Can someone tell me why Pope Peter was reprimanded by Paul?

Peter was on no grounds of false teaching when Paul rebuked him so the issue here isn't papal infalliblity. His behavoir and manner of evangelization where in question as Paul doesn't accuse him of heresy but for not walking and being fully straightfoward with the Gospel.

"Paul wanted to take him along on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area ..." Acts 16:3

If Peter is guilty of false teachings then it would only make sense that Paul is too.

 

As Justified Saint said, there is no indication that Peter went back on his very own teaching in Acts 15 that salvation is by grace (see acts 15:11). There is no statement by Peter in Galatians that indicates that he has changed on this. He is guilty of scandalous behavior in catering to the Jews over the Gentiles. That is a sin for sure. But I am sure you sin. Does that mean that you believe in what the sin entails? Galatians shows that Peter is still a weak human. If you believe that Peter's theology was tainted by his sins then you had better rip his books out of your Bible. But then you have a problem. You see Paul himself said "the good that I would do I do not, while the EVIL that I would not do I do" in Romans 7. So we had better rip his books out also.

Hope that helps.

Blessings

 

One other thing. There is nothing that says that a leader should not be rebuked ever by subordinates. If you can find it I would like to see it.

 

This post might have merely been intended to illustrate that "papal infallibilty" as that doctrine is believed by some Catholics does not mean "infallibility" in the normal sense of that word.

It is another ocmplex teaching of the RCC which does not have direct support in Scripture.

A Protestant, by contrast, might reason that if Peter is fallible in one instance, so he might be fallible in other instances. And so then would anyone claiming to be his "heir."

I think that almost all Protestants respect and revere Peter as an Apostle and teacher and as a leader (with Paul) in the church's infancy.

Not all Protestants understand what "papal infallibility" is because that term is not explained each time it is used. And the doctrine is so complex that it does bear explanation. I will, of course, leave explanation of the doctrine to my RCC brothers and sisters.

 

Papal infallibility is limited to those times in which the Pope is speaking with authority over the entire Church (not just one area, certain people, or for a certain time) as Successor to Saint Peter, in which he is making a formal declaration regarding faith and morals.

Papal infallibility does not extend to the every day actions of the pope, as it is not a protection against sin, but only a protection of the one true faith. This faith WAS protected, even though Peter failed personally in living it out (in the instance we were discussing) which is why Paul could rebuke him (because despite the fact that Peter failed personally, the truth was still protected).

 

Calvin:

Originally posted by CalvinG:
"This post might have merely been intended to illustrate that "papal infallibilty" as that doctrine is believed by some Catholics does not mean "infallibility" in the normal sense of that word."

It is believed by you in a partial sense of the normal understanding of the word infallibility. You will deny it but it is true. The Apostles were infallible when writing scripture. Yet in their personal lives they were not always infallible. Even Paul whom most Protestants focus most of their attention said "the good that I would do, I do not, while the EVIL that I would not do I do". Romans 7. Gee, that's exactly what we catholics say regarding infallibility of the Pope.

"It is another ocmplex teaching of the RCC which does not have direct support in Scripture."

Is it complex to say that Paul was infallible in writing scripture, yet not in his personal behavior as is clearly shown in Romans 7. As for no support, only by your opinion of scripture. Unless of course you can infallibly say that you interprut scripture infallibly. In Matt 16:19 Jesus says TO PETER "WHATEVER you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven." Can God bind a lie? Oh I know you don't see explicit proof for this binding and loosing being passed on. Tell me, was the authority in Matt 18 of binding and loosing passed on?

Matthew 18:18
"Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.

Or was that verse just a one time shot also? It is quite apparent to me that God grants some men the Holy Spirit such that when they bind and loose it can be bound in heaven because it is true. Or at the very least not contrary to truth when in the case of discipline something is bound.

"A Protestant, by contrast, might reason that if Peter is fallible in one instance, so he might be fallible in other instances. And so then would anyone claiming to be his "heir.""

So Peter's letters are fallible? Hey, I guess anything goes with Protestants. The thing is the Church has chosen the heirs as according to the binding and loosing in Matt 18 above. Men who claim to be pope have been rejected as anti-popes throughout history.

"I think that almost all Protestants respect and revere Peter as an Apostle and teacher and as a leader (with Paul) in the church's infancy.

Very good then. But you ignore Matt 16:18. YOu ignore that Peter was mentioned far more than any of the other 12. You ignore that he is always mentioned first in lists of the Apostles and even called first (mt 10) even though he was not the first apostle Chosen (I believe Andrew was first). He is the only man other than Jesus that I know of to walk on Water. Jesus spoke from his boat, thus the ancient name of the Papacy "The bark of Peter". When questions are asked of the Apostles as a group he always answers. I could go on but why bother. For you these things won't be proof of anything. Just coincidences. You don't really obey the scriptures Calvin, but your own personal thoughts on the scriptures. Thus you obey your own fallible intellect. Prov 3:5 says not to trust on your own intuition or understanding but rely on the Lord. Jer 3:15 says that God will send shepherds. He identifies Peter as one of these shepherds in John 21. (feed my sheep...). How do you know your Pastor was chosen by Jesus Christ Calvin? How do you know what he preaches is truth. I know, you compare it with your personal interprutation of the Bible. The Lutherans and and Oneness Pentecostals and Jehoviah's witnesses do as much and come to the same conclusion as you about there pastors.

blessings

 

What this means that Matin Luther was right and the pope was in error...

 

Just to be clear....

I never stated that Peter was in error when he wrote those Scriptures which the Holy Spirit caused to be preserved. Merely that he might be in error about other things. We note that not all of the writings of even the Apostles were preserved. For instance, the first letter of Paul to the church in Corinth appears to have been lost.

As there is no clear succession to Peter's authority in Scripture, it is not necessary to assert that Peter was fallable in the sense that popes are fallable in order to assert that popes are fallable.

Even the Catholics recognize NT Scripture as Scripture. We believe that the Holy Spirit preserved those writings of the Apostles and other men of their time which were meant to be treated as Scripture.

The Apostles received the Holy Spirit in a way that other people have not. To them it was given that whatsoever they should ask in Jesus' name would be done for them. I think that this was a sign and proof of their Apostolic office. Peter received this. So did Paul.

Did Peter's purported heirs? If so, there is little evidence for it. I have not seen the Bishops of Rome perform the signs by which Peter made his authority to speak on behalf of God known. Nor those by which Paul did the same.

If it is Peter's walking on water which impresses you...which seems to stem from Peter's having his attention on Jesus because he couldn't do it when his attention was elsewhere...then perhaps the Bishops of Rome should demonstrate their ability to do the same. That they apparantly cannot may mean that they do not have the same authority from God which Peter possessed. I find it interesting to see a claim of a partial passing of Peter's office and authority rather than a complete "succession."

Peter was important. We Protestants do not deny that any more than we deny that Peter made a valid, authoritative, canonical contribution to NT Scripture. Interesting, isn't it, that Peter didn't write anything clear about succession to his office in the writings accepted as Scripture by the Catholic church.

That seems more important to me than his being the spokesman for the Disciples when they are asked questions by Jesus. I think most Protestant theologians agree that Peter was the leader of the original Twelve. (Second to Jesus, of course.)

Blessings,
CalvinG

 

Calvin,

What I get out of you is because everything isn't explicitly written down you believe you can in general reject what may be implicit. That at least is the way it sounds. Above you lamented how whimsical it seemed to you that tradition was. It is far less whimsical than you believe. What I find ironic is the very thing you are trying to prevent, i.e. fluid changing uncertain doctine is what you HAVE. You cannot know with infallible certainty what the scripture say. You subject them to your personal interprutation. Oh you say but I have the Holy Spirit. Why can't the Holy Spirit guide tradition as to what the truths of the scriptures are. I do find it interesting that you left 2 Thes 2:15 alone. You basically said that Paul taught scripture + oral traditoin then later in timothy decided to go with scripture alone. Or perhaps you start SS at the last verse in John's gospel where it says nothing is to be added. That is hardly explicit, what you require of me. Not explicit (by your standards) not said.


Blessings

 

As a biblical example of papal fallibility, Fundamentalists like to point to Peter’s conduct at Antioch, where he refused to eat with Gentile Christians in order not to offend certain Jews from Palestine (Gal. 2:11–16). For this Paul rebuked him. Did this demonstrate papal infallibility was non-existent? Not at all. Peter’s actions had to do with matters of discipline, not with issues of faith or morals.

Furthermore, the problem was Peter’s actions, not his teaching. Paul acknowledged that Peter very well knew the correct teaching (Gal. 2:15–16). The problem was that he wasn’t living up to his own teaching. Thus, in this instance, Peter was not doing any teaching; much less was he solemnly defining a matter of faith or morals.

Fundamentalists must also acknowledge that Peter did have some kind of infallibility—they cannot deny that he wrote two infallible epistles of the New Testament. So, if his behavior at Antioch was not incompatible with this kind of infallibility, neither is bad behavior contrary to papal infallibility in general.

Catholic Answers, Papal Infallibility, (San Diego, CA). Taken from:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

 

Originally posted by CalvinG:
Just to be clear....

"I never stated that Peter was in error when he wrote those Scriptures which the Holy Spirit caused to be preserved."

I never stated you did. Only that the same accusations (peter's sins, his humanity etc.) apply to a fallible man writing infallible scripture. It is just as complexe from your standpoint as mine. In fact more because the charism of divine inspritation is a higher one than that of correct interprutation.

"Merely that he might be in error about other things. "

He might? Jesus said "he who hears you hears me.". Did you provide exceptions to that statement such that you can say that sometimes when peter spoke the one's who heard him were hearing lies and not really Jesus?

"We note that not all of the writings of even the Apostles were preserved. For instance, the first letter of Paul to the church in Corinth appears to have been lost. "

I know of no other mentioned other than this letter of Paul's. I have also heard it said there is evidence that one of the letters to Corinth (I think it is the second) actually contains the alleged missing letter. There is evidence in the flow of the letter from what I can recall that this is true. I know of no other lost writings of the Apostles that you claim exist. Where are these lost letters you claim exist. Back your belief up with Biblical proof of the level that you require of me.


"As there is no clear succession to Peter's authority in Scripture, it is not necessary to assert that Peter was fallable in the sense that popes are fallable in order to assert that popes are fallable."

With regard to the no clear successsion once again that it is your opinion of scripture subject to your own infallibility. I will keep reminding you of that. It is quite clear to me and I would argue that any Jew would have been clear on what Jesus was doing in Matt 16:18-19 with regard to Is 22:22-23. Succession does not neccessitate infalibility and you are refuting a point I did not make. My point with the Apostles and there infallibility with regard to scripture is that it mearly fits the Catholic definition of infallibility that you find so complex.

"Even the Catholics recognize NT Scripture as Scripture."

Once again we do. I am not denying the scriptures in any way. Only showing through the point that fallible men wrote them that our definition of infallibility that you say is so complex fits like a glove.

"We believe that the Holy Spirit preserved those writings of the Apostles and other men of their time which were meant to be treated as Scripture."

Amen. Of course he did it through a Catholic Pope and Catholic councils but I'll leave you alone on that one. Even Martil Luther acknowledged it and you cannot avoid it unless you lie to yourself. The Holy Spirit guided men to put together the canon that God wanted the world to have.

"The Apostles received the Holy Spirit in a way that other people have not. To them it was given that whatsoever they should ask in Jesus' name would be done for them. I think that this was a sign and proof of their Apostolic office. Peter received this. So did Paul."

Once again we agreee.

"Did Peter's purported heirs? If so, there is little evidence for it. I have not seen the Bishops of Rome perform the signs by which Peter made his authority to speak on behalf of God known. Nor those by which Paul did the same."

When the Catholic Church claims that Bishops are apostles then I will let you know if any of those signs are going on. Saying they are successors of the apostles is not the same as saying they are Aposltes. The Bible doesn't note anyone going to Dallas theological Seminary or Bob Jones university and setting up their little church on the steet corner independent of a legitimate authority. Rather the leaders of the Church were apointed by legitimate authority:

Titus 1:5
For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you,

Acts 14:23
When they had appointed elders for them in every church, having prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed.

These people had the authority to appoint others who they knew were faithful witnesses to the truth. (2 Tim 2:2). The laying on of hands was key to this appointment.

"If it is Peter's walking on water which impresses you...which seems to stem from Peter's having his attention on Jesus because he couldn't do it when his attention was elsewhere...then perhaps the Bishops of Rome should demonstrate their ability to do the same. That they apparantly cannot may mean that they do not have the same authority from God which Peter possessed. "

Walking on water doesn't impress you? Man you will do anything to refute a Catholic attack. It was a miracle performed by God because of Peter's faith. When his faith became weak he sank.
Once again I haven't claimed they are Peter, an Apostle. You like to put words in my mouth.

"I find it interesting to see a claim of a partial passing of Peter's office and authority rather than a complete "succession.""

You find alot interesting that is not very interesting. Peter was a physical witness to Christ. He touched him. He was hugged by him I am sure. He walked with him daily. This is impossible today. These things surely built him up in ways we can't image. He had a tongue of fire settle on his head. But you say because we don't have anyone with all of that there is no succession. Blind!

"Peter was important. We Protestants do not deny that any more than we deny that Peter made a valid, authoritative, canonical contribution to NT Scripture. Interesting, isn't it, that Peter didn't write anything clear about succession to his office in the writings accepted as Scripture by the Catholic church."

Once again not very interesting. The apostles in their writings deal with specific problems in the communities they write to. There is much they don't address. If the people Peter was writing to had no problem with his authority and the succession that would come afterward and if that is how they understood Matt's Gospel then he had no need to address it. My wife doesn't tell me all the little things I need to do to go get milk every time she tells me to do it. You guys what a full writing of all dognma in every book of the Bible. If you don't see it where you want it you think it interesting. There is much evidence in the writings of Irenaus, Eusebius, Ignatius, Augustine etc. etc., that Peter's succession was well understood. Again before constantine established the Church. Irenaus names the successors of Peter to his day. And I find arguemenst from silence such as yours "peter didn't say it" funny. You see they sometimes backfire on you. 272 times in the NT the word faith is mentioned. Not once in these 272 times is it put with the word alone. I can hear a pin drop. You would think God would have had someone put the word faith with alone. I know Martin Luther tried to with his corrupt Bible but everyone today rejects his translation of Romans 3:28. It was simply a lie for him to put it in. An abomination. The fact is that there are 273 times that the word faith occurs in scripture. Check out the 273 time in James 2:24. It doesn't help the faith alone case that baptists espouse.

"That seems more important to me than his being the spokesman for the Disciples when they are asked questions by Jesus."

Just write the significance off as trivial as I know you must.

" I think most Protestant theologians agree that Peter was the leader of the original Twelve. "

Actually many do not. The most common Protestant apologists do not and everyone says "HORAY HORAY" wonder full apologetics when they deny his primacy.

Thanks for the discussion.

blessings

Thess.

 

Thessalonian,

Thank you for the discussion also. I ignored the passage from Timothy because I discussed it (I think with you but I'm not sure) in another thread, not to avoid a point.

You will be pleased to know that my particular Protestant church does recognize Peter as leader (from within) of the original Twelve.

There are many Bible verses which imply that FAITH alone is adequate for salvation. In the letter of Paul to the Romans, Paul states:

"The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart," that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is in your heard that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. Rom 10: 8-10

There are other similar passages in the Bible. These IF...THEN.... statements do not include the necessity of bending the knee to the Bishops of Rome or recognizing their spiritual authority.

Here is faith combined with an open profession of faith. Other passages suggest that it is important to "know" Jesus in order to be guaranteed salvation. I can think of no better way to know him than to show him the obedience that comes from love and invite him to make his home with you.

I think that you understand the importance of the succession's not being there. Because if the succession were there...so much else would not have to be. Spiritual laws could be spiritual laws because we are obligated to obey the pope, in the same way that Protestants in other threads argue that they do not need another reason than that something is forbidden by secular law for it to be wrong when Scripture does not specifically forbid it.

Scripture does incorporate secular law by reference. It does not do so with regard to papal pronouncements.

I agree that James 2:24 does not help the cause of justification by faith alone. Unless you consider that true faith will lead to actions consistent therewith. Our works testify for us in a way similar to the way that Jesus' works given him by the Father testify for Him. For where a man's treasure is, there his heart will be also.

I think that it is possible that justification by faith alone is the correct doctrine. But James does call this into question. James was not an Apostle. But to call his insight into question is to question the authority of Scripture. I don't think I rested any of my case above on justification by faith alone. But I do put my faith in Jesus and not my own works to save me. That doesn't mean that I don't want to have works to testify to my faith. James doesn't say that these works must include joining the Catholic denomination.

I did not mean to belittle Peter's walking on water, which is a true miracle of Peter's faith and God's power over gravity and density. I only meant that it did not demonstrate heritability or succession of whatever office Peter was given.

Neither did I claim that you said the pope was an Apostle. But whatever office Peter held surely included his Apostleship. As his Apostleship was not transferred, perhaps his other authority was not either.

The Catholic denomination (I have settled on using this term rather than RCC and hope it is found to be more acceptable...I know you do not view yourselves as a denomination) claims its church is "Apostolic." The early church was founded by the apostles, and there appears to me to be a claim of Aposotolic authority. But with no actual Apostles.

I would think that if Jesus were to have a Vicar that Jesus would touch and imbue that Vicar with the ability to perform miraculous signs and wonders so that the faithful who rejected that person's authority would know that the individual spoke on Jesus' behalf. But again this is mere speculation on my part.

If I am truly blind, as you suggest, perhaps I do not sin.

So I will be careful to let others claim that I can see clearly here and will make no such claim for myself. Because the Scripture appears to me to speak with ambiguity in Matt. 16. I do not claim that I am definitely right here...only that I am not convinced by your arguments.

I think of the shepherds as many godly men who follow Jesus' teachings and have the wisdom and spiritual gifts to lead others to a deeper understanding of God and to a deeper commitment to implement God's will into their lives. These shepherds appear to be given across denominations, at least to me. And there are wolves in every denomination also.

Blessings,
CalvinG

 

"You will be pleased to know that my particular Protestant church does recognize Peter as leader (from within) of the original Twelve. "

Great.

"There are many Bible verses which imply that FAITH alone is adequate for salvation. In the letter of Paul to the Romans, Paul states:

"The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart," that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is in your heard that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. Rom 10: 8-10"

Well then if Paul is saying faith alone in this verse he is contradicting v. 2:8-9

Romans 2:7
to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life;

Romans 2:8-10
but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation.
There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

Hmmm. No mention of faith anywhere by your method of exegesis so faith must not be a part of this salvation (according to your method of exegisis). I prefer to take a birds eye view of the Bible. Thus your verse saying faith is neccessary is not in conflict but the faith must be an active faith. It must bring about repentence, baptism, and obedience, including good works. Your taking one verse and saying well I think this verse says faith alone just doesn't do anything for me because I belive that God did not give up on the widow or the orphan of Is 1. And those who ignore them and say I have faith (alone) do not have lasting faith (though they may have a level of faith). The seed will sprout begin to grow, but wither and die.


"There are other similar passages in the Bible. " These IF...THEN.... statements do not include the necessity of bending the knee to the Bishops of Rome or recognizing their spiritual authority. "

Do we need to follow all of what scripture says to the best of our ability? Are some scriptures unimportant to our salvation? You see you make a statement like what you have said to me and for me, scripture says it, I must obey it. (I have never bended a knee to the Pope by the way but would have no problem doing so). God said nations would bend the knee to Issac in Gen 18. That is not neccessarily idolatry as your comment sarcastically implies.

"Here is faith combined with an open profession of faith. "


Faith without works is DEAD. Both verses are true for everyone.

" Other passages suggest that it is important to "know" Jesus in order to be guaranteed salvation. "


Knowing Jesus is loving your neighbor. Love is charity. Jesus said:

John 14:24
"He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine, but the Father's who sent Me.

You cannot love him if you do not do his will. You do not love him if you are not charitiable to your neighbor. You do not love him if you do not practice the beatitudes. It all ties together.


" I can think of no better way to know him than to show him the obedience that comes from love and invite him to make his home with you."

It is the only way. Faith alone is only true if it is an active faith. A faith that loves the neighbor. Faith that is alone will not save anyone.

"I think that you understand the importance of the succession's not being there. Because if the succession were there...so much else would not have to be. Spiritual laws could be spiritual laws because we are obligated to obey the pope, in the same way that Protestants in other threads argue that they do not need another reason than that something is forbidden by secular law for it to be wrong when Scripture does not specifically forbid it."

Interesting question. Did the Jews have to obey the scribes and the pharasee that sat on Moses seat. Mt. 23:2? Did they have to before Jesus commanded them to in that verse? Tell me. Where in the OT does it say they had to? Your conclusions are based on your starting point of rejecting Papal succession. You reject it in scripture because you have already rejected it. Your scriptural presentations to me contain far more what scripture does not mean than what it does. Your time has been spent recently explaining why you have already rejected what I have to say before I say it. I suspect much of it you have not seen before. But you reject it because you "know" the Papacy is wrong. Jesus is the only one who can unlock the locked doors of your heart. For those who believe no explanatoin is neccessary. For those who do not none is possible.


"Scripture does incorporate secular law by reference. It does not do so with regard to papal pronouncements. "

Once again you are speaking in ignorance of something you don't understand and are basing it on preconcieved notions of what papal teachings and pronouncements are.


"I agree that James 2:24 does not help the cause of justification by faith alone. "

Neither does Romans 2:8-9.

" Unless you consider that true faith will lead to actions consistent therewith. Our works testify for us in a way similar to the way that Jesus' works given him by the Father testify for Him. For where a man's treasure is, there his heart will be also."

To a degree I agree that this is a substantial agreement with the Catholic view of faith and works. The fact of the matter is that faith must lead to works. But what you are missing is that the works are motivated by God by Grace themselves. Another thing that is missing in your analysis of the verses is the possibilty of loosing salvation which you do not accept but I can point to 100 verses that support that we can loose our salvatoin. We cannot gain it by works but we can loose it if we do not oppose the vice that is within us with the virtue that God gives us the grace to perform just as we can loose our human lives without proper excercise and nutrition.

"I think that it is possible that justification by faith alone is the correct doctrine. But James does call this into question. James was not an Apostle. But to call his insight into question is to question the authority of Scripture. I don't think I rested any of my case above on justification by faith alone. But I do put my faith in Jesus and not my own works to save me. "

Catholics agree that our works do not save us. Yet God working in and through us saves us.

Ephesians 3:20
Now to Him who is able to do far more abundantly beyond all that we ask or think, according to the power that works within us,

We follow him as the Jews followed Moses and by extension him through the desert in to the promised land. He leads us to the promised land. He gives us our mana in the desert of life. He gives us the strength to make the journey.

"That doesn't mean that I don't want to have works to testify to my faith. James doesn't say that these works must include joining the Catholic denomination."

There is lots that James doesn't say. Your arguements from silence (especially when they lack an understanding of Catholic theology) haven't done you much good in our conversation. What you have to do is follow the truth of every single verse that God gives you the grace to understand. I cannot judge whether you have recieved his grace to understand that you must follow the teachings of the Catholic Church. If you have not I have hope that God will be merciful with you though I will pray for you as if you are headed for hell. Every single verse of scripture in it's true context is worthy of being followed whe it is understood properly.

Blessings

I did not mean to belittle Peter's walking on water, which is a true miracle of Peter's faith and God's power over gravity and density. I only meant that it did not demonstrate heritability or succession of whatever office Peter was given.

Neither did I claim that you said the pope was an Apostle. But whatever office Peter held surely included his Apostleship. As his Apostleship was not transferred, perhaps his other authority was not either.

The Catholic denomination (I have settled on using this term rather than RCC and hope it is found to be more acceptable...I know you do not view yourselves as a denomination) claims its church is "Apostolic." The early church was founded by the apostles, and there appears to me to be a claim of Aposotolic authority. But with no actual Apostles.

I would think that if Jesus were to have a Vicar that Jesus would touch and imbue that Vicar with the ability to perform miraculous signs and wonders so that the faithful who rejected that person's authority would know that the individual spoke on Jesus' behalf. But again this is mere speculation on my part.

If I am truly blind, as you suggest, perhaps I do not sin.

So I will be careful to let others claim that I can see clearly here and will make no such claim for myself. Because the Scripture appears to me to speak with ambiguity in Matt. 16. I do not claim that I am definitely right here...only that I am not convinced by your arguments.

I think of the shepherds as many godly men who follow Jesus' teachings and have the wisdom and spiritual gifts to lead others to a deeper understanding of God and to a deeper commitment to implement God's will into their lives. These shepherds appear to be given across denominations, at least to me. And there are wolves in every denomination also.

Blessings,

[ November 07, 2003, 01:48 AM: Message edited by: thessalonian ]

 

Peter, as is the case with all men,at times err and sin. He violated God's law of not being a respecter of persons ( Acts 10:34, Romans 2:9, James 2:1-4).

The infallibility of any of the apostles was subject to them submitting to the Holy Spirit. This also demonstrates men have the free will to chose their course in life. Men have the abiltiy to act of their own volition separate and a part of the influence of the Holy Spirit ( Jude 19). So much for the claim men cannot resist the power of the Holy Spirit. It is obvious, in this case, Peter did so.

 

Exactly, Frank.

And if the power of the Holy Spirit can be resisted in one instance, that power can be resisted in others.

It can even be resisted by a pope who puruports to make an ex cathedra statement as a teaching binding on all Christians everywhere.

The Pharisees who ruled over the Jews in religious matters were given this authority by God. The authority was real and valid. Disobedience to this authority had consequences. Granted that the Jews could not put men to death for violating religious laws, but they could punish. Much of what the Pharisees taught was based on OT Scripture. They constituted part of the government of Israel.

The Catholic denomination has no such authority today in the United States. And I thank God for that when I recall some of the things this denomination did when it did weild such power.

I don't think it is necessary to fully understand Catholic theology to have a valid basis for denying there is clear Scriptural authority for the papacy in the NT canons accepted by the Catholic denomination. Matthew 16 does not even give a name to any office conferred upon Peter if indeed Peter received an office and not some additional power from God as leader of the Twelve. Scripture does not describe these keys. As I have never seen them and the popes do not show them, I assume that they were spiritual keys. (I do not deny their existence because Jesus does not lie.) If they are spiritual keys, how can we be certain that the popes have them? (Or for that matter that Peter did not return them to Jesus when Peter died?) When I think of the notion that the pope has these keys, I am reminded of the story of The Emperor's New Clothes.

I think arguments from silence can be very powerful. How would you feel if you were in a marriage and your wife never told you that she loved you? Would that have no meaning?

There are many reasons I do not become Catholic. Most have to do with Catholic doctrine that seems to be plainly opposed by Scripture. And additional requirements of Latin rite clergy that are more strict than the standards followed by the Apostles. Surely practices such as marriage which the Apostles followed should be recognized as appropriate for any Apostolic church in perpetuity. I know that you are familiar with BobRyan's posts regarding Mary as Mediatrix of Graces.

Blessings,
CalvinG

 

So what you are saying is that the writers of the New and Old Testament cannot be trusted to have written down the Word of God without inserting errors in there.

I'm glad we cleared that up.

 

GraceSaves said,

This is not what I said. To trust inspiration of Scripture does not require that all popes be infallible. We should take into account that not all the writings of even the Apostles have been preserved by history. And I would think that the Apostles, who were empowered to perform miraculous signs and wonders in Jesus' name as proof that they were sent by God, had the Holy Spirit touch their lives and their work for the kingdom in ways that mere popes do not.

NT Scripture has been acted on in many ways by the Holy Spirit. There was first the writing down of the Word. Secondly, there was the scrutiny of the majority of those writings by the Apostles then living. Thirdly, there was the opportunity to cause writings which differ from God's Truth to be lost to history. After this entire process, we have what remains.

To say that John Paul II can make an erroneous ex cathedra statement is not to say that Scripture could be erroneous. One of the tests used at Carthage to determine canonicity was whether a particular writing was associated with an Apostle.

Blessings,
CalvinG

 

Calvin,

You avoided the point completely. When they sat down to write, and they certainly didn't do it in one sitting, they were writing and prevented from recording error.

You believe that, and then say that it can never happen again...even though this notion is not contained in Scripture at all.