wk~
A mature Christian does not go around bragging about his credentials or the special gifts God has bestowed upon them.
You mean like being called "Holy Father", and granting "audience", and having his ring kissed, and living in spledor (castle, robes, gold) while his flock starves all over the world? Claiming to be
the mediator between God and man?
You're right, Peter never did this,
which is our point.
The Temple was a shadow, the Priesthood was a shadow, the animal sacrifices were a shadow, circumcision was a shadow, the kingdom was a shadow....now you want to say the shadow(s) must remain? We aren't physical Israel, or even intended to REPLACE Israel. His holy patterns/shadows are displayed through them...differentiate the shadows themselves from what they were shadows OF: the "better covenant."
The “shadows” most definitely do not remain. The shadows were images of what are now tangible realities; The Light of the World is fully cast to dispel the shadows. The types are the fulfillment of the ante-types, fully revealed through the Light brought into darkness. The shadows disappear and our focus turns to the incarnate, tangible reality. Davidic Kingship – Eternal King. Temple – Temple of Jesus Christ and his disciples. Cleansing waters of the flood – baptism. Mikveh – baptism, circumcision – baptism, Animal sacrifices – sacrifice of the Passover Lamb. Sacrifices of the Levitical Priesthood – sacrifice offered by the ministerial priesthood. Offering of Melchizedek – Eucharist. Passover Seder – Eucharist. Semicha – Apostolic Succession. Master of the palace – Shepherd of the Church. I could go on and on.
Our faith is more than spiritual. It is tangible. The Spirit became tangible in the Incarnation, the shadows are gone in the Light of Christ. The “symbols” are gone, and, by the work of the Incarnate God, Jesus Christ, and his physical, tangible resurrection, we now have the tangible realities. Symbolic baptism? No – tangible baptism. Symbolic presence? No – Real Physical Presence. Symbolic Sacrifice? No – Real and Perfect Sacrifice, …..
Chafer –
Where is your evidence that Peter was in Rome 3 years prior to his death? You claim my evidence is wrong but give absolutely nothing to back up yours. You did the same thing with baptism. “History tells us he died there”. Please provide your evidence and we can see what other information is available in your reference.
What about reading 1 Pt 5 in context? He already wrote to the general population in previous chapters. In 5:1-4 he is specifically addressing the leaders. Why Peter? Why not Paul? If they all had equal authority and there was no universal authoritative leadership, why is there a need for Peter to instruct them on how to shepherd their flocks?
Yes, of course Peter acknowledges Jesus as the Chief Shepherd. Jesus is the Eternal King of God’s People. Peter is his servant. Peter is the earthly, physically present, shepherd to whom Jesus entrusts the Kingdom while the Eternal King wages battle against the enemy. Peter is the “al-bayit”, the “master of the palace” (Is 22:22). ENTIRELY consistent with scripture and the Jewish roots of our faith. Peters role takes no glory whatsoever from our Savior. In fact, it shows Jesus’ love for us and his perfect plan for his Bride.
Peter may not have bragged about his special and unique commissioning by Jesus but scripture speaks volumes about it. Even if you don’t consider the Jewish context in the link between Mt 16:19 and Is 22:22 as evidence enough, consider also the following:
- Jesus words ONLY to Peter: “feed my lambs … look after my sheep …feed my sheep” (Jn 21:15ff).
- Peter spoke for the Apostles in Mt18:21, Mk 8:29, Lk 8:45, Lk 12:41, Jn6:69
- He was the first to see the Risen Lord (Lk 24:34)
- An angel was sent to him to announce the Resurrection (Mk 16:7)
- He led the appointment of the first succeeding apostle Mathias (Act 1:15)
- He led the preaching at Pentecost (Acts 2:14)
- He led the first conversions (Acts 2:38)
- He performed the first miracle (Acts 3:7)
- Peters name is mentioned first in every listing of the Apostles
What other disciple of Jesus even comes close to this? As I’ve said before, even many Protestant scholars acknowledge this truth and ECF writings back it up. So Peter may never have boasted that he had more authority than the other apostles, but his actions show he humbly lived out his special commissioning.
(cont …)
(… cont)
And you are exactly right. No Bishop of Antioch ever claimed to be the head of the visible Church. This was reserved for the Bishop of Rome. The Apostles were instructed to make disciples of all nations. Rome was the world power at that time and would seem like the proper place to begin preaching to the ends of the earth, especially with the eminent destruction of Jerusalem, and the rejection by the Jewish people of their own Messiah.
Here are some snippets of how the early church felt about Peter and his successors:
Jerome:
"‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division" (Against Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393]).
"I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails" (Letters 15:2 [A.D. 396]).
Augustine:
"If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement. ... In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found" (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).
Council of Ephesus (one of the ecumenical councils Protestants “affirm”):
"Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome], said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’" (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]).
(cont …)
(… cont)
Council of Chalcedonia (another ecumenical council Protestants “affirm):
"Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod, together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, has stripped him [Dioscorus] of the episcopate" (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 451]).
Tertullian:
"Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the Church would be built’ [Matt. 16:18] with the power of ‘loosing and binding in heaven and on earth’ [Matt. 16:19]?" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 22 [A.D. 200]).
"[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys" (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).
Clement:
"Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter" (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).
Origen:
"Look at [Peter], the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church [Matt. 16:18]. And what does our Lord say to him? ‘Oh you of little faith,’ he says, ‘why do you doubt?’ [Matt. 14:31]" (Homilies on Exodus 5:4 [A.D. 248]).
(cont …)
(… cont)
Cyprian of Carthage:
"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 . . . ’ [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 that also which 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. . . . 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]).
"There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering" (Letters 43[40]:5 [A.D. 253]).
"There [John 6:68–69] speaks Peter, upon whom the Church would be built, teaching in the name of the Church and showing that even if a stubborn and proud multitude withdraws because it does not wish to obey, yet the Church does not withdraw from Christ. The people joined to the priest and the flock clinging to their shepherd are the Church. You ought to know, then, that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop, and if someone is not with the bishop, he is not in the Church. They vainly flatter themselves who creep up, not having peace with the priests of God, believing that they are
secretly [i.e., invisibly] in communion with certain individuals. For the Church, which is one and Catholic, is not split nor divided, but it is indeed united and joined by the cement of priests who adhere one to another" (ibid., 66[69]:8).
How do all of these quotes from such notable figures as Jerome, Augustine, Tertullian, and Clement align with your traditions? What historical evidence do you have that opposes this? How does this align with your “congregational/presbyterial” ecclesial model? And tell me how/when/where your ecclesial model holds universal ecumenical councils?
(cont ...)
(… cont)
The fact that Peter was the leader of the Apostles is a hard pill for some Protestants to swallow yet honest ones will acknowledge it (check out the Mt 16 commentary in the NIV bible and see for yourself). I’ve already shown Peters leadership with numerous examples from scripture. I’ve shown how it traces back into the Jewish roots of our faith (search on “al-bayit”). And I’ve provided writings from the early church to support it. How about if you provide writings from the early church that refute it?
So if not from Rome, where do you propose Peter wrote from? A literal Babylon was reduced to a tiny village of complete insignificance by this time. Was the courageous Apostle in hiding there? All of the ECFs who write about it claim that Peter was writing from Rome. When exactly did Peter first depart for Rome? Maybe it is not known for certain but in scripture, we know that after his miraculous deliverance from Herodian persecution, he “departed for another place” (Act 12:17). Perhaps it was then that he traveled to Rome which would be much earlier than 3 years prior to his martyrdom and consistent with the writings of Eusebius (b.t.w. I’m trying to get primary source for you. Secondary sources claim “History of the Church” Ch 3 which I’ve also seen on Protestant web-sites). And we see many instances in scripture of Apostles establishing churches and later returning to minister to them. There is no reason to suggest that after first visiting and establishing the church in Rome, Peter did not leave and subsequently return. So it is very likely that Peter was not in Rome when Paul wrote his epistle to the Romans. Furthermore, Paul writes nothing in the epistle that Peter would not have already known and been preaching.
Irenaeus does not specifically label Peter as the first bishop of Rome but it is clear that both Peter (the leader of the original 12) and Paul established the church in Rome. Furthermore, it is clear from Irenaeus that Peter and Paul “committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate” and from there, Irenaeus provides a list of succession. There may very well have been a plurality of elders of house churches but there definitely was also the notion of leaders of the elders. This is why Irenaeus clearly provides a unique list of singular apostolic succession beginning with one of the original 12, and continuing to his present time.
(cont …)
(… cont)
And remember that Apostolic Succession (known as “semicha” in Judaism) is not a concept unique to the RCC. Eastern Orthodox also has it and Anglicans and other Protestant denominations (e.g. Lutherans) also claim to have it. Denominations who don’t have Apostolic Succession obviously reject it.
And Ripley’s assertion that “Apostleship” cannot be transferred, that it ended with the death of John because an Apostle had to be an “eye witness” of the resurrected Jesus (only a condition for the replacement of Judas), would render Paul not an Apostle which is clearly wrong. Paul witnessed the glorified Jesus through the power of the Holy Spirit. He did not witness the physically resurrected Jesus prior to his ascension into glory. Paul is the exception not the norm. He had direct revelation whereas the norm is through authoritative teaching. This is why he writes extensively to convince the Galatians of his authority (“I swear before God that what I have written is the truth” 1:20). Nevertheless, he later goes to Jerusalem and spends two weeks with Peter. Again, why Peter?
Again, Paul is the exception, not the norm. We have too many people in the church claiming to be like Paul, having special individual revelation, having special self-proclaimed authority, and rejecting ecclesial authority. The result???? Division.
My refutation of the claims of Wkirscher and his so called demands of evidence from me.
1 ) The Book of Acts is a historical book. From Acts 1 to 15 the focus is on the Apostle Peter in his preaching. From Acts 1 to 15 there is nothing of any trip made by Peter to Rome to establish the Church of Rome. In Acts 1 to 15 we only have Peter placed within Asia Minor only. What we do find out is the Church started in Jerusalem and not in Rome.
2 ) You tried to claim that Acts 12:17 is when Peter made a trip to Rome. Yet that is not what the passage says at all. All we can get from the general flow of Acts 1 to 15 is that Peter remained somewhere within Asia Minor in his statement in Acts 12:17 without specifically saying what location. In otherwords, what we have is consistant evidence of Peter only in Asia Minor and not going over to Rome to found the Church of Rome.
3 ) Taking point # 1 and 2 together it covers up until about 51ad. And therefore contradicts the claim of Peter being Bishop of Rome for 25 years. Therefore Peter it cant' be claimed of him being Bishop there for the period of time claimed by Roman Catholics.
4 ) Peter was an Apostle and an Elder. This is a point of fact. I cited 1 Peter 1:1 and 5:1 for this already. He had no authority which the other Apostles did not likewise have at all. You have consistantly avoided this specific point that I made regarding that through out this thread on it. The authority of the Apostles together was spiritual relating to the gospel and the doctrines we find in the New Testament which they had left for us.