Debate with Catholic answer guy?

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Debate with Catholic answer guy?

Post by steve » Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:34 am

By grace, one is moved to believe and recognize that this teaching authority was, originally, in the persons of the Apostles, and especially in the person of Peter, the head of the Apostles
Evangelicals have no objection to the teachings of Peter (or the other apostles). In fact, we regard his writings as authoritative scripture.

Of course, Peter is specifically said to have a primary ministry to Jewish people, whereas Paul's ministry was primarily to the Gentiles(Gal.2:7-9). I accept the authority of both, but, if we were to choose between the two, it seems that Gentile Christians, like myself, ought to go with Paul.

On the other hand, there is no evidence, from the writings of these two men, that they did not teach precisely the same doctrines. In fact, the primary document we have from Peter (the First Epistle of Peter) so closely follows Paul's letters to the Ephesians and to the Romans as to give the impression that Peter depended upon those letters in some measure. I why shouldn't he? He regarded Paul's writings as scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16)—and Peter, like every other Christian, was subject to the authority of the scriptures.
this teaching authority, first given to Peter and the Apostles, by necessity was also given to the successors of Peter and the Apostles; therefore, the successors of Peter and the Apostles also have the authority to teach what God has revealed about Himself...Now, the successor of Peter and the Apostles are the Pope (the bishop of Rome) and other validly ordained bishops. Therefore, the Pope, and all bishops in union with the Pope, also have received, from Christ, the authority to teach what God has revealed about Himself.
These are assertions, not arguments. Is there anything like evidence to support any of these affirmations?

BrotherAlan
Posts: 189
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2010 10:42 am

Re: Debate with Catholic answer guy?

Post by BrotherAlan » Tue Sep 04, 2012 4:11 pm

Hello, Steve--

I first wrote,
this teaching authority, first given to Peter and the Apostles, by necessity was also given to the successors of Peter and the Apostles; therefore, the successors of Peter and the Apostles also have the authority to teach what God has revealed about Himself...Now, the successor of Peter and the Apostles are the Pope (the bishop of Rome) and other validly ordained bishops. Therefore, the Pope, and all bishops in union with the Pope, also have received, from Christ, the authority to teach what God has revealed about Himself.
Then you wrote,
These are assertions, not arguments. Is there anything like evidence to support any of these affirmations?
There is evidence for these assertions. For simplicity's sake, I will concern myself primarily with Peter and his successors (leaving, perhaps, for another time discussion about the other Apostles and their successors).

1. Peter had authority given to him, even above that of the other Apostles: Among other Scripture passages, Matthew 16:18-19 shows us that Peter had an unique kind of authority given to him (for, among the Apostles, only Peter was given the keys to the kingdom of heaven).

2. That the successors of Peter (aka., the Popes) also have authority to teach what God has revealed about Himself:
First, that the Apostles had successors is evidenced in the Acts of the Apostles, where Matthias is chosen as Judas' successor (it might be worth noting, too, that the decision to find a successor for Judas was Peter's decision). Likewise, we know from the writings of the Church Fathers that Peter himself had successors. Irenaeus and Augustine are two early authorities who give lists of Peter's successors. These successors, over time, came to be known as "Popes" (meaning they were like a "Papa", or a father, in the family of Christians). With the help of lists like these, the current bishop of Rome, Pope Benedict XVI, can trace his "Papal lineage" back to the Apostle Peter (and, so, that Pope Benedict XVI is the successor of the Apostle Peter is an historical fact).

Secondly, that Peter's authority would have to be transitioned to others, after Peter's death, follows at least implicitly from the Scriptures. For, Our Lord tells Peter that He will build His Church on Peter, and the gates of hell shall never prevail against her (i.e., the Church). In order for this to happen, Peter must have successors, to the end of time (for, Peter himself would die, and has died). And, since, for any given office of authority, the authority resides primarily in the office (and only secondarily in the one who, at any given time, holds the office), it follows that those who assumed Peter's office also assumed Peter's authority. That the early Christian people understood that Peter's successors also held Peter's authority can be seen from various writings in the early Christian Fathers, in the writings of the early Councils, and, also, in the general behavior of the early Church (eg., a number of important decisions and appeals-- even of situations occurring outside of Rome, and even of those affecting the whole Church-- were determined by the Pope; the Popes were the ones who ratified decisions of Councils; etc.). In fact, the same Christians who passed down a belief as to what must be the accepted canon for The Holy Bible also handed down a belief in the supremacy of the authority of the bishop of Rome.

God's blessings upon you....

In Christ,
BrotherAlan
"Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit,
as it was in the beginning, is now, and always, and unto the ages of ages. Amen."

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Debate with Catholic answer guy?

Post by Homer » Wed Sep 05, 2012 12:41 am

BrotherAlan,

You wrote:
Likewise, we know from the writings of the Church Fathers that Peter himself had successors. Irenaeus and Augustine are two early authorities who give lists of Peter's successors.

That the early Christian people understood that Peter's successors also held Peter's authority can be seen from various writings in the early Christian Fathers,
Could you provide info on where you find any statements by the "early church fathers" regarding Peter's successors? I would be interested in any statements they made during the first two centuries where any of them claimed equality with the Apostles, for themselves or anyone else. You especially cited Irenaeus; I would like to know where you find this so that I can look at it in the Ante-Nicene Fathers.

Thanks, Homer

BrotherAlan
Posts: 189
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2010 10:42 am

Re: Debate with Catholic answer guy?

Post by BrotherAlan » Fri Sep 07, 2012 1:43 pm

Greetings, Homer--

You wrote:
Could you provide info on where you find any statements by the "early church fathers" regarding Peter's successors?...You especially cited Irenaeus...
The specific quote from Irenaeus that I had in mind, concerning the successors of Peter as bishop of Rome, is from his "Against Heresies". The quote is the following:
"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], 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....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. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance in 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 the 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." (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 3, Chap. 3, paragraph 3; see the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, pg. 416)
There are other Fathers who give at least partial listings of the succession of the bishops of Rome (eg., Augustine, a couple centuries after Irenaeus, gives a very similar, and updated, list of the succession of the bishops of Rome in his Letter to Generosus, 53:2; see the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 1, Vol. I, 298)

I think there are a couple things worth noting here.

First, of all the Christian churches, these Fathers think it significant to give a list of the bishops of Rome. I think this is an indication that, in the mind of these Fathers, the church at Rome, and the bishop of Rome, had special significance for the entire Church throughout the world. Actually, Irenaeus explicitly states his belief in the pre-eminent authority of the church at Rome, referring to this church as "the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; . . . it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority..." (Against Heresies, Bk. 3, Ch. 3, par. 2; see Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, pg. 415) Other Fathers give similar quotes concerning the importance of Rome, and its bishop.

Also, notice that, after he has given the list of the bishops of Rome, Irenaeus states that it is by the succession of these bishops, i.e., the bishops of Rome, that the "ecclesiastical tradition" and the "preaching of the truth" had been carried on in the Church. He points to this succession of bishops (i.e., the succession of bishops in Rome) as the "most abundant proof" that there is one true Christian faith, preserved intact from the apostles. In other words, in this work of Irenaeus' (which is, again, entitle Against Heresies), I think it is fair to interpret Irenaeus to be saying the following: it is by staying in union with the bishop of Rome that one avoids heresy; for, it is through the bishops of Rome that the one, true, and apostolic Christian faith is handed on.

You also stated:
I would be interested in any statements they made during the first two centuries where any of them claimed equality with the Apostles, for themselves or anyone else.
I'm not sure I understand what you are looking for here. Are you looking for statements from the Fathers claiming that the bishops of Rome were equal to the Apostles? Please clarify.....Thanks!

God bless....

In Christ,
BrotherAlan

"Jesus Christ is Lord!" (Phil. 2:11)
"Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit,
as it was in the beginning, is now, and always, and unto the ages of ages. Amen."

Post Reply

Return to “Roman Catholicism”