Peter in Rome?

In some of Paul's writings he makes the insinuation that he takes a back seat to no one except Christ. We even find him rebuking Peter in the presence of Jews and Gentiles. Would any of the Pope's subordinates act in this manner?

 

References please.

 

you say that "regardless of the inconvenient details" in the text.

The text clearly shows that after ALL had become silent (ALL including Peter) THEN James "ANSWERS" the group and passes "JUDGMENT".

After James' final word - there are no others.

As a trud judge - James' opinion addresses concerns of BOTH sides.

The facts are clear.

I understand why you need to believe something else - but the text is clear.

In Christ,

Bob

 

13 After they had STOPPED speaking, James answered, saying, ""Brethren, listen to me.

19 ""Therefore it is MY judgment that WE do not ...

No one else "Spoke for the group"

The evidence is clear.

In Christ,

Bob

 

As for the Galatians rebuke, I agree that Paul had the authority to rebuke Peter as an apostolic equal.

I should note that I am not trying to defend the doctrine of Apostolic Succession which I don't necessarily believe is the correct interpretion of Matthew 16. And don't get me started about the validity of the Pope speaking "ex cathedra".

But we don't need to ignore or twist evidence in the bible and the writings of the church fathers to defend that interpretation.

 

Bob,

You must remember that Peter said", Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
But we believe that through the grace of the LORD Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they."


When was he referring to? Look back in Acts 11:17
Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?

11:18
When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.


James is not making a new proclamation. He agrees with Peter. Also, James was sympathetic to the Jews and he knew how the Jewish converts to Christianity and been so formed by the Law. He also realized how difficult it would be for them to associate with the Gentiles who disregarded even the most basic requirements of the Mosaic Law. So, he recommends that the converts from paganism to observe the four basic requirements that any Gentile living in the land of Israel had to observe, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

 

As for the Galatians rebuke, I agree that Paul had the authority to rebuke Peter as an apostolic equal.

I should note that I am not trying to defend the doctrine of Apostolic Succession which I don't necessarily believe is the correct interpretion of Matthew 16. And don't get me started about the validity of the Pope speaking "ex cathedra".

But we don't need to ignore or twist evidence in the bible and the writings of the church fathers to defend that interpretation. </font>[/QUOTE]Who's twisting? I will get the Scriptural references tomorrow. But the issues I am speaking of have to do with his personal apostolic defense and "follow me as I follow Christ" texts.

 

Yes, this IS the issue being argued here. Christ in NO way transferred his authority whether it be in a physical sense or otherwise.

You seem so confident in your position. Show the Scriptures. </font>[/QUOTE]Well, I agree and disagree with you.

First, the aurhority was not transfered meaning that Jesus don't have the authority and Peter does. (this is where I agree with you)

The authority was not transfered but delegated to Peter first and later to the rest of the apostles.

Mt 16,18 Peter is given the keys

Jn 20,23 He delegated (not transferred) power to his disciples to forgive sins (remember only God can forgive sins, but here Jesus gives them the authority of forgiviness - sounds too catholic

 

Yes, this IS the issue being argued here. Christ in NO way transferred his authority whether it be in a physical sense or otherwise.

You seem so confident in your position. Show the Scriptures. </font>[/QUOTE]Christ DID NOT transferred his authority, He delegated to Peter and his apostles.

Mt 16,18 The keys are given to Peter
Mt 18,18 Power to tie and untie

Jn 20,23 Power to forgive sins

Lk 10,16 WHoever listens to you listens to Me (Power of infallibility). If we listen to them and they err then it is Our Lord who errs

Mt 10,40 Who receives you, receives Me

You know what, it is starting to sound too catholic, I must be interpreting something wrong, disregard.

Armando

 

Acts 15
13 After they had STOPPED speaking, James answered, saying, ""Brethren, listen to me.

19 ""Therefore it is MY judgment that WE do not ...

No one else "Spoke for the group"

The evidence is clear.

Indeed - Peter is giving his OWN personnal testimony about the Acts 10 and 11 story with Cornelius - a story that shows that the Gospel was to go to the gentiles.

HOWEVER in Acts 15 that debate is NOT whether the Gentiles should have the gospel preached to them - the issue was - what to do with the gentiles AFTER that!

So as much as you may want to ignore the fact that in Acts 15 - they all stop speaking (including Peter) AND THEN James answers the group...

And as much as the inconvenient details may not be welcomed - that says that ONLY JAMES spoke for the group saying "IT is MY judgment THAT WE..."

And as much as the fact that NNE speaks after James "renders HIS judgment" may not be welcomed in a "Peter-is-king" kind of world view

And as much as the fact that James is the only one to address BOTH sides of the issue -- (providing guidance for BOTH groups) may not fit with the "Peter ended the debate" kind of hopeful-thinking of some...

Yet these facts all stand out (glaringly so) from the chapter.

Impossible to miss.

It is one of the most blatant examples of unchallenged, undisputed leadership in all of the NT.

I understand how this puts the preference of the RCC in kind of a bind - but the facts are what they are and can easily be read by anyone.

These "details" just can't be ignored.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Having said all that - I agree with those who post that 1Peter 5 shows that Peter went to Rome.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob,
You and I don't always agree, but I agree with you regarding the meaning both the Acts 15 and the 1 Peter 5 passages.

 

Where in the scripture?--

Do we find Peter the Vicar of Christ?

Peter in Rome?

Why are the foundations of the RCC "shrouded" in "apparitions", "dead bones", "icons", "myth" and other "traditions of men"?(Also faulty geography and history)

"In vain they do worship--teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Ah very clever...because the Bible translation you are using says Judgmentyou appear to take that to mean the authoritative decision such as a formal decision given by a court.

However, this verse is listed in other translations as "It is my opinion", "It is my sentence," ect.

However, judgment also means the process of forming an opinion or evaluation by discerning and comparing; JUDGMENT also implies sense tempered and refined by experience,training, and maturity &lt;they relied on her judgment for guidance&gt;

 

Bob,
Also there is evidence in scripture to suggest the issue dealing with circumsion and James' statement, Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.was at a different "council" See Acts 21:25 where Paul seems to be learning of the decree for the first time.

 

Sorry. I should have been more clear. I wasn't talking about you in particular but that generally, in protestant opposition to Catholic doctrines like Apostolic Succession, we have a tendency to twist evidence to "prove" our point, like denying that Peter was ever in Rome.

But I feel that even if we accept all the biblical and historical evidence that Catholics use to justify their understanding of Apostolic succession or more specifically Papal succession, their interpretation falls short.

 

The Pope

It is actually very sad that Catholics view the Pope as "God" or "Vicar of Christ". What terrible deception, its too sad.


2 Thessalonians 2:
"Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God."

The papal power began to be formed even in the Apostle Paul's day, when the early church began letting pagan practices and beliefs into the church.

2 Thessalonians 2:7-12
"For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness."


The Pharisees had declared themselves the children of Abraham. Jesus told them that this claim could be established only by doing the works of Abraham. The true children of Abraham would live, as he did, a life of obedience to God. They would not try to kill One who was speaking the truth that was given Him from God.

In plotting against Christ, the rabbis were not doing the works of Abraham. A mere lineal descent from Abraham was of no value. Without a spiritual connection with him, which would be manifested in possessing the same spirit, and doing the same works, they were not his children.

This principle bears with equal weight upon a question that has long agitated the Christian world,--the question of apostolic succession.

Descent from Abraham was proved, not by name and lineage, but by likeness of character. So the apostolic succession rests not upon the transmission of ecclesiastical authority, but upon spiritual relationship.

A life actuated by the apostles' spirit, the belief and teaching of the truth they taught, this is the true evidence of apostolic succession.

This is what constitutes men the successors of the first teachers of the gospel.

Jesus denied that the Jews were children of Abraham. He said, "Ye do the deeds of your father." In mockery they answered, "We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God." These words, in allusion to the circumstances of His birth, were intended as a thrust against Christ in the presence of those who were beginning to believe on Him.

Jesus gave no heed to the base insinuation, but said, "If God were your Father, ye would love Me: for I proceeded forth and came from God."

Their works testified of their relationship to him who was a liar and a murderer. "Ye are of your father the devil," said Jesus, "and the lusts of your father it is your will to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and stood not in the truth, because there is no truth in him.

. . . Because I say the truth, ye believe Me not." John 8:44, 45

The fact that Jesus spoke the truth, and that with certainty, was why He was not received by the Jewish leaders. It was the truth that offended these self-righteous men. The truth exposed the fallacy of error; it condemned their teaching and practice, and it was unwelcome. They would rather close their eyes to the truth than humble themselves to confess that they had been in error. They did not love the truth. They did not desire it, even though it was truth.


------

Claudia Thompson

http://www.religiouscounterfeits.org
http://www.christiangraphics.org
http://www.countrymanordesigns.com

 

CONTINUATION OF MY LAST POST:

As was said in my last message, the Roman Catholic Church is hardly a demonstration of "the works of Abraham" but instead of doing the very same type of things the Pharisees that Jesus was speaking to, were doing.

The Roman Church now presents a fair front to the world, covering with apologies her record of horrible cruelties. She has clothed herself in Christlike garments; but she is unchanged. Every principle of the papacy that existed in past ages exists today. The doctrines devised in the darkest ages are still held. Let none deceive themselves. The papacy that Protestants are now so ready to honor is the same that ruled the world in the days of the Reformation, when men of God stood up, at the peril of their lives, to expose her iniquity. She possesses the same pride and arrogant assumption that lorded it over kings and princes, and claimed the prerogatives of God. Her spirit is no less cruel and despotic now than when she crushed out human liberty and slew the saints of the Most High.


The papacy is just what prophecy declared that she would be, the apostasy of the latter times. 2 Thessalonians 2:3, 4. It is a part of her policy to assume the character which will best accomplish her purpose; but beneath the variable appearance of the chameleon she conceals the invariable venom of the serpent. "Faith ought not to be kept with heretics, nor persons suspected of heresy" (Lenfant, volume 1, page 516), she declares. Shall this power, whose record for a thousand years is written in the blood of the saints, be now acknowledged as a part of the church of Christ?


It is not without reason that the claim has been put forth in Protestant countries that Catholicism differs less widely from Protestantism than in former times. There has been a change; but the change is not in the papacy. Catholicism indeed resembles much of the Protestantism that now exists, because Protestantism has so greatly degenerated since the days of the Reformers.

As the Protestants churches have been seeking the favor of the world, false charity has blinded their eyes. They do not see but that it is right to believe good of all evil, and as the inevitable result they will finally believe evil of all good.

Instead of standing in defense of the faith once delivered to the saints, they are now, as it were, apologizing to Rome for their uncharitable opinion of her, begging pardon for their bigotry.


---------

Rv:13:3: And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.

---------


Claudia Thompson

http://www.religiouscounterfeits.org
http://www.christiangraphics.org
http://www.countrymanordesigns.com

 

Please walk through the text of Acts 15 and show how it jumps ahead to some other point in time during the middle of that council.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I have to admit this is a welcomed state of things.

I think we might "also agree" on some Calvinist vs Arminian topics, and OSAS.



In Christ,

Bob