Peter the Rock?

[RedFan]

Greetings Brakelite.

Yes, you did give me the very strong impression that you are under no person's authority!

I am curious....You say that "their jurisdiction (over you) is limited". WHO is 'their' and WHAT are they limited to?

I used Scripture (Hebrews 13:17 and Matthew 18:17) to show you how someone (elders, overseers) DOES have authority over us, the flock of The Church. Hebrews 13:17 says that the elders of The Church "watch out for your souls". How can they watch out for our souls if their authority "does not extend to spiritual truth and doctrine"?

Matthew 18:17 says that if we refuse to accept the authoritative decision of The Church that we are to be kicked out of The Church. Are you suggesting that "spiritual truth and doctrine" are off limits to the authority given to the elders of The Church?

I have given Scripture to back up what I believe, and my Church teaches. Can you please provide Scripture to back up your teaching?

Curious Mary

Scripture is of course of great importance. But let us not put Scriptural context on the shelf. Matthew's account of the rock on which Jesus said his Church was to be built is found in a colloquy in which Simon GETS A NAME CHANGE! That was hugely significant in Jewish circles, and signifies a change in status or mission. (Think Abram to Abraham, or Jacob to Israel.)

 

[Tulipbee]

Greetings Brakelite.

Yes, you did give me the very strong impression that you are under no person's authority!

I am curious....You say that "their jurisdiction (over you) is limited". WHO is 'their' and WHAT are they limited to?

I used Scripture (Hebrews 13:17 and Matthew 18:17) to show you how someone (elders, overseers) DOES have authority over us, the flock of The Church. Hebrews 13:17 says that the elders of The Church "watch out for your souls". How can they watch out for our souls if their authority "does not extend to spiritual truth and doctrine"?

Matthew 18:17 says that if we refuse to accept the authoritative decision of The Church that we are to be kicked out of The Church. Are you suggesting that "spiritual truth and doctrine" are off limits to the authority given to the elders of The Church?

I have given Scripture to back up what I believe, and my Church teaches. Can you please provide Scripture to back up your teaching?

Curious Mary

Marymog, in response to your inquiry about authority within the Church and the limitations set by Brakelite, let's explore Calvin's view on the papal system and ecclesiastical authorities using insights from his writings, particularly the Institutes of the Christian Religion.

Calvin, in Book IV, Chapters 6-8 of the Institutes, criticizes the papal system and hierarchical authority that extends beyond the bounds set by Scripture. He argues against the elevation of human traditions and ecclesiastical hierarchies to the same level as or above the authority of God's Word.

In addressing the authority within the Church, Calvin emphasizes the primacy of Scripture as the ultimate standard. He asserts that ecclesiastical authorities, including elders and overseers, are legitimate only when their decisions align with and are grounded in the teachings of Scripture.

To provide a biblical foundation for this perspective, we turn to Matthew 15:9 (ESV), where Jesus rebukes the Pharisees, saying, "in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men." Calvin would argue that the Church's authority should not be based on human traditions but rooted in the unerring Word of God.

Additionally, Calvin's emphasis on the priesthood of all believers, found in 1 Peter 2:9 (ESV), supports the idea that every believer has direct access to God and His Word, challenging an authoritarian structure that hinders the individual's engagement with spiritual truth.

So, Marymog, in the realm of ecclesiastical authority, Calvin's writings guide us to prioritize the authority of Scripture over human traditions, ensuring that the Church's authority remains within the bounds set by God's Word. #CalvinOnChurchAuthority

 

[Marymog]

It's an important question. Pope #2 is generally assumed to be Linus, per John Chrysostum’s Homily 10 on Second Timothy (“This Linus, some say, was second Bishop of the Church of Rome after Peter”), but possibly Clement (per the Epistle of Clement to James). Regardless of who it was, HOW DID IT HAPPEN? Was he Peter's pick? Was he elected -- and if so, who voted?

I suspect we will never know unless some documents are discovered. The Red Sea Scrolls discovery wasn't that long ago!

 

[Marymog]

Get over yourself. It was a gift--showing you the missing piece and error you have been under. Granted, pointing out such things is tough love. But apparently you would rather look to find error in others than look in the mirror. So, I leave you to it. That will be the last time I give you the benefit of the doubt and offer anything.

Get over myself? YOU are showing ME the error I'm under? YOU pointing out my alleged error is tough love? This is the last time you will give me the benefit of the doubt and offer anything to me? WOW......I wonder what the definition of condescending is?

A gift?
You certainly think very highly of yourself.....

Do you really believe that by giving me your opinion that you are showing tough love? Sooooo every man that gives me his opinion is showing me tough love....as long as that opinion agrees with your opinion. If it doesn't agree with YOUR opinion....THEY are wrong? Oh goodness Scottie.....I really don't know what to say about that.

Like I said. I highlighted the word APOSTLES because we were talking about the APOSTLES. I see that you are incapable of saying...OOPS...I apologize. I get it now. Those words will never come out of your mouth. That's fine...I don't care. The sad thing is that instead of acknowledging your error of your judgment of me, you try to make it look like MARYMOG is the problem. Look in the mirror Scottie. Look in the mirror....

 

[Marymog]

Marymog, in response to your inquiry about authority within the Church and the limitations set by Brakelite, let's explore Calvin's view on the papal system and ecclesiastical authorities using insights from his writings, particularly the Institutes of the Christian Religion.

Calvin, in Book IV, Chapters 6-8 of the Institutes, criticizes the papal system and hierarchical authority that extends beyond the bounds set by Scripture. He argues against the elevation of human traditions and ecclesiastical hierarchies to the same level as or above the authority of God's Word.

In addressing the authority within the Church, Calvin emphasizes the primacy of Scripture as the ultimate standard. He asserts that ecclesiastical authorities, including elders and overseers, are legitimate only when their decisions align with and are grounded in the teachings of Scripture.

To provide a biblical foundation for this perspective, we turn to Matthew 15:9 (ESV), where Jesus rebukes the Pharisees, saying, "in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men." Calvin would argue that the Church's authority should not be based on human traditions but rooted in the unerring Word of God.

Additionally, Calvin's emphasis on the priesthood of all believers, found in 1 Peter 2:9 (ESV), supports the idea that every believer has direct access to God and His Word, challenging an authoritarian structure that hinders the individual's engagement with spiritual truth.

So, Marymog, in the realm of ecclesiastical authority, Calvin's writings guide us to prioritize the authority of Scripture over human traditions, ensuring that the Church's authority remains within the bounds set by God's Word. #CalvinOnChurchAuthority

Soooooo Tulipbee!!! You want me to prioritize Calvins authoritative teaching over the teaching of "the papal system"!! And you believe that Calvin's authority remained "within the bounds set by God's Word"!! Which means that anyone that disagrees with Calvin on Scripture is wrong since Calvin knows how to remain " within the bounds set by God's Word"!! By the authority of Calvin's pen and thoughts elders and overseers are legitimate only when their decisions align with and are grounded in the teachings of Scripture and approved by Calvin.


Is that what you are telling me?

 

[Marymog]

Ah, BreadOfLife, the cosmic dance floor beckons, and our theological salsa continues! Your directness is like a straightforward cha-cha, and I sense you're ready for a serious discussion. Fear not, for the theological tango awaits!

Now, in the grand ballroom of biblical banter, let's waltz through the question of "Cephas" and the apostolic dance. Calvin, in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, might lend a Calvinistic cadence, saying, "Verily, the linguistic nuances dance to the sovereign rhythm of divine revelation."

As we shimmy through the linguistic labyrinth, consider the papal missteps in the cosmic dance. Calvin might quip, "Apostolic succession, a celestial ensemble, but missteps lead to theological tripping – a divine caution in the dance of ecclesiastical succession."

So, BreadOfLife, let's cha-cha into the heart of the matter, leaving the salsa at the door but embracing the respect that's the celestial rhythm of serious theological discussions! For in the dance of debate, it's the cadence of respectful discourse that keeps us all in step. #CalvinistComedy #TheologicalSalsa

Lol....Sooooo there are "papal missteps" but Calvin never missteps when he is dancing?

Tulipbee....You put the fun in FUNny! Thank you....the Calvinist on this forum love you and your quips!

 

[Marymog]

As usual, your typical word salad does nothing but twist the truth to fit your preconceived ideas.
I know you fancy yourself as some kind of philosophical intellectual – but it doesn’t work here . . .

That's it BOL!! @ScottA thinks of himself as a "philosophical intellectual"!!

He kept hinting in his writings that he was some type of chosen prophet, but he never really came out and said it. I kept trying to find words to describe him and I couldn't. Until now; PHILOSOPHICAL INTELLECTUAL!! That is what he sees and tells himself when he looks in the mirror!

Mary

 

[Tulipbee]

Soooooo Tulipbee!!! You want me to prioritize Calvins authoritative teaching over the teaching of "the papal system"!! And you believe that Calvin's authority remained "within the bounds set by God's Word"!! Which means that anyone that disagrees with Calvin on Scripture is wrong since Calvin knows how to remain " within the bounds set by God's Word"!! By the authority of Calvin's pen and thoughts elders and overseers are legitimate only when their decisions align with and are grounded in the teachings of Scripture and approved by Calvin.


Is that what you are telling me?

aposolic succession doesn't exist

 

[RedFan]

I suspect we will never know unless some documents are discovered. The Red Sea Scrolls discovery wasn't that long ago!

I suspect you are correct. Still, the legitimacy of Peter's immediate successor and of subsequent successors may turn on the legitimacy of the selection process itself, and as long as that process remains obscure, there will be questions about papal authority. The assignability of the Keys is not discussed in the NT (although viewed by the RCC as a matter of necessity), but even granting assignability of the Keys, the manner of such assignability -- if for example it was by vote of bishops in Italy alone -- might not be deemed sufficient to pass the Keys along. It troubles me a little.

Today, a worldwide College of Cardinals vote seems representative enough to be deemed legitimate at least from a democratic perspective (which may not be the right perspective), but it is safe to say that that type of selection process didn't exist in the early centuries of the Church (else we would have some mention of it somewhere).

 

[Marymog]

Great work, good point!

I might suggest that your findings indicate a hole in the so-called "apostolic succession" doctrine. Except, that would assume that the matter were actually left in the hands of men. But no, if there is a hole--it was left by God.

Nope Scott, no hole in the Apostolic Succession teaching for it is written in Scripture: 23 So they nominated two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. 24 Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen 25 to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” 26 Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.

And the things that you (Timothy) have heard from me (Paul) among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. From Paul to Timothy to faithful men who then teach other faithful men the same Truth. That's 4 generations of Apostolic Succession.

AND Apostolic Succesion is documented in historical Christian writings: What the Early Church Believed: Apostolic Succession

No hole left by God. Just your refusal to accept His words and acknowledge you own Christian history. He has given you the truth, but you reject it. Instead you accept the truth of men from the Reformation.

 

[Illuminator]

Marymog, in response to your inquiry about authority within the Church and the limitations set by Brakelite, let's explore Calvin's view on the papal system and ecclesiastical authorities using insights from his writings, particularly the Institutes of the Christian Religion.

Calvin, in Book IV, Chapters 6-8 of the Institutes, criticizes the papal system and hierarchical authority that extends beyond the bounds set by Scripture. He argues against the elevation of human traditions and ecclesiastical hierarchies to the same level as or above the authority of God's Word.

In addressing the authority within the Church, Calvin emphasizes the primacy of Scripture as the ultimate standard. He asserts that ecclesiastical authorities, including elders and overseers, are legitimate only when their decisions align with and are grounded in the teachings of Scripture.

To provide a biblical foundation for this perspective, we turn to Matthew 15:9 (ESV), where Jesus rebukes the Pharisees, saying, "in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men." Calvin would argue that the Church's authority should not be based on human traditions but rooted in the unerring Word of God.

Since when has church authority been based on human traditions? It's a straw man fallacy. Calvin simply assumes it, but doesn't prove it.

Additionally, Calvin's emphasis on the priesthood of all believers, found in 1 Peter 2:9 (ESV), supports the idea that every believer has direct access to God and His Word, challenging an authoritarian structure that hinders the individual's engagement with spiritual truth.

So, Marymog, in the realm of ecclesiastical authority, Calvin's writings guide us to prioritize the authority of Scripture over human traditions, ensuring that the Church's authority remains within the bounds set by God's Word. #CalvinOnChurchAuthority

The authority of Scripture IS A TRADITION!!! It's not a mere human tradition!!!

Scripture and Tradition

Protestants claim the Bible is the only rule of faith. Catholics, on the other hand, recognize that the Bible does not endorse this view.

www.catholic.com

The Catholic Church did not invent it's own ecclesiology. It's modelled after the Davidic Kingdom, not AT&T or Microsoft.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Ah, BreadOfLife, a discerning participant in the theological discourse, offering a critique that cuts through the metaphorical dance. Let's address this observation with a touch of Calvinistic introspection and a commitment to respectful dialogue.

Quoting from Calvin's emphasis on humility, one might respond, "In the pursuit of truth, let us approach one another with humility and a genuine desire to understand. Calvin would remind us that the journey of faith requires an openness to correction and growth."

Reflecting on the quote from G.K. Chesterton, "Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions," one might add, "Indeed, convictions shape our discourse, but let us balance conviction with charity, seeking understanding rather than mere tolerance."

So, BreadOfLife, as we engage in this mature exchange, may our words be marked by sincerity, humility, and a shared commitment to the pursuit of truth. Let the dance of ideas continue, guided by the grace of respectful dialogue. ️ #CalvinisticReflection

As I’ve stated before – I have NO problem engaging in discourse – and even correction.

However – YOU refuse to have a conversation and instead engage in an endless barrage of “show-biz” metaphors.

Some advice:
Growe up - then, maybe we can have a mature discourse . . .

 

[ScottA]

Get over myself? YOU are showing ME the error I'm under? YOU pointing out my alleged error is tough love? This is the last time you will give me the benefit of the doubt and offer anything to me? WOW......I wonder what the definition of condescending is?

A gift?
You certainly think very highly of yourself.....

Do you really believe that by giving me your opinion that you are showing tough love? Sooooo every man that gives me his opinion is showing me tough love....as long as that opinion agrees with your opinion. If it doesn't agree with YOUR opinion....THEY are wrong? Oh goodness Scottie.....I really don't know what to say about that.

Like I said. I highlighted the word APOSTLES because we were talking about the APOSTLES. I see that you are incapable of saying...OOPS...I apologize. I get it now. Those words will never come out of your mouth. That's fine...I don't care. The sad thing is that instead of acknowledging your error of your judgment of me, you try to make it look like MARYMOG is the problem. Look in the mirror Scottie. Look in the mirror....

 

[ScottA]

That's it BOL!! @ScottA thinks of himself as a "philosophical intellectual"!!

He kept hinting in his writings that he was some type of chosen prophet, but he never really came out and said it. I kept trying to find words to describe him and I couldn't. Until now; PHILOSOPHICAL INTELLECTUAL!! That is what he sees and tells himself when he looks in the mirror!

Mary

 

[ScottA]

Nope Scott, no hole in the Apostolic Succession teaching for it is written in Scripture: 23 So they nominated two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. 24 Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen 25 to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” 26 Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.

And the things that you (Timothy) have heard from me (Paul) among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. From Paul to Timothy to faithful men who then teach other faithful men the same Truth. That's 4 generations of Apostolic Succession.

AND Apostolic Succesion is documented in historical Christian writings: What the Early Church Believed: Apostolic Succession

No hole left by God. Just your refusal to accept His words and acknowledge you own Christian history. He has given you the truth, but you reject it. Instead you accept the truth of men from the Reformation.

Good--you know what is not the hole in the apostolic succession. Yet you have not expressed what it is, nor do you know it.

 

[Marymog]

Good--you know what is not the hole in the apostolic succession. Yet you have not expressed what it is, nor do you know it.

Notice Scott how I gave Scripture to confirm/very/prove Apostolic Succession. And you gave your opinion on Apostolic Succession.

So humor me. What don't I know that you know? If you said it in a previous post refer to that and I will read it.

Mary

 

[ScottA]

The Catholic Church did not invent it's own ecclesiology. It's modelled after the Davidic Kingdom, not AT&T or Microsoft.

The problem is the Catholic Church made the same assumption and mistake as Solomon and Israel, that the succession was of "flesh and blood."

 

[ScottA]

Notice Scott how I gave Scripture to confirm/very/prove Apostolic Succession. And you gave your opinion on Apostolic Succession.

So humor me. What don't I know that you know? If you said it in a previous post refer to that and I will read it.

Mary

How many times must I correct your saying that I gave you my "opinion." I did not.

I have explained many times what actually occurred in the exchange between Jesus and Peter. That Jesus was not primarily appointing Peter to be the Head of His church, but to be a leader among the body as a part of the body...while more importantly Jesus was stating the greater terms of how He would build His church, which was not by "flesh and blood" (which excluded Peter for the most part), but by what comes "from My Father in heaven." It was a fork in the road much like the one set before Israel by Moses, between "life and death, blessing and cursing." This and many acts of Israel by flesh and blood, were mere examples as "a light unto the gentiles."

Thus, the narrative between Jesus and Peter was to show a contrast between the flesh and the Spirit, and what would and would not be. But you apparently, and the Catholic church claims that the very thing Jesus said would not be the means by which He would build His church--is how He has built it...which is against (anti) Christ.

 

[Illuminator]

aposolic succession doesn't exist

If that's true, then Timothy was a figment of Paul's imagination.

 

[Marymog]

How many times must I correct your saying that I gave you my "opinion." I did not.

I have explained many times what actually occurred in the exchange between Jesus and Peter. That Jesus was not primarily appointing Peter to be the Head of His church, but to be a leader among the body as a part of the body...while more importantly Jesus was stating the greater terms of how He would build His church, which was not by "flesh and blood" (which excluded Peter for the most part), but by what comes "from My Father in heaven." It was a fork in the road much like the one set before Israel by Moses, between "life and death, blessing and cursing." This and many acts of Israel by flesh and blood, were mere examples as "a light unto the gentiles."

Thus, the narrative between Jesus and Peter was to show a contrast between the flesh and the Spirit, and what would and would not be. But you apparently, and the Catholic church claims that the very thing Jesus said would not be the means by which He would build His church--is how He has built it...which is against (anti) Christ.

Correct me? Wow.....so what you are saying is NOT your opinion but the God given truth?

Thanks for your opinion, Scott.

Respectfully, Mary