No "Papacy" in Augustine's Sermon 295

[balshan]

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, 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 appeared first 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).

..... catholic answers.

There is ample evidence in the NT that sexual immorality is first among the bad fruit. Peter would not have tolerated that evil behaviour, your institution is notorious for sexual sins throughout the centuries. It does not follow Peter's example, it does not follow Jesus example. Peter fades from the scene during acts.

No James headed the first council in Jerusalem in Acts (acts 15) which RCs refuse to acknowledge. They refuse to acknowledge it because it does not fit in with their false claims. Peter was rebuked by Paul (gal 2). The resurrection was announced to the women followers first before Peter (Mark16).

The lots incident was not Peter alone, it was they:

acts 1

So they nominated two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. 24 Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen 25 to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” 26 Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.

So you have twisted the scriptures to prove your false claims. Sorry you failed to prove anything other than you institution makes false claims.

 

[balshan]

how about this for an argument from silence? just google 'the hierarchy of catholic church' for the lineage of the catholic clergy all over the world (western and eastern rites) and it goes back to the apostles. can you show us the lineage of your leaders? I highly doubt you have one going all the way back to an apostle.

Yep from people who just follow the revisionist history of the RCC, therefore it is wrong and means nothing at all. In fact, there were ECFs who had different ones who took over from Peter. So the RCC says he is the one we chose and goes with it. But there was more than one so called leader at the time. The RCC is dishonest about there being only one.

 

[ramcam2]

your source is noted. it is not scripture.

the verses mentioned is not scripture???????????

 

[mica]

mica said:
your source is noted. it is not scripture.

the verses mentioned is not scripture???????????

that's not what I posted.

is 'catholic answers' actually scripture?

 

[ramcam2]

which leads to a catholic source.

do you have any biblical source?

google is a catholic source???????

why limit yourself to the bible? does it mean that if not found in the bible, it is not true? why not check also historical sources or other reference books like encyclopedias? i think you are just afraid of the truth.

 

[ramcam2]

that's not what I posted.

is 'catholic answers' actually scripture?

catholic answers posted scripture verses as proof of the authority of peter/pope.

why don't you try to refute those verses if you do not agree?

 

[ramcam2]

Yep from people who just follow the revisionist history of the RCC, therefore it is wrong and means nothing at all. In fact, there were ECFs who had different ones who took over from Peter. So the RCC says he is the one we chose and goes with it. But there was more than one so called leader at the time. The RCC is dishonest about there being only one.

post your ecfs, not just hearsay.

 

[mica]

mica said:
which leads to a catholic source.

do you have any biblical source?

google is a catholic source???????

does my post mention google? why are you dancing away from your catholic source?

why limit yourself to the bible?

why not use your bible to find out what God says? do you have one? don't you care what He says?

why do you believe words of men instead of words of God?

does it mean that if not found in the bible, it is not true?

depends on what. catholics like to play games that way.

why not check also historical sources or other reference books like encyclopedias?

I do sometimes - depends on the topic. If I want to know what He says I search His word.
catholics don't care what He says, they only care what the rcc says. the rcc is the catholic's god.

i think you are just afraid of the truth.

actually catholics are the ones afraid of the truth, His truth. there's no need to be if you believe in and follow Christ.

 

[balshan]

post your ecfs, not just hearsay.

They have been posted in the past and you just ignore them. You post heresy.

 

[balshan]

google is a catholic source???????

why limit yourself to the bible? does it mean that if not found in the bible, it is not true? why not check also historical sources or other reference books like encyclopedias? i think you are just afraid of the truth.

google was not mention by the poster, you are breaking Catholic commandment 9.

 

[mica]

mica said:
that's not what I posted.

is 'catholic answers' actually scripture?

catholic answers posted scripture verses as proof of the authority of peter/pope.

so? catholics don't know or understand scripture. verses posted by ca no more support catholic beliefs than do those you list here.

why don't you try to refute those verses if you do not agree?

why? they don't say what the rcc claims they do - and you only believe the rcc.

why don't you read and study to learn what they actually do mean? if you have the desire in your heart to know His truth that is what you will do.

 

[ramcam2]

so? catholics don't know or understand scripture. verses posted by ca no more support catholic beliefs than do those you list here.


why? they don't say what the rcc claims they do - and you only believe the rcc.

why don't you read and study to learn what they actually do mean? if you have the desire in your heart to know His truth that is what you will do.

and you are the infallible interpreter?

 

[balshan]

and you are the infallible interpreter?

Well you certainly aren't because you read into this post and made a false interpretation.

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

and you are the infallible interpreter?

One needs not be an infallible interpreter to interpret something correctly. If you think someone interpreted Scripture incorrectly, then correct them. Just realize, claiming the Roman Church is infallible and using that to critique an interpretation is utterly vacuous given others don't recognize said authority structure. Some parts of Scripture are difficult to interpret, others are painfully obvious. For example, Paul, quoting David, says "blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.” (Romans 4:8) as to explain how we are justified. Rome says all of our sins are accounted to us; that's why men must do acts of penance to deal with their venial and mortal sins. The is no complexities in the passage as to bring up a question of interpretation. The verse says what it says plainly. And, it is teaching something that does not mesh with Roman dogma with respect to the sacrament of penance. Here is the larger context:

Romans 4:1-12​

What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, tour forefather according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” 4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, 6 just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:​

7 “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,​

and whose sins are covered;​

8 blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not zcount his sin.”​

9 Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? For we say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. 10 How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. 11 He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, 12 and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.​

​

If you want to correct the Reformed interpretation of such, then present your case. I've never, ever seen a Catholic deal with this passage in a meaningful way. I literally watched a Catholic apologist in a debate say "I don't know" to the question who is the blessed man in v8. Frankly, I would love for you to present the "infallible" Catholic interpretation of Romans 4:8 as to interpret who is this blessed man because I've never heard one. In reality, the magisterium rarely if ever infallibly interprets any passage of Scripture. They tend to be to busy infallibly declaring dogma as to ever bother interacting with Scripture itself. FYI, there are many popular interpretations of passages like John 6 that circulate in Catholic circles, but are they ever declared as infallible? Answer: no. I know of no book or resource that defines such. I've heard a lot about there being many valid interpretations of the same passage, but for claiming to have the ability to infallibly interpret Scripture, they sure don't use this capacity very often even though it would be very beneficial for the Church.

God Bless

 

[Arch Stanton]

Difference: your statement are actually vacuous while you just think my statements are vacuous.

Difference: I am obedient to the Church Christ established, you are not

Whats the necessary connection between Isaiah 22 and Matthew 16?

You have been told several times and you won't see/listen.... Chamberlain, steward, keys of authority -- pretty simple stuff

This is exactly how men like Athanasius argued with the Araians. This is how Augustine argued with the Pelagians. This is how Irenaeus argued against all those heresies.

and what do all three men in red have in common? they are all Catholic Bishops

If Rome teaches truth,

she does

Seriously, you don't even see Peter get the keys. Matthew 16 is future tense.

and? so you deny Peter being the only apostle to receive the keys of authority from Christ because you don't know the exact date? WOW

Either Peter got the keys in Matthew 18, with the rest of the Apostles, or at Pentecost, with the rest of the Apostles. Either way, all the Apostles got the same gift.

they all had the ability to bind/loose.... ONE had the keys

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

Difference: your statement are actually vacuous while you just think my statements are vacuous.

Difference: I am obedient to the Church Christ established, you are not

A myth told to Catholics.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Whats the necessary connection between Isaiah 22 and Matthew 16?

You have been told several times and you won't see/listen.... Chamberlain, steward, keys of authority -- pretty simple stuff

That's funny, because in Matthew 16, there is no Chamberlain, no Steward, and in Isaiah 22 there are no keys, just one key. That's not what anyone would define as a necessary connection.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
This is exactly how men like Athanasius argued with the Araians. This is how Augustine argued with the Pelagians. This is how Irenaeus argued against all those heresies.

and what do all three men in red have in common? they are all Catholic Bishops

Of course, they are all Catholic Bishops; that's why I picked them. My point is that they didn't act like you do. The Roman Church fundamentally changed from what the Church was in the 4th and 5th Centuries. The Reformers are more like the Catholic Church of the 2-5th century excommunicated by the "Catholic Church" of the 16-17th century.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
If Rome teaches truth,

she does

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Seriously, you don't even see Peter get the keys. Matthew 16 is future tense.

and? so you deny Peter being the only apostle to receive the keys of authority from Christ because you don't know the exact date? WOW

Vacuous response. You're the one arguing that Peter was the only Apostle to get the keys. You're the one who needs to justify said claim. I'm simply pointing out the fact that Scripture doesn't explicitly say when Peter got the keys. Therefore, there is question this exclusivity.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Either Peter got the keys in Matthew 18, with the rest of the Apostles, or at Pentecost, with the rest of the Apostles. Either way, all the Apostles got the same gift.

they all had the ability to bind/loose.... ONE had the keys

Empty assertion of dogma justified by nothing.

God Bless

 

[balshan]

Difference: I am obedient to the Church Christ established, you are not

You have been told several times and you won't see/listen.... Chamberlain, steward, keys of authority -- pretty simple stuff

and what do all three men in red have in common? they are all Catholic Bishops

she does

and? so you deny Peter being the only apostle to receive the keys of authority from Christ because you don't know the exact date? WOW

they all had the ability to bind/loose.... ONE had the keys

No the difference is you are obedient to the false church established by Satan. Your leaders lie and this shows who their real father is. The father of lies is satan. They teach false doctrines, they lie to authorities, they lie to the laity and they lie to their victims. They lie when they say their false confessions mean their sins are forgiven. No sin is forgiven if there is no repentance.

Those 3 men in red would vomit up your false church. They would have nothing to do with those who do not expose sin and do not follow 1 cor 5:11.

The keys were not given to evil men who do not expose sin. Provide one verse that says the keys were given to those who lie or hide sin. One versse.

 

[ramcam2]

One needs not be an infallible interpreter to interpret something correctly. If you think someone interpreted Scripture incorrectly, then correct them. Just realize, claiming the Roman Church is infallible and using that to critique an interpretation is utterly vacuous given others don't recognize said authority structure. Some parts of Scripture are difficult to interpret, others are painfully obvious. For example, Paul, quoting David, says "blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.” (Romans 4:8) as to explain how we are justified. Rome says all of our sins are accounted to us; that's why men must do acts of penance to deal with their venial and mortal sins. The is no complexities in the passage as to bring up a question of interpretation. The verse says what it says plainly. And, it is teaching something that does not mesh with Roman dogma with respect to the sacrament of penance. Here is the larger context:

Romans 4:1-12​

What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, tour forefather according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” 4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, 6 just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:​

7 “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,​

and whose sins are covered;​

8 blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not zcount his sin.”​

9 Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? For we say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. 10 How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. 11 He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, 12 and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.​

​

If you want to correct the Reformed interpretation of such, then present your case. I've never, ever seen a Catholic deal with this passage in a meaningful way. I literally watched a Catholic apologist in a debate say "I don't know" to the question who is the blessed man in v8. Frankly, I would love for you to present the "infallible" Catholic interpretation of Romans 4:8 as to interpret who is this blessed man because I've never heard one. In reality, the magisterium rarely if ever infallibly interprets any passage of Scripture. They tend to be to busy infallibly declaring dogma as to ever bother interacting with Scripture itself. FYI, there are many popular interpretations of passages like John 6 that circulate in Catholic circles, but are they ever declared as infallible? Answer: no. I know of no book or resource that defines such. I've heard a lot about there being many valid interpretations of the same passage, but for claiming to have the ability to infallibly interpret Scripture, they sure don't use this capacity very often even though it would be very beneficial for the Church.

God Bless

our difference is this. we have an infallible living interpreter in the church (matt18: 15-18;1tim3:15) while you have the bible which actually is the individual's personal fallible interpretation.

the church does not make it a habit of infallibly interpreting verses. if i am not mistaken only a handful (less than 10) have been infallibly defined. individual catholics are allowed to personally interpret verses as long as it does not ago against what is theologically certain. if you want check for a textbook where catholic subject matter have been properly expounded, one can go to 'the catechism of the catholic church'.

 

[mica]

our difference is this. we have an infallible living interpreter in the church (matt18: 15-18;1tim3:15)

no, you don't. no humans are infallible.

while you have the bible which actually is the individual's personal fallible interpretation.

believers don't have an 'individual personal interpretation'.

the church does not make it a habit of infallibly interpreting verses.

of course it doesn't - it is not infallible.

if i am not mistaken only a handful (less than 10) have been infallibly defined.

can you post those or link to a catholic source.

individual catholics are allowed to personally interpret verses as long as it does not ago against what is theologically certain.

iow, it can't go against what the rcc teaches...

if you want check for a textbook where catholic subject matter have been properly expounded, one can go to 'the catechism of the catholic church'.

is full of false teachings of men.

 

[balshan]

No the difference is you are obedient to the false church established by Satan. Your leaders lie and this shows who their real father is. The father of lies is satan. They teach false doctrines, they lie to authorities, they lie to the laity and they lie to their victims. They lie when they say their false confessions mean their sins are forgiven. No sin is forgiven if there is no repentance.

Those 3 men in red would vomit up your false church. They would have nothing to do with those who do not expose sin and do not follow 1 cor 5:11.

The keys were not given to evil men who do not expose sin. Provide one verse that says the keys were given to those who lie or hide sin. One versse.

Arch I see you found my response funny, unfortunately you will not be laughing when you face God and the truth is revealed. You haha response shows the reasons why one should never become an RC. No ability to defend your beliefs and blind guides.