Was Peter a Pope, at least the first?

[ViaCrucis]

Sure it is. Pagans did not know of Christ. If they searched for God to the best of their abilities without knowing of Christ, who can blame them. Only those who refused the words of Christ after learning of them can be blamed.

Anglicans on the other hand were given the true faith in England. But they perverted their religion. The proof is what we see today in the Anglican church. What a mess. You know what I am talking about.

I also don't think standing, snub-nosed, at the Anglican Communion for whatever scandals or problems she has is a particularly wise position to stand either considering the scandals and problems in your own communion.

Acting like any of our communions or traditions are somehow without its own share of problems and scandals and presuming to stand in judgment of others is a rather hypocritical place to be.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[saintboniface]

...

There is historical evidence for the existence of popes long before 600 AD. Of course, I would argue that the papacy began with Peter the disciple.

 

[saintboniface]

I also don't think standing, snub-nosed, at the Anglican Communion for whatever scandals or problems she has is a particularly wise position to stand either considering the scandals and problems in your own communion.

Acting like any of our communions or traditions are somehow without its own share of problems and scandals and presuming to stand in judgment of others is a rather hypocritical place to be.

-CryptoLutheran

I am snubbing my nose against the doctrine of the Anglican church. The Catholic Church has problems with active homosexuals and pedophiles at a personnel level but has no "strange doctrine" like the Anglicans. They slithered into the Anglican church and changed the church. They haven't done so in the Catholic Church; I imagine because God is control in the doctrine of the Catholic Church. The day it changes is the day I quit religion.

 

[Edward65]

I am snubbing my nose against the doctrine of the Anglican church. The Catholic Church has problems with active homosexuals and pedophiles at a personnel level but has no "strange doctrine" like the Anglicans. They slithered into the Anglican church and changed the church. They haven't done so in the Catholic Church; I imagine because God is control in the doctrine of the Catholic Church. The day it changes is the day I quit religion.

Anglicanism is riven with internal contradictions. You’ve got adherents of every stripe - evangelicals, high church, liberals, feminists etc - and they all come with their respective theologies which all flourish under its umbrella. I certainly wouldn’t be a member of the Anglican church because the leadership is by and large composed of apostates who have allowed unchristian doctrine to take root and remain. Anglicanism is a complete theological mess and any true Christian should flee from it, but certainly not into Roman Catholocism - that would be like going from the frying pan into the fire. Catholicism is much further down the road of apostasy than Anglicanism because it has officially condemned the true Gospel of justification through faith alone and substituted a false gospel of meritorious works in its place.

All the organised churches are heterodox to one degree or another and I hold that one should remain outside of institutional Christianity (as I do myself) as this is the only way to remain faithful to Christ and the True Church.

You say the day that the Catholic church (as you perceive it) changes you'll quit religion. However that means you don't have any personal faith in Christ as your Saviour. Because if you had, your attitude would surely be that even if the church you belong to deserted Christ, you wouldn't do. If your religion depends upon the perceived loyalty of others to the degree that you would cease being involved in it if they didn't remain loyal themselves, then your religion isn't worth a thing. Just quit now.

 

[barryatlake]

The God -given Sacred Doctrine of the Catholic Church can never change, unchangeable.

 

[Albion]

The God -given Sacred Doctrine of the Catholic Church can never change, unchangeable.

And that's what you'll say every time it changes.

 

[Albion]

I am snubbing my nose against the doctrine of the Anglican church. The Catholic Church has problems with active homosexuals and pedophiles at a personnel level but has no "strange doctrine" like the Anglicans. They slithered into the Anglican church and changed the church. They haven't done so in the Catholic Church; I imagine because God is control in the doctrine of the Catholic Church. The day it changes is the day I quit religion.

Oh, there's no need to do that! Just do as you're taught to do--deny that it happened. Every unpleasantry can be sidestepped just by using different language, don't you know?

Easy divorces and remarriage can be passed off as "annulments" (and the payment of $800 dollars or so). Then too, sexual misconduct by the clergy can always be called exceptions to the rule, and look, you just got with the program by saying that such things "changed" the Anglican Church (well, a minority of Anglican churches, if you really knew or cared) while you just brushed everything under the rug in your own church with a hand gesture and a "haven't done so in the Catholic Church." So...you really have nothing to worry about with your head so firmly planted in the sand, not at all.

In fact, I'm thinking of adopting all those techniques--avoid, deny, excuse, criticize--when any reformed church is savaged by
anti-Protestant bashers here. Should be fun, and I know I won't have long to wait.

 

[Edward65]

The God -given Sacred Doctrine of the Catholic Church can never change, unchangeable.

At the heart of Catholicism is deception. In words it affirms that salvation is a gift of God through Christ, but in reality it teaches self-salvation through human effort, and it is so far down the road to total apostasy that it regards antichristian religions such as Islam, Hinduism and Judiasm as possible avenues of salvation. You are just being duped by those in control of the RC church into believing that RC ism is true Christianity when it is a complete and utter lie and deception.

Luther saw through the deception nearly 500 years ago and warned people about it but unfortunately his warnings are now falling on deaf ears, and people are once again flocking back to Roman Catholicism.

 

[barryatlake]

Albion,please point out any Catholic Doctrine that has changed.

Edwards, where in the Holy Bible does it say that the "Bible Alone" is the sole rule for salvation? Are you saying that all human beings who through no fault of their own that have never heard of the "Good News' of Jesus will be condemned to hell ?

 

[Albion]

Albion,please point out any Catholic Doctrine that has changed.

The church changed its belief concerning sin after Baptism and the validity of Baptisms performed by heretical sects (which Standing Up will be glad to discuss further).

It didn't come up with the "lesser" five sacraments until well into the Middle Ages.

There is no question whatsoever about the idea of Purgatory being a later invention. The earliest Christians believed the Second Coming was imminent, with the final judgment following, so Purgatory wouldn't even have made sense to them.

It recently announced that Infantile Limbo--which had been taught for centuries--never existed. The phase-out of Purgatory is currently underway.

The church used to permit abortion if before the age of "quickening."

The doctrine of the Real Presence was supplemented by the doctrine of Transubstantiation in the 13th century.

It used to be taught that there is no salvation outside the church; now, even pagans are supposed to be saved if they're loyal to their paganism.

The Church dropped some of the Apocrypha from the Bible in the 16th century--ironic, since Catholics often berate Luther for doing the same thing.

Well, that's the beginning of a list for you.

 

[Edward65]

Edwards, where in the Holy Bible does it say that the "Bible Alone" is the sole rule for salvation? Are you saying that all human beings who through no fault of their own that have never heard of the "Good News' of Jesus will be condemned to hell ?

The books of the Bible contain the teaching of the Prophets and Apostles who under direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit taught as they did. Their words therefore are the Word of God. We don’t have Prophets and Apostles with us now, therefore the teaching contained in the Bible is all that we have to guide us on the path to eternal life. Those who are pastors therefore should teach only those doctrines contained in the Bible and not add to them or twist them into meaning something different than the original authors intended - something of which your church is guilty of doing by claiming that extra-Biblical sources of teaching are also valid.

Your question concerning those who have never heard the Gospel is based on the assumption that we all have free-will and have the ability to respond affirmatively to the Gospel when we hear it, and therefore if a person doesn’t hear it he’s damned through no fault of his own. However this isn’t the teaching of the Bible. The Bible teaches that God chooses from eternity who to have mercy upon and elects only these to salvation, and that we don’t have free will to decide to be saved. So the fact that people are damned is due to God’s predestination in deciding not to elect them to salvation. This is the teaching of Paul in Romans 9. We’re all sinful due to the Fall and all deserve damnation but God in mercy has decided to save some people, but not all.

 

[barryatlake]

NoT one Holy Bibles was ever involved in this situation of Jesus commanding His Teaching Apostles as found in [ Matt. 28: 18-20 ]
Thomas ventured into India and converted many to Christianity without a bible.
Most Christians never saw a bible, all were taught verbally from the apostles and their future successors.
If Jesus wanted us to" solely" depend on the Holy Bible then He would have left us with the compiled bible as we have today instead of His apostolic church of [Matt.16:16-18] [ 2 Peter3:16 ] [ 2 Peter 1:29] [ 1 Tim. 3:14 ]
"There will be one fold and one shepherd" [ John10:16 ] not the many conflicting Protestant churches we find today.

[Luke 19:16 ] [ John 17:20-21 ] [ Eph. 4:3-6 ] . God/Jesus our Lord God said " And I will set up one shepherd [ notice small s Jesus is the Real Shepherd large S- Peter/ successors of ] over them, and he shall feed them " [ Ezechiel 34:23 ]

 

[Albion]

NoT one Holy Bibles was ever involved in this situation of Jesus commanding His Teaching Apostles as found in [ Matt. 28: 18-20 ]
Thomas ventured into India and converted many to Christianity without a bible.
Most Christians never saw a bible, all were taught verbally from the apostles and their future successors.

That's completely unhistorical. Most of the Bible was available to the first Christians from the start, and it would only have been the very first Christians who would not have had at least some of the Gospels and Paul's Epistles.

 

[Rawtheran]

Was he really the Church's first Pope? If not, who was really the first Pope? There were bishops and deacons, but I never found the word Pope in the Bible, which leads me to believe that there were no popes in Jesus' day, at least in Israel. By the way, I know that rapture does not appear in the Bible but I believe that there is indeed a rapture. Having said that, how does one qualify as a Pope? Couldn't Paul or Silas have been popes? They too were zealous proseletyzers like Peter was.

Not to be rude to Catholics, but there is no where in recorded history of Peter even becoming a Pope in fact there is nothing in the Bible that says a church should even be run by a Pope. From what people have gathered outside of the Bible since his death isn't recorded in the Bible he was crucified upside down in Rome, after preaching to the people there. Although he was the leader of the early Christian church he never held any actual central authority on par with the Pope of today. Just out of pure speculation I don't think that Peter if he were alive today and were offered the position of Pope would even accept it since it is a very powerful position, and he was known to live a modest, and simple life.

 

[barryatlake]

Albion, very historically correct, read the writings of early Christians.

Rawtheran,Peter being the first bishop of Rome had a very high price on his head, the roman soldiers were very vigilant in seeking out Christians especially of the new sects leaders.The first Christians kept silent about their first leader.

 

[Rawtheran]

That's completely unhistorical. Most of the Bible was available to the first Christians from the start, and it would only have been the very first Christians who would not have had at least some of the Gospels and Paul's Epistles.

Actually the Gospels of the New Testament were not written, and fully canonized until about 150 AD. The early Church actually just used the Old Testament and pointed out the prophecies concerning Jesus, and what ones he fulfilled, and will fulfill in the future. This was also before the split between Judaism, and Christianity.

 

[Edward65]

Are you saying that all human beings who through no fault of their own that have never heard of the "Good News' of Jesus will be condemned to hell ?

The Roman Catholic idea that the righteousness that saves us is the internal condition of the soul, and that God awards salvation to people according to how inwardly virtuous they are, isn’t what Christianity teaches. The grace that saves us isn’t a quality of the soul, but rather the mercy and love of God who credits to our account Christ’s righteousness, which can only be accepted by faith alone. So what saves the Christian is an external righteousness which God gives a person as a gift, not an internal righteousness which a person has acquired through doing good works.

So since salvation is something which one can only be acquired through faith alone in Christ who has atoned for our sins, people of other religions can’t participate in salvation because they don’t have the faith which accepts Christ’s righteousness. Therefore Catholicism is wrong when it says that those who have never heard of Christ can also be saved, depending on whether they have lived a virtuous life. This contradicts the Bible which says we are all sinners and can’t save ourselves and need God's righteousness as a gift:

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it—the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. (Romans 3:21-25, ESV)

For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. (Romans 5:17, ESV)

 

[BowTied]

Peter the first pope? Yes. And considering his latest successor, I wish Peter would come back.

 

[Edward65]

Peter the first pope? Yes. And considering his latest successor, I wish Peter would come back.

As you've just joined the thread and maybe haven't read all of the posts can I refer you to one of mine several pages back. I've copied it below:


Philip Schaff's History of the Christian Church Vol 4, chapter 4, section 51 on Gregory and the Universal Episcopate will be of interest:

History of the Christian Church, Volume IV: Mediaeval Christianity. A.D. 590-1073. - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

John IV., the Faster, patriarch of Constantinople, repeatedly used in his letters the title “oecumenical” or “universal bishop.” This was an honorary, title, which had been given to patriarchs by the emperors Leo and Justinian, and confirmed to John and his successors by a Constantinopolitan synod in 588. It had also been used in the Council of Chalcedon of pope Leo I. But Gregory I. was provoked and irritated beyond measure by the assumption of his Eastern rival, and strained every nerve to procure a revocation of that title. He characterized it as a foolish, proud, profane, wicked, pestiferous, blasphemous, and diabolical usurpation, and compared him who used it to Lucifer……

After the death of John the Faster in 596 Gregory instructed his ambassador at Constantinople to demand from the new patriarch, Cyriacus, as a condition of intercommunion, the renunciation of the wicked title, and in a letter to Maurice he went so far as to declare, that “whosoever calls himself universal priest, or desires to be called so, was the forerunner of Antichrist.”

In view of the fact that Gregory rejected the title of universal priest, Luther held that the first pope was Gregory’s next but one successor Boniface III who did accept the title. See Wikipedia on Boniface III:

His other notable act resulted from his close relationship with Emperor Phocas. He sought and obtained a decree from Phocas which restated that "the See of Blessed Peter the Apostle should be the head of all the Churches". This ensured that the title of "Universal Bishop" belonged exclusively to the Bishop of Rome, and effectively ended the attempt by Patriarch Cyriacus of Constantinople to establish himself as "Universal Bishop".

 

[packermann]

The books of the Bible contain the teaching of the Prophets and Apostles who under direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit taught as they did. Their words therefore are the Word of God. We don’t have Prophets and Apostles with us now, therefore the teaching contained in the Bible is all that we have to guide us on the path to eternal life.

Mark and Luke were not in apostles or prophets. So on what basis do you include their gospels in the Bible?

Those who are pastors therefore should teach only those doctrines contained in the Bible and not add to them or twist them into meaning something different than the original authors intended - something of which your church is guilty of doing by claiming that extra-Biblical sources of teaching are also valid.

Where is the word "Trinity" in the Bible? Since it is not in the bible, does that mean that we should not teach it?

The word "rapture" is only used once in the Bible, without saying anything about whether the rapture comes before, in the middle, or after the tribulation. Should we avoid teaching about this?

Where is it in Bible about "asking Jesus into your heart"? That phrase is not used even once in the Bible. Should we preach about that?
And what about "altar calls"? Should we not have altars calls because they are not in then Bible?

Why is there not one doctrine that Bible-believing Christians can agree on except possibly that Jesus isd Lord? Bible believing Christians cannot even agree how to be saved. Are we save by acepting Christ as Savior only? Or must we accept Christ as Savior and Lord? It seems to me that each person believes he interpreting the Bible correctly. It is always the other guy that is twisting scripture.