Was Peter a Pope, at least the first?

[Godisgood12]

Was Peter a Pope, at least the first?

Nope.

 

[Godisgood12]

Sorry if I'm not able to get back into this discussion. My Aunt passed away and I'm not sure how much time I have to devote to this before leaving for Fla.

God Bless

Sorry to hear that.

 

[SwordFall]

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.

There was no 'pope' because their was no 'official' church. Christianity was illegal for centuries after Christ.

But it's just splitting hairs to say that because Peter didn't have a hat and miter that he should not be considered the first pope.
He was very well precisely that. Did Jesus need to be an actual king on Earth to be King? The Jews thought so, and that's why they killed him.

 

[Albion]

The thing is even if the present pope or any pope did live without any of the trappings of wealth it wouldn't make any difference to the fact that they don't teach according to God's Word. That's the main thing or rather the only thing that really matters. That they live a wealthy lifestyle like heads of state isn't really the issue. It's what they teach which is the issue

Well, I'd just call that a different issue. But you're right that the thread is supposed to be about Papal authority or jurisdiction rather than lifestyle.

 

[com7fy8]

com7fy8, Matthew 28:19–20, Christ himself appointed certain men to be teachers in his Church: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations....."teaching"them to observe all that I have commanded you." Paul speaks of his commission as a teacher: "For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle . . . a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth" (1 Tim. 2:7); "For this gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher" (2 Tim. 1:11). He also reminds us that the Church has an office of teacher: "God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers" (1 Cor. 12:28); and "his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers" (Eph. 4:11).

"nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock." (1 Peter 5:3) Paul actually lived in real life with the people he was reaching to and caring for. They knew who and how he was, he could say > "But we were gentle among you, just as a nursing mother cherishes her own children. So, affectionately longing for you, we were well pleased to impart to you not only the gospel of God, but also our own lives, because you had become dear to us. For you remember, brethren, our labor and toil; for laboring night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you, we preached to you the gospel of God." (1 Thessalonians 2:7-9)

And Paul, while doing all he did to minister, by God's grace also worked with his own hands to support himself > "'Yes, you yourselves know that these hands have provided for my necessities, and for those who were with me.'" (Acts 20:34)

And in order to reach people, Paul became "all things to all men", he clearly does say in 1 Corinthians 9:19-23. So, he did not teach from a distance, but in personal sharing, even becoming like the ones he was reaching to and caring for.

The ones of the obedient succession, then, I would consider, are ministering by example in our real lives. You need to know someone personally in order to know that person's real example, and not only what they show and tell in the media, I think

By the way >

Albion, you say >

Well, I'd just call that a different issue. But you're right that the thread is supposed to be about Papal authority or jurisdiction rather than lifestyle.

Like I said, Peter says, "nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock." (1 Peter 5:3) So, we do need to lead by example. Our authority includes we are good examples of what we say and teach.

And 1 Timothy 3:1-10 to me means a man must be qualified by one's life being really of God, before he can be even considered for ordination.

Not to mention . . . these quals here include how the man needs to be proven in his own marriage with his own children, first. I see this is in order to see if he has learned how to care for people in our Father's personal and caring and sharing way . . . not in a distant way high-up above others.

He must be tested before trusted . . . not trusted blindly, but proven.

And only then is he qualified to be just considered. It is apparent to me, how some number of religious groups do not obey this basic standard of who has authority to "take care of the church of God" (in 1 Timothy 3:1-10).

 

[shturt678s]

The Protestant's pope (magisterium) is the Sola Scriptura of course. Especially in today's full blown apostasy where 99% of all ministers are unknowingly false, yet in the kingdom of God "outwardly," hence still Christians.

I know your Minister is genuine because he plays the keyboard, wears a suit and tie, eloquent speaker and singer.

Old false, ordained minister, Jack, ie, just a little more honest than most. Hope to be true before passing on.

 

[Edward65]

The Protestant's pope (magisterium) is the Sola Scriptura of course. Especially in today's full blown apostasy where 99% of all ministers are unknowingly false, yet in the kingdom of God "outwardly," hence still Christians.

I know your Minister is genuine because he plays the keyboard, wears a suit and tie, eloquent speaker and singer.

Old false, ordained minister, Jack, ie, just a little more honest than most. Hope to be true before passing on.

I’m not sure I understand you. As you identify yourself as a Lutheran I assume you believe in Scripture being the sole authority in matters of faith, so I’m not understanding you when you say “Especially in today's full blown apostasy where 99% of all ministers are unknowingly false, yet in the kingdom of God "outwardly," hence still Christians”. This last sentence has left me puzzled. I agree that 99% of all ministers have unknowingly apostacised from the faith and are only outwardly in the Christian church, but you seem to be saying that they’re still Christians when that can’t be the case. Also what has Sola Scriptura or Scripture alone got to do with the fact that most of Christendom is heterodox.? I’m not following you. Also when you say 99% of all ministers are you including or excluding Lutheran ministers? And when you refer to yourself as “Old false, ordained minister, Jack” are you including yourself in the 99% or being facetious? I have great trouble understanding you.

 

[shturt678s]

I’m not sure I understand you. As you identify yourself as a Lutheran I assume you believe in Scripture being the sole authority in matters of faith, so I’m not understanding you when you say “Especially in today's full blown apostasy where 99% of all ministers are unknowingly false, yet in the kingdom of God "outwardly," hence still Christians”. This last sentence has left me puzzled. I agree that 99% of all ministers have unknowingly apostacised from the faith and are only outwardly in the Christian church, but you seem to be saying that they’re still Christians when that can’t be the case.

Always had a special place in my heart with you regarding your posts over a period of time, ie, glad we could have this discussion. I'm a pre-1930 ELCA Lutheran in the sense of before the 1930 merger with the three entities. For example I bring forward exact as I can older German works rendered over by me from High German to simple Commentaries such as Martin Chemnitz' (available on-line) - His interpretation of Matt.22:1-14 (Matt.20:1-16) where the former are Christians, however "outwardly" in the Kingdom, and in the Kingdom "inwardly" forensically and secretly called from heaven where I almost lost my G.I. Bill going against the Creed's Doctrine of election where one is suppose to publically know, ie, another long story. Hope this clears up a little?

Apologies in order, although I agreed to many of your posts I could not as was editted off other Christian forums, and this is my last forum where they haven't editted me off yet? Please accept my sincere apologies.

Also what has Sola Scriptura or Scripture alone got to do with the fact that most of Christendom is heterodox.? I’m not following you. Also when you say 99% of all ministers are you including or excluding Lutheran ministers? And when you refer to yourself as “Old false, ordained minister, Jack” are you including yourself in the 99% or being facetious? I have great trouble understanding you.

Authority of Scripture = IIPet.1:20, 21 of course. The apostasy is so full blown today, and after receiving my MA with teaching the ancient languages, and working with the major Lutheran Seminaries for almost 5 years, not one minister after 1930, alive today, ie, including me, can honestly state they are in the Kingdom of God "inwardly" per Mr. Chemnitz' view of the parables mentioned, eg, the pre-1930 Lutheran minister that ordained me was 82 years old back in 5 May 1992 requiring his wife to even help him in ordaining me, and he passed on long ago with the rest of the credible Lutheran Ministers, from my view.

Sin of presumption, ie, most could care less thus I usualy only summarize, ie, you actually care, and I thank you.

Old Jack

 

[barryatlake]

Christ called His apostles as His own special companions, to be always with Him. Jesus gave them special powers to teach, rule and make people holy. Jesus made Peter head of His Apostles, Jesus gave Peter central authority in His Apostolic Church : " Feed my lambs, feed my sheep, feed my sheep" (John 21:15-17). He gave to Peter individually the authority he had given to the apostles as a body: "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Matt. 16:19).
In the Book of Acts, Acts of the Apostles we find the Apostolic Church as a clear cut organization. It has officials, such as Matthias and Timothy, who were consecrated by the "laying on of hands-deacons, priests and Bishops. When the Apostles of the Church met in council in Jerusalem [ Acts 15 ] , the Church was already a fully- constituted society organized to go out into the "universal"/ Catholic world with intentions of converting everyone.It contain everything needed examples, disciplinary rules, officials, ceremonies, sacraments and official Teachings direct from Jesus,. Jesus made His Church the Pillar/fFoundation of all Christianity

 

[shturt678s]

Christ called His apostles as His own special companions, to be always with Him. Jesus gave them special powers to teach, rule and make people holy. Jesus made Peter head of His Apostles, Jesus gave Peter central authority in His Apostolic Church : " Feed my lambs, feed my sheep, feed my sheep" (John 21:15-17). He gave to Peter individually the authority he had given to the apostles as a body: "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Matt. 16:19).
In the Book of Acts, Acts of the Apostles we find the Apostolic Church as a clear cut organization. It has officials, such as Matthias and Timothy, who were consecrated by the "laying on of hands-deacons, priests and Bishops. When the Apostles of the Church met in council in Jerusalem [ Acts 15 ] , the Church was already a fully- constituted society organized to go out into the "universal"/ Catholic world with intentions of converting everyone.It contain everything needed examples, disciplinary rules, officials, ceremonies, sacraments and official Teachings direct from Jesus,. Jesus made His Church the Pillar/fFoundation of all Christianity

And when one born into the last stages of IIThess.2:3-12, then what does one do? Eg, IIThess.2:10b followed by vs.11, 12 this very moment. :o

Old curious Jack

 

[Edward65]

Christ called His apostles as His own special companions, to be always with Him. Jesus gave them special powers to teach, rule and make people holy. Jesus made Peter head of His Apostles, Jesus gave Peter central authority in His Apostolic Church : " Feed my lambs, feed my sheep, feed my sheep" (John 21:15-17). He gave to Peter individually the authority he had given to the apostles as a body: "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Matt. 16:19).
In the Book of Acts, Acts of the Apostles we find the Apostolic Church as a clear cut organization. It has officials, such as Matthias and Timothy, who were consecrated by the "laying on of hands-deacons, priests and Bishops. When the Apostles of the Church met in council in Jerusalem [ Acts 15 ] , the Church was already a fully- constituted society organized to go out into the "universal"/ Catholic world with intentions of converting everyone.It contain everything needed examples, disciplinary rules, officials, ceremonies, sacraments and official Teachings direct from Jesus,. Jesus made His Church the Pillar/fFoundation of all Christianity

I think this has been replied to adequately by others who are more able and learned than myself, but briefly what I don’t accept is that Peter had any more authority than the other Apostles and was a pope. I don’t agree with the Catholic interpretation that Peter was the rock which Christ built the Church on, rather it was Peter’s faith that Jesus was the Christ which is the rock on which the Church is built, and therefore the Church isn’t in essence a visible institution like one has with the Catholic church, but is an invisible community of like believers who all share the same faith that Peter had that Jesus is their Saviour.

Also since I don’t believe in apostolic succession I don’t accept that historical continuity of ministry ensures that those who are ministers will stay loyal to the Gospel. For instance Paul says “I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them”. (Acts 20). This I hold has happened with the popes taking control and teaching falsely that Christ started the Papacy etc. So I don’t accept that the RC church (if you mean by this those who follow the popes’ teaching) are the True Church, because the true Church is only comprised of those who follow Christ and believe that they are righteous through faith alone as Paul teaches.

 

[shturt678s]

I think this has been replied to adequately by others who are more able and learned than myself, but briefly what I don’t accept is that Peter had any more authority than the other Apostles and was a pope. I don’t agree with the Catholic interpretation that Peter was the rock which Christ built the Church on, rather it was Peter’s faith that Jesus was the Christ which is the rock on which the Church is built, and therefore the Church isn’t in essence a visible institution like one has with the Catholic church, but is an invisible community of like believers who all share the same faith that Peter had that Jesus is their Saviour.

Also since I don’t believe in apostolic succession I don’t accept that historical continuity of ministry ensures that those who are ministers will stay loyal to the Gospel. For instance Paul says “I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them”. (Acts 20). This I hold has happened with the popes taking control and teaching falsely that Christ started the Papacy etc. So I don’t accept that the RC church (if you mean by this those who follow the popes’ teaching) are the True Church, because the true Church is only comprised of those who follow Christ and believe that they are righteous through faith alone as Paul teaches.

The more difficult it is to detect the lie, the more damnable it is, eg, Matt.18:6. Eg, "faith" in the RCC & E.-O. with their obvious fides caritate formata is not as damnable as the more deceptive Protestants, eg, you and I have different ways of God's means of grace, ie, closer to the Truth thus more damnable.

Not picking on you as appreciate you and your words,

Old Jack's opinion

btw I don't necessarily have the one valid way

 

[Albion]

I think this has been replied to adequately by others who are more able and learned than myself, but briefly what I don’t accept is that Peter had any more authority than the other Apostles and was a pope. I don’t agree with the Catholic interpretation that Peter was the rock which Christ built the Church on, rather it was Peter’s faith that Jesus was the Christ which is the rock on which the Church is built, and therefore the Church isn’t in essence a visible institution like one has with the Catholic church, but is an invisible community of like believers who all share the same faith that Peter had that Jesus is their Saviour.

Also since I don’t believe in apostolic succession I don’t accept that historical continuity of ministry ensures that those who are ministers will stay loyal to the Gospel. For instance Paul says “I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them”. (Acts 20). This I hold has happened with the popes taking control and teaching falsely that Christ started the Papacy etc. So I don’t accept that the RC church (if you mean by this those who follow the popes’ teaching) are the True Church, because the true Church is only comprised of those who follow Christ and believe that they are righteous through faith alone as Paul teaches.

Well, I do believe in Apostolic Succession, but there is none in Peter's case since he ordained no one to succeed him in Rome. Therefore, the whole idea of Matt. 16 establishing any sort of line based upon Peter is moot. It didn't happen.

 

[barryatlake]

Albion, how do you know, were you there. Isn't it possible and most probable that because of persecution, hence the low profile of the Christian community in Rome and that Peter, just prior to his execution named Linus as his successor, [ John 20:30 ]

 

[Albion]

Albion, how do you know, were you there.

Yes, I am familiar with the facts and do not have to speculate on what might have been possible.

1. That's the historical record (which you don't bother to refer to), and
2. The Roman Catholic Church itself states that Linus was not consecrated by Peter, and certainly not as any kind of successor. He was not in Rome at the time of Peter's death but was sent for and asked to become their bishop by the townspeople of the city of Rome.

 

[St. Paul]

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.

No. James the brother of Jesus would've been the first leader of the church. Pope's didn't happen for centuries after.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Well, I do believe in Apostolic Succession, but there is none in Peter's case since he ordained no one to succeed him in Rome. Therefore, the whole idea of Matt. 16 establishing any sort of line based upon Peter is moot. It didn't happen.

Bogus response. Popes do not have to ordain their successors. This would mean that there would be two Popes at a time, which isn't the case. I wonder if you can find any instance where any pope named his successor.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Albion, how do you know, were you there. Isn't it possible and most probable that because of persecution, hence the low profile of the Christian community in Rome and that Peter, just prior to his execution named Linus as his successor, [ John 20:30 ]

I don't believe this to be true. Popes were named by acclaimation after the death of the previous pope.

 

[Albion]

Bogus response. Popes do not have to ordain their successors.

No, but if no one consecrated Linus, he wouldn't be in Apostolic Succession, would he?--and the RCC doesn't claim that he was consecrated by Peter or anyone else.

BTW, switching to this thread (even if it meant hastily resurrecting a month-old and inactive one) makes sense. Better than beating that "Sola Scriptura is unBiblical" dead horse any further.

 

[Root of Jesse]

No, but if no one consecrated Linus, he wouldn't be in Apostolic Succession, would he?--and the RCC doesn't claim that he was consecrated by Peter or anyone else.

BTW, switching to this thread (even if it meant hastily resurrecting a month-old and inactive one) makes sense. Better than beating that "Sola Scriptura is unBiblical" dead horse any further.

Somebody consecrated Linus. It wasn't Peter, he was already buried.

You're confusing the person and the office. Jesus created an office, named Peter to fill it.

<edit-removed, I did say it in the title.>. I said that Catholics and Protestants do the same thing. Protestants claim they don't, but they do. But Scripture never does say that it is the only authority. Does it?
But I see you missed the point. Do you spend a lot of time confused? Nah, never mind.