)
So, how could Linus be bishop of Rome while Peter was still alive if Peter was the first bishop of Rome. Papal succession occurrs after a pope's death right? Also, if Linus was bishop of Rome while Peter was alive, that would mean that Linus, not even an Apostle, had Papal supremacy over both Peter and Paul - two living Apostles.
continued:
Iraeneus: "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. . . . . To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Sorer having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.
(SOURCE: Iraeneus Against Heresies, Volume I, Book III, Para 3)
Note that Iraeneus clearly states that Linus was first bishop of Rome - not Peter. Iraeneus then gives us the identity of the first twelve Bishops of Rome:
1.Linus
2. Anacletus
3. Clement
4. Evaristus
5. Alexander
6. Sixtus
7. Ignatius (Telephorus)
8. Huginus
9. Pius
10. Anicetus
11. Sorer
12. Eleutherius
According to Hyppolytus, the first bishop of Rome was Linus, not Peter. How can Rome claim Peter as first Bishop of Rome, and an 'infallible' pope, when "fathers" of the church seem to be so ignorant of the fact?
(SOURCE: Hippolytus, Book XLIV; ON The Twelve Apostles Where Each OF Them Preached, And Where HE Met His End.)
irenaeus,
You said:
I would suppose that this is due to those outside the church not being aware of the order, structure and governance inside the Christian church.
I would disagree; any Roman historian would know if Peter was the universal priest in Rome. Historians are silent.
You said:
While the bishops of Rome may not have explicitly stated their primacy, there were many other bishops who made the claim for them on their behalf and without any correction from Rome either.
The fact that the New Testament writers never speak of a universal priest within the church proves this office never existed during the apostolic age.
You said:
While Augustine allowed for more than one meaning in Matt 16:18, he also stated, “If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church’ . . . [Matt. 16:18].
It was not only Augustine who allowed for more than one meaning in Matt. 16:18; there are many other church fathers who agreed that Peter’s confession was the foundation which the church would be built; in this chapter the QUESTION is asked: Who do men say that I am? The ANSWER was JESUS IS THE CHRIST.
Jesus also told them to forgive in his name and that they would be forgiven, but Protestant teachings (the word of man) completely go against the fact that people can forgive in God's name. Jesus also gave Peter the keys to heaven... Peter's supremecy... It gives Peter emphasis over the other apostles. Jesus did not say things in cryptic code, meant to be deciphered and twisted by "theologians" Jesus said what he meant and he meant what he said. The Last Supper. "This is my body... This is my blood..." the context does not matter, Online4Him, Jesus SAID WHAT HE MEANT. Jesus was not known for trying to confuse. He tried to simplify things as much as He could.
Also notice that Peter is often called Kephas. In our English Bibles it comes out as Cephas. Cephas isn’t Greek. It’s a transliteration of the Aramaic word Kepha (rendered as Kephas in its Hellenistic form). And what does Kepha mean? It means a rock, the same as petra. It doesn’t mean a little stone or a pebble. What Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: ‘You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church.’ I understand that while Jesus most likely spoke Aramaic, we do not know for certain whether this passage was spoken in Greek of Aramaic. But regardless, we know that Simon was called both Petros and Kephas throughout the NT, and again we know that Kephas is a transliteration (not a translation) of Kepha, which does NOT mean little rock or stone.
maranatha,
"Please understand that you're quoting RC teacing/doctrine/dogma - not the Word of God. "
I most certainly am quoting the Word of God. The Word of God says that Jesus declared Simon to be the rock, Petros, kepa', Cephas, and upon this rock, Petros, kepa', Cephas I will build my church. Believe me when I say that I agree with you that this verse alone does not prove the papacy, and it does not hinge on proving whether Peter is the rock. I believe that it provides corroborating support for the papacy, but it of itself does not prove it. And as I stated before , there are numerous conservative Protestant biblical scholars who admit that Peter is the rock in Matt 16:18 and to interpret it otherwise is sloppy Greek, and yet they do not believe in the papacy.
maranatha,
“There is no scriptural evidence whatsoever that Peter was ever in Rome, and to say he was 'pope' or 'bishop', or anything else (terms not found in scripture, BTW) of Rome is to ADD to scripture what is not written there.”
That the NT does not explicitly state that Peter went to Rome does not mean that he didn’t go. Peter had to physically go somewhere, so what’s the proof that he didn’t eventually go to Rome. Historically, the documentary evidence of Peter’s presence in Rome is available and unchallenged, AND no early writings exist to contradict it. In many cases when the subject of Peter’s presence in Rome appears in early writings, the subject is mentioned NOT for the sake of proving it; rather, it is brought up in passing as common knowledge in support of some other point that is being discussed. Also, there is no evidence to the contrary concerning Peter’s presence in Rome even among early heretical groups who would have gladly challenged the authority of Rome.
And the term ‘pope’ may not be in the bible, but ‘father’ certainly is which is all that ‘pope’ means. It’s an English word derived from the Greek ‘papa.’ But what does this matter, the terms ‘trinity’ or ‘incarnation’ are not found in scripture either, but we believe they are taught there. And of course, the term ‘bishop’ is most certainly found in scripture.
O4H,
“Nor will you find Rome confessing to the faithful Roman Catholic laity, that the great Augustine, joined by Cyril, Hilary, Basil, Ambrose, Jerome, Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, and delegates to the Council of Chalcedon, declared the rock upon which Christ would build His Church was Christ himself, not the Apostle Peter. In his 13th sermon, preserved I believe by divine intent, Augustine made his belief perfectly clear.
“Thou art Peter, and on this Rock – petra – which thou hast confessed, on this rock which thou hast known, saying: ‘Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God,’ I will build my church upon Myself, who am the Son of the living God; I will build it on Me, and not Me on thee.””
While Augustine allowed for more than one meaning in Matt 16:18, he also stated, “If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church’ . . . [Matt. 16:18]. Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus . . .” (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]). Also, the Council of Chalcedon itself made this statement: "Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod, together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, WHO IS THE ROCK AND FOUNDATION of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, has stripped him [Dioscorus] of the episcopate" (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 451]).
O4H,
“No bishop of Rome considered himself to have any greater authority than the many other bishops, nor sought monarchial authority over all Christendom, until the 3rd century was well underway. Then, Calixtus I, whose most celebrated accomplishment recorded in Britannica is the transfer of the Roman Christians’ cemetery from the Via Salaria to the Via Appia, attempted to hijack our Lord’s legacy by citing Matthew 16:18 as the establishment of Peter and all succeeding bishops of Rome to be rulers over all the churches. Putting a wagon in a garage does not make it an automobile; and declaring oneself to be the boss doesn’t produce a boss. The great Tertullian, bishop of Carthage, ridiculed Calixtus and his claim, referring to him as a “usurper.” In its Catechisms the Vatican quotes Tertullian whenever it is expedient, but you won’t find his appellation for Calixtus I in any RCC printed matter.”
While the bishops of Rome may not have explicitly stated their primacy, there were many other bishops who made the claim for them on their behalf and without any correction from Rome either. From a humanistic view, this is quite remarkable considering that it is human nature to consider oneself their own authority, but these were leaders of other churches proclaiming the primacy of another leader, namely, the bishop of Rome. What’s more is that there were no bishops who protested this as some innovation created later. Clement, bishop of Rome, used his authority to address a pressing issue in the Church in Corinth. Why would one church be interfering in the matters of a church so far away unless there was an authoritative understanding? Why would the Corinthian Church accept the reprimand without questioning the ‘right’ of Rome to intervene? And regarding Tertullian, he was a Montanist at the time of which you are referring and thought that the Pope was too lenient in allowing penitent believers return into full communion with the Church. Obviously, Tertullian did not have any issues with the primacy of the bishop of Rome earlier in his life when he made the statement “[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church [in general].”
O4H,
“Yes, I am referring to non-christian ancient historians. For example, Josephus and Tacitus speak of Jesus and his followers.”
I would suppose that this is due to those outside the church not being aware of the order, structure and governance inside the Christian church. Josephus makes mention of Christ because Josephus was documenting Jewish history, and Jesus and His followers were certainly a movement within the Jewish community. Tacitus probably makes reference to Christians because he was a Roman historian and these events occurred in a Roman province. But neither of these men address any details of Christianity.
maranatha: "I have to say, it's really ironic that the RCC makes such a big deal out of Peter being 'the pope' and associating him with Rome, when in fact it was PAUL who traveled to Rome and wrote the epistle to the Romans."
irenaeus: "That Paul was in Rome does not preclude Peter being in Rome. One of the reasons that we make a big deal about Peter is that Jesus is the one who said to Peter, “YOU (singular) are rock, and upon this rock I will build my church…, and I will give YOU (singular) the keys to the kingdom of heaven," and “Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift you (plural, referring to the apostles) like wheat, but I have prayed for you (singular) that your faith may not fail, and when you (singular) have turned back, strengthen your brethren.”
There is no scriptural evidence whatsoever that Peter was ever in Rome, and to say he was 'pope' or 'bishop', or anything else (terms not found in scripture, BTW) of Rome is to ADD to scripture what is not written there.
Jesus said, "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church..."
He did not say He would build the church upon Peter - and again, there is no record of Peter ever going to Rome. If you look at the verse BEFORE the one you quoted (context is everything), you'll see that Peter had just declared his faith that Jesus was "the Christ, the Son of the living God". It was and is that FAITH which is the ROCK of which Jesus spoke. We know the Bible says that JESUS is the chief cornerstone, NOT any man. Paul made that abundantly clear. IF Jesus HAD built the church upon Peter, the church would have died when Peter died.
Please understand that you're quoting RC teacing/doctrine/dogma - not the Word of God.
I will have to come back later; company just arrived :)
thelordismylight,
Hey; again, there is absolutely no evidence to support your claims. Many of the church fathers disagree with your interpretation, the New Testament writers say nothing of a universal priest in the church, and history proves that the following documents are forgeries - Decretals of Isidore - 847 and the Donation of Constantine - 858.
Online4Him-
When you do not agree with it you just interpret it a different way. Jesus did not complicate things. He meant what he said and he said what he meant, Jesus was truthful one hundred percent. Yay I made a rhyme from Horton Hears a Who!
Hey
irenaeus,
Yes, I am referring to non-christian ancient historians. For example, Josephus and Tacitus speak of Jesus and his followers.
No bishop of Rome considered himself to have any greater authority than the many other bishops, nor sought monarchial authority over all Christendom, until the 3rd century was well underway. Then, Calixtus I, whose most celebrated accomplishment recorded in Britannica is the transfer of the Roman Christians’ cemetery from the Via Salaria to the Via Appia, attempted to hijack our Lord’s legacy by citing Matthew 16:18 as the establishment of Peter and all succeeding bishops of Rome to be rulers over all the churches. Putting a wagon in a garage does not make it an automobile; and declaring oneself to be the boss doesn’t produce a boss. The great Tertullian, bishop of Carthage, ridiculed Calixtus and his claim, referring to him as a “usurper.” In its Catechisms the Vatican quotes Tertullian whenever it is expedient, but you won’t find his appellation for Calixtus I in any RCC printed matter.
Nor will you find Rome confessing to the faithful Roman Catholic laity, that the great Augustine, joined by Cyril, Hilary, Basil, Ambrose, Jerome, Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, and delegates to the Council of Chalcedon, declared the rock upon which Christ would build His Church was Christ himself, not the Apostle Peter. In his 13th sermon, preserved I believe by divine intent, Augustine made his belief perfectly clear.
“Thou art Peter, and on this Rock – petra – which thou hast confessed, on this rock which thou hast known, saying: ‘Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God,’ I will build my church upon Myself, who am the Son of the living God; I will build it on Me, and not Me on thee.”
Nice, Iraenius, are you Catholic too?
O4H,
“There is no doubt that Peter played a major role in the development of the early church but when I take into accout the biblical narrative, the lack of secular historian references, and additional unbiblical dogmas that Rome teaches. There is just not enough evidence for me to accept it (universal head).”
I guess I’m a little confused on what you mean by secular historical references. Do you mean non-Christian documents from the early centuries? Because there are numerous historical references written by early Christians. Every one of those quotes from the early church fathers is a historical record providing documentary and corroborating evidence of what was happening in the church and in their world. Even secular historians would count these as historical information, irrespective of whether they believed what these church fathers were stating. Let’s take apostolic succession and authority for a moment as an example. We have documentary evidence from numerous early church leaders from the Middle East, northern Africa, and Europe testifying that the church taught and believed in apostolic succession and authority. This is historical evidence that even an agnostic historian would acknowledge to be true of what the early church taught. That does not mean that the agnostic historian would believe in Christianity anymore that an agnostic historian can acknowledge the existence of Jesus of Nazareth and what He ‘allegedly’ taught from the historical records without actually believing in it.
irenaeus,
Oh, okay. I too enjoyed it :)
We will talk again; good night.
irenaeus,
There is no doubt that Peter played a major role in the development of the early church but when I take into accout the biblical narrative, the lack of secular historian references, and additional unbiblical dogmas that Rome teaches. There is just not enough evidence for me to accept it (universal head).
O4H,
It's late, so I need to go. Again, enjoyed the charitable dialogue.
Good night.
O4H,
"Yes, there are some Protestant theologians that do support what you say, however, in this day and age of liberal Protestants - this must be taken with a grain of salt.”
I believe that I only cited conservative Protestant scholars (I could be wrong on some of them) for precisely that reason, such as Craig Blomberg at Denver Seminary or Donald Hagner at Fuller Theological Seminary, for example. Although I do realize the conservative can be a relative term.
O4H,
“It is not the word "pope" that is the focal point but the lack of biblical support of a universal bishop. The NT writers are absolutely silent about it. "
As to the NT being silent about it… well, I agree that it is not necessarily explicit, but again, the NT was not written to teach about the details of church structure and governance, which is exactly why some churches believe in a congregational structure, others an episcopal structure, others a presbyterian structure, and I even know of one church locally that has no leadership at all. This particular church rotates a layman every week to give the sermon. Heck, the early church on its own initiative created the office of deacon, so it could be easily argued that the infant church was in flux and formation.
But I do believe that the NT provides evidence of Peter’s leadership. Peter is called the first [protos] apostle. The NT often designates Peter and the apostles, Peter often speak on behalf of the Twelve, Peter leads the church on replacing Judas and interprets some obscure passages to justify his actions, Peter preaches the first sermon leading 3000 souls into the church, Peter receives the revelation confirming that salvation is available to the Gentiles, Peter preaches, receives and baptizes the first Gentiles, and while James being the bishop of Jerusalem is clearly ‘hosting’ the Council, it is Peter speech that decides the course of action to be adopted, and even though James speaks, it is based on Peter’s declaration [exegesato].
O4H,
“First, I do appreciate the way you have personally handled yourself when discussing this subject. It has been a respectful and honest discussion; there are others here that have not carried themselves in this manner.”
Thank you, and I too appreciate the charitable manner in which you are engaged in the discussion.
Rome says that the reason Peter is called petros is because petros is the masculine form of the feminine noun petra (meaning 'rock'), and it was fitting that Peter's name should be masculine. However, I have never seen them offer an explanation for why the feminine petra is always used in the Scriptures to refer to Christ, but never the masculine petros, which is only used to refer to Peter. I believe it is because, by definition, petra more accurately typifies Christ, while petros more accurately typifies Peter. It is upon the petra that Christ is building his Church.
oops
"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" - Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).
irenaeus,
First, I do appreciate the way you have personally handled yourself when discussing this subject. It has been a respectful and honest discussion; there are others here that have not carried themselves in this manner.
It is not the word "pope" that is the focal point but the lack of biblical support of a universal bishop. The NT writers are absolutely silent about it. Yes, there are some Protestant theologians that do support what you say, however, in this day and age of liberal Protestants - this must be taken with a grain of salt.
O4H,
"Jesus Christ himself is the only head of the church."
I agree, but this does not preclude Jesus delegating His authority. You are presuming that if Peter were 'Pope' (left in charge of the Church on earth) that it would somehow mean that Christ is not the head of the church, and it would somehow mean that Christ had relinquished his authority. I have demonstrated from Is. 22 with respect to the Davidic Kingdom how this is false reasoning. Eliakim being in charge (being given the key of the house of David) did not mean that the king was not king (head) of his kingdom, nor did it mean that King Hezekiah relinquished his authority.
O4H,
First, let’s demonstrate by noting the parallel: most scholars (including Protestant) agree that Jesus in Matt 16:18-20 was alluding to Is 22:20-24. We know that the king had to be of the line of David (succession by inheritance through lineage) as was Hezekiah in Is 22 and of course as was Jesus (Matt 1). The chief steward was appointed by the king (succession by appointment) as was Shebna and later Eliakim under King Hezekiah, and as was Peter under [King] Jesus. Compare Matt 16:18-20 and Is. 22:20-24. Also notice that in the second half of verse 21 in Is. 22, Eliakim would be a FATHER to those who live in Jerusalem. Now as a Protestant, you should object to these issues pointed out by Isaiah for a couple of reasons. Since Eliakim is not the king, he shouldn’t be considered to have authority over the kingdom (but he indeed does have authority over the kingdom as symbolized by the key of the house of David); Eliakim shouldn’t have an authoritative office of succession (but he does as takes the office from Shebna); and he definitely should not function as FATHER (‘Papa’ in Greek, where we derive the English word ‘Pope’), because the king functions as father to the kingdom (but Eliakim’s office does function as father since Isaiah tells us so). So tell me, as a Protestant, why can you accept this arrangement within the Davidic Kingdom of the OT as demonstrated in Is 22, but not accept this arrangement of the reconstituted kingdom of David in the NT?
O4H,
Just because the title 'pope' was not used does not mean that the office of being chief aposlte was not there or understood. And many church historians, even some Protestant ones, would disagree with you regarding Peter's headship of the fledgling church, again, notwithstanding that it is understood that the title of 'pope' was not used.
O4H, "FOURTH, THE KEYS OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN WERE NOT GIVEN TO PETER ALONE, BUT TO THE OTHER DISCIPLES AS WELL. After Jesus’ resurrection, He spoke to all the disciples, saying, “Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained” (John 20:23)."
I agree, the power of the keys are also shared collegially among the other apostles
correction:
there is "no" evidence . . . .
irenaeus,
Again, there is not evidence that Peter was pope from secular historians, Peter himself says nothing in his epistles, the other New Testament writers say nothing of a universal head, the same NT writers do not explicitly or implicitly say anything of this "office", and Jesus Christ himself is the only head of the church.
O4H,
"THIRD, THE CHURCH IS BUILT, NOT UPON THE PERSON OF PETER, BUT UPON THE TESTIMONY OF PETER. In Matthew 16, Peter had just testified, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” This TESTIMONY is the FOCUS of Matthew 16:16-20. It is Christ, Christ, Christ! He is the Center, Foundation, the Head, and the All for the church. This we see in that the Lord Jesus completed this scene in Matthew chapter sixteen by CHARGING the disciples “that they should tell no man that he was Jesus, the Christ.”"
It’s not either/or. And I don’t deny that the church was built upon Peter’s confession. But that’s not what Matt. 16:18-20 explicitly states; You [Simon] are rock, and upon this rock I will build my church.
O4H,
"SECOND, THE ROMAN CATHOLIC INTERPRETATION OF MATTHEW 16:18-19 IS STRICTLY CONTRARY TO THE PATTERN OF THE EARLY CHURCHES AS TESTIFIED BY THE BOOK OF ACTS AND THE EPISTLES. Peter simply was not a pope! The Latin writing on the fish-shaped hat worn by the pope says, “Vicarirs Feleii Dei” and means “substitute for the Son of God”! The apostle Peter no doubt would have cringed in horror at the very thought of donning such a title."
One of the official titles of the bishop of Rome is “Vicar of Christ.” Vicar means representative or deputy as in Jesus appointing Peter as chief steward of his kingdom. Why would Peter cringe when it was Jesus Himself who called Peter the rock upon which He would build His church and that he [Peter] was to receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven.
O4H,
"According to 2Samuel 22:32, there is no Rock except God! “…and who is a rock, save our God?” In both the Old and New Testament it is God Himself who is the believer’s Rock – Foundation, Security, and Protection. Thirty times in the Old Testament God is called a Rock. Five times in the New Testament Christ is called a Rock – Matthew 16:18, Romans 9:33, 1Corinthians 10:4, and 1Peter 2:8. Only Deity Himself could be the church’s Rock and Foundation! And this is exactly what the Lord Jesus Christ was promising in Matthew 16."
Christ is not called Rock in Matt 16:18; in that illustration, Peter is the rock and Christ is the Master Builder. Also, the OT calls Abraham rock, and Abraham was nota deity.
O4H,
“FIRST, THE LORD JESUS WAS NOT SAYING IN MATTHEW 16:16-20 THAT HE WOULD BUILD THE CHURCH UPON PETER. “There is in the Greek a play upon words, ‘Thou art Peter (‘petros – literally, a little rock), and upon this rock (‘Petra’ – a solid rock mass or foundation) I will build my church.’ He does not promise to build His church upon Peter, but upon Himself. Peter himself was careful to tell us that the foundation of the church is Christ. “Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded – 1Peter 2:6.”
Matt 16:16-20 clearly states that Jesus was saying that the church would be built on Peter. There is no play on words in Greek; the change in endings of the words used is merely because nouns in Greek have gender. The normal word for rock is petra, which is feminine, so when applied to Simon, the word was rendered masculine. If this verse was spoken or written in Aramaic, rock would be rendered as kepha, so that the verse would read, “You are kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my church.” Many reputable Protestant scholars admit this; e.g., Craig Blomberg, Donald Hagner, William Hendrikson, Gerhard Maier, D.A. Carlson, John Peter Lange, James B. Shelton, J. Knox Chamblin, Gerhard Kittel, John Broadus, Albert Barnes, etc.
thelordismylight,
Oh, okay :)
Have to go, I will be back soon though.
thelordismylight,
No, I have not; what faith does she adhere to?
Bluemary? Have you had her acquaintance yet?
thelordismylight,
Lol - I understand; who was it that you wanted me to meet?
Ya. When/if taj I think I will begin duking it out again lol.
thelordismylight,
Who was it?
thelordismylight,
Oh, you are talking about the "article" here on Myths Exposed on Christianity.
News forum, but I think they left.
thelordismylight,
Is that a blog site or another news forum?
Online4Him, come to Myths Exposed on Christianity. Have someone you would like to meet.
I am well; glad it is Friday :)
Good. You?
thelordismylight,
How's it going?
Hey, Online4Him, I do not feel like arguing.
continued:
The key to the kingdom is the Gospel, which is the power of God to salvation to those who believe. Paul said, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth…” (Romans 1:16).
Peter used the key of the Gospel to open the door for the Jews on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2). The New Testament does not show Peter exercising special authority beyond this, and it was an authority which was exercised by all the disciples.
In Matthew 16, the Lord Jesus Christ is not making Peter the first pope, but is reaffirming that He Himself is the Rock, the Head of the Church, and that Peter’s testimony of Christ is the key whereby the door to salvation and the Kingdom of God would be opened to all who believe.
As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed –Romans 9:23.
And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ – 1Corinthians 10:4.
And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed – 1Peter 2:8
And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; - Ephesians 2:20.
For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body – Ephesians 5:23.
And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence – Colossians 1:18.
irenaeus,
FIRST, THE LORD JESUS WAS NOT SAYING IN MATTHEW 16:16-20 THAT HE WOULD BUILD THE CHURCH UPON PETER. “There is in the Greek a play upon words, ‘Thou art Peter (‘petros – literally, a little rock), and upon this rock (‘Petra’ – a solid rock mass or foundation) I will build my church.’ He does not promise to build His church upon Peter, but upon Himself. Peter himself was careful to tell us that the foundation of the church is Christ. “Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded – 1Peter 2:6.
According to 2Samuel 22:32, there is no Rock except God! “…and who is a rock, save our God?” In both the Old and New Testament it is God Himself who is the believer’s Rock – Foundation, Security, and Protection. Thirty times in the Old Testament God is called a Rock. Five times in the New Testament Christ is called a Rock – Matthew 16:18, Romans 9:33, 1Corinthians 10:4, and 1Peter 2:8. Only Deity Himself could be the church’s Rock and Foundation! And this is exactly what the Lord Jesus Christ was promising in Matthew 16.
SECOND, THE ROMAN CATHOLIC INTERPRETATION OF MATTHEW 16:18-19 IS STRICTLY CONTRARY TO THE PATTERN OF THE EARLY CHURCHES AS TESTIFIED BY THE BOOK OF ACTS AND THE EPISTLES. Peter simply was not a pope! The Latin writing on the fish-shaped hat worn by the pope says, “Vicarirs Feleii Dei” and means “substitute for the Son of God”! The apostle Peter no doubt would have cringed in horror at the very thought of donning such a title.
THIRD, THE CHURCH IS BUILT, NOT UPON THE PERSON OF PETER, BUT UPON THE TESTIMONY OF PETER. In Matthew 16, Peter had just testified, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” This TESTIMONY is the FOCUS of Matthew 16:16-20. It is Christ, Christ, Christ! He is the Center, Foundation, the Head, and the All for the church. This we see in that the Lord Jesus completed this scene in Matthew chapter sixteen by CHARGING the disciples “that they should tell no man that he was Jesus, the Christ.”
FOURTH, THE KEYS OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN WERE NOT GIVEN TO PETER ALONE, BUT TO THE OTHER DISCIPLES AS WELL. After Jesus’ resurrection, He spoke to all the disciples, saying, “Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained” (John 20:23).
truthandjustice1,
But some here would have us believe that every one of these people you cited fell into apostasy and/or was a member of the apostate church which so quickly fell away.
OPTATUS
"You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]—of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPIPHANIUS
"At Rome the first apostles and bishops were Peter and Paul, then Linus, then Cletus, then Clement, the contemporary of Peter and Paul" (Panacea Against All Heresies 27:6 [A.D. 374]).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
POPE DAMASUS I
"[T]he Holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18-19]. In addition to this, there is also the companionship of the vessel of election, the most blessed apostle Paul, who contended and was crowned with a glorious death along with Peter in the city of Rome in the time of the Caesar Nero" (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
POPE DAMASUS I
"The first see . . . is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it" (ibid.).
PETER OF ALEXANDRIA
"Peter, the first chosen of the apostles, having been apprehended often and thrown into prison and treated with ignominy, at last was crucified in Rome" (Penance, canon 9 [A.D. 306]).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LACTANTIUS
"When Nero was already reigning, Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked . . . he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God. When this fact was reported to Nero . . . he sprang to the task of tearing down the heavenly temple and of destroying righteousness. It was he that first persecuted the servants of God. Peter he fixed to a cross, and Paul he slew" (The Deaths of the Persecutors 2:5 [A.D. 316]).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CYRIL OF JERUSALEM
"[Simon Magus] so deceived the city of Rome that Claudius erected a statue of him . . . While the error was extending itself, Peter and Paul arrived, a noble pair and the rulers of the Church, and they set the error aright. . . . [T]hey launched the weapon of their like-mindedness in prayer against the Magus, and struck him down to earth. It was marvelous enough, and yet no marvel at all, for Peter was there—he that carries about the keys of heaven. And it was nothing to marvel at, for Paul was there—he that was caught up into the third heaven" (Catechetical Lectures 6:14 [A.D. 350]).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE LITTLE LABYRINTH
"Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter" (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 5:28:3).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
POPE ANTERUS
"Peter, our holy master and the prince of the apostles, was translated for the sake of the common good from Antioch to Rome, in order that he might be in a position there of doing more service" (Letter on the Translation of Bishops [A.D. 235]).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
POEM AGAINST THE MARCIONITES
"In this chair in which he himself had sat, Peter in mighty Rome commanded Linus, the first elected, to sit down. After him, Cletus too accepted the flock of the fold. . . ." (Poem Against the Marcionites 276–284 [A.D. 267]).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EUSEBIUS
"[In the second] year of the two hundredth and fifth Olympiad [A.D. 42]: The apostle Peter, after he has established the church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains as a bishop of that city, preaching the gospel for twenty-five years" (The Chronicle [A.D. 303]).
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA
"The circumstances which occasioned . . . [the writing] of Mark were these: When Peter preached the Word publicly at Rome and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed" (Sketches [A.D. 190], in a fragment from Eusebius, History of the Church, 6:14:1).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GAIUS
"It is recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself and Peter, likewise, was crucified, during the reign [of the Emperor Nero]. The account is confirmed by the names of Peter and Paul over the cemeteries there, which remain to the present time. And it is confirmed also by a stalwart man of the Church, Gaius by name, who lived in the time of Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome" (Disputation with Proclus [A.D. 198] in Eusebius, History of the Church 2:25:5).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TERTULLIAN
"But if you are near Italy, you have Rome, where authority is at hand for us too. What a happy church that is, on which the apostles poured out their whole doctrine with their blood, where Peter had a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned with the death of John [the Baptist, by being beheaded]" (De Prescriptione 36 [A.D. 200]).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IRENAEUS
"Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church" (Against Heresies, 3:1:1 [A.D. 189]).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IRENAEUS
"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21]" (ibid., 3:3:3).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IRENAEUS
"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall . . . [point] out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (ibid., 3:3:2).
irenaeus,
You are correct if we ignore history, but then again that has never been too important to non Catholics. To dispute the fact that the bishop of Rome is the successor of Peter, some Fundamentalists try to deny that Peter ever went to Rome. But the historical evidence reveals that this assertion is completely insupportable. Not only does Peter in his first epistle (1 Peter 5:13) say that he is writing from "Babylon," a first century code-word for pagan Rome, but the Fathers are unanimous in declaring that he went to Rome and was martyred there under Nero. Not one Father can be found who denies that Peter went to Rome. The Fundamentalist claim is thus a frantic attempt to contradict one of the planks in the doctrine of the papacy—but much evidence has to be dismissed to do so.
IGNATIUS
"Not as Peter and Paul did, do I command you [Romans]. They were apostles, and I am a convict" (Epistle to the Romans 4:3 [A.D. 110]).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DIONYSIUS
"You [Pope Soter] have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time" (Epistle to Pope Soter of Rome [A.D. 166], in Eusebius, History of the Church 2:25:8).
maranatha,
"I have to say, it's really ironic that the RCC makes such a big deal out of Peter being 'the pope' and associating him with Rome, when in fact it was PAUL who traveled to Rome and wrote the epistle to the Romans."
That Paul was in Rome does not preclude Peter being in Rome. One of the reasons that we make a big deal about Peter is that Jesus is the one who said to Peter, “YOU (singular) are rock, and upon this rock I will build my church…, and I will give YOU (singular) the keys to the kingdom of heaven," and “Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift you (plural, referring to the apostles) like wheat, but I have prayed for you (singular) that your faith may not fail, and when you (singular) have turned back, strengthen your brethren.”
K back.
Online4Him, sorry, I was interrupted. Hope to see you again soon. :-)
Maranatha,
I have to get to sleep now; sorry, we could not have talked longer. Perhaps we can chat tomorrow evening.
Good night and God bless ;)
Maranatha,
I would expect him to be; how long did you talk to him?
Online4Him, he was his usual self. ;-)
maranatha7593,
No, I did not speak with him today.
My information from Wiki only? don't think so...
Try "The Story of Christianity" by Justo Gonzales (Volumes I and II) backed up by corroborative internet and companion volume research.
I merely quote Wiki so you can check it out for yourself.
I assume you don't have a copy of the tomes in question sitting on your own shelf. Mine on the other hand are heavily underlined and notated.
Correction:
Online4Him, were you here when TLIML was posting? He wasn't here long after I arrived.
irenaeus,
Talk to you later; good night :)
Good night, irenaeus.
irenaeus, I have to say, it's really ironic that the RCC makes such a big deal out of Peter being 'the pope' and associating him with Rome, when in fact it was PAUL who traveled to Rome and wrote the epistle to the Romans.
maranatha,
"irenaeus, please forgive me. Haven't chatted with O4H in quite a while. "
Quite all right. In fact, I need to go... so I'll read your responses later.
Good night!
Quecat,
The commonly held view regarding the events leading up to the massacre had nothing whatsoever to do with a "Huguenot conspiracy" against the throne, rather entirely the opposite. Tensions created by the arranged royal marriage between (Huguenot) Henry III of Navarre and (Catholic) Marguerite of Valois on August 18, 1572 and the attempted assassination of the (Huguenot) Admiral de Coligny, at court, triggered the crisis.
(Catholics angered by the Dowager Mother's betrayal of giving her daughter to a "heretic" and shortly thereafter also fearing retribution for their failed assassination attempt made up the mobs that slaughtered thousands.)
WELL SAID: NOT TO MANY CHRISTIANS TODAY KNOW CHURCH HISTORY OR EVEN CARE TO READ IT.
Quecat,
"It might benefit you to learn your history from additional sources as opposed to solely the "Catholic Encyclopedia"."
The same could be said for you from Wikipedia
Online4Him: "I am glad LSU won; they really showed great character after OSU scored by keeping their poise."
Very well said! ;-) I thought the defense was awesome.
OnLine4Him,
"I still do not see biblical support for your claim that Peter was the first pope. The passage in Matthew 16:18, 19 does not support this claim; this passage speaks of Peter's confession about who Jesus was, the messiah that had been promised to come. The rest of the New Testament bears witness to Jesus being the Rock of our salvation. This is just one of many unbiblical dogmas of Rome. "
First off, Jesus is the one who called Peter rock, keys are a sign of authority, and handing on of keys is a sign of delegating authority. With respect to Matt 16:18 and following – well, since the king’s giving of the keys to his chief steward was for the purpose of delegating authority, particularlyin the king's absense, it seems that Peter had this authority (the authority of the king) delegated to him. Just as Eliakim held the authority of the king in King Hezekiah’s absence (see Isaiah 22:20-22), so Peter was delegated authority by Jesus in Matt 16:18-20.
maranatha7593,
That is too funny; I actually thought about you as well. I am glad LSU won; they really showed great character after OSU scored by keeping their poise.
Quecat: "It might benefit you to learn your history from additional sources as opposed to solely the "Catholic Encyclopedia"."
You took the words right out of my mouth, Qc. :-)
I remember that at one point the current king (a Louis?) had promised to allow the Huguenots to practice their faith as they saw fit, but then he reneged on that, which caused so many to flee for their lives - many who came here to America. We were definitely the richer for it.
O4H, wasn't the LSU/OSU game a great one! I thought about you during it. :-)
irenaeus, please forgive me. Haven't chatted with O4H in quite a while.
It might benefit you to learn your history from additional sources as opposed to solely the "Catholic Encyclopedia".
The commonly held view regarding the events leading up to the massacre had nothing whatsoever to do with a "Huguenot conspiracy" against the throne, rather entirely the opposite. Tensions created by the arranged royal marriage between (Huguenot) Henry III of Navarre and (Catholic) Marguerite of Valois on August 18, 1572 and the attempted assassination of the (Huguenot) Admiral de Coligny, at court, triggered the crisis.
(Catholics angered by the Dowager Mother's betrayal of giving her daughter to a "heretic" and shortly thereafter also fearing retribution for their failed assassination attempt made up the mobs that slaughtered thousands.)
maranatha7593,
Hello, it is good to hear from you too. I just stepped in a few minutes ago :)
maranatha,
I understand that you believe that any of these early fathers could have fallen into error – even immediately, or that certain errors were taught in some places but not others, but it seems to be a coincident that the only records we have are all those who fell into the same errors. Ignatius was bishop of Antioch being taken to Rome for execution, Clement was bishop of Rome, Irenaeus was bishop of Lyons (France), Cyprian bishop of Carthage, Dionysius bishop of Corinth. etc… this is a pretty good spread geographically, all attest to apostolic succession and/or primacy of bishop of Rome. Hegesippus went on a journey to Corinth and Rome, in the course of which he said he met many bishops, and he recorded that he heard from all the same doctrine.
Hi, Online4Him! I've been missing you all evening - glad to see you! :-)
irenaeus,
I still do not see biblical support for your claim that Peter was the first pope. The passage in Matthew 16:18, 19 does not support this claim; this passage speaks of Peter's confession about who Jesus was, the messiah that had been promised to come. The rest of the New Testament bears witness to Jesus being the Rock of our salvation. This is just one of many unbiblical dogmas of Rome.
WTPDOSA,
Apology accepted; I know it was an honest oversight :)
In defence of Gregory XIII it must be stated that he had nothing whatever to do with the massacre itself, and that he as well as Salviati, his nuncio in Paris, were kept in ignorance concerning the intended slaughter. The pope indeed participated in the Roman festivities, but he was probably not acquainted with the circumstances of the Parisian horrors and, like other European rulers, had been informed that the Huguenots had been detected in a conspiracy to kill the king and the whole royal family, and had been thus punished for their treacherous designs. - Catholic Encyclopedia
Quecat,
“The same Peter (petros, not petra) that you claim primacy for by reason of Matthew 16:18 was rebuked by Christ a mere 5 verses later in Matt 16:23:
“But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.”
It looks like the little rock was already shaken.
I’ll put my trust in the large unmoveable rock, the confession that Jesus is The Christ and Son of the Living God.”
Me too… I place my trust in the large unmoveable rock, the confession that Jesus is The Christ and Son of the Living God. And I also find solace in the church he founded upon the rock of Peter. The whole petra vs petros thing has been beaten to death and is not even held by many Protestant scholars. The only reason Simon is called petros and not petra is because that would be like giving a man the name Denise instead of Dennis. The feminine petra had to be made masculine since it was a name assigned to a male. There was no difference in meaning implied. By the way, Jesus never said that Peter would be impeccable, but that he would hold the keys to the kingdom of heaven.
Yes, I would imagine that 200 years of hindsight would tend to make those in grievous error see the light. However it's quite dishonest to say that because the RCC published many years after the fact that Pope Gregory was saddened by the event, that it somehow softens the blow of "hymns of praise being regularly sung to God for the great victory and delivery of His divine judgment", much less a commemorative coin!!!
You can Wikipedia the event! An image of that horrid coin is posted on the webpage.
Sorry indeed.
Quecat,
"I'm glad that YOU admitted that, and not me. :)
(we won't go THERE) "
I know where you're going with that, but I said that Babylon is symbolic language for Rome, not the Catholic Church.
Quecat,
"In a disgusting show of unmitigated gall, Pope Gregory XIII ordered a "Te Deum" to be sung as a special thanksgiving to God for the massacre (a practice continued for many years after)"
That Gregory XIII did not approve of the massacre, but detested the cruel act and shed tears when he was apprised of it, is expressly stated even by the apostate Gregario Leti in his "Vita di Sisto V" (Cologne, 1706), I, 431-4, anad by Beautome, a contemporary of Gregory XIII, in his "Vie de M. l'Amiral de Chastillon" (Complete works, The Hague, 1740, VIII, 196). - Catholic Encyclopedia
maranatha,
"No. But we know Paul took great care to counter false teachings in his day, and it is very possible / probable that early Christians also countered unBiblical and extra-Biblical teachings either through letters which didn't survive or face-to-face in early churches."
I agree that there were false teachings and false teachers within the church early on. The scriptures tells us as much. And we know there were many writings that didn't survive for us to know about them. In fact, some we know about only because they wee quoted by others later, including various heretical positions. For example, we only know about some of the heretical positions espoused by some not because we have the writings, but because we have the writings combatting them. It just so happens that the writings that condemn these heretical positions are also the ones who hold to apostolic succession, apostolic teaching authority, primacy of the bishop of Rome, the real presence of the Eucharist, etc.
Hmmm,
The same Peter (petros, not petra) that you claim primacy for by reason of Matthew 16:18 was rebuked by Christ a mere 5 verses later in Matt 16:23:
“But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.”
It looks like the little rock was already shaken.
I’ll put my trust in the large unmoveable rock, the confession that Jesus is The Christ and Son of the Living God.
maranatha,
"Referring back to what I had written above, it's entirely possible that it was written that way in the Hebrew (a language familiar to the early apostles) but slightly different when translated into Latin, etc."
I don't know what you are talking about. The issue was whether Jesus and the apostles ever referred to Jewish tradition. The OT was in Hebrew (and some Aramaic) and the NT was in Greek. What does translation into Latin have to do with anything? I;m confused.
" Again, even many Protestant scholars agree that Babylon is a code word or symbolic of Rome as is indicated by several apocryphal Jewish and Christian writings."
I'm glad that YOU admitted that, and not me. :)
(we won't go THERE)
Quecat, THANK YOU so much for posting that about the French Huguenots. I was thinking of them earlier but didn't have all that info at the tip of my tongue as you did. When I began teaching a number of years ago, I became intensely interested in history, and was astounded (and pleasantly surprised) to learn how many of our finest early American patriots (i.e., Paul Revere, Francis Marion 'the Swamp Fox') came to America as children because their families were Huguenots who fled persecution in France.
irenaeus
re: " Exactly wrong. For the first 300 year after the resurrection, ..."
I believe your confusion comes from your failure to grasp the grammar used here. I did not say "During the first 300 years", but rather "Within the first 300 years after the resurrection", as in 'by roughly that time' and to be more specific from the 306 A.D. rise of Constantine, going forward.
irenaeus, the true church was indeed "underground nowhere to be seen" in the days when they had to live the catacombs of Rome and were thrown to lions because they would not recant their faith. That was just one city in one country, on one continent - there's no telling how many other 'true churches' were doing the same in multiplied locations. We do know God will always have a faithful remnant, come what may, and that persecution tends to strengthen the church, unify believers, and 'weed out' (by desertion) those who are not true believers.
Yes, the church could 'drift that fast' - look how quickly many Israelites began to drift away from God after He had brought them through the Red Sea. The whole history of the church is virtually the same - periods of great obedience, accompanied by usually equal measures of inward blessing and outward persecution; followed by the beginnings of spiritual laziness and drifting which result in compromising God's Word; followed by tremendous conflict which results from that; then revival of obedience, and the cycle begins anew.
This is why there are denominations. When a church group (not only RC's, by any means) begins to drift from God's Word, to compromise its truth, to grieve His Holy Spirit, He will always give them time to repent. Typically He will raise up at least one godly person as a prophet to call His people back to Himself. Unfortunately, in too many such situations, the church leaders are too proud and fond of power to admit their fault, so they hold on to the bitter end. At this point, the godly have no option but to "come out from among them and be ye separate" (2 Corinthians 6) in order to be obedient to the Lord. Martin Luther never wanted to start another church group, nor did John Wesley, nor did the others who refused to compromise what they knew to be Biblical truth. There is a constant process of cleansing and purification going on in the true Body of Christ which is not defined by any certain building or label.
A note to Tilml,
I take it that the Elizabeth that you say so horribly persecuted Catholics is the same Elizabeth who succeeded to the throne after (Catholic) Bloody Queen Mary (Tudor) who, herself, burned over 300 Protestants at the stake in attempt to convert Protestant England back to Catholicism.
It is commonly held that The English knew that Roman Catholic leaders were plotting with Spain, attempting to assassinate Elizabeth, and trying to put the Catholic Mary (Stuart), Queen of Scots on the throne. This led to widespread hatred of Catholics (especially at the time of the Spanish Armada 1588) and persecution increased during the 1580's. Between 1581 and 1588 at least sixty-four priests were executed. (Eighteen laymen and two women were executed for their part in harboring Jesuits).
I notice however that you conveniently fail to recognize the event that occurred a mere decade earlier and is generally considered to be the worst of the century’s religious massacres; The St. Bartholomew's Day massacre. Perpetrated by Catholic mobs upon the Huguenots (French Calvinist Protestants), the slaughter of men, women and children barricaded in their homes, began on 24 August 1572, and spread throughout Paris, and later to other cities and the countryside, lasting for several months! The exact number of fatalities is not known, but it is estimated that anywhere from 10,000 to possibly 100,000 thousand Huguenots died in the violence throughout France.
In a disgusting show of unmitigated gall, Pope Gregory XIII ordered a "Te Deum" to be sung as a special thanksgiving to God for the massacre (a practice continued for many years after) and had a celebratory medal struck with the motto “Ugonottorum strages 1572” showing an angel bearing a cross and sword next to slaughtered Protestants. The Catholic Church has never formally and unequivocally apologized.
Sleep well?
m: "I'm sure you realize churches were scattered over several continents by this time. We cannot possibly assume that all churches were "already teaching distinctively Catholic teachings" during that era, simply because SOME were"
I: "Can you produce the writing of one 'orthodox' Christian writer in those first couple of hundred years who challenged any of those Catholic teachings that I stated as unorthodox?"
No. But we know Paul took great care to counter false teachings in his day, and it is very possible / probable that early Christians also countered unBiblical and extra-Biblical teachings either through letters which didn't survive or face-to-face in early churches.
m: "the OT does indeed speak of "the angel of the Lord", "the Lord's angel", "the angel of His presence". The scripture references you gave were not extra-Biblical. "
I: "I did not state that the OT never speaks of the angel of the Lord. I was specifically addressing the issue of certain NT passages stating that the Mosaic Covenant was given though angels (plural), yet nowhere in the OT is it stated or taught that the Old Covenant was given by angels. If so, please cite scripture reference, please."
Referring back to what I had written above, it's entirely possible that it was written that way in the Hebrew (a language familiar to the early apostles) but slightly different when translated into Latin, etc.
maranatha,
"the OT does indeed speak of "the angel of the Lord", "the Lord's angel", "the angel of His presence". The scripture references you gave were not extra-Biblical. "
I did not state that the OT never speaks of the angel of the Lord. I was specifically addressing the issue of certain NT passages stating that the Mosaic Covenant was given though angels (plural), yet nowhere in the OT is it stated or taught that the Old Covenant was given by angels. If so, please cite scripture reference, please.
maranatha,
"I'm sure you realize churches were scattered over several continents by this time. We cannot possibly assume that all churches were "already teaching distinctively Catholic teachings" during that era, simply because SOME were"
Can you produce the writing of one 'orthodox' Christian writer in those first couple of hundred years who challenged any of those Catholic teachings that I stated as unorthodox?
maranatha,
"With all due respect, I would say that was an apostate 'church', one which had drifted from the truth of God's Word."
For the sake of argument, let us assume for a moment that the Catholic Church did break away from the True Church (it does not matter when, 100 or 200AD for this example) and became an apostate church. Answer me this: how then could an apostate church correctly sort through all the heresies and declare correctly after 317 AD such complex doctrines as the Ttrinity, the incarnation of the Second Person of the Trinity (against the Docetists), the deity of Christ (against the Arians), the hypostatic union of the human and divine natures in the single Person of Christ (two natures, one person) (against the Nestorians and the Monophysites), the formalization of the NT canon (which writings were inspired), etc? It was this so-called apostate church that made these declarations. Did this so-called apostate church just accidentally get these issues correct? How do you know that they did not get it wrong, and one of the so-called heretical sects was correct? Maybe the Gnostics are correct, or the Docetists, or the Arians, or the Nestorians. Why is the visible hierarchical apostate church making these official declarations for the orthodox faith, while the supposed true bible church is underground nowhere to be seen?
maranatha,
"With all due respect, I would say that was an apostate 'church', one which had drifted from the truth of God's Word."
Wow!... that fast? Ignatius who was a disciple of Peter and John, Irenaeus, who was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John, Clement, who was a disciple of Peter, etc already fell into error. Not only that, but where were the true Christian writings defending the truth and combatting these errors?
Maranatha,
“Scripture reference, please.”
Jesus said, “I will build my church… I will give you the keys of the kingdom.” This was yet future at the time that Jesus said this. And we see this when the apostles and their early delegates teach and govern the church. Not just any person is an authority simply by virtue of them being a Christian. Acts 15 clearly indicates church governance and authority. One of the sure ways to make sure that you understood the faith and were not being mislead was to adhere to the ones who were in “official” authority, namely the apostles or their delegates, because they directly received their authority from the apostles. Even in Acts 15:22 those being sent forth were chosen as delegates by the apostles and presbyters. Also, in Acts 15:24, (the beginning of the letter which the delegates were taking to Antioch) states that there were those that were teaching without apostolic “authorization” and that they had caused confusion in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia. So we see that this problem occurred early on. Those teaching in an official capacity with authorization and those without authorization.
"Implies"? This is the problem. You may see that implication here, but I don't. There are no particular 'authorities' named or listed here.
Implication is not necessarily a problem. You tell me: what’s the difference between three of four committed Christians mentioned in Matt 18 and the church mentioned in Matt 18? See also comments above. And yes, scripture makes many implication, indications, etc. because the NT wasn’t written for the express purpose of teaching church structure and governance.
“Are you suggesting that when Jesus said, "to the church", He was referring to the RCC?”
No, I’m referring to the Catholic Church. To what church are you referring?
Lordis my Light,
If you don't know about Catholic Churches, then why would you say, and again I repeat what you said, "All Catholic Churches are Roman Catholic" and then make nasty comments about who you think I am? A definite case of the pot calling the kettle black, and very unChristian. No wonder you have a hard time with others. I'll keep you in my prayers.
My humble apologies to OnLine4Him for the ID error.
irenaeus, the OT does indeed speak of "the angel of the Lord", "the Lord's angel", "the angel of His presence". The scripture references you gave were not extra-Biblical.
irenaeus: "What church existed in 250AD? Or 200AD? Or 100AD? Because the church that existed during this era was What church existed in 250AD? Or 200AD? Or 100AD? Because the church that existed during this era was already teaching distinctively Catholic teachings."
I'm sure you realize churches were scattered over several continents by this time. We cannot possibly assume that all churches were "already teaching distinctively Catholic teachings" during that era, simply because SOME were.
irenaeus: "And I believe that Scripture does in fact point to the fact that Peter was chief of the apostles."
But this supposition is not supported by the Scripture Itself.
irenaeus: "That the fact that you just presented an example of how the early believers were not yet called Christians, would it surprise you that the early church was not yet called Catholic? It’s just a name. Again, no matter what name you give the early church, this very same church before the year 200AD (so less than 150 years from Paul’s earliest letters) was already teaching apostolic succession, apostolic authority of the bishops, the primacy of the bishop of Rome, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist, etc. What church was this?"
With all due respect, I would say that was an apostate 'church', one which had drifted from the truth of God's Word.
irenaeus:" Sorry that I did not express myself more clearly, but the authority I was referring to was the teaching authority and governing of the church. This did not happen until after the resurrection."
Scripture reference, please.
“Matthew 18:1 says, “At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? In verses 18-20 Jesus gives the disciples as a whole the same authority to bind and loose.”
i: "Yes, but even this implies church governance; i.e., those in authority, not just any disciple."
"Implies"? This is the problem. You may see that implication here, but I don't. There are no particular 'authorities' named or listed here.
i: "We know this because when the private and fraternal correction fails to have its effect, they are to bring it “to the church.” This implies an authority different than merely a group of Christians."
Are you suggesting that when Jesus said, "to the church", He was referring to the RCC?
Where do you see any such implication as you mentioned here? You're having to assign meanings to these words which are not there.
maranatha,
“Jesus' earliest disciples were Jews; they were not called Christians. The Bible tells us that believers were first called Christians in Antioch, some time after the Day of Pentecost, and Jesus always ministered in synagogues or in public, as there was no entity called 'church' yet.
But, for the sake of argument, let's suppose the early apostles were called Christians before Jesus was crucified and raised from the dead. Your last question makes no sense, unless you are suggesting the early Jewish apostles were Roman Catholics??? IOW, where do you see anywhere in the Bible that the early believers were called RC's???”
That the fact that you just presented an example of how the early believers were not yet called Christians, would it surprise you that the early church was not yet called Catholic? It’s just a name. Again, no matter what name you give the early church, this very same church before the year 200AD (so less than 150 years from Paul’s earliest letters) was already teaching apostolic succession, apostolic authority of the bishops, the primacy of the bishop of Rome, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist, etc. What church was this?
OnLine4Him,
With regard to name count, I did not mean to imply that the number of times is the single criterion for determining prominence.
“Again, the Scriptures are silent regarding a universal bishop in the church; I would have to say that this claim (Peter being the first pope) is nothing more than an assumption.”
The preponderance of evidence is on my side regarding how the infant church understood certain scriptural passages regarding Peter's role in their early writings and in actual practice. And I believe that Scripture does in fact point to the fact that Peter was chief of the apostles. Even many Protestant scholars attest to this. Now the matter of succession is another matter, for certainly many of those same scholars would not agree there, otherwise, I suppose, they would probably become Catholic.
“This reference “the Church here in Babylon” is not Rome but the ancient celebrated Babylon in Assyria where the Jews of the dispersion has gathered. Peter was called to minister to the Jews (Circumcision) while Paul was to minister to the Gentiles (uncircumcision). So, his ministry was not to the Gentiles as noted in these passages.”
Again, even many Protestant scholars agree that Babylon is a code word or symbolic of Rome as is indicated by several apocryphal Jewish and Christian writings.
OnLine4Him,
“Authority had already been given to all the apostles before his death and resurrection:
Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases – Luke 9:1.”
Sorry that I did not express myself more clearly, but the authority I was referring to was the teaching authority and governing of the church. This did not happen until after the resurrection.
“Matthew 18:1 says, “At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? In verses 18-20 Jesus gives the disciples as a whole the same authority to bind and loose.”
Yes, but even this implies church governance; i.e., those in authority, not just any disciple. Notice that when the offending brother is confronted by two or three other Christians in addition to the one who has been offended, they do not in and of themselves possess the authority to bund and loose. We know this because when the private and fraternal correction fails to have its effect, they are to bring it “to the church.” This implies an authority different than merely a group of Christians.
Quecat,
“Within the first 300 years after the resurrection, the organized church became a source of political power and oftentimes became the pawn of emperors.”
Exactly wrong. For the first 300 year after the resurrection, the church was severely persecuted and was certainly not a source of political power nor a pawn of the emperors. Some of the political intrigue would come later, but certainly not in the first 300 years.
“Honest and thinking Christians everywhere have the freedom to follow where the Holy Spirit leads…”
But that’s the very point. Apparently, they are not following where the Holy Spirit leads unless the Holy Spirit is the author of confusion. How can thousands Christians following the leading of the Holy Spirit come to thousands of opposing positions?
Maranatha,
“Jesus referred to the Hebrew scriptures, not Jewish tradition - and those were the only scriptures the early apostles and disciples had.”
Not always… Jesus also referred to Jewish tradition. Not only that, but the NT refers to Jewish tradition also. These traditions did not suddenly become true by the mere fact that they became written down in the NT. Jesus refers to the rightful teaching authority of the Pharisees because they sit on Moses’ seat. Where did Jesus get this? According to some NT passages the Mosaic Covenant was given through angels (created beings) whereas the superior New Covenant is given through Christ Himself; e.g., Gal 3:19, Heb 2:2, Acts 7:53. Yet where in the OT is it taught that the Mosaic Covenant is delivered through angels? The sola-scriptura Jewish Christians should have been up in arms over such unbiblical or extra-biblical teachings. This is merely two of a number of such examples.
“Where do you see the RCC in the Bible? It was not in existence in the earliest days of the true church which is shown clearly in the book of Acts and throughout the New Testament. The true church is simply the Body of Christ.”
Did the Christian Church immediately fall into error following the death of the last apostle? What church existed in 250AD? Or 200AD? Or 100AD? Because the church that existed during this era was already teaching distinctively Catholic teachings.
They were Jews, but they were Christians because they followed Christ. Duh. I have to go guys.
tliml, Jesus' earliest disciples were Jews; they were not called Christians. The Bible tells us that believers were first called Christians in Antioch, some time after the Day of Pentecost, and Jesus always ministered in synagogues or in public, as there was no entity called 'church' yet.
But, for the sake of argument, let's suppose the early apostles were called Christians before Jesus was crucified and raised from the dead. Your last question makes no sense, unless you are suggesting the early Jewish apostles were Roman Catholics??? IOW, where do you see anywhere in the Bible that the early believers were called RC's???
tliml, is the book of Isaiah not in your Bible? We know it is quoted extensively in the New Testament.
tliml, if you add together the people in every country and era who were hunted down, persecuted, and killed by the RC's, Queen Elizabeth's number wouldn't even come close.
BUT - let's say, for the sake of argument, that wasn't true - would that excuse the RC's, whom you say is the one true church?
Oh and you are correct, I was mistaken, he did not say it only to Peter, however you have not EVEN adressed the heart of the quote! The Christian Church was began when Jesus and his followers began preaching. THAT is truly when the Christian Church was started. If Jesus was with the Church "From now unto the consummation of the world" then how do you explain your church...
Maranatha-
How are we un-biblical when you people threw in some scrolls that you found in caves that were not in the bible to begin with???...
Maranatha-
Was queen Elizabeth taking the Word of God literally when she killed more than twice the amount of Catholics that the Inquisition ever did Protestants?
tliml: "This means that THERE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN A SECOND INTERVAL BETWEEN JESUS' DEATH AND THE CREATION OF THE TRUE CHURCH!"
Here's the scriptural progression of events: Jesus dies on the cross, is resurrected from the dead, spends time in His glorified body ministering to believers, disciples see Him ascend into Heaven, and just before He ascends to the Father, He commands them to wait for the promise of the Holy Spirit before they carry out His commission to take the gospel everywhere. One hundred twenty believers gather in the Upper Room in obedience to Him and receive the power of the Holy Spirit, at which time the early church is birthed and multiplies quickly in Jerusalem and then quickly spreads to surrounding areas. This is the series of events according to the Bible.
tliml: "...yet you do not take Jesus' words literally... strange."
Were the early RC popes taking Jesus' words literally when they tried to kill Martin Luther, and persecuted other believers just because they did not agree with RC teachings?
Online4Him - sorry I missed you; I seem to have been doing that quite a bit lately. Hope to see you soon. :-)
Quecat - keep up the good work. :-)
To both of you: Your posts are truly excellent, well-thought-out, totally Biblical.
I meant to add: The writer of Hebrews also quoted Jesus' words saying He would be with His disciples to the end of the world as applying to ALL who would believe on Him. Again, check it out: I believe it's in chapter 13.
tliml, Jesus said, "Behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the world" to ALL the disciples, not just Peter. Check it out.
tlilml, Catholics have had more than one schism. BUT - even if they hadn't - what does that prove? There are so many RC unBiblical and extra-Biblical teachings, the unity is unified AGAINST God's Word. Can you not see this?
I have to step out; will be back this evening :)
Irenaeus,
You said: “This was before the death and resurrection of Christ. The authority had not yet been delegated.”
Authority had already been given to all the apostles before his death and resurrection:
Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases – Luke 9:1.
Matthew 18:1 says, “At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? In verses 18-20 Jesus gives the disciples as a whole the same authority to bind and loose.
You said: “Speaking of prominence, Peter is mentioned by name (Peter, Simon, or Cephas) almost 200 times with John a distant second at about 30 something.”
The key to sound biblical exegesis in not how many times something is mentioned but taking that something in its proper CONTEXT. Trying to demonstrate your point by this method does not prove anything; for example, Paul wrote 13 epistles of the New Testament while Peter only wrote 2. . . . Who now is the prominent figure?
You said: “The Pope is the bishop of Rome and the chief bishop just as Peter was the chief apostle.”
Again, the Scriptures are silent regarding a universal bishop in the church; I would have to say that this claim (Peter being the first pope) is nothing more than an assumption.
This reference “the Church here in Babylon” is not Rome but the ancient celebrated Babylon in Assyria where the Jews of the dispersion has gathered. Peter was called to minister to the Jews (Circumcision) while Paul was to minister to the Gentiles (uncircumcision). So, his ministry was not to the Gentiles as noted in these passages.
But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:) Galatians 2:7, 8.
Finally, the Scriptures say the Salvation is found in Jesus Christ “alone” –
For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ – 1Corinthians 3:11.
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me – John 14:6.
Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved – Acts 4:12.
Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God – Hebrews 12:2.
Quecat,
Lol - thanks and well said with your last couple of posts.
tliml, I appreciate your enthusiam, but really, what are you going on about? I really did try to pay attention to the entire thread despite the smart alecky taunts, smoking keyboards and such.
I really do have to give Online4Him credit for bearing with you thus far - the effort truly has been extraordinary and represents more time than I might have given.
As to your recent post, what is this "second interval" that you mention?
Christ's church is universal, in other words, catholic-unified with a small "c" in the Holy Spirit.
Just because a particular branch of the faith holds to the traditional name "Catholic", does not indicate that they are the end all and be all of Christendom. Eastern Orthodox is "catholic", but most certainly not (big C) "Catholic" and have been so for over 1000 years.
As to your assertion that Protestantism is multi-schismatic, perhaps that is because the medieval form of the empire-enmeshed/political/church body dealt with it's detractors by pronouncing them heretical, anathema and used it's overt power or influence to "permanently silence" them, thereby squashing opposition and ensuring that the proletariat remained cowed to the theology as pronounced by those in power.
Obviously nowadays and more specifically because the government and church are no longer so closely entwined, disagreeing with ecclesiastical authority is no longer tantamount to being a political traitor and deserving of being awarded an early grave.
Honest and thinking Christians everywhere have the freedom to follow where the Holy Spirit leads without giving a second thought to codified, twisted man made traditions that are more convoluted and fraught with peril than the U.S. tax code!
Lutheran is a division of PROTESTANTISM, NOT Catholicism... honestly.
And then every other part of the bible you are like "Oh yea, sure, Jonah was totally swallowed by a whale." and yet you do not take Jesus' words literally... strange.
Funny... not one Protestant has addressed my quote. I shall repaste it. Jesus said unto Peter "Behold I am with you all days... from now unto the consummation of the world" Mat xxviii This means that THERE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN A SECOND INTERVAL BETWEEN JESUS' DEATH AND THE CREATION OF THE TRUE CHURCH! This proves that the Catholic church IS the TRUE church! Oh wait, I bet you guys do not take this LITERALLY do you? Just like the parts about the last supper... funny how everything you do not agree with in the bible you don't take LITERALLY.
Oh, maranatha, excuse me, I forgot about the one schism we had... compared to your hundreds...
And while we're on the subject, I noted that someone quoted "and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it..."
Here's an idea that is probably contrary to what you've been taught: Gates are not an offensive weapon of warfare, they are a defensive tool. When's the last time you saw gates attack anything, let alone the church?
This bit of scripture does not speak to to power of the devil overtaking the church, rather it is saying that we can take our fight to his front door and not even the gates of hell will withstand our onslaught. Satan is already a defeated foe, treat him like one.
Maranatha!
Following this whole papal primacy discussion has been fascinating, but I'm surprised that no one has yet appealed to history within context.
It's all well and good to say that Church Father "so-and-so" endorsed the idea of Roman primacy, but without understanding the historical context within which that church father was writing, you are missing the largest and most telling evidence.
I have been studying "The Story of Christianity: Volume 1: The Early Church to the Reformation" by Justo Gonzales, and in doing so, have discovered that it is quite clear that church politics from the earliest ages were influenced by societal/governmental political situations. Within the first 300 years after the resurrection, the organized church became a source of political power and oftentimes became the pawn of emperors. More times than I could briefly explain, schisms, heresies and differing theological theories were driven by geographical and political boundaries. The deciding of these issues was not necessarily the search for truth, but rather one emperor asserting his authority over a weaker rival whose kingdom was the apparent source of the differing idea. There was intrigue and dirty dealing, and the most widely accepted truth did not always win the day.
Just another case for sola scriptura - as opposed to following man-made traditions.
Heb 4:14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast [our] profession.
The only difference is like the Greek Orthadox or Eastern Orthadox who don't follow the Pope but are still Catholic, then you have the Catholics who adhere to the Vatican and the Pope.
irenaeus: "Jesus did not always quote scripture. He also referred to Jewish tradition."
Jesus referred to the Hebrew scriptures, not Jewish tradition - and those were the only scriptures the early apostles and disciples had.
Where do you see the RCC in the Bible? It was not in existence in the earliest days of the true church which is shown clearly in the book of Acts and throughout the New Testament. The true church is simply the Body of Christ.
So much for the mythical 'no divisions' within Catholicism. Of course, we know there have been divisions and schims for centuries.
WTPDOSA,
By the way, I am not Catholic :)
WTPDOSA,
Try and get this right with your publicly educated mind; it wasn't me who addressed you. It was (thelordismylight).
LOL. Lutheran churches are not Catholic. They are Lutheran. I do not know what you mean by "Old Catholics" But the Lutheran church is separate completely from the Catholic Church. They do not follow the pope. They are not Catholic.
Online4Him,
Let me try and get this right with my publicly educated mind. You corrected me and said that "All Catholic Churches are Roman Catholic." If this is true as you say, then the "Old Catholic" churches of which some Lutherans own are really Roman Catholic Churches in disguise? I don't know about that one there our little ecclesiastic scholar. LOL Maybe you can enlighten me as to who the "Old Catholics" really are.
Good night and God Bless!
irenaeus,
Good night.
wilderness,
Good night.
wilderness,
You are always welcome wilderness; I have the salsa - lol
irenaeus,
It is 10:30pm; I really need to get in bed too. I will comment on your post tomorrow; how does that sound?
I should have flew in. Do you have chips? LOL.
You two still there?
Wow... company? What time is it where you live? It's after midnight for me, and I already should've been in bed a couple of hours ago.
wilderness,
I have heard of this, but did not investigate it, yet.
I apologize, company came in the middle of our discussions.
"...have your studies come across any teachings about Simon the magician (Acts 8)being involved with the Roman Catholic church or something like that? " Couldn't be possible... that RCC didn't exist yet.
Online4Him, have your studies come across any teachings about Simon the magician (Acts 8)being involved with the Roman Catholic church or something like that?