Peter Exalts Scripture Over Tradition

Ron, if you read my post, you will see that I accept it as authorative scripture.

Or maybe not, sometimes I don't think you can read at all.

 

No. They were no more inspired than the maps and concordance in the back of mine now. They were for reference purposes only, and were later removed.

 

Hi Ps104_33,

You wrote "I dont see Rome within 5000 miles of this verse. Catholic means universal " by the authority" of the "universal CHristian Church" which is made up of beleivers indwelt by the Holy Spirit From all over Europe and Asia and wherever else there may be groups of believers." concerning the quote I gave fromSt. Augustine's "Against the Epistle of Manichaeus, written in A.D. 397.

Are you seriously advocating that Augustine is not speaking of the Roman Catholic Church?

This is absolutely amazing. Wow. Are you for real?

God bless you,

Carson

 

My point being, you accuse Carson of denying 2Peter because he questions whether it was written by Peter or another person.

Then you say that you do not know if 2Peter was written by Peter or not.

By your standard, you are then saying that you do not know whether 2Peter is Scripture or not, your protests not withstanding.

Ron

[ November 27, 2002, 03:48 PM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

 

takes a verb that is 3rd person indicative active and translates it as a 3rd person passive. I don't know how they justify doing that, but it is incorrect. I am not KJVOnly and I don't use the method you describe to do translation work.[/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Doesn't the fact that the KJV and ESV are so different from all the other translations cause you to wonder whether they used different underlying Greek?

Doesn't that along with the change in the translation from the KJV to the NKJV lead you think that just maybe the KJV translators didn't choose the best original to begin with?

Why would you believe the KJV to be superior or more correct in this particular verse given all the above?

Ron

[ November 27, 2002, 03:53 PM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

 

Lets see what Irenaeus has to say on the matter.

"WE have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed "perfect knowledge," as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia. ANF Vol I Against Heresies 3.1.1

Did you see that Ron and Carson? He is saying that we obtain our salvation from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they at one time proclaimed in public (tradition, one mode of transmitting the Gospel before they were inscripturated, see 2 Thess 2:15 ), and then by the will of God, handed down to us in Scriptures. ( the other mode of transmitting the Gospel message. The same message. ) And then he calls the Scriptures the ground and pillar of our faith!

You noticed that I highlighted "After their departure". That must be where Peter left Rome and went back to Antioch where he was overseer of that church. Obviously not a bishop on Rome else why did he leave?

Now I'm sure that you can come up with another of Irenaeus writings wher he contradicts this one, or am I taking him out of context.

 

Then why didnt he say Roman Catholic Church When he says Catholic Church are you telling me that he only means the local assembly at Rome to the exclusion of all the other local assemblies in Europe and Asia?

 

Hi Ps104_33,

You wrote, "Now I'm sure that you can come up with another of Irenaeus writings wher he contradicts this one, or am I taking him out of context."

You are absolutely correct for the precise reason that you are siphoning off proof texts from Ireaneus to support your tradition of Sola Scriptura. You are unfamiliar with Ireaneus, and you have not read his Adversus Haereses.

In the exact same work, Irenaeus wrote:

"As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same" (Against Heresies 1:10:2 [A.D. 189]).

"That is why it is surely necessary to avoid them [heretics], while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition of truth. . . . What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?" (ibid., 3:4:1).

"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors to our own times—men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about.

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing 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 this church, because of its superior origin, all 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., 3:3:1–2).

You also wrote, "Then why didnt he say Roman Catholic Church When he says Catholic Church are you telling me that he only means the local assembly at Rome to the exclusion of all the other local assemblies in Europe and Asia?"

The Roman Catholic Church does not mean just the local assembly at Rome, nor has it ever meant that. "Roman" means that all of the bishops are in union with the sucessor of St. Peter.

Augustine writes:

"There are many other things which rightly keep me in the bosom of the Catholic Church. The consent of the people and nations keeps me, her authority keeps me, inaugurated by miracles, nourished in hope, enlarged by love, and established by age. The succession of priests keep me, from the very seat of the apostle Peter (to whom the Lord after his resurrection gave charge to feed his sheep) down to the present episcopate [of Pope Siricius]" (Against the Letter of Mani Called "The Foundation" 5 [A.D. 397]).

"[On this matter of the Pelagians] two councils have already been sent to the Apostolic See [the bishop of Rome], and from there rescripts too have come. The matter is at an end; would that the error too might be at an end!" (Sermons 131:10 [A.D. 411]).

God bless,

Carson

 

I dont see the word Rome within 20000 light years in Irenaeus writings. As for Augustine he came later as the Church of Rome got more and more political and corrupt.

You act as if the heresy that Irenaeus was writing about was sola scriptura . Isnt it ironic how much Irenaeus uses Scripture to refute the heretics. You are right, I havent read all of Irenaeus but I am working on it. Reading the church fathers is a life time endeavor. Even you havent read them all yet.

"So much reading, so little time. Drink more coffee"

[ November 27, 2002, 05:07 PM: Message edited by: Ps104_33 ]

 

Hi Ps104_33,

You wrote, "I dont see the word Rome within 20000 light years in Irenaeus writings."

That's a long way.

Irenaeus, of course, does write about Rome, which is where the successors of St. Peter resided in his time.

"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]).

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the succession 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 [of Rome], 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).

"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 letter to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21]. To him succeeded Anacletus, and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the apostles and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith ... To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded ... and now, in the twelfth place after the apostles, the lot of the episcopate [of Rome] has fallen to Eleutherius. In this order, and by the teaching of the apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us" (ibid., 3, 3, 3).

You wrote, "As for Augustine he came later as the Church of Rome got more and more political and corrupt."

Of course, if Ireaneus would have said exactly what Augustine did, then you would move the corruption charge back a couple of centuries.

You wrote, "Isnt it ironic how much Irenaeus uses Scripture to refute the heretics."

Isn't it ironic how much I use Scripture to refute you?

God bless,

Carson

 

You very rarely if ever use Scripture to refute anything unless it is some convoluted hermeneutic to read back into Scripture some silly Roman Catholid doctrine like the IE or the Assumption that developed 1800 years after the Scriptures were penned. THank for posting some more ammo for the Protestant view. Read your post below:

 

Hi Ps104_33,

It looks like Peter was never a bishop in Rome.

You're right - Peter wasn't a bishop. He was an Apostle, and the Bishops succeed the Apostles.

"Victor ... was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter" (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius of Caesarea's, Church History 5:28:3)

"Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul [2 Tim. 4:10], but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21] as his companion at Rome, was Peter’s successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown. Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier [Phil. 4:3]" (Eusebius of Caesarea's Church History 3:4:9–10 [A.D. 312])

"[Pope] Stephen . . . was the blessed Peter’s twenty-second successor in the See of Rome" (Jerome Against the Luciferians 23 [A.D. 383]).

Peter and Paul founded many churches besides the one in Rome.

I agree with you.

If my local Baptist Church which has a membership of about 300 writes a scathing letter ot another local church in my town, that has a smaller membership, because of some immorality of the Pastor or the laity does that mean that my Church suddenly has juridiction over all the churches in the area?

What you don't know is what matters, Psalm.

At the time when Clement wrote this letter to the Church in Corinth, John the Apostle was still alive in Ephesus, which was much closer to Corinth. So, who should be admonishing the Church in Corinth? An Apostle (John) or a third successor to an Apostle (Peter)?

You seem to be running out of arguments.. now you've narrowed the fight down to whether Peter was a bishop, which is superfluous considering that the bishops are simply successors to the Apostles, and the evidence above shows that Peter was indeed suceeded by the bishops of Rome.

Give it up, Psalm!

God bless,

Carson

[ November 28, 2002, 01:45 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Are you saying that an Apostle could not be a bishop?

I hate to throw out the same old arguement that I'm sure you've heard a thousand times before, but when Paul wrote his epistle to the Roman assembly, no where in his letter does he even mention Peter nor acknowledge any of his work in founding that Church there. He mentions dozens of others but not Peter. How come? Was he out of town at the time?
Paul writes letters from Rome and still Peter is not mentioned. Dont you find that kind of strange considering the fact that the Roman Catholic Church professes that Peter arrived in Rome during the second year of Claudius in 42 AD, and Paul wrote Romans in 60 AD, Ephesians in 64 AD, I and II Timothy and Titus in 65-66 AD and he doesnt mention the founder and supposed overseer of that church!
As a matter of fact in the very last of these letters Paul said that he was left alone and that only Luke was with him. Was Peter one of the deserters? Scripture places Peter in Judea, Antioch and maybe Corinth, but never at Rome. Unless you believe that Babylon is Rome.
The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son. IPeter 5:13

If Peter was ever at Rome it would have to be sometime after the date of Paul's second epistle to Timothy.

It is difficult for me to prove a negative but I dont really think either one of us can say with absolute certainty whether or not Peter was ever in Rome let alone serving a 25 year episcopate as the Roman Catholic Church alleges.

 

Hi Ps104_33,

You're swinging at a straw man.

The papacy hinges on who succeeds Saint Peter, not on when Peter was in Rome, what Peter did while he was in Rome, or whether Peter travelled.

And, for this reason, I will not dig into my sources and attempt to further prove these trivial matters (i.e. when Peter arrived in Rome) - not because I can't but because it is trivial and besides the crux of the doctrine of the petrine office.

Peter could have lived in a hut in Palestine, and his successor would still be the pope.

What you need to do is show that no one succeeded St. Peter, which you can't because the historical record is chalk full of accounts of his successors, who are the Bishops of Rome, which is a Church with primacy.

You're out of arguments. You're now swinging in thin air, groping for a last chance at trying to subvert the Catholic Faith. Can I suggest a solution?

Stop groping, relax, and accept the historical record with ease (unless of course, your continuing residence outside of the Church moves your conscience to anxiety - then, I suggest joining the historical Church that Christ founded - Holy Mother Church).

God bless,

Carson

[ November 29, 2002, 12:40 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Youre assuming that Rome was a primacy and that has not been proven.

"For the first thousand years of her history the Church was essentially one. Five historic Patriarchal centers--Jerusalem; Antioch, Rome, Alexandria, and Constantinople-- formed a cohesive whole and were in full communion with each other. There were occasional heretical or schismatic groups going their own way, to be sure; but the Church was unified until the 11th century. Then, in events culminating in A.D.1054, the Roman Patriarch pulled away from the other four, pursuing his long-developing claim of universal headship of the Church."


http://www.saintignatiuschurch.org/timeline.html

I,m tired of typing and thinking tonight Ate too much turkey, so I,m just going to copy and paste some quotes for now and you can read them.

We know, as a historical fact, that the bishops of Rome, in the course of the Christian centuries, have exercised authority over distant cities. The question at issue is, whether or not that authority dates from the foundation of our religion. If it had been bestowed by our Lord Himself before He left this earth, we should find it exercised from the first, and its rightfulness universally acknowledged. But the contrary is the case. We can trace the history of the growth of the supremacy of the Roman bishop, exactly as in secular history we can trace the process by which the city of Rome came to exercise imperial dominion. We thus learn that in ecclesiastical matters, as well as in secular, Roman supremacy is a development, not a tradition.

But it is quite unnecessary for me to elaborate any proof that the doctrine of Papal Supremacy is a development; for it is fully owned by Newman how faint are the traces of it in the history of the early centuries. I have already told you that the method of his celebrated Essay on Development is to make frank confession that neither Scripture nor Tradition will furnish any adequate proof of Roman doctrines. But then he contends that the same confession must be made about doctrines which Roman Catholics and we hold in common, and he puts forward his theory of Development as able to supply the deficiency alike in either case. Thus, then, while he owns (p. 164) that the Pope’s Supremacy is a development, so also, he contends, is Episcopacy. He tells us that St. Ignatius in his Epistles is silent on the subject of the Pope’s authority; but that this is because that authority was not, and could not have been, in active operation then. While apostles were on earth they exercised the powers both of bishop and Pope. When they were taken away, ‘Christianity did not at once break into portions; yet separate localities might begin to be the scenes of internal dissensions, and a local arbiter would, in consequence, be wanted.’ ‘When the Church was thrown on her own resources, first local disturbances gave exercise to bishops, and next Ecumenical disturbances gave exercise to Popes.’ Newman quotes with assent some of Barrow’s topics of proof that Roman Supremacy did not exist in the first ages of the Church: namely, that in the writings of the Fathers against the Gnostic heretics of the second century they never allege the sentence of the universal pastor and judge as the most compendious and efficacious method of silencing them; and (2) that heathen writers are quite ignorant of the doctrine, although no point of Christian teaching would be so apt to raise offence and jealousy in pagans, no novelty be more suspicious or startling than this creation of a universal empire over the consciences and religious practices of men, the doctrine also being one that could not but be very conspicuous and glaring in ordinary practice. Newman also assents to Barrow’s assertion that ‘the state of the most primitive Church did not well admit such a universal sovereignty. For that did consist of small bodies, incoherently situated and scattered about in very distant places, and consequently unfit to be modelled into one political society, or to be governed by one head, especially considering their condition under persecution and poverty. What convenient resort for direction or justice could a few distressed Christians in Egypt, Ethiopia, Parthia, India, Mesopotamia, Syria, Armenia, Cappadocia, and other parts have to Rome?’

LECTURES DELIVERED IN THE DIVINITY SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF DUBLIN
BY
GEORGE SALMON, D.D.
SOMETIME PROVOST OF TRINITY COLLEGE, DUBLIN
AND REGIUS PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF DUBLIN (1888 ed.)

[ November 29, 2002, 04:51 PM: Message edited by: Ps104_33 ]

 

Hi Ps104_33,

You wrote, "You're assuming that Rome was a primacy and that has not been proven."

My argument that the bishop of Rome is the successor of St. Peter does not assume that Rome has exercised a primacy throughout the history of Christianity.

Though I do believe that this is true and that I can substantiate this claim with evidence, it does not influence whether the bishop of Rome is the successor of St. Peter, which is well established, and which you cannot refute.

Now you're changing the topic from whether Peter is succeeded by another to an issue that is peripheral to the discussion at hand.

If you would like to change the topic, then first admit that Peter was succeeded by the bishops of Rome, and then we can move on to Roman primacy in the life of Christianity. Do you admit this historical truth?

God bless,

Carson

[ November 29, 2002, 07:35 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Carson,

I think that I've pretty well proven from Scriptures that it is anyones guess if Peter was or wasnt in Rome. The New Testament contains two letters from Peter himself, with one purporting to be written right before his death with the express object that those whom he is leaving behind should be able to keep in memory the things that it was important for them to know. II Peter 1:15

Moreover I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance.

Would you not think that this would be a good time to let everyone know who his sucessor will be? I will concede that maybe Peter went to Rome. I will concede that Peter and Paul could have established the church there. I will even concede that they possibly appointed Linus as its first bishop. But what I will not give in to was that there was Roman supremecy, in the sense as understood by Roman Catholics today, in the early Church, as you also seem to admit.

Was Peter succeded by the Roman bishops? It would first have to be established that Peter was its first bishop and as I said it is doubtful. It could be said that the Antiochan bishop was the successor to Peter, or the Jerusalem bishop was the successor to Peter. For the sake of the arguement I'll give in and say that maybe right before he died he ran to Rome and became its head and set up Linus to succeed him. OK?
Now how does that prove Roman supremecy in the early church.

 

Hi Ps104_33,

You wrote, "I think that I've pretty well proven from Scriptures that it is anyones guess if Peter was or wasnt in Rome."

No, it isn't "anyone's guess". It's fact.

1 Peter 5:13, "She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark."

Babylon is a code-word for Rome. It is used that way six times in Revelation. 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."

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." These references demonstrate that there can be no question that the universal and very early position was that Peter certainly did end up in the capital of the Empire.

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].”

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.

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.”

You wrote, "I will concede that maybe Peter went to Rome."

That's a sound choice, according to the overwhelming evidence we have available to us.

You wrote, "what I will not give in to was that there was Roman supremecy, in the sense as understood by Roman Catholics today, in the early Church, as you also seem to admit."

There was a Roman Primacy but it was not identical to its Primacy today. Thoughout time, this primacy has developed, but that is not to deny that a unique, authoritative primacy existed in the early Church, which was the case.

Ignatius wrote, "Ignatius ... to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father" (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).

Cyprian of Carthage wrote, "The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]). . . . 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 also what 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?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

You asked, "Was Peter succeded by the Roman bishops?"

This is what the evidence says.

Tertullian wrote, "[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:2 [A.D. 200]).

Eusebius wrote, "Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter" (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Church History 5:28:3).

He also wrote, "Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul [2 Tim. 4:10], but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21] as his companion at Rome, was Peter’s successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown. Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier [Phil. 4:3]" (Church History 3:4:9–10 [A.D. 312]).

God bless,

Carson