But Paul Did Not SUBMIT TO PETER'S "AUTHORITY"

HEADER FOR Expressions

(Click picture to go back to Table of Contents)

Welcome

Enjoy... But remember
"Don't give in to winning the argument
and losing one of your eternal crowns..."

God bless you...

But Paul Did Not SUBMIT TO PETER'S "AUTHORITY"

Forum: Theological Expressions
Re:

Response to a message by Brewer's "people"
Re:

Adoi, No Need to Paranoia ('Santa' Monica)
Re:

reply
Re:

af29 said: "I repeat: Catholics do not need proof." (Christopher Yip)
Re:

Untitled
Re:

SO IS EVERY CHRISTIAN LED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT
Re:

Not All Christians Appointed Teachers, Apostles. /nt (Matthew Tan Yew Hock)
Re:

All devout followers have the ability to be teachers...it's a choice.......
Re:

Only one is appointed the "rock", "key-bearer", "confirmer of the brethen" (Matthew Tan Yew Hock)
Re:

PAUL REBUKED PETER FOR WHAT ?
Re:

Rebuking Peter, Yet Paul Needed His Support and Blessing (Gal 1 and 2) (Matthew Tan Yew Hock)
Date: 2001, Apr 14
From: Christopher Yip CKHY

Anti-Protestant TYH: What did Peter teach about circumcision? He taught authoritatively and infallibly that circumcision was not needed for Gentiles who converted(Act 15). Peter'a authority in teaching was unquestioned.
ME: Nobody says his authority in teaching was questioned. If unquestioned teaching means papal infallibility, then the rest of the twelve apostles are also infallible popes. And since the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholomew, is the successor of Andrew, he too is an infallible pope! That makes two popes and they both disagree on who is the ultimate authority!
Leslie Rumble and Charles Carty claimed:
"To show the urgency of the matter, he practically said, "I had to resist even Peter - to whom chief authority belongs." And his words derive their full significance only from the fact that St. Peter was head of the Apostles. (35)"
Where?! In the bible?! I can't find it! This is a classic case of the Peter Syndrom. Read more about it here.
http://www.aomin.org/SBNDDHrep.html
The Peter Syndrome
Roman Catholic Writers See Papal Supremacy Behind Every Bush, or In Every Early Father
by James White
It is true that Peter was reprimanded for his hypocrisy (although we would also argue doctrinally as seen from Paul's account in Galatians 2) and that his teaching or authority was not questioned but how can one therefore draw the conclusion that Peter was the first infallible pope? This is a non sequitur! Totally irrelevant. The conclusion can be anything for that matter.
That's what Rumble and Carty did - because Peter's teaching was seemingly unquestioned, they draw the non-sequitur conclusion that he was the infallible head of all the apostles. Such fallacious argument can also be seen to be quite flexible in Roman Catholic apologetics. You see, when Protestants draw the conclusion that since James presided over the Jerusalem council, James was therefore more authoritative than Peter, we get shot down for a non-sequitur but they are quite happy to use the SAME argument whenever it conveniences them.
Yawn.
Christopher

to: "But Paul Did Not SUBMIT TO PETER'S "AUTHORITY""

FOOTER for Expressions

Thank you for contributing to Expressions!

Back to Antioch's Home Page
For more information, please send your request to: forumaster@antioch.com.sg.