A look at Matthew 16 vs dogma

[Thinkingstuff]

And we had the Apostles to teach us which were Scripture and which were not. It doesn't take much brains to figure that out.

Actually, this is not true. The Apostles only taught what some of scripture was and some which was not. If we relied only on what the apostles referred to our bibles would be smaller.

 

[BillySunday1935]

There is no evidence to support your claim

.

What? I just gave you the evidence. I think it is clear where the lack of support resides.

In case you hadn't realized it, what you have posted are primarily the early church fathers along with some Tradtion, and perhaps some church history, none of which relates to the RCC. I note you use the word "ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles." The RCC had no such thing.

That's not a word - it's phrase and one that I didn’t use. If you actually READ what I provided for a change, you will see that phrase was used by St. Ignatius of Antioch in his work entitled “Against Heresies Book III: 2-3 c. 180 A.D.” He WAS a Catholic!

By most accounts Agustine was an intelligent man. But he did hold to various and sundry heresies, and of course by his time the RCC was already in place, thus the name of "St. Augustine," whether or not he deserved it is another matter.

The Church never declared St. Augustine a heretic. Perhaps you, in your arrogance, are. However, I would like to remind you that St. Augustine was nothing less than a mental giant and Father of the Church. If you are critiquing him, then you are out of your league there, DHK. Further, might I remind you that the Catholic Church existed at least as far back as documented below:

Ignatius of Antioch. In his second-century letter to the church in Smyrna, he wrote, "Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8, 1 [A.D. 110]).

That’s 110 AD there DHK. That’s only approximately 77 years after the death and resurrection of our Lord and only about 30 years after the death of the last apostle.

And as the natives here in South AL often say: “now - lay there and waller’ in it.”

The Donatists had many pastors (another term for pastor; same office different name). Peter was never made a Pope. He went to Rome to die, and that is all. Not even the Catholics themselves can prove any different. Peter being in Rome as a bishop, a Pope, etc. is a myth, and nothing more. You have no evidence to the contrary, and thus everything that follows is all bogus.

I most certainly did give you evidence to the contrary. You, on the other hand have provided me with nothing by your own opinions about what history should be. In formal logic, your position is what is called “Argumentum ad ignorantium”.

Your statement: "The arm of flesh will save you; you dare not trust your Lord." That seems to be correct, is it?

I have no Earthly idea what you are talking about.

My history books tell me that the Crusades completely annihilated the Albigeneses, a peaceful, God-fearing, gospel-preaching people that wanted nothing more than to be left alone to live in peace. But the RCC feared that their peaceful evangelical ways would corrupt the RCC itself. They went out and killed them all. It was a massacre. What does the Bible say:

Once again, you conveniently shift the topic and provide your interpretation of scripture accompanied by your personal bloviations. Very well. You know as well as I that there was blood on everyone’s hands - Protestant and Catholic alike. What you fail to grasp, however, is that the Catholic Church had no MILITARY arm. Up until the time of the Reformation, the civil authorities (Kings/Queens, etc.) implemented military actions and these were sometimes (but not always) done outside of the authority of the Church. If you (as you say), “know history” then you know this to be true. Thus, I can only conclude that you don’t actually have a good understanding of history, or you choose to simply ignore the facts. Either of these scenarios is a sad state of affairs.

Revelation 17:5-6 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
8 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.
--What shall we say: "If the shoe fits, wear it!"

The blood of the martyrs was the blood of Catholics shed by Nero, Diocletian, and other Emperors who persecuted the Church. I think you’re in the wrong time period there, DHK.

But the Bible also says: "The Lord knows them that are his."
He has promised to preserve throughout every generation a people for himself.

Amen!

I know history, and I know the Bible better.

DHK knows all - if you don't believe me, then just ask him.

IYou say you know history. But you don't know the Bible. And you can't dictate to God what he would have done.

So you say. You know what they say about opinions don’t you, DHK?

Spare you the truth?? You need a good dose more!
It is too bad that Dr. Walters left. He would have told you the same thing.

I don’t believe that you posses enough of the truth to provide a dram let alone a dose.

Peace!

 

[BillySunday1935]

You're bound to a church, not the word of God? You're bound to a system and not the Savior? Why would you ever want to justify or validate anything outside of God's word? The simple truth was given to you in the first post in this thread. The title of the thread would allow you to continue to use "dogma" which is anything outside God's word.

I hope others are silently observing this hold man made doctrine has on some folks...there's a scripture for that...

Matthew 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Colossians 2:20-22
20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not;
22 Which all are to perish with the using; ) after the commandments and doctrines of men?
1 Timothy 4:1-3
1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

OK...

In post #52 you asked: “ saw a comment in one reply that most of Christendom had accepted the alterior view to the scripture and observations I presented. Would you care to print the source for your statement? Thanks.”

In post #60, I provided what you asked for and in return I get a few verses talking about the traditions of men. Can we say: non sequitur?

P.s. Scripture denies the traditions of men, but not all traditions.

Peace!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

OK....rolleyes:

In post #52 you asked: “ saw a comment in one reply that most of Christendom had accepted the alterior view to the scripture and observations I presented. Would you care to print the source for your statement? Thanks.”

In post #60, I provided what you asked for and in return I get a few verses talking about the traditions of men. Can we say: non sequitur?

P.s. Scripture denies the traditions of men, but not all traditions.

Peace!

Consider 2 Thess 2:15

15So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings[a] we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

or 2 Tim 2:2

And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.

or 1 Cor 11:2

praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings,[a] just as I passed them on to you.

or 1 Thess 2:13

13And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe.

Seems to support tradition. Especially when considering what 2 Pet 3:16 says

16He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

 

[BillySunday1935]

This was a duplicate and incomplete post -- see post #107 below.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

What's often missed about Origen is that he realized he was breaking ground thing theology and knew he might makes mistakes so he said what ever is believed by the church I believe it. If not I never believed it. However, he was breaking new ground. I personally would love to have seen his Hexpala.

 

[BillySunday1935]

Your heritage as a Baptist doesn't make you one. You must be born again.

Well, I am born again from above by water and the Holy Spirit. Thus, by your own definition, I am a Baptist!

If you haven't been born into the family of God, by the Spirit of God (and not of water--the water of baptism), then you are not saved, and not a Baptist.

Yes – by water Baptism and the Holy Spirit. Like it or not that’s the Bible way there, DHK.

You don't hold to Baptist doctrine whether or not you sit in a Baptist church.

Show me a unified Baptist doctrine and I’ll let you know if I hold to it or not.

You are not Baptist because you come from a Baptist family. You sit here and spout Catholic doctrine. It is obvious to all who read your posts that you are not a Baptist. You need to be honest.

And you need to stop playing God – the position is taken.

I don't have to be God. Jesus said: "You shall judge them by their fruit."
That is what I do. I judge by your fruit. Your fruit is not Biblical but unbiblical if not anti-biblical. It is the fruit of the RCC, not of a Christian and not of a Baptist.”

Judge not lest ye yourself shall be judged.

Suit yourself with your own immaturity.

I believe it is abundantly clear to any honest reader where the immaturity lies – both scriptural and emotionally.

No, it is fact. The Bible was written by the prophets and the apostles (2Pet.1:20-22). It is the inspired Word of God (2Tim.3:16). Thus it had nothing to do with the RCC. It claims its own inspiration.”

As far as I know, the RCC only claimed the inspiration of the Holy Spirit when deciding which books would be in the canon of the NT, and claims it when making doctrinal statements (ex cathedra). I think you have it wrong there, DHK. (BIG surprise)

The early church, yes. The RCC, no.
The promise is to every believer the indwelling and guidance of the Holy Spirit. But the RCC wouldn't know that. They trust in man not God. That is why they have a magesterium, a group of men to guide them.

As I have repeatedly shown for history, the RCC and the Early Church are synonymous.

Than the early church fathers, yes! Go ahead, trust in the works of Origen et. al. I would never do so.

Well, if you believe, 2,000 years after the fact, that you have more of the truth than those who were closest to Jesus, then I would say that you are deceiving yourself.

I teach what the Bible teaches. The Bible taught the trinity long before they did.

First, you teach what you believe is in the Bible – your fallible interpretation of it. Secondly, as you well know (and continually ignore) the doctrine of the Trinity was developed from scripture, intellectually condensed by the ECF’s who were Catholic, and finally made a doctrine by the RCC. Who do you think the ECF's were often writing against? Why, the heretics who denied biblical truth such as the Trinity. Further, who do you think declared these people heretics? Why, the RCC of course.

I am not stuck on the heresies of the ECF. Apparently you are. By their fruits you shall know them.

Back at you there, DHK!

You are opposed to listening to truth--always have been. That is why you have rejected your Baptist heritage.

Well, I would say that you don’t hold to the original Baptist beliefs, as they were mostly Calvinists with a puritanical bent. As to our Baptist heritage, that only goes back to 1639, were the first Baptist church was established in Providence, Rhode Island. Not much of a long heritage there is it DHK.

Early believers recognized the canon that was already in existence, but it is pure folly on the part of the RCC not to recognize the early believers.

That is antithetical to history DHK and and would be recognized as such by any rational student thereof.

Peace!

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Well, I don't think that you can show me directly from scripture where scripture claims that it is the SOLE authority for Christians regarding faith and morals. Wanna' try again? And this time please address the material and formal sufficiency of scripture.


Peace!

Why should I bother to show that the Scripture clearly teaches the sufficiency of the Word of God when your just going to reject it. And why should I address the material and formal sufficiency of Scripture when it never speaks of such a distinction?

 

[BillySunday1935]

Why should I bother to show that the Scripture clearly teaches the sufficiency of the Word of God when your just going to reject it. And why should I address the material and formal sufficiency of Scripture when it never speaks of such a distinction?

Because scripture can be sufficient and not have the SOLE authority over Christians regarding faith and morals. Do you even know the difference?

Peace!

 

[1Tim115]

OK...

In post #52 you asked: “ saw a comment in one reply that most of Christendom had accepted the alterior view to the scripture and observations I presented. Would you care to print the source for your statement? Thanks.”

In post #60, I provided what you asked for and in return I get a few verses talking about the traditions of men. Can we say: non sequitur?

P.s. Scripture denies the traditions of men, but not all traditions.

Peace!

Well, I see you have a list of people outside the Bible scripture. That isn't anything new for the Roman Church folk. No, you don't surprise me about the "traditions" been there and seen that. However, what does Peter say about himself? Study it.

Do you deny whom Jesus is referring to as subject of Matthew 16?

Many men have been fooled into thinking there is someone other than Christ who is the ROCK of the entire Bible.

If Peter was everything those post canon folks you mention, say that he is, then why did Paul have to rebuke his practice of faith?

Galatians 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

You can't have it man's way.

As for your non sequitor on all the scripture I posted for others. It doesn't surprise me a Roman Church member would refer to the Bible as such. If you read them you would see they mirror the Roman Church and define your practice of following men for your doctrine; of which Christians are to avoid.

Sorry, young man but God's word trumps all your traditions.

 

[BillySunday1935]

Well, I see you have a list of people outside the Bible scripture. That isn't anything new for the Roman Church folk. No, you don't surprise me about the "traditions" been there and seen that. However, what does Peter say about himself? Study it.

Do you deny whom Jesus is referring to as subject of Matthew 16?

Many men have been fooled into thinking there is someone other than Christ who is the ROCK of the entire Bible.

Ok – let me clear this up for you right now. The fact that Jesus decided to change Simon’s name to Kephas [rock] in no way diminishes Christ’s position as the corner stone. It simply means that Jesus made Peter the rock upon which he would build HIS Church. Notice Jesus said HIS church – not Peter’s church. Thus, if Christ is the corner stone, naturally the next piece of the foundation to be laid down would be a rock as well.

The idea that Christ “…is [not] the ROCK of the entire Bible” is simply not supported by scripture.

Well, Christ is called many things in scripture (I.e. the corner stone, the Lamb of God, the door, the truth, the way, etc.) so that statement is, on its face, absurd – even from a Baptist viewpoint.

Again, I point you right back to my original post:

Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are YOU, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to YOU [Simon Bar-Jonah], but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to YOU [Simon Bar-Jonah] that YOU are Peter [ROCK], and on this ROCK [Peter] I will build My church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it [the Church]. And I will give YOU [Peter] the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever YOU [Peter] bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever YOU [Peter] loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

In context, Matthew 16:13-20 IS about Jesus, AND it describes how Jesus builds his Church upon Peter, giving him [PETER] full authority on Earth in anticipation of Jesus’ death, resurrection, and ascension into heaven. In other words, Peter will be Jesus’ representative (look at the significance of a King giving the keys to someone in Jewish culture.) Remember this - “feed my sheep” , “tend my flock”?

If Peter was everything those post canon folks you mention, say that he is…”

Post canon? You folks are constantly in need of rewriting history. Ok – one more time. The councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage that officially decided which books belonged to the Bible and which did not, took place in A.D. 382, 393, 397, respectively. Now look at dates of the quotes that you asked for, which I provided.

Tatian the Syrian A.D. 170
Clement of Alexandria A.D. 200
Tertullian A.D. 200
Letter of Clement to James A.D. 221
Origen A.D. 248
Hippolytus A.D. 235
Cyprian A.D. 251
Ephraim A.D. 351
Gregory of Nyssa A.D. 371
Ambrose A.D. 379
Pope Damasus A.D. 382

Of all the quotes, only those from St. Jerome and St. Augustine were “post-canon” and those only by ten years or less.

The quotes that I gave you were not in lieu of scripture, but in support of it!

“…, then why did Paul have to rebuke his practice of faith?

Galatians 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

You can't have it man's way.

So, Paul rebuked 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). Did this demonstrate that 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. Whom you choose to eat with is not a doctrine of faith.

Furthermore, the problem was Peter’s actions, not his teaching. Paul acknowledged that Peter very well knew the correct teaching (Gal. 2:12–13). 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.

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

As for your non sequitor on all the scripture I posted for others. It doesn't surprise me a Roman Church member would refer to the Bible as such. If you read them you would see they mirror the Roman Church and define your practice of following men for your doctrine; of which Christians are to avoid.

The non sequitor was your response to the historical record (which reinforces the biblical fact that Peter was the rock upon which Christ founded the Church), with a few verses indicating that we should not follow the traditions of men (Pharisees). Again, note that Paul talks about the traditions that he passes on either by written word or by word of mouth. Not all traditions are the traditions of men. Thinkingstuff pointed all of this out in another post.

Sorry, young man but God's word trumps all your traditions.

They are not my traditions - they are the traditions handed down by the apostles to the Church. But, hey – thanks for the complement. Alas, I’m way past young.

Peace!

 

[Tom Bryant]

So have you all changed anyone's mind?

Both sides are arguing from different foundations and pre-suppositions. You'll never reach agreement. And we Baptists should never reach agreement with a cult-like group that puts man's teaching as the means to interpreting the Scripture. If I'm not mistaken - and I'm not - that was the very basis of the Reformation.

 

[BillySunday1935]

So have you all changed anyone's mind?

One never knows...

Both sides are arguing from different foundations and pre-suppositions. You'll never reach agreement.

One never knows...

And we Baptists should never reach agreement with a cult-like group that puts man's teaching as the means to interpreting the Scripture.

And what were the apostles who went out teaching the good news of Jesus? They were MEN!

I believe (and scripture clearly states) that the Holy Spirit guides us to all truth, as the H.S. is truth itself and thus, cannot err. Yet your interpretation of scripture differs from mine, other Christians, and other Baptists for that matter. All of our interpretations are fallible. Hmmm...

If I'm not mistaken - and I'm not - that was the very basis of the Reformation.

Well, if you attribute the Reformation solely to a disagreement over the means of interpreting the Scripture, then that position is most definitely wrong and astoundingly historically shallow as well.

If I may, I would like to recommend a very short and concise book (around 100 pages) that lays this out without taking sides.

Roots of the Reformation - by Karl Adams.

Peace!

 

[1Tim115]

Ok – let me clear this up for you right now. The fact that Jesus decided to change Simon’s name to Kephas [rock] in no way diminishes Christ’s position as the corner stone. It simply means that Jesus made Peter the rock upon which he would build HIS Church. Notice Jesus said HIS church – not Peter’s church. Thus, if Christ is the corner stone, naturally the next piece of the foundation to be laid down would be a rock as well.

OK- Let me clear this up for you. If Peter were the "rock" Christ referred to then (1) the church is built on corruptable man...hmmm. That's not the Christ I know from the Bible. God doesn't make his foundations on corruption. (2) Peter is another apostle of Jesus just like the others who Christ was speaking to. (3) Peter and Christ were'nt having a private chat here. All the apostles were given the same authority but not the same ministry and no individual was head over the other. (4) Christ is the entire foundation of the Biblical Church everyone else is built on that foundation.

Well, Christ is called many things in scripture (I.e. the corner stone, the Lamb of God, the door, the truth, the way, etc.) so that statement is, on its face, absurd – even from a Baptist viewpoint.

Check my OP there is one constant through the Bible (1) Christ is the rock (2) beside him there is no other. Your argument and sand have much in common.

Again, I point you right back to my original post:

Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are YOU, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to YOU [Simon Bar-Jonah], but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to YOU [Simon Bar-Jonah] that YOU are Peter [ROCK], and on this ROCK [Peter] I will build My church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it [the Church]. And I will give YOU [Peter] the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever YOU [Peter] bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever YOU [Peter] loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

In context, Matthew 16:13-20 IS about Jesus, AND it describes how Jesus builds his Church upon Peter, giving him [PETER] full authority on Earth in anticipation of Jesus’ death, resurrection, and ascension into heaven. In other words, Peter will be Jesus’ representative (look at the significance of a King giving the keys to someone in Jewish culture.) Remember this - “feed my sheep” , “tend my flock”?

Look at the truth of God sharing His glory with NTHER save the Son. Take a lifelong hard look at this truth both in the old testament and the new. You can skip the apocrypha it isn't cannon anyway.

Post canon? You folks are constantly in need of rewriting history. Ok – one more time. The councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage that officially decided which books belonged to the Bible and which did not, took place in A.D. 382, 393, 397, respectively. Now look at dates of the quotes that you asked for, which I provided.

Tatian the Syrian A.D. 170
Clement of Alexandria A.D. 200
Tertullian A.D. 200
Letter of Clement to James A.D. 221
Origen A.D. 248
Hippolytus A.D. 235
Cyprian A.D. 251
Ephraim A.D. 351
Gregory of Nyssa A.D. 371
Ambrose A.D. 379
Pope Damasus A.D. 382

Of all the quotes, only those from St. Jerome and St. Augustine were “post-canon” and those only by ten years or less.

The quotes that I gave you were not in lieu of scripture, but in support of it!

Oops...post text completion. That is, the people you quote are long after John laid down his pen and went home to glory. But, the fact stands they were after the original texts were complete. They are no more authoritative than you or I writing and publishing today.

So, Paul rebuked 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). Did this demonstrate that 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. Whom you choose to eat with is not a doctrine of faith.

Furthermore, the problem was Peter’s actions, not his teaching. Paul acknowledged that Peter very well knew the correct teaching (Gal. 2:12–13). 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.

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

Peter's action was driving a wedge between Christians. They noticed Peter was not receiving brothers in the Lord equally. Peter's action was splitting God's church. It was a failure of faith in fear of the Jews. Paul had to openly rebuke Peter to prevent the activity from further damage to Christ's Church. The best commentary on scripture continues to be scripture.

The non sequitor was your response to the historical record (which reinforces the biblical fact that Peter was the rock upon which Christ founded the Church), with a few verses indicating that we should not follow the traditions of men (Pharisees). Again, note that Paul talks about the traditions that he passes on either by written word or by word of mouth. Not all traditions are the traditions of men. Thinkingstuff pointed all of this out in another post.

This is where the Roman Church continues to err. No scripture is ever non sequitor. It is not to be taken light of in any discussion. Yes, Paul does talk about traditions and his life is a testament to his exemplary faith. He never once exhorts anyone to be a Peter. Does Peter ever exhort anyone to be a Peter in Christian living?

They are not my traditions - they are the traditions handed down by the apostles to the Church. But, hey – thanks for the complement. Alas, I’m way past young.

Peace!

Your of the Roman Church correct? The church has instilled papal authority/decree (tradition) as equal to God's word correct? You accept this correct? Then they are your traditions and you embrace them as truth.

You stand in defense of Roman Church tradition, I stand on God's word. If I followed the actions of the apostles, in this case Paul, then I would withstand you to your face.

 

[BillySunday1935]

This is where the Roman Church continues to err. No scripture is ever non sequitor.

You know very well that I never said claimed scripture was non sequitur – I said that your application of it was.

It is not to be taken light of in any discussion.

What are you talking about?

Yes, Paul does talk about traditions and his life is a testament to his exemplary faith.

Then you agree that some traditions are of value in the life of a Christian.

He never once exhorts anyone to be a Peter. Does Peter ever exhort anyone to be a Peter in Christian living?

No, and he doesn’t exhort anyone to be a dog, a cat, or a tomato either. He, as did all of the apostles, exhorts us to be Christ-like.

The church has instilled papal authority/decree (tradition) as equal to God's word correct?

You are speaking about three different things.

You accept this correct? Then they are your traditions and you embrace them as truth.

I accept the traditions as taught and handed down by the apostles.

You stand in defense of Roman Church tradition, I stand on God's word.

These are Christian traditions given to us by God through the apostles. They are traditions of the RCC only because she was there at the beginning and was responsible for passing them down through time. However, they are available to us all.

If I followed the actions of the apostles, in this case Paul, then I would withstand you to your face.

Withstand me to my face?

Peace!

 

[HankD]

I haven't read every post as the few pages I have read are redundancies.

So this question might have already been asked.

If Peter, supposedly the first pope, initiated/founded/started (choose proper word) the church at Rome, why didn't Paul address him, greet him, acknowledge him or even mention him in his epistle to the Romans?

HankD

 

[BillySunday1935]

I haven't read every post as the few pages I have read are redundancies.

So this question might have already been asked.

If Peter, supposedly the first pope, initiated/founded/started (choose proper word) the church at Rome, why didn't Paul address him, greet him, acknowledge him or even mention him in his epistle to the Romans?

HankD

As you know, not everything was recorded in scripture. In fact Jesus never told anyone to write down anything. However, we do have a trail of recorded history from the ECF's indicating Peter as preeminent among the apostles, and as leader of the Church of Rome with ultimate authority

Ref: Post #60

Peace!

 

[HankD]

As you know, not everything was recorded in scripture. In fact Jesus never told anyone to write down anything. However, we do have a trail of recorded history from the ECF's indicating Peter as preeminent among the apostles, and as leader of the Church of Rome with ultimate authority

Ref: Post #60

Peace!

Thanks Billy.

I am former Catholic. Your answer is very weak in my estimation.

My answer would be that Peter did not evangelize Rome but Paul who was sent there to "appeal to Caesar".

My guess would be that through his dialogues with the prison guards one or more of them converted from Paganism to Christianity and a local church grew there in Rome.

But then this would necessitate that either 1) Paul was released by Caesar (contrary to tradition) or that the Book of Romans was a "prison" epistle (also contrary to tradition).

It just seems very unlikely that Peter was not greeted or even acknowledged in his Epistle to the Romans.

I am not against Peter being "chief" among the apostles. However he is very unpope like in so many places e.g.

Acts 3:6 Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk.​

Even if he were the initiator of the local church at Rome, IMO, the hierarchy of the church of Rome had defected from the faith by the time of the Edict of Milan (AD312) when Constantine and Licinius made a marriage of christendom and Paganism.

Later came the "Holy Roman Empire" and the bloodbaths of the Crusades and the Roman and Spanish Inquisitions.

Jesus never told any of the apostles to murder those who would not believe in Him.

Granted other "Christian" organizations have not faired well in this area but Rome is chief among sinners when it comes to the martyrdom and bloodshed of Christians and non-Christians alike.

Examples: The Saint Bartholomew Day Massacre
http://www.reformation.org/bart.html

another (among many): the slaughter of the waldensian peoples
http://www.twoagespilgrims.com/doctrine/?p=744

These historical facts of mass slaughter and bloodshed along with the doctrinal corruption of salvation by grace through faith (and many other errors) caused my departure from the church of Rome.

While I believe that it is within the realm of possibility that Peter may have preached the gospel in Rome and a local church came forth, Peter is not the originator or founding Apostle of what is modernly called the Roman Catholic Church.


HankD

 

[DHK]

As you know, not everything was recorded in scripture. In fact Jesus never told anyone to write down anything. However, we do have a trail of recorded history from the ECF's indicating Peter as preeminent among the apostles, and as leader of the Church of Rome with ultimate authority

Ref: Post #60

Peace!

Why not deal with facts instead of fairy tales.
Most of the doctrine of the RCC comes from those things that are not written down in the Bible. The only place they can be found is in pagan tradition. They are not Christian whatsoever:
Examples: Purgatory, limbo, indulgences, rosary, worship of relics and icons, immaculate conception of Mary, assumption of Mary, Mary as Queen of Heaven, confession of sin to a priest, penance, etc. } All the man-made doctrines of religious organization that has nothing to do with Biblical Christianity.

In fact Jesus never told anyone to write down anything.

So you say!

2 Peter 3:1-2 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:

John 16:13 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.
--This verse specifically speaks of the Scripture that the Apostles would right. The Holy Spirit would guide them into ALL truth when the time would come for them to write the truth of the Scriptures.

2 Peter 1:21 For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but holy men of God spoke, being moved by the Holy Spirit.
--Not by the will of man, but by God's will was the Holy Scripture written.
They were moved (almost forcibly so) by the Holy Spirit. They were instruments used in the hand of God to write the words that God wanted them to write.

However, we do have a trail of recorded history from the ECF's indicating Peter as preeminent among the apostles, and as leader of the Church of Rome with ultimate authority

This is a joke isn't it?? :laugh:

The Catholics claim that Peter was the Pope of Rome for 25 years.
Let’s see how viable this is:

Peter was present at Pentecost in 29 A.D.

In Gal.2:11, Peter was rebuked by Paul. The context tells Peter was in Antioch at this time. The corresponding passage is in Acts 11:19-26. The date of this event was 42 A.D.


Peter was present at the Council of Jerusalem in 50 A.D., and James was the pastor of that church.


The Epistle of Rome, written by the Apostle Paul, was written in 60 A.D. Neither in the greeting of chapter 1 or in the salutations in chapter 16 Peter is not mentioned.



The First Epistle of Peter was written in 60 A.D.
The Second Epistle of Peter was written in 66 A.D.

--Both were written from Babylon, putting Peter there during those years.


1 Peter 5:13 The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.


In Second Peter, Peter speaks of him imminent death:
2 Peter 1:14 Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me.
--He knew that his death was soon, even as Paul stated the same in 2Tim.4.



So Paul was in Babylon in 66 A.D. writing his second epistle.

The entire empire was undergoing an intense persecution by the Roman Government under Nero, which Peter writes about in his first epistle. His theme is peace in the midst of suffering. It was a severe persecution brought upon the believers by Nero.



However Nero died in June 68 A.D. by suicide knowing that a revolt was imminent, and he didn't want to be killed by the hand of another.



Peter died either late 67 or early 68. He was in Babylon in 66.
It is only Tradition that puts him in Rome at the time of his death where he supposedly died by being crucified upside down.



Other than that we have no evidence that Peter was ever in Rome whatsoever, and the time line above gives no room for him to be in Rome either. The fact is: it was impossible for him to be a pastor, bishop or pope in Rome at any time.

 

[BobRyan]

Thanks Billy.

I am former Catholic. Your answer is very weak in my estimation.

My answer would be that Peter did not evangelize Rome but Paul who was sent there to "appeal to Caesar".

My guess would be that through his dialogues with the prison guards one or more of them converted from Paganism to Christianity and a local church grew there in Rome.

But then this would necessitate that either 1) Paul was released by Caesar (contrary to tradition) or that the Book of Romans was a "prison" epistle (also contrary to tradition).

It just seems very unlikely that Peter was not greeted or even acknowledged in his Epistle to the Romans.

I am not against Peter being "chief" among the apostles. However he is very unpope like in so many places e.g.

Acts 3:6 Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk.​

Even if he were the initiator of the local church at Rome, IMO, the hierarchy of the church of Rome had defected from the faith by the time of the Edict of Milan (AD312) when Constantine and Licinius made a marriage of christendom and Paganism.

Later came the "Holy Roman Empire" and the bloodbaths of the Crusades and the Roman and Spanish Inquisitions.

Jesus never told any of the apostles to murder those who would not believe in Him.

All good points.

Granted other "Christian" organizations have not faired well in this area but Rome is chief among sinners when it comes to the martyrdom and bloodshed of Christians and non-Christians alike.

Examples: The Saint Bartholomew Day Massacre
http://www.reformation.org/bart.html

another (among many): the slaughter of the waldensian peoples
http://www.twoagespilgrims.com/doctrine/?p=744

These historical facts of mass slaughter and bloodshed along with the doctrinal corruption of salvation by grace through faith (and many other errors) caused my departure from the church of Rome.

Lateran IV calls for the "extermination" of Jews and heretics and then threatens the civil authorities who fail to carry out the order.

in Christ,

Bob