Peter, the Rock, the Keys, and the Chair

[jas3]

Yes. The office of Elder is very different from the office of Apostle. The Apostle is not the head of a single local congregation.

An argument from silence only works if its premise that something would be recorded is true. But that's not the case with the Apostles; for many of them, only their names and maybe a passing reference or two are recorded in Scripture. Surely there was other important information about them, but it wasn't recorded because it would have been understood in the early Church that the bishops are the successors of the Apostles - and we have a first century record of this understanding preserved in the letter of St. Clement of Rome to the Corinthians.
Most damaging to your argument is that you haven't addressed the fact that the bishopric and apostleship are synonymous in Acts 1. Given that, we would actually expect not to have it recorded both that the Twelve were Apostles but also bishops, because that would be redundant (and to the best of my knowledge there is no passage where the same man is said to be both an Apostle and a bishop or elder, it's either one or the other).

He does not involve himself with the daily operation of that congregation. His mandate is to spread the Gospel, establish new congregations of the Church, and insure proper doctrine is being taught within the Church as a whole. Elders (always two or more in each congregation) are responsible for a single congregation. They are given the responsibility for leading, teaching, managing, and disciplining their local flock.

Paul excommunicated a man in the church at Corinth via a letter when the Corinthians wouldn't (1 Cor. 5) and mentions two others, if I remember correctly, whom he also "handed over to Satan" (i.e., excommunicated).

When Scripture speaks of God or Jesus (who are always masculine) being the rock, it always uses the feminine petra. But when speaking of Simon (who is also masculine) it switches to the masculine petros. Why?

Do you not understand the difference between a noun and a name?

 

[Doug Brents]

An argument from silence only works if its premise that something would be recorded is true. But that's not the case with the Apostles; for many of them, only their names and maybe a passing reference or two are recorded in Scripture. Surely there was other important information about them, but it wasn't recorded because it would have been understood in the early Church that the bishops are the successors of the Apostles - and we have a first century record of this understanding preserved in the letter of St. Clement of Rome to the Corinthians.

Clement was neither a Saint nor an Apostle. He was a saint only to the extent that every person who is in Christ is equally a saint. There is no such thing as a separate, higher, "Saint", and no one should ever be mentioned with the title of Saint. Clement's letter is not Scripture, and so has no bearing on this discussion. It is clear from the Scripture that even in the first 20 years of the Church there were false doctrines being taught, and errors being made in what was taught.

Most damaging to your argument is that you haven't addressed the fact that the bishopric and apostleship are synonymous in Acts 1. Given that, we would actually expect not to have it recorded both that the Twelve were Apostles but also bishops, because that would be redundant (and to the best of my knowledge there is no passage where the same man is said to be both an Apostle and a bishop or elder, it's either one or the other).

The twelve, plus Paul, are all accounted as "The Apostles". Peter calls himself an Elder (1 Pet 5:1), and John calls himself an Elder (2 John 1:1, 3 John 1:1). None of the other Apostles are accounted as also being Elders. The two offices are very different in calling and in authority.

There is no evidence in Acts 1 that the two terms are synonymous, that is just your preconception talking. There is no evidence that Judas, or most of the other Apostles, were married. There is no evidence that any of the others, besides Peter and John are ever called Elder. Acts 15:2, 4, 6 indicate that there were two groups to whom Paul and Barnabas were sent: the Apostles and the Elders.

Paul excommunicated a man in the church at Corinth via a letter when the Corinthians wouldn't (1 Cor. 5) and mentions two others, if I remember correctly, whom he also "handed over to Satan" (i.e., excommunicated).

This is not Paul getting involved in the management of this particular congregation. It is Paul, the Apostle, setting proper doctrine and precedent for the Church as a whole. The letter he wrote was copied and sent to every other congregation in the region, and has sense been included in every Bible published in the world.

But what is the purpose of "excommunication"? Is it not, as Paul says here, to exclude him from the assembly so that he may be pressured into repentance and return to the Church (condemning his body so that his soul may be saved)? The purpose of Paul's admonishment to the Elders of this congregation (seeing as how the reprimand is not just to the man, but to the whole of the Church as well), was to have them put the man out so that the desire to be part of the Church again would bring him to repentance and reconciliation.

Do you not understand the difference between a noun and a name?

I do indeed. All names are noun, but not all nouns are names. Jesus is the Rock (petra), and Peter is the rock (petros). The Rock is the foundation of our faith. The rock was an early leader in the Church.

 

[jas3]

Clement was neither a Saint nor an Apostle. He was a saint only to the extent that every person who is in Christ is equally a saint. There is no such thing as a separate, higher, "Saint", and no one should ever be mentioned with the title of Saint.

Consider him an historical witness, then, if that sounds better to you.

Clement's letter is not Scripture, and so has no bearing on this discussion.

A first-century primary source has no bearing on the discussion about first-century ecclesiology? Come on, that's just willful ignorance.

It is clear from the Scripture that even in the first 20 years of the Church there were false doctrines being taught, and errors being made in what was taught.

You are more than welcome to point out a single other writer who responded to Clement or any other Church Father who said his ecclesiology was in error. I don't think you'll find one unless you give another non-answer like "Paul and God" (neither of whom would be responding to or commenting on Clement's writing).

The twelve, plus Paul, are all accounted as "The Apostles". Peter calls himself an Elder (1 Pet 5:1), and John calls himself an Elder (2 John 1:1, 3 John 1:1).

Is anyone ever called "apostle and elder," or is it always one or the other?

There is no evidence in Acts 1 that the two terms are synonymous, that is just your preconception talking.

Then what is the relevance of Peter citing the psalm about letting another man take Judas's bishopric in relation to the Apostles' prayer for Matthias to take on Judas's apostleship?

This is not Paul getting involved in the management of this particular congregation. It is Paul, the Apostle, setting proper doctrine and precedent for the Church as a whole.

The doctrine was already established in the Old Testament; Paul was directly involving himself in a local matter of discipline.

I do indeed. All names are noun, but not all nouns are names.

Names are a special type of noun that follows a separate set of grammatical rules in gendered languages. So when Jesus is called "the rock" and πέτρα is used, the word is being used as a noun. When Peter is called Πέτρος, the word is being used as a name and as a result has a masculine form. There is no scenario where Peter could be named Πέτρα.

 

[Doug Brents]

Is anyone ever called "apostle and elder," or is it always one or the other?

As I noted, there are 14 people who are called Apostle in the Scriptures. Only two of them are called Elder in the Scriptures. The qualification for the two offices are different, the authority of the two offices are different, and the scope of that authority is different. We know that Paul was not married, and we know he was not an Elder (a title he never claimed, and was never given to him), but he did claim, and exercise the authority of, the title Apostle.

Then what is the relevance of Peter citing the psalm about letting another man take Judas's bishopric in relation to the Apostles' prayer for Matthias to take on Judas's apostleship?

The term ἐπισκοπὴν refers to Judas's authority, his office. The person taking up his office would then take up whatever office, authority, position, and title that Judas had before he fell. That title and authority was "Apostle". He was not an Elder of any congregation. As I have said above, the qualifications and authorities are very different for the two offices.

The doctrine was already established in the Old Testament; Paul was directly involving himself in a local matter of discipline.

Paul was involving himself in a matter of global Church discipline, and using this one person in a local setting as an example. The precedent he was setting was not with regard to this man, but to Church discipline in general; how, when, and why to cast someone out of the assembly. The Elders of this congregation were not doing as their office demanded, and so, if you notice, Paul reprimands them, not the man, and tells them that when he comes he will do what they should have already done.

Names are a special type of noun that follows a separate set of grammatical rules in gendered languages. So when Jesus is called "the rock" and πέτρα is used, the word is being used as a noun. When Peter is called Πέτρος, the word is being used as a name and as a result has a masculine form. There is no scenario where Peter could be named Πέτρα.

By that explanation, Jesus should also be Πέτρος, not Πέτρα, because it is being used as a name, not as just a noun or as an adjective. But that is not how it is used in Scripture. Again, the two words are not just different gender, but have completely different meanings. The refer to very different formations of "rock".

 

[jas3]

As I noted, there are 14 people who are called Apostle in the Scriptures. Only two of them are called Elder in the Scriptures.

So your answer to the question is in the negative.

We know that Paul was not married

Yes.

and we know he was not an Elder (a title he never claimed, and was never given to him)

This is a terrible way to make your argument. Paul never claimed or was described as having brown eyes, either, but that doesn't mean we know he didn't have brown eyes.

The term ἐπισκοπὴν refers to Judas's authority, his office.

Agreed.

That title and authority was "Apostle".

And bishop, yes. Again, we see the same term, used in the same way, referring to the office of bishop, in 1 Tim. 3:1.

He was not an Elder of any congregation.

You keep saying "elder," but that's the translation of πρεσβύτερος, not ἐπίσκοπος. The ἐπισκοπή is the office of the ἐπίσκοπος. It doesn't make much of a difference, and I don't like to be pedantic, but the proper term is "bishop."

Paul was involving himself in a matter of global Church discipline, and using this one person in a local setting as an example.

He wasn't (at least not intentionally, from all of his writings that we have), but either way, "using this one person in a local setting" alone is a contradiction of your argument that he didn't involve himself in local church matters.

By that explanation, Jesus should also be Πέτρος, not Πέτρα, because it is being used as a name, not as just a noun or as an adjective.

Look, I don't mean to be rude, but you have no idea what you're talking about. This is basic, basic stuff that any foreign language student who's spent a few hours reading an introductory textbook would know. "Jesus is the Rock" is an equative statement, in which "rock" is a noun, not a name.

Seriously, it would be to your benefit to spend a little time learning Greek. I recommend either the JACT Greek course, which has a self-study companion book, or Whitacre's Learning Greek Passage by Passage, which is posthumously published free of charge on his website or available in print for a small charge, accompanied by his grammar book.

 

[Doug Brents]

This is a terrible way to make your argument. Paul never claimed or was described as having brown eyes, either, but that doesn't mean we know he didn't have brown eyes.

Having brown eyes has no bearing on his authority in the Church. Being an Apostle of Christ vs being a Bishop/Elder/Overseer of a particular congregation of the Church does have a bearing on his authority.

And bishop, yes. Again, we see the same term, used in the same way, referring to the office of bishop, in 1 Tim. 3:1.

No, not bishop. Bishop was not one of Judas' titles, authorities, or positions in the Church. As a matter of fact, Judas was never part of the Church, seeing as the Church didn't start until the resurrection at the earliest and Pentecost at the latest). Seeing as how Judas died between Jesus' death and resurrection, Judas was never part of the NT Church.

You keep saying "elder," but that's the translation of πρεσβύτερος, not ἐπίσκοπος. The ἐπισκοπή is the office of the ἐπίσκοπος. It doesn't make much of a difference, and I don't like to be pedantic, but the proper term is "bishop."

Bishop, Elder, Overseer, Shepherd: these terms all mean the same thing in terms of the leadership of the Church. They are all the same office, and it is different from the office of Apostle. I have no problem using any of these terms, as they are all interchangeable in Scripture.

He wasn't (at least not intentionally, from all of his writings that we have), but either way, "using this one person in a local setting" alone is a contradiction of your argument that he didn't involve himself in local church matters.

As I said (which you conveniently cut out), Paul's reprimand and admonition was to the leadership (the Elders/Bishops) of the congregation in Corinth. It was not directed at the man sleeping with his father's wife. It was the Apostles' position to lead, direct, and reprimand the Elders of the Churches they established, so this was well within Paul's authority as an Apostle.

Look, I don't mean to be rude, but you have no idea what you're talking about. This is basic, basic stuff that any foreign language student who's spent a few hours reading an introductory textbook would know. "Jesus is the Rock" is an equative statement, in which "rock" is a noun, not a name.

You are right, I do not yet know Greek. But there are thousands of men, much smarter and better educated than myself, who know Greek well, and they agree that there are two much more reasonable explanations of what Jesus was saying than the catholic assertion that Peter is the Rock upon which the Church is built. Those more reasonable explanations are that Jesus is the Rock, or that the confession that Peter gave is the Rock. The fact that the confession that Peter gave is about Jesus' divinity and Lordship means that Jesus is the Rock upon which the confession is based. This means that both of these positions are the same. This is completely in line with the rest of Scripture's statements that Jesus is the Cornerstone, the Rock we should build our lives upon, the Lord, the Creator, God. Peter is none of these things.

 

[jas3]

Having brown eyes has no bearing on his authority in the Church. Being an Apostle of Christ vs being a Bishop/Elder/Overseer of a particular congregation of the Church does have a bearing on his authority.

But something having bearing on his authority is irrelevant to whether we can know something definitively by a lack of its mention in the Bible.

No, not bishop. Bishop was not one of Judas' titles, authorities, or positions in the Church. As a matter of fact, Judas was never part of the Church, seeing as the Church didn't start until the resurrection at the earliest and Pentecost at the latest). Seeing as how Judas died between Jesus' death and resurrection, Judas was never part of the NT Church.

That might be a compelling argument if we didn't have explicit mention of his bishopric/apostleship in Acts 1, but we do. His office preceded Pentecost.

As I said (which you conveniently cut out), Paul's reprimand and admonition was to the leadership (the Elders/Bishops) of the congregation in Corinth.

I try to quote only the relevant portions of people's responses to keep things readable and to make it more clear which statements I'm responding to. Whether Paul was addressing the Corinthian clergy or laity, he was involving himself in a local matter.

You are right, I do not yet know Greek.

Then frankly you have no business trying to correct me or anyone else on the Greek of Matthew 16:18. That's like wandering into a lecture on numerical analysis and trying to correct students who've been in the class for a month because you know how to write a document in Microsoft Word.

But there are thousands of men, much smarter and better educated than myself, who know Greek well, and they agree that there are two much more reasonable explanations of what Jesus was saying than the catholic assertion that Peter is the Rock upon which the Church is built.

There are thousands of men in pretty much every tradition who are beholden in their scholarship to supporting their own tradition's truth. We have the writings of Christians who were native Greek speakers and who lived much closer to the writing of Matthew than we are; it stands to reason that they, not modern evangelical academics, would point out Peter being a pebble instead of a rock if that were a valid interpretation.

Those more reasonable explanations are that Jesus is the Rock, or that the confession that Peter gave is the Rock.

I will grant you that there are Church Fathers who held those interpretations, but not because they distinguished between two words for "rock" that varied only in gender, and not to the exclusion of Peter being the rock of Matt. 16:18. There are others who saw Peter as being the rock. St. Augustine proposed all three as possible readings.

 

[Doug Brents]

That might be a compelling argument if we didn't have explicit mention of his bishopric/apostleship in Acts 1, but we do. His office preceded Pentecost.

His office was his Apostleship, but he did not have the office of "Bishiop/Elder". His leadership was as an Apostle. There were no Elders in the Church until they were appointed within each congregation, the first mention of which is in Acts 11.

I try to quote only the relevant portions of people's responses to keep things readable and to make it more clear which statements I'm responding to. Whether Paul was addressing the Corinthian clergy or laity, he was involving himself in a local matter.

Biblically, there is no such thing as a "clergy" or "laity". As stated before, every Christ follower is a priest to God, with Jesus as the High Priest. The papacy is a completely man made office, and all of the "priesthood" that leads up to the pope is a false priesthood. There is no Biblical mandate for the catholic priesthood, and it is expressly forbidden to call anyone in the Church "father", or "master", or "teacher", etc. We are all brothers and sisters in Christ, and no one is superior to anyone else (other than the locally appointed Elders who rule each local congregation, not as global hierarchy).

The Apostles are the only exception to this local only mandate, and they (and their authority) ceased to exist with the death of John. There was no further transference of Apostolic authority beyond that from Judas to Mathias, because there were only two who qualified to be Apostles (having walked with Jesus from His baptism to His ascension), and only one of them was chosen. No one else has ever, or will ever, qualify to be an Apostle.

Then frankly you have no business trying to correct me or anyone else on the Greek of Matthew 16:18. That's like wandering into a lecture on numerical analysis and trying to correct students who've been in the class for a month because you know how to write a document in Microsoft Word.

Even an elementary school student can correct a rocket scientist if he makes a mistake in arithmetic. The gender of the words is of much less importance than the definition of the words, which are very different.

There are thousands of men in pretty much every tradition who are beholden in their scholarship to supporting their own tradition's truth. We have the writings of Christians who were native Greek speakers and who lived much closer to the writing of Matthew than we are; it stands to reason that they, not modern evangelical academics, would point out Peter being a pebble instead of a rock if that were a valid interpretation.

I will grant you that there are Church Fathers who held those interpretations, but not because they distinguished between two words for "rock" that varied only in gender, and not to the exclusion of Peter being the rock of Matt. 16:18. There are others who saw Peter as being the rock. St. Augustine proposed all three as possible readings.

And so it is incumbent upon us to then look to the rest of Scripture to see which possible interpretation is correct. Where else is Peter called the rock upon which the Church is built? Nowhere. But where else is Jesus called the Rock upon which the Church will be (or is being) built? Numerous places. Where in Scripture is Peter affirmed as the leader of the Apostles, or the head Apostle, or the pope? Nowhere. The catholic church has rewritten history to posthumously incorporate Church leaders into their false doctrine in order to garner for themselves credibility.

 

[jas3]

His office was his Apostleship, but he did not have the office of "Bishiop/Elder". His leadership was as an Apostle. There were no Elders in the Church until they were appointed within each congregation, the first mention of which is in Acts 11.

So you keep saying, but now we're circling back to the distinction between a bishopric and an apostleship. You still haven't addressed the use of the same word between Psalms, Acts, and 1 Timothy.

Biblically, there is no such thing as a "clergy" or "laity".

Your argument against 1 Cor. 5 being an intervention in a local church matter was that Paul addressed the leadership of the church in Corinth.

Even an elementary school student can correct a rocket scientist if he makes a mistake in arithmetic. The gender of the words is of much less importance than the definition of the words, which are very different.

And if the elementary school student insists that the rocket scientist is wrong for writing -3 because "you have to have a number on both sides of the minus sign" no matter how many times the scientist explains that negative numbers are in a different category than arithmetic, at some point the scientist is going to give up trying to explain the basics to someone who isn't interested in learning.

Where else is Peter called the rock upon which the Church is built? Nowhere.

How many times does Scripture need to teach something before you'll accept it?

But where else is Jesus called the Rock upon which the Church will be (or is being) built?

Show me one verse where Jesus is called the πέτρα "on which the Church will be built."

 

[Doug Brents]

So you keep saying, but now we're circling back to the distinction between a bishopric and an apostleship. You still haven't addressed the use of the same word between Psalms, Acts, and 1 Timothy.

Acts 1:20 - ἐπισκοπὴν (episkopēn)
Psalm 109:8 - פְּ֝קֻדָּת֗וֹ (pə·qud·dā·ṯōw)
1 Tim 3:1 - ἐπισκοπῆς (episkopēs)
episkopḗ (a feminine noun, derived from 1909 /epí, "on, appropriately fitting," which intensifies 4648 /skopéō, "look intently") – properly, oversight that naturally goes on to provide the care and attention appropriate to the "personal visitation."
The Apostles were "overseers" of the Church as a whole. They were mandated with the spread and teaching of the Gospel to the whole world (which they accomplished), and with establishing correct doctrine for the global Church as it was starting out.
Elders/Bishops are also "overseers" , but they are appointed over a single congregation of the Church. They are not responsible for the global Church, but only the one location in which they serve.

Your argument against 1 Cor. 5 being an intervention in a local church matter was that Paul addressed the leadership of the church in Corinth.

Indeed it is. He was addressing the Elders, those who are given the "rule" of the local congregation (not the global Church), not the individual sinner.

And if the elementary school student insists that the rocket scientist is wrong for writing -3 because "you have to have a number on both sides of the minus sign" no matter how many times the scientist explains that negative numbers are in a different category than arithmetic, at some point the scientist is going to give up trying to explain the basics to someone who isn't interested in learning.

That is not an error in arithmetic.

How many times does Scripture need to teach something before you'll accept it?

Only once when it is understood properly. But you are applying your preconception onto a verse trying to make it say what you believe, rather than what it means. Yes, Peter was a rock, as in "a chip off the ol' block", but Jesus was the "block" from which Peter was chipped. Peter was a good guy, don't get me wrong, but he was not perfect, he was not the central figure in the early Church, and he was not the foundation of the Church.

Show me one verse where Jesus is called the πέτρα "on which the Church will be built."

1 Cor 10:4
1 Cor 3:11
Luke 6:48
Matt 7:24

 

[jas3]

The Apostles were "overseers" of the Church as a whole. They were mandated with the spread and teaching of the Gospel to the whole world (which they accomplished), and with establishing correct doctrine for the global Church as it was starting out.
Elders/Bishops are also "overseers" , but they are appointed over a single congregation of the Church. They are not responsible for the global Church, but only the one location in which they serve.

If that's the line you're going to take, that's at least a more standard evangelical argument, and we're closer in our positions than before. I would say it's still untenable to argue for a strict separation of apostleship and episcopacy because if one is an itinerant office and the other is fixed with one congregation, then you have the contradiction of a man who's both supposed to travel the world and stay in one place. It makes more sense for apostleship in this context to be a unique, prototypical form of episcopacy, where the Apostles had all the authority of a bishop (plus the ability to write divinely inspired Scripture) and their successors receive the power of the keys and the ability to bind and loose, but not to write under divine inspiration. In this way, apostleship and episcopacy are still distinguishable, but broadly speaking are synonymous.

That is not an error in arithmetic.

Exactly, the child in that scenario is making a category error.

1 Cor 10:4
1 Cor 3:11
Luke 6:48
Matt 7:24

None of those say what I asked for. You have Jesus being called the Rock, then a foundation, then two iterations of the man who built his house on rock instead of sand. And it's true that the foundation of our faith is Jesus Christ, the Rock. It's also true that Christ Himself, the Builder, chose twelve men with whom to begin building the Church, the first of whom to confess His deity would be the first rock in the building.

 

[Doug Brents]

If that's the line you're going to take, that's at least a more standard evangelical argument, and we're closer in our positions than before. I would say it's still untenable to argue for a strict separation of apostleship and episcopacy because if one is an itinerant office and the other is fixed with one congregation, then you have the contradiction of a man who's both supposed to travel the world and stay in one place.

There is no contradiction in Peter and John being both Apostles and Elders. They were the Elders of the Church in the central hub of the religious world at that time: Jerusalem. So many people from all over the world made their pilgrimage to Jerusalem each year that it made sense to have a couple of the Apostles there permanently to continue to evangelize the pilgrims, and to focus some attention on the Jewish leadership. The rest of the Apostles traveled widely.

It makes more sense for apostleship in this context to be a unique, prototypical form of episcopacy, where the Apostles had all the authority of a bishop (plus the ability to write divinely inspired Scripture) and their successors receive the power of the keys and the ability to bind and loose, but not to write under divine inspiration. In this way, apostleship and episcopacy are still distinguishable, but broadly speaking are synonymous.

Broadly speaking they are completely different, with similarity only in the fact that they oversee, but what they oversee is very different also. The Apostles were unique, called by God directly and not called or selected by any man. They required direct teaching by Jesus (Acts 1:21-22, Gal 1:11-12). No one other than the 11, plus Mathias and Barsabbas, plus Paul meet that requirement, and Barsabbas was not selected by God.
Elders are appointed by man, must meet certain requirements (be married, not be married to multiple women, have children who believe, be sober, be self controlled, be able to teach, have sound doctrine), and are to rule and lead the one local congregation over which they are appointed.

Exactly, the child in that scenario is making a category error.

But that is not the error to which I referred in my original statement about this. The error we are discussing is the error of definitions, not categories. Petra means a massive, solid, immovable, bedrock rock. Petros means a small, loose, movable pebble, rock, or even bolder. Simon Peter was the loose, small stone. Jesus is the massive immovable stone.

None of those say what I asked for. You have Jesus being called the Rock, then a foundation, then two iterations of the man who built his house on rock instead of sand. And it's true that the foundation of our faith is Jesus Christ, the Rock. It's also true that Christ Himself, the Builder, chose twelve men with whom to begin building the Church, the first of whom to confess His deity would be the first rock in the building.

Together, all of those constitute what you asked for. Jesus is the Rock (petra), and it is upon Him that he Church is built, upon His words that we must build our life, and upon His foundation that we (the Church) are built.

Peter was not the first rock in the building. Jesus is. Jesus is the cornerstone; the first, most important stone upon which all other stones are laid. If the cornerstone is not perfectly cut and straight then the rest of the building cannot be straight. Peter is not the first, nor is he even the first among equals (the Apostles). He was simply the first to articulate the confession that Jesus is God, Messiah, and Savior. Peter was a flawed, error prone man (Gal 2:11-21). Jesus was perfect, and in Him was no error at all.

 

[jas3]

There is no contradiction in Peter and John being both Apostles and Elders. They were the Elders of the Church in the central hub of the religious world at that time: Jerusalem.

This is yet another ad hoc explanation with multiple problems. First, John didn't stay in Jerusalem, we know he at least visited and possibly died on Patmos. Second, the epistles of 2 and 3 John are written to a remote church and address both local and doctrinal matters, something neither an Apostle nor an elder would do, in your conception of them.

But that is not the error to which I referred in my original statement about this. The error we are discussing is the error of definitions, not categories.

You are apparently unable to distinguish between the categories of names and common nouns. I've tried explaining this over and over, and at this point, either you want to learn or you don't, and it looks like you don't. For the last time, this is something you'll learn if you study the first few chapters of an introductory Greek textbook. I've recommended a couple of options to you - I suggest you check them out.

 

[Doug Brents]

This is yet another ad hoc explanation with multiple problems. First, John didn't stay in Jerusalem, we know he at least visited and possibly died on Patmos. Second, the epistles of 2 and 3 John are written to a remote church and address both local and doctrinal matters, something neither an Apostle nor an elder would do, in your conception of them.

And as an Apostle that was fully within his mandate. He may have stepped down as Elder of the Church in Rome, or he may have continued as an Elder in absentia. The fact that he was exiled to Patmos means that he did not go there completely of his own free will. John's second and third letters were written to people he had personally brought into the Church (his "children" of the faith), and he was writing personal letters to them. Yes, these letters deal with local matters, again as examples of the larger doctrinal matters.

You are apparently unable to distinguish between the categories of names and common nouns. I've tried explaining this over and over, and at this point, either you want to learn or you don't, and it looks like you don't. For the last time, this is something you'll learn if you study the first few chapters of an introductory Greek textbook. I've recommended a couple of options to you - I suggest you check them out.

I see that the traditions of men are more important to you than is the Word of God. With that being the case, I choose not to learn from your bad example and false doctrines. You have failed to respond multiple times to the fact that Jesus is the sole foundation of the Church, Peter was one of many Apostles (but not the foremost), and that the catholic's priesthood (at the top of which they place Peter) is not Biblical.