The Rule of faith and practice is not scripture "alone"

[Valletta]

The verse that you refer to is this:

“And I also say to you that you are Peter (Petros, masculine), and on this rock (petra, feminine) I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.” (Mt 16:18 NKJV)

If Jesus had meant He was going to build His church on Peter, He would have said, "and upon you I will build My church." So what was the rock on which He would build His church? Surely the truth expressed in the previous three verses:

“15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" 16 Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed [this] to you, but My Father who is in heaven.” (Mt 16:15-17 NKJV)

This ties in with a verse from 1 Corinthians:

“and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.” (1Co 10:4 NKJV)

Jesus Christ and His gospel are the Rock on which He builds His church.

No, you're confusing modern day English with what what was actually said. Jesus renamed Simon as Rock at that moment. "You are Rock(Peter) and upon this Rock I will build My Church." My point is there would be no reason to rename Simon in the same sentence if Jesus was not referring to Simon again in the same sentence. If Jesus intended to convey He was building the Church upon Jesus, Jesus could have simply said "I am Jesus and upon this Rock I will build My Church."

 

[David Lamb]

No, you're confusing modern day English with what what was actually said. Jesus renamed Simon as Rock at that moment. "You are Rock(Peter) and upon this Rock I will build My Church." My point is there would be no reason to rename Simon in the same sentence if Jesus was not referring to Simon again in the same sentence. If Jesus intended to convey He was building the Church upon Jesus, Jesus could have simply said "I am Jesus and upon this Rock I will build My Church."

I didn't think I was. I particularly pointed to the masculine Greek word for "Peter" (Petros), and the feminine Greek word for "rock" (petra). Also, your post says nothing about the other bible references which refer to Jesus Christ as the rock/foundation upon which the church is built.

 

[LoveofTruth]

Sone might find this interesting and helpful in some areas

Who Is Your Covering?

The following article is from Reimagining Church by Frank Viola, the part of the book entitled "Who is Your Covering?" (copyright 2008, David C. Cook).

www.patheos.com

 

[LoveofTruth]

Nothing in the rest of Eph. 4, including the passage you quoted, talks about authority. At the same time, if you are trying to say that "pastors and teachers" don't actually have unique authority, the passage I quoted from Hebrews would say otherwise.

You're going to have to explain what you mean by "positional authority" for me to understand what you're saying here. There is no indication that "Jew" implies "unbeliever." It simply differentiates the man and his sons from the Gentiles.

You again confuse necessary and sufficient conditions.

No, if we were translating it using the "persuade" definition (which is wrong here), it would be the command, "be persuaded," nothing about "allowing yourself." You see how if there is no insinuation of you being in control by introducing the word "allow" into the definition, it takes on the meaning of "obey." I'll also note that you have cited the definition in Strong's for the active voice, but the word as it appears in Heb. 13:17 is passive.

Again, nothing in that verse talks about authority.

We should strive for consensus, but my point is that there are many heresies that have arisen over the centuries that have gained large followings before being condemned. If they have as much of a say in judgment as everyone else, then there can never be a resolution.

Your theology requires it, unless you're going to try to make a "Trail of Blood" or "secret remnant of true Christians" case for how you can establish continuity of the Church from the 1st century to the 16th.

It does, because if the Church is "the pillar and foundation of truth" (1 Tim. 3:15) and the Church loses the truth (i.e. stops supporting it) then it would cease to be the Church, and if error (evil) has prevailed over Christ's Church, then Christ's promise is falsified.

These are not examples of the whole Church falling into error.

Yes, but we know that demons can also do signs and wonders (Acts 16:16, 2 Thess. 2:9, Rev. 16:14).

We were talking about historical agreement between Christians. Whether or not they were wrong is a different discussion.

Again, whether or not the Nicene Creed is right has no bearing on whether or not it was accepted. Arguing that it is not right is against the rules of the forum, but fortunately that's territory we don't have to venture into.

You might find some of this info helpful

Who Is Your Covering?

The following article is from Reimagining Church by Frank Viola, the part of the book entitled "Who is Your Covering?" (copyright 2008, David C. Cook).

www.patheos.com

 

[Valletta]

I didn't think I was. I particularly pointed to the masculine Greek word for "Peter" (Petros), and the feminine Greek word for "rock" (petra). Also, your post says nothing about the other bible references which refer to Jesus Christ as the rock/foundation upon which the church is built.

In others words, don't expect something written in Koine Greek to come out exactly as you think Jesus should have said. Focus on the language of the Bible rather than a translation into another language. As to additional information you are introducing, you stated the Greek usage of the feminine and masculine form. Realize first that the original Aramaic name for Rock (Peter), "Kepha," transliterated into Cephas, is preserved elsewhere within the Biblical Koine Greek text. Thus we know that Jesus, who spoke Aramaic, renamed Simon as Kepha (Rock). Koine Greek does not allow a man to be given a feminine name in a translation into Greek. Catholics have often pointed out that "Rock" is used a number of times in the Bible to refer to God. Thus the renaming of Simon to Rock is of particular significance, it shows an association with God. Peter is given a special role by God here on earth, as a shepherd to the people. While Jesus is our cornerstone, in fact Jesus said "Thou art Rock (Peter) and upon this Rock I will build My Church." Trying to go outside of this sentence to find various other usages of the word should not distract from the clear meaning. There was no reason for Jesus to even mention Peter in the sentence if Peter somehow were not that Rock, let alone give Simon Peter the name of "Rock."

 

[jas3]

Positional authority, is in men like police, or those who govern in the natural world, or parents rulers etc.

Alright, thank you for the clarification.

I quoted Ephesians 4:15,16, which shows that Christ works in every believer to edify one another.

Yes, and edifying one another has nothing to do with authority.

Sone who have gifts and are mature will be very needful in the body and effective. But this does not make them like some lord over others or a controller. The reason believers listen to other elders is not because they are in a static position (which they should not be in), for even overseers is a function, but they are to be listened to because they are in Christ speaking the word of God and reflecting the life of Christ.

The concept of an office or "static position" being tied to spiritual authority is biblical. When the Apostles needed to replace Judas, they did so quoting Psalm 109: "For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take" (Acts 1:20). Other translations use "office" instead of bishopric, but either translation denotes a "position to be filled."
Also, 1 Tim. 3:1 - "This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work." And later in the same chapter, "And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless... they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus." (1 Tim. 3:10,13)

The authority all believers have is similar to Jesus authority which he gives to all believers this authority.

Luke 10: 19. Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.”

This is a kind of spiritual authority, sure. But it is not the only kind, certainly not authority to "keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account," and it's not clear that that promise is given to all believers or only to the seventy. Anecdotally, there are probably quite a few counterexamples from the snake handling congregations.

Jesus was questioned by the false religious men of his day and asked by what authority he did things by. He asked them by what authority John the Baptist spoke. John was a prophet, but not in a positional authority in the temple or among the Jewish leaders. John's authority cane directly from God.

They weren't "false religious men," they had legitimate authority but were opposed to God. Jesus told the Jews to do what the scribes and Pharisees taught them to do, because of their positional authority (the seat of Moses), but warned them not to do what the scribes and Pharisees actually did (Matt. 23:2-3), because they were hypocrites.
Now, for the authority of John, it's true that he, like other prophets, was chosen directly by God independent of his having a position of authority. But Christians today aren't prophets in the same sense that John or Samuel or Elijah were.

Jesus also spoke as one having authority, not as the scribes aand Pharisees.

Jesus was not in a positional authority in a static office or title. He was not a earthly king or religious leader in the temple so the false men tried to challenge his authority. But he spoke as one having authority. His word and life were the authority.

Well yes, Jesus is God. He didn't have authority because of anything He did, He had authority because He is the Authority above all authority, the Source of authority. Christians, therefore, can't claim that for themselves.

Also, there are not just pastor gifts abd teacher gifts mebtioned in Ephesians 4, there are also apostles and prophets and evangelist today as well. These gifts have not ceased.

Verse 11 says "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;" past tense. There is nothing to indicate that there are modern apostles or prophets.

For them to be told to obey them is to say allow your l selves to be persuaded by what is said.

That's an assertion for which you'll have to provide evidence. There is no sense of "allowance" in the definition. The verb is "persuade," not "allow." If the verb were "kill," the passive imperative would be, "be killed," or more idiomatically, "(you,) die," not, "allow yourself to be killed."

The reason being is that vs 7, they have spoken the word of God.

No, the reason is given in the same verse:
"Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls"

Yes there can, we see in scripture they had great disagreements at times but came to peace and any could speak, , a few did. Acts 15

Acts 15 is actually a case that contradicts your position. Instead of the believers in Antioch passing judgment against the Judaizers, or excommunicating them, they refer the matter to a council outside of their congregation, specifically to be considered by "the apostles and elders" (v. 2). Upon their arrival in Jerusalem, Paul and Barnabas are welcomed by "the church, and... the apostles and elders," (v. 4). Then, the council was only composed of "apostles and elders" (v. 6). The rest of "the church" (v. 4) was left out. The matter was decided by a council of men in positions of spiritual authority, not by a congregation, not by laymen. It was not a place where "any could speak," because it was not open to everyone.

You might find some of this info helpful

I'll read this as I get time and respond to it if there's anything relevant to this thread. From reading the first part it seems like some of your arguments here are sourced from this book, which makes some very unbiblical claims (see for example the claim about there not being an "office" of being an apostle or bishop, as opposed to Acts 1:20 and the passages I cited from 1 Tim. 3 that explicitly say these are "offices.") I have also never heard anyone ask who someone else's "covering" is.

 

[LoveofTruth]

Verse 11 says "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;" past tense. There is nothing to indicate that there are modern apostles or prophets.

Hello again God bless,

I will address your comments in parts its easier that way,

Yes, Ephesianbs 4: does indicate that there are all five of these ministries for today and nowhere do we see they have ceased in scripture. We read in Ephesians 4

"Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. 9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? 10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.) 11And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ" (Ephesians 4:8-13 KJV)

Notice here that he gave gifts unto men (the five mentioned in this section) after the resurrection. So these apostles given after the resurrection and prophets were not the original apostles and prophets before he died and rose again. That is the first consideration.

Also these gifts are needed for the perfecting of the saints and "Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ".

also we read of other apostles after Christ rose who were not the first twelve apostles. We read of apostles and prophets clearly in scripture as seen here.

“Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.” ( Acts 13:1)

Notice here that there were certain prophets there, after there was a call from God to send men out, we see that Barnabas was one of the sent ones with Paul. Barnabas was then an apostle after he was sent out. As we see in scripture clearly to the unbiased reader and who have eyes to see.

“Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,”" ( Acts 14:14 KJV)

We also read of tother apostles such as Silvanus and Timotheous,

“Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.”" * 1 Thess. 1:1)

with

“Nor of men sought we glory, neither of you, nor yet of others, when we might have been burdensome, as the apostles of Christ.” ( 2 Thess. 2:6 KJV)


Also I see Titus and other brethren as apostles also, we read,

"“Whether any do enquire of Titus, he is my partner and fellowhelper concerning you: or our brethren be enquired of, they are the messengers of the churches, and the glory of Christ.” ( 2 Cor. 8:23 KJV)

the word "Messengers" there in Greak means

messengers - ἀπόστολος apóstolos, ap-os'-tol-os; from G649; a delegate; specially, an ambassador of the Gospel; officially a commissioner of Christ ("apostle") (with miraculous powers):—apostle, messenger, he that is sent.

 

[LoveofTruth]

I'll read this as I get time and respond to it if there's anything relevant to this thread.

there is much that is relevant there

From reading the first part it seems like some of your arguments here are sourced from this book,

no, I know of these things way before I read the book and met Frank. But I have agreed to certain words used like "positional authority". I believe that expression is good for clarity.

which makes some very unbiblical claims

You would have to be more specific, woute the section in context of what he said. But I do not have to agree with everything to use arts i agree with. i find much of what he wrote sound scripturally.

(see for example the claim about there not being an "office" of being an apostle or bishop, as opposed to Acts 1:20

I cannot speak for him, But as for what I have seen in scripture about this. The word apostle is a "gift" unto men, a sent one a messenger from God. It is a function in the body.

The word bishop is overseer, and it shows a function in the body not a static office. Overseers watch over and guide in the spirit as they have God work in them, mot Lord over or control others. The word "office" reveals this and means more of a service.

We read that all believers have an "office" as they walk in the spirit and use their gifts and edify one another

For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith. 4 For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office: 5 So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another. 6 Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith;" ( Romans 12:3-8 KJV)

Notice that the context speaks of all the body and no man should think more highly than he ought to,but why is this?, because all have some "office" and gifts to edify all. Even though not all have the same "office" all have an office," or part and function in the body to edify. This is in Gods power (authority)

I have also never heard anyone ask who someone else's "covering" is.

I have had others ask me "who is my covering" in the error they spoke.

 

[WilliamC]

In others words, don't expect something written in Koine Greek to come out exactly as you think Jesus should have said. Focus on the language of the Bible rather than a translation into another language. As to additional information you are introducing, you stated the Greek usage of the feminine and masculine form. Realize first that the original Aramaic name for Rock (Peter), "Kepha," transliterated into Cephas, is preserved elsewhere within the Biblical Koine Greek text. Thus we know that Jesus, who spoke Aramaic, renamed Simon as Kepha (Rock). Koine Greek does not allow a man to be given a feminine name in a translation into Greek. Catholics have often pointed out that "Rock" is used a number of times in the Bible to refer to God. Thus the renaming of Simon to Rock is of particular significance, it shows an association with God. Peter is given a special role by God here on earth, as a shepherd to the people. While Jesus is our cornerstone, in fact Jesus said "Thou art Rock (Peter) and upon this Rock I will build My Church." Trying to go outside of this sentence to find various other usages of the word should not distract from the clear meaning. There was no reason for Jesus to even mention Peter in the sentence if Peter somehow were not that Rock, let alone give Simon Peter the name of "Rock."

A true searcher of the Scriptures must always go outside one verse to reconcile Scripture. The Scriptures themselves reinforce this! Line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, there a little. Search the Scriptures... rightly divide the word of truth...
Why are you trying to discourage the searching of Scripture? Get thee hence behind us Satan.

 

[Valletta]

A true searcher of the Scriptures must always go outside one verse to reconcile Scripture. The Scriptures themselves reinforce this! Line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, there a little. Search the Scriptures... rightly divide the word of truth...
Why are you trying to discourage the searching of Scripture? Get thee hence behind us Satan.

Understanding the whole of Scripture is indeed the way of the Catholic Church. As I pointed out, it is important to examine the original meanings of the words in the language those words were spoke or written rather than in English. As I have pointed out, "Rock" was used many times elsewhere in the Bible to refer to God. I am not discouraging such an examination of the Bible, I am encouraging it. And here Jesus renames Simon as "Rock." Thus it is of great significance. That does not mean Jesus is saying Simon Peter is God, but instead Simon is being given a name, a role, associated with God. I am pointing out the fallacy in the argument that the "Rock" in the second part of the sentence does not refer to the "Rock" in the first part of the sentence. That somehow it is just a coincidence that Jesus renames Simon as "Rock" and then says He will build His Church upon "Rock" in the very same sentence. It's like trying to put a square peg in a round hole. Jesus could have done the actual renaming of Simon as Rock at any other time, and for His Church simply said "I am Jesus and upon this Rock I will build My Church." That's not what Jesus said.
Additionally, a thorough knowledge of Holy Scripture brings one to a recognition of the parallel of words used by Jesus to Isaiah 22 that so many Jews of the time would have recognized in regard to the keys to the kingdom.

 

[jas3]

Notice here that he gave gifts unto men (the five mentioned in this section) after the resurrection. So these apostles given after the resurrection and prophets were not the original apostles and prophets before he died and rose again. That is the first consideration.

Not necessarily. Jesus appeared to the apostles after His resurrection (Acts 1:3) and sent the Holy Spirit to them at Pentecost.

Also these gifts are needed for the perfecting of the saints and "Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ".

And they are serving that purpose, but not with modern-day apostles. The faith of the apostles of the Apostolic Age has edified Christians from then to now. You could say that the gift is also presently working in the Church through the apostolic succession of bishops.

also we read of other apostles after Christ rose who were not the first twelve apostles. We read of apostles and prophets clearly in scripture as seen here.

“Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.” ( Acts 13:1)

The historical Christian understanding of this verse and other mentions of apostles and prophets is that they were 1) part of the 70 or 72 apostles/disciples appointed by Jesus in Acts 10, with the exception of Paul, or 2) a preacher and defender of the faith. We will probably just disagree on this point, but the Bible says nothing one way or the other for anyone except Paul about an apostle appointed after the Resurrection.

Notice here that there were certain prophets there, after there was a call from God to send men out, we see that Barnabas was one of the sent ones with Paul. Barnabas was then an apostle after he was sent out. As we see in scripture clearly to the unbiased reader and who have eyes to see.

The text says nothing about Barnabas becoming an apostle between Acts 13 and 14, you're inferring from the first use of the term that he became one.

no, I know of these things way before I read the book and met Frank. But I have agreed to certain words used like "positional authority". I believe that expression is good for clarity.

It's actually very confusing without reading his differentiation between what he calls "positional" and "functional" mindsets. I thought you had misheard the phrase "position of authority" at some point as "positional authority" and were repeating it here.

You would have to be more specific, woute the section in context of what he said.

It's mostly what we're discussing here. For example, he writes: What Jesus is condemning in these texts is not oppressive leaders as such. He’s condemning the hierarchical form of leadership that dominates the Gentile world.
This is quite a stretch from his pained semantic analysis of katexousiazo (which is not even the word used in the passage he cites from Luke, it's from the corresponding passages in Matthew and Mark) which incorrectly says "kata" means "over" and then claims that any exercise of authority is "lording it over" others. But there are plenty of examples of Christians in the New Testament exercising authority legitimately and hierarchically (e.g. the council of apostles and elders in Acts 15).

I'll respond to the rest of what you've written in a second post, but it's very late and I'll need to get to it later.

 

[LoveofTruth]

Not necessarily. Jesus appeared to the apostles after His resurrection (Acts 1:3) and sent the Holy Spirit to them at Pentecost.

This was not where he called them as apostles ( or prophets given) . The verses in Ephesians speak of other gifts given to the body after Christ rose again.

We know that Jesus called unto him apostles way before this in Luke 6 and Matthew 10. These were given before he rose again. So it is not right to try and equate the apostles (like Paul, Timotheous, Barnabas, Titus and other prophets) with the original call before pentecost.

Here is a section to prove what I said here,

“And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles;” (Luke 6:13 KJV)

you are totally incorrect in your reasoning here. Totally.

The faith of the apostles of the Apostolic Age has edified Christians from then to now.

There is no such idea of an "apostolic age" that is a man made teaching. We see for all times God gave gifts unto men, some apostles and prophets as well as pastors and teachers and evangelist. These are all needed. And that section in Ephesians says nothing about only pastors and evangelist and teacher existing after some made up "apostolic age". If some want to eliminate two vital important gifts as apostles and prophets, then they would have to eliminate pastors, teachers and evangelist as well. Which would be spiritually dangerous, as it is spiritually dangerous to follow a man made teaching that the apostles and prophets are not for today.

You could say that the gift is also presently working in the Church through the apostolic succession of bishops.

No, we could not say that. The teaching of Paul and Peter and John and others is working through the scriptures given and to those who believe the word that works in those who believe. For the scriptures are given by the Spirit. But the body still needs apostles and prophets today, until we all come unto the unity of the faith unto the perfect man. They are also needed for the work of the ministry and for the edifying of the body and perfecting .

The historical Christian understanding of this verse and other mentions of apostles and prophets is that they were 1) part of the 70 or 72 apostles/disciples appointed by Jesus in Acts 10,

No, it says nothing of this. In Acts There were a few men mentioned by name and it says nothing of them being part of the seventy. We know that after the risen Lord he gave gifts apostles and prophets among them. So we see that Barnabas was possibly one of these prophets and teachers but when he was a sent one ( meaning apostle) he then became an apostle at that time as Acts 14 shows and what I shared previously. This was not an assumption, it is clearly seen in the text. So if an apostle can be made right at that moment then prophets could have come after the risen Christ. We know that Paul planted churches and when these churches gathered there were prophets among them and Paul said to "let the prophets speak two or three" (1 Cor 14) so clearly there were prophets after the Christ rose. For a church to be planted they can have many gifts among them. This refers to the church started from non believers and then gathering, all after Christ rose.

We see this here ,consider these verses that correct your teaching,

“And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.” (1 Corinthians 12:28) First meaning in function and order of work, not lording over or controllers.

“Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.”" (1 Cor. 14:29 KJV)

they were even to seek gifts. These gifts would not be from the 70 way back, but new among them.

“Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy.”

with the exception of Paul, or 2) a preacher and defender of the faith.

Paul is one evidence of apostles after Christ rose and he fits into the Ephesians 4 verse about God giving apostles, after Christ rose. He alone would disprove the assumption that the apostles were before Christ rose in the twelve only.

We will probably just disagree on this point,

If you go along with scripture in the Spirit I would not disagree. But you seem to be more under the teachings of men and traditions that make the word of God of no effect and wold hinder the vitality of gifts in the church such as apostles and prophets. I have an apostolic calling and other gifts. Even though you would deny that. It makes no matter to me I seek to follow the Lords leading.

but the Bible says nothing one way or the other for anyone except Paul about an apostle appointed after the Resurrection.

It says a great deal in scripture. i showed you a bit of that.

The text says nothing about Barnabas becoming an apostle between Acts 13 and 14, you're inferring from the first use of the term that he became one.

Yes it does say that exactly. Barnabas, was either a prophet and teacher or a Prophet or teacher. He was not an apostle ( sent one) yet, until this happened

"As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. 3 And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. 4 So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost,..." ( Acts 13:2-4 KJV)

Notice that Barnabas was separated unto the work of God then and sent forth. The very word apostle means "a sent one",they were sent by God for a specific work. This was the case with Barnabas, and in Acts 14 we now read different about him, not that he was only a prophet or teacher, but the word apostle is attached to him. So something happened from Acts 13 call by the Spirit and being a sent one to Acts 14:14

“Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,”

ἀπόστολος apóstolos, ap-os'-tol-os; from G649; a delegate; specially, an ambassador of the Gospel; officially a commissioner of Christ ("apostle") (with miraculous powers):—apostle, messenger, he that is sent.

It is SOO CLEAR I marvel at how you can miss this. But as I have been saying all through this discussion the natural man cannot see the things of the Spirit. But to be gracious here, you may simply have strong unbiblical biases and will not see it because it so clearly shatters the teaching you have here and then you would have to rethink all you have said and the assembly you gather with and the wrong teaching of the group you are with and others through the centuries. Barnabas was called an apostle here it is undeniable to the unbiased reader in the spirit. Let everything that can be shaken be shaken so all we see is that glorious image of Christ and his truth.

It uses the words "apostles" plural, speaking of Paul and Barnabas in context. No denying this. This happened after Acts 13 where Barnabas was not an apostle at that time. This fits into the verse in Ephesians 4 where God gave apostles and prophets after Christ rose.

It's actually very confusing without reading his differentiation between what he calls "positional" and "functional" mindsets.

I do not find it confusing at all. natural authority and spiritual authority are not the same in the church. Christ has all authority and he gives that to all believers in various ways as they walk in the Spirit and have God working in them all to make them perfect unto every good work.

 

[LoveofTruth]

The historical Christian understanding of this verse

Do you mean the men you approve of who put there own understanding into the verse to try and eliminate apostles and prophets today.

Remember, I showed clearly that men like Barnabas, Timotheous, Silvanus, Titusand others were apostles after Christ rose. We also read of men called prophets in the church after Christ was risen and in the Corinthian church Paul said let the prophets speak two or three and he encouraged them to desire spiritual gifts and to prophesy.

“Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.”" ( 1 Cor.14:29 KJV

"So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another. 6 Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith;" (Romans 12:5,6 KJV)

 

[WilliamC]

Understanding the whole of Scripture is indeed the way of the Catholic Church.

If only it really was.

As I pointed out, it is important to examine the original meanings of the words in the language those words were spoke or written rather than in English. As I have pointed out, "Rock" was used many times elsewhere in the Bible to refer to God. I am not discouraging such an examination of the Bible, I am encouraging it. And here Jesus renames Simon as "Rock." Thus it is of great significance.

It has already been stated... the two "rocks" in the verses are different. Peter is not instrumental for the success of Christ's church, but Jesus, and His truth's are.

That does not mean Jesus is saying Simon Peter is God, but instead Simon is being given a name, a role, associated with God.

God adds no role for any sinner man concerning His work of salvation.

I am pointing out the fallacy in the argument that the "Rock" in the second part of the sentence does not refer to the "Rock" in the first part of the sentence.

Again, the use of different words show they are not the same.

That somehow it is just a coincidence that Jesus renames Simon as "Rock" and then says He will build His Church upon "Rock" in the very same sentence. It's like trying to put a square peg in a round hole.

Only according to the RCC.

Jesus could have done the actual renaming of Simon as Rock at any other time, and for His Church simply said "I am Jesus and upon this Rock I will build My Church." That's not what Jesus said.

The RC's try too hard to put the square peg into the round hole.

Additionally, a thorough knowledge of Holy Scripture brings one to a recognition of the parallel of words used by Jesus to Isaiah 22 that so many Jews of the time would have recognized in regard to the keys to the kingdom.

Yes, a thorough knowledge of the Holy Scripture reveals a lot, IF used correctly, such as rightly dividing the understanding of Isaiah 22, which the RCC fails to do. Isaiah 22 never mentions "keys of the kingdom". But the Scriptures do expand on the correct understanding of "key of the David".

If your referring to the "key of David" in Isaiah 22,...only Jesus has it, as was intended to all along. (Rev. 3:7).

The RCC believes that Peter was given "keys" to the Kingdom, yet they expand it to somehow mean "The key of David". What does Scripture REALLY reveal about the "key of David"? The RCC uses Is. 22:22 to try and prop up their belief it somehow means ultimate authority given to Peter. (keys to the Kingdom).
Not the same.
We start in Rev. 3:7, which tells us that Jesus has "the key of David".... and He opens and no man shuts, shuts and no man opens.
This leaves Peter out as having the key of David, because Jesus has it. It was never something to be passed down to mere men.
Oh, but then what is the key of David? Why does Jesus have it? And how come Peter can't have it?
It was God's covenant made with David.
In II Sam. 7:12,13,16, God tells David that He will set up David's seed and establish his kingdom. His seed will build a house (Solomon) and God would establish the throne of his kingdom (David's)(Judah) FOREVER. (Solomon does not live forever, so there is further implication here.)
(16) "And thine house and kingdom (David, Judah) shall be established forever...thy throne... Forever".
Psalms 89:2,3,20,28,29,36 reinforces the Davidic covenant. David's lineage and the tribe of Judah.
Peter, speaks at Pentecost in Acts 2:29,30 that God swore an oath to David that the fruit of his loins, Christ, was the one to sit upon his throne. (Forever).
Jeremiah 33 goes as far to say that this "Branch" of David (15), the Lord (16) was the forever person talked about. No man needed to sit upon the throne of the house (17), and EVEN further, that no man was needed any further as a priest like the Levites (18) . Jesus is the forever man. No mere man has this prerogative of living forever!
Isaiah 9:6,7 "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgement and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this".
Point? Peter was not from the tribe of Judah, nor could he continue forever. . These were prerequisites. Peter does NOT have the key of David... nor any supposed mere men successors, ONLY Jesus does.
This is reconciling the Scriptures, not wishful thinking.. What a concept, you should try it sometime.
You do not prove your brand... you just take one verse and try to prop up usurped authority. Still trying to take a prerogative of God away again.
You have been led astray by those men who have told you what to believe about God's Holy Word!
Not buying it.

 

[The Liturgist]

If only it really was.

It has already been stated... the two "rocks" in the verses are different. Peter is not instrumental for the success of Christ's church, but Jesus, and His truth's are.

God adds no role for any sinner man concerning His work of salvation.

Again, the use of different words show they are not the same.


Only according to the RCC.

The RC's try too hard to put the square peg into the round hole.

Yes, a thorough knowledge of the Holy Scripture reveals a lot, IF used correctly, such as rightly dividing the understanding of Isaiah 22, which the RCC fails to do. Isaiah 22 never mentions "keys of the kingdom". But the Scriptures do expand on the correct understanding of "key of the David".

If your referring to the "key of David" in Isaiah 22,...only Jesus has it, as was intended to all along. (Rev. 3:7).

The RCC believes that Peter was given "keys" to the Kingdom, yet they expand it to somehow mean "The key of David". What does Scripture REALLY reveal about the "key of David"? The RCC uses Is. 22:22 to try and prop up their belief it somehow means ultimate authority given to Peter. (keys to the Kingdom).
Not the same.
We start in Rev. 3:7, which tells us that Jesus has "the key of David".... and He opens and no man shuts, shuts and no man opens.
This leaves Peter out as having the key of David, because Jesus has it. It was never something to be passed down to mere men.
Oh, but then what is the key of David? Why does Jesus have it? And how come Peter can't have it?
It was God's covenant made with David.
In II Sam. 7:12,13,16, God tells David that He will set up David's seed and establish his kingdom. His seed will build a house (Solomon) and God would establish the throne of his kingdom (David's)(Judah) FOREVER. (Solomon does not live forever, so there is further implication here.)
(16) "And thine house and kingdom (David, Judah) shall be established forever...thy throne... Forever".
Psalms 89:2,3,20,28,29,36 reinforces the Davidic covenant. David's lineage and the tribe of Judah.
Peter, speaks at Pentecost in Acts 2:29,30 that God swore an oath to David that the fruit of his loins, Christ, was the one to sit upon his throne. (Forever).
Jeremiah 33 goes as far to say that this "Branch" of David (15), the Lord (16) was the forever person talked about. No man needed to sit upon the throne of the house (17), and EVEN further, that no man was needed any further as a priest like the Levites (18) . Jesus is the forever man. No mere man has this prerogative of living forever!
Isaiah 9:6,7 "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgement and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this".
Point? Peter was not from the tribe of Judah, nor could he continue forever. . These were prerequisites. Peter does NOT have the key of David... nor any supposed mere men successors, ONLY Jesus does.
This is reconciling the Scriptures, not wishful thinking.. What a concept, you should try it sometime.
You do not prove your brand... you just take one verse and try to prop up usurped authority. Still trying to take a prerogative of God away again.
You have been led astray by those men who have told you what to believe about God's Holy Word!
Not buying it.

I am not Roman Catholic, but I have to say, if I were Roman Catholic, the constant attacks against the agency of Roman Catholic Christians to discern their own beliefs and practice Roman Catholicism of their own free will would be incredibly offensive, to the extent that it would turn me off to the idea of converting from Roman Catholicism and make my faith in the Roman Church more intense.

On those occasions when I have debated Roman Catholics, because while I agree with much of their theology, there is a difference between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism which is not insubstantial, although I do pray that our two churches will be reconciled, I have never made an argument that implies Roman Catholics have a lack of agency. I think the idea that they do not have agency in their beliefs is disproven by the large number of cradle Catholics who wind up converting to other forms of Christianity, and the large number of other Christians who wind up joining the Roman church. I myself would probably have joined had Pope Benedict XVI not resigned and been replaced by the current pope, who I find very disagreeable.

 

[The Liturgist]

In others words, don't expect something written in Koine Greek to come out exactly as you think Jesus should have said. Focus on the language of the Bible rather than a translation into another language. As to additional information you are introducing, you stated the Greek usage of the feminine and masculine form. Realize first that the original Aramaic name for Rock (Peter), "Kepha," transliterated into Cephas, is preserved elsewhere within the Biblical Koine Greek text. Thus we know that Jesus, who spoke Aramaic, renamed Simon as Kepha (Rock). Koine Greek does not allow a man to be given a feminine name in a translation into Greek. Catholics have often pointed out that "Rock" is used a number of times in the Bible to refer to God. Thus the renaming of Simon to Rock is of particular significance, it shows an association with God. Peter is given a special role by God here on earth, as a shepherd to the people. While Jesus is our cornerstone, in fact Jesus said "Thou art Rock (Peter) and upon this Rock I will build My Church." Trying to go outside of this sentence to find various other usages of the word should not distract from the clear meaning. There was no reason for Jesus to even mention Peter in the sentence if Peter somehow were not that Rock, let alone give Simon Peter the name of "Rock."

It is worth noting that the early church agreed with Petrine primacy even though it rejected Papal supremacy. For this reason, as a primacy of honor, the churches of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch came first in the order of precedence, as these are the three Petrine sees, because St. Peter was the first bishop of the Churches of Rome and Antioch, and his disciple St. Mark was the first bishop of the Church of Alexandria. This is confirmed by Canon VI of the Council of Nicaea, which declares that the churches of Antioch and Alexandria have the same authority in their canonical territories and the same rights and privileges as the Church in Rome, and then Canon VII grants these privileges to the newly restored Church of Jerusalem, following the reconstruction of the Hagiopolis by St. Helena, the mother of Emperor St. Constantine the Great.

 

[WilliamC]

I am not Roman Catholic, but I have to say, if I were Roman Catholic, the constant attacks against the agency of Roman Catholic Christians to discern their own beliefs and practice Roman Catholicism of their own free will would be incredibly offensive, to the extent that it would turn me off to the idea of converting from Roman Catholicism and make my faith in the Roman Church more intense.

On those occasions when I have debated Roman Catholics, because while I agree with much of their theology, there is a difference between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism which is not insubstantial, although I do pray that our two churches will be reconciled, I have never made an argument that implies Roman Catholics have a lack of agency. I think the idea that they do not have agency in their beliefs is disproven by the large number of cradle Catholics who wind up converting to other forms of Christianity, and the large number of other Christians who wind up joining the Roman church. I myself would probably have joined had Pope Benedict XVI not resigned and been replaced by the current pope, who I find very disagreeable.

I guess the truth can hurt and even be offensive. Further, this is a site of debate made of varying opinions by many. Otherwise, take it down.

 

[jas3]

I cannot speak for him, But as for what I have seen in scripture about this. The word apostle is a "gift" unto men, a sent one a messenger from God. It is a function in the body.

You keep avoiding Acts 1:20, which specifically says that there was an office (specifically an "episcopate") which Judas held that then passed on to another man.

The word bishop is overseer, and it shows a function in the body not a static office. Overseers watch over and guide in the spirit as they have God work in them, mot Lord over or control others. The word "office" reveals this and means more of a service.

I would be interested to see you back this up with Scripture instead of just asserting it.

We read that all believers have an "office" as they walk in the spirit and use their gifts and edify one another

Because you're using the KJV, which uses "office" in multiple contexts. There's nothing wrong with that, as long as we understand that much like the word "minister" can mean one who helps/ministers in the general sense or can denote a specific ordained man, the word "office" can mean function or position. In this context, the original Greek word is πρᾶξιν, meaning "function." But the Greek word in Acts 1:20 and 1 Tim. 3:1 is ἐπισκοπή, meaning "bishopric" or "office (position) of a bishop."

This was not where he called them as apostles ( or prophets given) . The verses in Ephesians speak of other gifts given to the body after Christ rose again.

It never says that Christ appointed apostles other than Paul after His resurrection. The Twelve were given the gift of tongues at Pentecost - that's a gift given to them in their capacity as apostles after the Resurrection.

If some want to eliminate two vital important gifts as apostles and prophets, then they would have to eliminate pastors, teachers and evangelist as well.

Nobody is trying to "eliminate gifts." These gifts were given, and they continue to edify, just as Scripture says.

But the body still needs apostles and prophets today, until we all come unto the unity of the faith unto the perfect man.

Maybe you could elaborate on what you conceive of as a modern apostle or prophet. What most people think of when they hear those phrases are the Mormon men in white suits and ties who claim to be able to provide new revelation from God.

No, it says nothing of this. In Acts There were a few men mentioned by name and it says nothing of them being part of the seventy. We know that after the risen Lord he gave gifts apostles and prophets among them.

This, again, doesn't mean that He is appointing new apostles.

So we see that Barnabas was possibly one of these prophets and teachers but when he was a sent one ( meaning apostle) he then became an apostle at that time as Acts 14 shows and what I shared previously. This was not an assumption, it is clearly seen in the text.

Oh, but it is an assumption. If you can dismiss the possibility of Barnabas being one of the seventy based on it being absent from the text, then I can dismiss the possibility of Barnabas having received a spiritual gift which made him an apostle, because that's not in the text either. It's not as simple as saying, "he was sent by the Holy Ghost, therefore he's a 'sent one,' therefore he's an apostle" because your argument is not that "apostle" is being used to indicate a messenger or a "man on a mission" in the general sense, it's that "apostle" is a specific spiritual gift.

“And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.” (1 Corinthians 12:28) First meaning in function and order of work, not lording over or controllers.

This is completely compatible with what I've said. God did set up apostles, prophets, teachers, miracles, and spiritual gifts in the Church.

“Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.”" (1 Cor. 14:29 KJV)

Again, completely compatible with what I've said in post #1151.

they were even to seek gifts. These gifts would not be from the 70 way back, but new among them.

“Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy.”

Again, I don't deny the existence of spiritual gifts in general, but I think a lot of people today have unfortunately as a result of the recent Pentecostal movement taken a "cargo cult" mentality toward 1 Cor. 14 and try to reproduce the first century Church based on artifacts it left behind without understanding how it actually functioned, leading them to fall into prelest.

Paul is one evidence of apostles after Christ rose and he fits into the Ephesians 4 verse about God giving apostles, after Christ rose. He alone would disprove the assumption that the apostles were before Christ rose in the twelve only.

I didn't say they were in the Twelve only. I said that they were the Twelve, including Matthias who replaced Judas, the seventy, and Paul.

If you go along with scripture in the Spirit I would not disagree. But you seem to be more under the teachings of men and traditions that make the word of God of no effect and wold hinder the vitality of gifts in the church such as apostles and prophets.

Ah, the old "if you were reading Scripture correctly you would agree with me, because I am infallible" argument. It's one that never considers the implication that your exotic interpretation of Scripture, which is not shared by any denomination that existed prior to 1906, requires that all Christians prior to that time were wrong.

It is SOO CLEAR I marvel at how you can miss this. But as I have been saying all through this discussion the natural man cannot see the things of the Spirit.

I would be extremely careful about my previously-unheard-of reading of Scripture if I were you. It may not be me (and all non-charismatic Christians) who is reading this incorrectly.

 

[Valletta]

We start in Rev. 3:7, which tells us that Jesus has "the key of David".... and He opens and no man shuts, shuts and no man opens.
This leaves Peter out as having the key of David, because Jesus has it. It was never something to be passed down to mere men.
Oh, but then what is the key of David? Why does Jesus have it? And how come Peter can't have it?
It was God's covenant made with David.

Isaiah 22:15-23 15 Thus says the Lord, the GOD of hosts: Up, go to that official, Shebna, master of the palace, 16 Who has hewn for himself a sepulcher on a height and carved his tomb in the rock: “What are you doing here, and what people have you here, that here you have hewn for yourself a tomb?” 17 The LORD shall hurl you down headlong, mortal man! He shall grip you firmly 18 And roll you up and toss you like a ball into an open land To perish there, you and the chariots you glory in, you disgrace to your master’s house! 19 I will thrust you from your office and pull you down from your station. 20 On that day I will summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah; 21 I will clothe him with your robe, and gird him with your sash, and give over to him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. 22 I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open. 23 I will fix him like a peg in a sure spot, to be a place of honor for his family;“

In the Davidic kingdom, the keys to the House of David are given to the prime minister as a sign of authority to the people. The prime minister is not royalty, he is a servant of the king. In Isaiah 22, Eliakim succeeded Shebna as prime minister. If you study Kings(1 Kings 4:6, 1 Kings 16:9, and 2 Kings 15:5.) you will find the names of others who held the office before Shebna. Eventually Eliakim himself was too succeeded.

 

[WilliamC]

Isaiah 22:15-23 15 Thus says the Lord, the GOD of hosts: Up, go to that official, Shebna, master of the palace, 16 Who has hewn for himself a sepulcher on a height and carved his tomb in the rock: “What are you doing here, and what people have you here, that here you have hewn for yourself a tomb?” 17 The LORD shall hurl you down headlong, mortal man! He shall grip you firmly 18 And roll you up and toss you like a ball into an open land To perish there, you and the chariots you glory in, you disgrace to your master’s house! 19 I will thrust you from your office and pull you down from your station. 20 On that day I will summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah; 21 I will clothe him with your robe, and gird him with your sash, and give over to him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. 22 I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open. 23 I will fix him like a peg in a sure spot, to be a place of honor for his family;“

In the Davidic kingdom, the keys to the House of David are given to the prime minister as a sign of authority to the people. The prime minister is not royalty, he is a servant of the king. In Isaiah 22, Eliakim succeeded Shebna as prime minister.

They were types. Till Christ came. Who now has the key of David. (Rev. 3:7). Go ahead, argue with Scripture.

If you study Kings(1 Kings 4:6, 1 Kings 16:9, and 2 Kings 15:5.) you will find the names of others who held the office before Shebna. Eventually Eliakim himself was too succeeded.

There is no mention of these men having the "key of David". They were all succeeded by the FOREVER Christ, who again, has the "key of David" in Rev. 3:7. No mere sinner men have this role. Sorry.