Where did the Church first go wrong?

[Dave-W]

Are there apostles today?

Yes

Are you one?

No

Am I?

I have no idea.

 

[Guide To The Bible]

You do not know God's plan, not a single person here on earth does. So I would like to kindly ask you to stop that assertion.

1) It was Peter, who was made the rock that Jesus built His Church on, and made Peter the earthly head of Christ's Church. Why? Because a Church needs a physical leader that they can see.

2) You are confusing why Jesus changed Peters name from Simon to Kephas. It is not that Peter's faith made him like a rock, for Peter denied Jesus 3 times, and was rebuked by Jesus 3 times when Jesus asked Peter to feed my sheep. Jesus changed Simon's name to Rock because this was who Jesus chose to be the earthly head of His Church. Hense why Peter is solely given the keys to the kingdom of Heaven.

Saying the truth that Jesus meant Peter is the rock that Jesus will build His Church on =/= I believe that Jesus is NOT the cornerstone.

Get that straight.

Going back to the original accusation, you claim that they were told to wait, and I am assuming that you mean this verse right here since this is also the same chapter that Matth'ias is selected.

Acts 1: 4-5 " And while staying with them he charged them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, “you heard from me, 5 for John baptized with water, but before many days you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”

Well they did not leave Jerusalem though did they? And if we read on, they were indeed baptized with the Holy Spirit, in Acts 2:1-4 "When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. 2 And suddenly a sound came from heaven like the rush of a mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. 3 And there appeared to them tongues as of fire, distributed and resting on each one of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance."

They were also commanded, by Jesus, to go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them.

So once again, how exactly is this wrong for the Church to have done? Please show me where it states that this was wrong.

Are you saying the the Church is built on Peter? Because I can assure it is not. It is built on the cornerstone - Jesus. Until you get that straight you are an idolater.

 

[Guide To The Bible]

The bolded part is most germane to this discussion. Those terms, binding and loosing, were well understood in late 2nd temple period religious circles. They were as well known as the institution of discipleship. They were the basis of establishing halacha - or a discipler's method for teaching his students how to obey the 613 commands in the Torah - the books of Moses.

If an activity was "loosed" meant that it was permitted. Similarly, if an activity was "bound" meant it was forbidden. When others looked at a rabbi's halacha, they would either say it "establishes the Law" if following it properly led to proper obedience; or it "destroys the Law" if following it properly allowed someone to violate the Law in disobedience.

Our Lord gave Peter (and probably the rest of the 12) the authority to create halicha under the New Covenant, and whatever they (the 12) decided would have the backing of heaven itself.

Well you've bought into a false teaching there, the keys of Heaven that Jesus spoke of is the knowledge of the faith in Jesus as the Messiah, that allows people to gain entry into Heaven:

Luke 11:52
“Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not
entered, and you have hindered those who were entering.”

With this knowledge comes the power to bind demons, as this verse shows:

Mark 3:27
“But no one can enter the strong man’s house and plunder his property unless he first binds the strong man, and then
he will plunder his house.”

Here Jesus was referring to Himself when He bound Satan at the Cross and plundered his house in Hell, in order to take back the authority that Satan had originally taken from Adam. As Christian’s we also have the power to bind demons to stop them from hindering us, as for example when witnessing to others, who may have a demonic hold over them. Also we have the power to loose people from their infirmities as this verse explains:

Luke 13:12
And when Jesus saw her, he called her to him, and said unto her, “Woman, thou art loosed from thine infirmity.”

These verses show the power and authority we have in Jesus name.

 

[Guide To The Bible]

Yes

No

I have no idea.

Okay so can you name any apostles who are alive today?

 

[Thursday]

So you didn't mean "So the individuals who make up the church go wrong but the Church they make up never goes wrong."

No, I did mean that. The Church is protected from teaching error, but that doesn't mean individuals in the Church won't err.

The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. Individuals don't always meet this standard.

 

[Wolf_Says]

Are you saying the the Church is built on Peter? Because I can assure it is not. It is built on the cornerstone - Jesus. Until you get that straight you are an idolater.

Okay then, explain why your conclusion is so different compared to MANY of the biblical scholars in multiple different denominations?

Here is a few, and the link to prove it (St. Peter, the Rock, the Keys, and the Primacy of Rome in the Early Church)

William F Albright (anchor bible series) ""Rock (Aram. Kepha). This is not a name, but an appellation and a play on words. There is no evidence of Peter or Kephas as a name before Christian times. On building on a rock, or from a rock, cf. Isa 51:1ff; Matt 7:24f. Peter as Rock will be the foundation of the future community (cf. I will build). Jesus, not quoting the OT, here uses Aramaic, not Hebrew, and so uses the only Aramaic word which would serve his purpose. In view of the background of vs. 19 (see below), one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as meaning the faith, or the Messianic confession, of Peter. To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence. Cf. in this gospel 10:2; 14:28-31; 15:15. The interest in Peter's failures and vacillations does not detract from this pre-eminence; rather, it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure his behavior would have been of far less consequence (cf. Gal 2:11ff)." (Albright/Mann, The Anchor Bible: Matthew [Doubleday, 1971], page 195)"

Herman Ridderbos (Protestant Evangelical) ""It is well known that the Greek word (petra) translated 'rock' here is different from the proper name Peter. The slight difference between them has no special importance, however. The most likely explanation for the change from petros ('Peter') to petra is that petra was the normal word for 'rock.' Because the feminine ending of this noun made it unsuitable as a man's name, however, Simon was not called petra but petros. The word petros was not an exact synonym of petra; it literally meant 'stone.' Jesus therefore had to switch to the word petra when He turned from Peter's name to what it meant for the Church. There is no good reason to think that Jesus switched from petros to petra to show that He was not speaking of the man Peter but of his confession as the foundation of the Church. The words 'on this rock [petra]' indeed refer to Peter. Because of the revelation that he had received and the confession that it motivated in him, Peter was appointed by Jesus to lay the foundation of the future church." (Ridderbos, Bible Student's Commentary: Matthew [Zondervan, 1987], page 303 as cited in Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page 35-36)"

Oscar Cullman (Lutheran) ""The obvious pun which has made its way into the Gk. text as well suggests a material identity between petra and petros, the more so as it is impossible to differentiate strictly between the meanings of the two words. On the other hand, only the fairly assured Aramaic original of the saying enables us to assert with confidence the formal and material identity between petra and petros: petra = Kepha = petros....Since Peter, the rock of the Church, is thus given by Christ Himself, the master of the house (Is. 22:22; Rev. 3:7), the keys of the kingdom of heaven, he is the human mediator of the resurrection, and he has the task of admitting the people of God into the kingdom of the resurrection...The idea of the Reformers that He is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable in view of the probably different setting of the story...For there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of 'thou art Rock' and 'on this rock I will build' shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first. It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom He has given the name Rock. He appoints Peter, the impulsive, enthusiastic, but not persevering man in the circle, to be the foundation of His ecclesia. To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected." (Cullmann, article on "Rock" (petros, petra) trans. and ed. by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament [Eerdmans Publishing, 1968], volume 6, page 98, 107, 108)"

Please explain then why I am wrong and you are right?

I am saying that Jesus, who started His Church, started His Church with Peter as it's earthly head. Plain and simple.

 

[Guide To The Bible]

No, I did mean that. The Church is protected from teaching error, but that doesn't mean individuals in the Church won't err.

The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. Individuals don't always meet this standard.

I thought Jesus was the foundation of truth. Actually I know he is.

 

[Thursday]

I thought Jesus was the foundation of truth. Actually I know he is.

Hmmm....

1 Tim 3:15
if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Remember, the Church is the body of Christ.

 

[Dave-W]

Okay so can you name any apostles who are alive today?

Dan Juster
Eitan Shishkoff
Asher Intrater
Charles Simpson

Recently departed:
Derek Prince

And in a lesser degree - every missionary evangelizing and building churches around the world.

 

[Wolf_Says]

Well you've bought into a false teaching there, the keys of Heaven that Jesus spoke of is the knowledge of the faith in Jesus as the Messiah, that allows people to gain entry into Heaven:

Luke 11:52
“Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not
entered, and you have hindered those who were entering.”

With this knowledge comes the power to bind demons, as this verse shows:

Mark 3:27
“But no one can enter the strong man’s house and plunder his property unless he first binds the strong man, and then
he will plunder his house.”

Here Jesus was referring to Himself when He bound Satan at the Cross and plundered his house in Hell, in order to take back the authority that Satan had originally taken from Adam. As Christian’s we also have the power to bind demons to stop them from hindering us, as for example when witnessing to others, who may have a demonic hold over them. Also we have the power to loose people from their infirmities as this verse explains:

Luke 13:12
And when Jesus saw her, he called her to him, and said unto her, “Woman, thou art loosed from thine infirmity.”

These verses show the power and authority we have in Jesus name.

We personally do not have power and authority, as it was not given to us. It was given to the apostles, and Peter was given the keys.

Clearly you have no understanding as to what the keys are referring too. They are the keys to the house of David, the kingdom of Heaven.

Isaiah 22:22 "And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open."

Peter was made the steward of the house of David, and was given the keys to this house by Jesus Christ. This means that Peter had the ability to open the door to the Kingdom of God, and the ability to close it.

Period.

 

[Thursday]

Dan Juster
Eitan Shishkoff
Asher Intrater
Charles Simpson

Recently departed:
Derek Prince

And in a lesser degree - every missionary evangelizing and building churches around the world.

That is inaccurate. The successors of the apostles are chosen by their predecessors.

You don't get to self appoint yourself as an apostle.

 

[Dave-W]

The successors of the apostles are chosen by their predecessors.

There is no biblical support for that position either.

I agree that no one should be self-appointed to ANY office; but those who recognize the gifting and function of the office CAN appoint.

 

[Guide To The Bible]

Okay then, explain why your conclusion is so different compared to MANY of the biblical scholars in multiple different denominations?

Here is a few, and the link to prove it (St. Peter, the Rock, the Keys, and the Primacy of Rome in the Early Church)

William F Albright (anchor bible series) ""Rock (Aram. Kepha). This is not a name, but an appellation and a play on words. There is no evidence of Peter or Kephas as a name before Christian times. On building on a rock, or from a rock, cf. Isa 51:1ff; Matt 7:24f. Peter as Rock will be the foundation of the future community (cf. I will build). Jesus, not quoting the OT, here uses Aramaic, not Hebrew, and so uses the only Aramaic word which would serve his purpose. In view of the background of vs. 19 (see below), one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as meaning the faith, or the Messianic confession, of Peter. To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence. Cf. in this gospel 10:2; 14:28-31; 15:15. The interest in Peter's failures and vacillations does not detract from this pre-eminence; rather, it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure his behavior would have been of far less consequence (cf. Gal 2:11ff)." (Albright/Mann, The Anchor Bible: Matthew [Doubleday, 1971], page 195)"

Herman Ridderbos (Protestant Evangelical) ""It is well known that the Greek word (petra) translated 'rock' here is different from the proper name Peter. The slight difference between them has no special importance, however. The most likely explanation for the change from petros ('Peter') to petra is that petra was the normal word for 'rock.' Because the feminine ending of this noun made it unsuitable as a man's name, however, Simon was not called petra but petros. The word petros was not an exact synonym of petra; it literally meant 'stone.' Jesus therefore had to switch to the word petra when He turned from Peter's name to what it meant for the Church. There is no good reason to think that Jesus switched from petros to petra to show that He was not speaking of the man Peter but of his confession as the foundation of the Church. The words 'on this rock [petra]' indeed refer to Peter. Because of the revelation that he had received and the confession that it motivated in him, Peter was appointed by Jesus to lay the foundation of the future church." (Ridderbos, Bible Student's Commentary: Matthew [Zondervan, 1987], page 303 as cited in Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page 35-36)"

Oscar Cullman (Lutheran) ""The obvious pun which has made its way into the Gk. text as well suggests a material identity between petra and petros, the more so as it is impossible to differentiate strictly between the meanings of the two words. On the other hand, only the fairly assured Aramaic original of the saying enables us to assert with confidence the formal and material identity between petra and petros: petra = Kepha = petros....Since Peter, the rock of the Church, is thus given by Christ Himself, the master of the house (Is. 22:22; Rev. 3:7), the keys of the kingdom of heaven, he is the human mediator of the resurrection, and he has the task of admitting the people of God into the kingdom of the resurrection...The idea of the Reformers that He is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable in view of the probably different setting of the story...For there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of 'thou art Rock' and 'on this rock I will build' shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first. It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom He has given the name Rock. He appoints Peter, the impulsive, enthusiastic, but not persevering man in the circle, to be the foundation of His ecclesia. To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected." (Cullmann, article on "Rock" (petros, petra) trans. and ed. by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament [Eerdmans Publishing, 1968], volume 6, page 98, 107, 108)"

Please explain then why I am wrong and you are right?

I am saying that Jesus, who started His Church, started His Church with Peter as it's earthly head. Plain and simple.

William F Albright places Peter above Jesus by what he said here: "The interest in Peter's failures and vacillations does not detract from this pre-eminence; rather, it emphasizes it."

pre-eminence
priːˈɛmɪnəns/
noun

1. the fact of surpassing all others; superiority.

Clearly WRONG!

Herman Ridderbos says "Peter was appointed by Jesus to lay the foundation of the future church." And there's me thing it was Jesus who laid the foundation of the Church? Hang on it was Jesus who laid it's foundations, not Peter!

Oscar Cullman also misses the point of the verses given by Jesus and Paul that I gave in post #76. Cullman says "he [Peter] has the task of admitting the people of God into the kingdom of the resurrection."

With teaching like that who needs the Devil. Here this is how it should read:

"Jesus has the task of admitting the people of God into the kingdom of the resurrection."

 

[Thursday]

There is no biblical support for that position either.

I agree that no one should be self-appointed to ANY office; but those who recognize the gifting and function of the office CAN appoint.

Wrong. Matthias is example number one.

All current priests in the Catholic Church were ordained by bishops, who in turn were ordained by bishops. This chain goes all the way back to the apostles.

From Pope Clement, writing in about 90 AD. Clement was ordained a priest by Peter:

Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those presbyters already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry.

 

[Thursday]

William F Albright places Peter above Jesus by what he said here: "The interest in Peter's failures and vacillations does not detract from this pre-eminence; rather, it emphasizes it."

pre-eminence
priːˈɛmɪnəns/
noun

1. the fact of surpassing all others; superiority.

Clearly WRONG!

Herman Ridderbos says "Peter was appointed by Jesus to lay the foundation of the future church." And there's me thing it was Jesus who laid the foundation of the Church? Hang on it was Jesus who laid it's foundations, not Peter!

Oscar Cullman also misses the point of the verses given by Jesus and Paul that I gave in post #76. Cullman says "he [Peter] has the task of admitting the people of God into the kingdom of the resurrection."

With teaching like that who needs the Devil. Here this is how it should read:

"Jesus has the task of admitting the people of God into the kingdom of the resurrection."

Here's what Jesus said:

John 20
21Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

 

[Guide To The Bible]

Hmmm....

1 Tim 3:15
if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Remember, the Church is the body of Christ.

Yes the body of Christ - NOT the catholic Church. There is a difference you know.

 

[Dave-W]

Wrong. Matthias is example number one.

Matthias is one example - not the only example.

What you describe is Catholic tradition and practice. It is not the only acceptable way. You are taking an example and turning it into a command.

 

[Thursday]

Yes the body of Christ - NOT the catholic Church. There is a difference you know.

No, I don't know that. How many Churches do you think Jesus started?

 

[Guide To The Bible]

Dan Juster
Eitan Shishkoff
Asher Intrater
Charles Simpson

Recently departed:
Derek Prince

And in a lesser degree - every missionary evangelizing and building churches around the world.

Well it's debatable. I suppose we'll find out when Jesus gives out the rewards who He think is worthy. Not you, or any or your ilk.

 

[Thursday]

Matthias is one example - not the only example.

What you describe is Catholic tradition and practice. It is not the only acceptable way. You are taking an example and turning it into a command.

It is not just one example, it is the entire history of the Church.

You ignored the quote from Clement. Why?


Here's another, from St. Irenaeus, writing in about 170 AD. He is writing to address the heresy of gnosticism which was spreading at this time.

1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to "the perfect" apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.

2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority -- that is, the faithful everywhere -- inasmuch as the Apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those who are everywhere. potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam, hoc est eos qui sunt undique fideles, in qua semper ab his qui sunt undique, conservata est ea quâ est ab apostolis traditio].

3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spake with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Sorer having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.

4. But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time -- a man who was of much greater weight, and a more stedfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics. He it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles -- that, namely, which is handed down by the Church. There are also those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, "Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within." And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and said, "Dost thou know me?" "I do know thee, the first-born of Satan." Such was the horror which the apostles and their disciples had against holding even verbal communication with any corrupters of the truth; as Paul also says, "A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself." There is also a very powerful Epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians, from which those who choose to do so, and are anxious about their salvation, can learn the character of his faith, and the preaching of the truth. Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles.


Church History V.6... FULL of language about the succession of Peter. It's completely irrefutable that there was papal succession going all the way back to Peter. To deny it, is to deny historical FACT.

Labels: Early Church Fathers, Papacy, Pope, Tradition

This Catholic Journey: Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 3) - St. Irenaeus