1 Timothy 3:15

[Alabaster]

Peter and Paul were leaders---among many. Peter had no more leadership than Paul. It is a falsehood that Peter was the foundation. Jesus is! what Jesus said to Peter was that His Truth was the Rock on which His Church is being built!

Jesus the Rock. Peter the chip off the Rock--a little stone. Just as we are all lively stones!

 

[Laudate Dominum]

Peter and Paul were leaders---among many. Peter had no more leadership than Paul. It is a falsehood that Peter was the foundation. Jesus is! what Jesus said to Peter was that His Truth was the Rock on which His Church is being built!

Jesus the Rock. Peter the chip off the Rock--a little stone. Just as we are all lively stones!

Did you even read my last post? :-?

 

[Alabaster]

Peter and Paul were leaders---among many. Peter had no more leadership than Paul. It is a falsehood that Peter was the foundation. Jesus is! what Jesus said to Peter was that His Truth was the Rock on which His Church is being built!

Jesus the Rock. Peter the chip off the Rock--a little stone. Just as we are all lively stones!

Did you even read my last post? :-?

Yes, why?

Peter and Paul were early leaders. so were all the other disciples and their disciples. Jesus is the foundation. Peter and Paul attest to that, as does the entire Word.

 

[Laudate Dominum]

I siad I'd give you a source, so here it is: http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_a ... Papacy.asp

There is ample evidence in the New Testament that Peter was first in authority among the apostles. Whenever they were named, Peter headed the list (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13); sometimes the apostles were referred to as "Peter and those who were with him" (Luke 9:32). Peter was the one who generally spoke for the apostles (Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69), and he figured in many of the most dramatic scenes (Matt. 14:28-32, Matt. 17:24-27, Mark 10:23-28). On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the crowds (Acts 2:14-40), and he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7). It is Peter’s faith that will strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32) and Peter is given Christ’s flock to shepherd (John 21:17). An angel was sent to announce the resurrection to Peter (Mark 16:7), and the risen Christ first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34). He headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26), and he received the first converts (Acts 2:41). He inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23). He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11). It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48).

That's just the first paragraph of the link, though :wink:

 

[Alabaster]

So?

No one disputes that Peter was the first pastor to the Gentiles. Someone had to be first.

 

[Laudate Dominum]

So?

No one disputes that Peter was the first pastor to the Gentiles. Someone had to be first.

But do you dispute that he was the leader of the early Church?

 

[Alabaster]

So?

No one disputes that Peter was the first pastor to the Gentiles. Someone had to be first.

But do you dispute that he was the leader of the early Church?

No... but he was one of many, including dear Paul.

 

[Vic C.]

When reading Acts, I get the clear impression that James was as much in charge of the Jerusalem church as Peter. Paul led the emerging Gentiles churches. Read Acts 15.

 

[Alabaster]

When reading Acts, I get the clear impression that James was as much in charge of the Jerusalem church as Peter. Paul led the emerging Gentiles churches. Read Acts 15.

Yep!

 

[Devekut]

[quote:dab9e]But do you dispute that he was the leader of the early Church?

No... but he was one of many, including dear Paul.[/quote:dab9e]

And this is an argument for the Orthodox Church; that the bishops should enjoy equality, which is how they continue to function today. Yet this ancient Church retains in essence the same understanding of the relationship between Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition that is held by the Catholic Church.

 

[cyberjosh]

When reading Acts, I get the clear impression that James was as much in charge of the Jerusalem church as Peter. Paul led the emerging Gentiles churches. Read Acts 15.

Yes and infact that council is an excellent example of how Church authority was supposed to play out. They were all equal as elders and consulted one another. Paul went down because he feared becoming independant from the Jewish Christians over his belief on circumcision, and sought council "lest I had run in vain" (Galatians 2:2). Paul showed great propriety and humbleness in this move, rather than (and this would have been dangerous) forsaking the assembly of other believers and becoming independant (which could have led even him down a path to heresy). Yet he consulted with the other elders (and he was one of them) of the Church.

This is a problem I have with historical "Roman Primacy" which the RCC purports to tout legitimately. In the early days the Churches consulted together, and even Tertullian when mentioning Rome as an Apostloic successor Church mentions equally beside it the church of Smyrna as headed by Polycarp (said to have been appointed by John). And Polycarp and the Pope at the time actually did consult together, for a time, though they parted at an im passe. Going back even earlier Paul and Barnabas spent a whole year at the Church of Antioch (where Ignatius would eventually act as bishop), where believers were first called Christians, and at the end of a year an assembly took place, "Now at this time some prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch" (Acts 11:27). This was another important gathering of Godly men through whom the Holy Spirit moved to predict a famine on the land. This is what spurred Paul's pursuit for years to come to raise relief funds to bring to Jerusalem which is mentioned repeatedly throughout Acts and in Paul's own epistles.

My point is that these leaders were never meant to shoot off on their own or take primacy (and Paul was wise & humble not to) and the early Church should have taken after that example rather than design the idea of "Roman Primacy" to the condecention/dictation to the vast numbers of contemporary (and perhaps preceding) Churches in Asia Minor and the Holy Land.

~Josh

 

[cyberjosh]

And this is an argument for the Orthodox Church; that the bishops should enjoy equality,

Yes indeed, they are supposed to.

 

[Devekut]

Now that is an entierly different debate, and the one which essentially lies at the heart of the schism today, IMO.

My point is that regarding the equality of the bishops and denying Rome's claims to supremacy of jurisdiction is not actually an agument against Sacred Tradition nor an argument for sola scriptura. What I think often happens is that people set up a false dichotomy between Reformed Protestantism or Roman Catholicism, as though if we disprove the Papacy the only other option is to all become Baptists or the so called "Bible Christians".

The Orthodox Tradition serves as a reminder that this is not so. It also serves as a testimony that most of the common assumptions of the Catholic Church and High Church Christianity are that of the whole of the Christian world in the past.

 

[cyberjosh]

My point is that regarding the equality of the bishops and denying Rome's claims to supremacy of jurisdiction is not actually an agument against Sacred Tradition nor an argument for sola scriptura. What I think often happens is that people set up a false dichotomy between Reformed Protestantism or Roman Catholicism, as though if we disprove the Papacy the only other option is to all become Baptists or the so called "Bible Christians".

Ah yes, that is a different arguement, and I guess I kinda did butt into the middle of a discussion I wasn't paying all that much attention to. I think however, in brief, that this "juristiction" (actually I think that's a better choice of words than I've heard before) might have primarily been due to its locus in Rome as the political center of the Empire. Rather than some necessarily spiritual authoritative supremacy or superiority over the other Churches, I think it perhaps served as convenient decision making location (just as Jerusalem was the most important during Acts - but it perished in 70 AD) and somehow became looked at as the patriarch of the other Chuches. Nothing intrinsically wrong about the Roman Church I just don't quite understand why it was given primacy, even by some of the Church Father's who for the first 3 centuries were non-Roman and bishops of equal authority in the Middle East. But as I pointed out before Tertullian also recognized an equal status of the Church at Smyrna, who perhaps was the shining star for emerging Eastern Orthodoxy in Anatolia.

Just some thoughts.

The Orthodox Tradition serves as a reminder that this is not so. It also serves as a testimony that most of the common assumptions of the Catholic Church and High Church Christianity are that of the whole of the Christian world in the past.

Yes, and I tend (historically speaking) to prefer the loose hegemony they kept among themselves (although they had schisms of their own over the Nestorian heresy, etc.).

~Josh

 

[Catholic Crusader]

If someone says that the bible is the truth to Christianity, then why does 1 Timothy 3:15 call the CHURCH the "pillar of truth"?

The only thing 1 Timothy 3:15 says about scriptures is that they are "useful", which only the most far-fetched person can turn into "Sola Scriptura".

The Church is the teacher, not a book.

 

[Laudate Dominum]

If someone says that the bible is the truth to Christianity, then why does 1 Timothy 3:15 call the CHURCH the "pillar of truth"?

The only thing 1 Timothy 3:15 says about scriptures is that they are "useful", which only the most far-fetched person can turn into "Sola Scriptura".

The Church is the teacher, not a book.

Whoops! That's 2 Timothy 3:15-16 you're thinking of. This is 1 Timothy :

 

[Catholic Crusader]

oopsie. sorry

well, it all ties in anyway

 

[cyberjosh]

-----------------------------------------------------

Ok, lets try to get fresh start on this. Has anyone read the OP lately? If not, do so, and see some of the responses on the first page (before this thread got off topic).

------------------------------------------------------

 

[Catholic Crusader]

If someone says that the bible is the truth to Christianity, then why does 1 Timothy 3:15 call the CHURCH the "pillar of truth"?

Easy: Because the Church IS the pillar and foundation of truth. Jesus established a Church not a book. Jesus promised, "I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18). Among the Christian churches, only the Catholic Church has existed since the time of Jesus. Every other Christian church is an offshoot of the Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox churches broke away from unity with the pope in 1054. The heretical protestant churches were established during the Reformation, which began in 1517. Only the Catholic Church existed in the tenth century, in the fifth century, and in the first century, faithfully teaching the doctrines given by Christ to the apostles, omitting nothing. The list of popes can be traced back to Peter himself, the first pope. Here is a list:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm


Jesus’ Church is called catholic ("universal" in Greek) because it is his gift to all people. He told his apostles to go throughout the world and make disciples of "all nations" (Matt. 28:19–20). For 2,000 years the Catholic Church has carried out this mission, preaching the good news that Christ died for all men and that he wants all of us to be members of his universal family (Gal. 3:28). Learn more at this link:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Pillar.asp

 

[cyberjosh]

Yay! On topic again.

*Hugs CC and hopes he doesn't slap me* :-D