Norski’s comment on my post on Christian marriage and how he converted to Roman Catholicism because of what he believed to be Peter’s primacy got me writing a post on this finally.
I’ve always intended to write something on the topic, seeing that I had rejected Roman Catholicism in my journey to Christianity, but it seems that even talking about it can get quite a few people all riled up. However, I feel it’s better to write about it than to keep quiet.
Before I continue, let me make it very clear that I have nothing against Roman Catholics — my wife’s family is Roman Catholic and I have many friends who are Roman Catholics and we get along really well. What I have a problem with is the Roman Catholic Church’s claim to have power over Christians worldwide because of the ‘legitimate’ power of the pope passed on from Peter.
If you are a Roman Catholic, I pray you read this with an open mind, seeking wisdom with prayer, and have the Bible open in front of you so you can read for yourself the verses that I will be referring to in this post.
Don’t worry, I’ll wait, go prepare and get your Bible.
Are we all set? Let’s begin then.
Before we can answer if the pope does indeed have the primacy of Peter passed on to him, we must first examine if it is indeed true that our Lord Jesus Christ had commissioned Peter as the leader of the Church.
Because, as the Roman Catholic Church claims, the pope is the “Vicar of Christ” since they derive their power from Peter whom our Lord Jesus Christ entrusted His Church to. Therefore, it follows that if Peter was not entrusted at all, then the Roman Catholic Church and her popes have nothing but a false claim!
For all things, let’s look at Scripture because it is taught that “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
The Roman Catholic Church claims that Matthew 16:18-19 firmly establishes Peter as Christ’s ordained leader of His Church. Let’s read that together now:
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Matthew 16:18-19
Let’s examine the verses in detail, shall we?
Notice that our Lord Jesus Christ did not say “… That thou art Peter, and upon YOU I will build my church;”.
Our Lord specifically said “… and upon this ROCK I will build my church;”. No matter how you read it in Greek, Aramaic, English or any other language, “Peter” and “rock” are two distinct words. In Greek, the original language that the book of Matthew is written in, the words “Peter” and “rock” are two different words.
In Greek, “Peter” is the word “petros”, while “rock” is the word “petra”. Do you see the difference? Our Lord Jesus Christ was affirming that Peter is “petros” (some translate it as pebbles in English), but He, our Lord, is the “petra”, rock upon which the Church will be established.
Perhaps you still maintain that you believe that Peter is that rock. That’s alright, we each will have our opinions, but let’s agree to refer to the Word of God together to see what else we can learn from the Bible about this issue, shall we?
Let’s read some passages together and find out who the Church is really built upon:
According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building upon it. Let each one take care how he builds upon it. For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
1 Corinthians 3:10-11
For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior.
Ephesians 5:23
so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ
Ephesians 4:14-15
In all three references, it is stated very clearly that Christ is the head of the Church, and not Peter!
Furthermore, the other Apostles seemed to have no idea that our Lord had made Peter their leader. Now we all know that the Apostles are most obedient when our Lord gives them a commandment to follow, so how is it that they do not know Peter was their leader if indeed our Lord Jesus Christ had ordained Peter thus?
On the night of the betrayal, the Apostles were arguing amongst themselves as to who was the greatest:
A dispute also arose among them, as to which of them was to be regarded as the greatest. And he said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those in authority over them are called benefactors. But not so with you. Rather, let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves.”
Luke 22:24-26
Again, notice that our Lord Jesus Christ did not stop the argument by saying “Look, guys, I already put Peter in charge, so stop arguing”.
In other words, our Lord Jesus Christ did not accord anyone the power to be His representative on earth much as the Roman Catholic Church claims the pope is the ‘Vicar of Christ’ (the word ‘vicar’, taken from Dictionary.com, means ‘a person who acts in place of another; substitute.’ and ‘a person who is authorized to perform the functions of another; deputy’).
And if our Lord Jesus Christ did not accord anyone in particular to be His representative on earth, much less Peter, how, then, can the Roman Catholic Church claim this as the basis for the office of the pope?
In light of our Lord’s teachings, we must therefore ask ourselves if we still subscribe to Peter’s primacy — whose words do we believe in? The Word of God or the words of man?
I pray you heed God’s words.
Photo Credit: Lawrence OP.
Related posts:
- Returning to Mother Since my wife’s testimony was posted, I’ve met a few...
- What’s the Difference Between Christianity and Roman Catholicism? To many who are not well acquainted with the teachings...
- How to Cut the Queue In Purgatory Take a trip to Lourdes during the “special offer” period...
- Look What the Ecumenical Movement Dragged In Protestant rosaries, that’s what! Oh dear, oh my. No, I...
- The Corruption of the Roman Church — A Timeline Surely, this is not the “true Church of God” as...
25 Responses
Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.
Good post, but you’re spitting into the wind. The Catholic Church asserts that Jesus was speaking in Aramaic, and in that vein was clearly referring to Peter as the rock the church would be built on. I believe Jesus spoke in Hebrew though, which severely damages the church’s claim.
The problem is, if the church said, that’s what catholics will believe and they will not be convinced otherwise. It’s a shame.
BTW, your wife’s family is catholic? You have my deepest sympathies.
Thank you.
With regards to Jesus speaking in Aramaic, I’ve read that there isn’t a copy of the Gospel of Matthew in Aramaic. It exists only in Greek.
And it is Greek we have to refer to, because Matthew couldn’t have intentionally twisted the words of Jesus spoken in Aramaic as claimed when he recorded the Gospel in Greek, could he?
If we think he did, then we might as well throw the entire Gospel of Matthew out the window, as that throws into doubt everything that he recorded.
My wife’s family is Roman Catholic, but she is more Protestant nowadays.
This is a quote from an article I red on the subject:
“Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Professor Emeritus of The Catholic University of American in Washington, D.C., and one of the world’s most distinguished New Testament scholars, suggests that Jesus employed an Aramaic wordplay (Kepha-kepha) in his response to Peter’s declaration. However, Fitzmyer acknowledges a difficulty: he wonders why the Matthean Jesus did not say, “On this petros I will build….” This difficulty is a product of Fitzmyer’s Aramaic reconstruction. He has been forced in Aramaic to reconstruct Jesus’ wordplay using only one word; therefore, he is unable to preserve the wordplay reflected in Greek, a play on two different words.”
If I remember right, one of the arguments for why there are two different words was that petros was simply the masculine version of the word petra, and hence both mean the same thing, which is a weak claim. This however all stems from the assumption that Jesus was speaking in Aramaic at the time.
Instead, if He was in fact speaking in Hebrew, the wordplay fits perfectly. Petros doesn’t exist in Aramaic, but it does in Hebrew, having been borrowed and included into the Hebrew the same way we would graft foreign words into the English language (like detente or cliche).
Hebrew is an achilles heel for the Catholic Church, which is why they shy away from it, and why some scholars vehemently refute the idea that Hebrew was anything other than a dead language back then. Interpreting the gospels from a Hebraic perspective goes a long way in destroying the apostolic claims of the Catholic Church.
Which is precisely why through numerous translation, the interpretation of the bible is heavily debated. To put it in layman’s term, the “rock” is simply refered to a chosen piece of sacred land upon which the church will be built. I often liken it to another comparison which often I believe that it is the “Temple of God” but can I claim to be God? The answer is obvious.
I gave up bible college within 6 months simply because I couldn’t agree with a lot of definitions.
Great post!!! My dad has always had similar opinions and made them known to me. I’ve found that he has good reasoning and upon my own reading and knowledge of the topic I must also agree with what you have said.
I think one slight problem with the Catholic church’s assertions is that it seems to place itself eqaul with Christ. They still have confessions, don’t they? And you have to go through the priest to have communion. Most Catholic churches teach salvation through works, not faith, as well, which is one of my biggest pet peeves.
I’ve known several Catholics who don’t believe in these things. I know there are those who go to Catholic church, but really do have the heart relationship with Christ and belive in salvation through faith in Christ alone. I find that many do not realize what their church teaches. Either that or they blindly feed off of what they are told.
In regards to who is Christ’s representative on earth, I belive we all have the equal responsibilty to represent Christ. I also think this is one of the reasons why community is so important. We work together as a community and as individuals to witness to those around us. There is no one specific representative of Christ that leads the church, we all work together to move the church forward.
I’m back.
Well-written post.
About the “Peter” linguistic thing, I’m going to repeat from a comment I left on one of your earlier posts:
“There’s an interesting article, “Matthew Chapter 16, Verse 18: The Primacy of Peter” at ( http://www.catholicapologetics.org/ap050200.htm ).
It’s somewhat academic, but does a decent job of discussing some of the linguistic issues.
About
“Hebrew is an achilles heel for the Catholic Church, which is why they shy away from it, and why some scholars vehemently refute the idea that Hebrew was anything other than a dead language back then. Interpreting the gospels from a Hebraic perspective goes a long way in destroying the apostolic claims of the Catholic Church.”
I’ve been married to a gung-ho Catholic for about a quarter century. Her father has been a deacon for 20 years, and I’ve talked theology and Catholicism with both extensively, as well as doing my own reading.
This is the first that I’ve heard that the Catholic Church shies away from Hebrew.
Anyone interested in following up on this might find the 511 (when I checked) references I found when searching for ‘hebrew’ at vatican.net ( http://vatican.mondosearch.com/search_en.aspx?query=hebrew&x=0&y=0 ) - the Vatican’s website.
It’s not a bad resource for information about Catholicism.
BTW - Although “Peter’s Primacy” was a factor, it wasn’t the only one.
If I had to do a ‘25-words-or-less’ explanation for my conversion, I’d say
I became Catholic because I wanted to join the Commander’s outfit. The Commander being Jesus, Second Person of the Trinity.
Thank you all for the kind compliments and comments. I’ll get to answering all of you in time (today’s a rather busy day at work so please forgive me if I am a little tardy with my replies).
Lincoln: I’ve actually read that part of the feminine and masculine references before as well.
In addition, ‘petros’ which is ‘Peter’ in Greek refers to ‘a piece of rock; a stone; a single stone; movable, insecure, shifting, or rolling’ while ‘petra’ which is the rock that Christ Jesus referred to is in Greek ‘a rock; a cliff; a projecting rock; mother rock; huge mass; solid formation; fixed; immovable; enduring’.
Now we can ask ourselves if indeed a Church should be built upon shifting sands or a solid immovable rock. And isn’t there a parable that our Lord told that describes building on shifting sand and rock?
Ref: Luke 6: 43-49 (KJV)
Harmony:
Thank you for your comment.
Those are the other issues I have a big problem with with the Roman Catholic system — confessions, sacraments, etc., — ‘traditions’ that are not of God.
Because when we confess and repent, there should only be one forgiver, and that is Jesus Christ. And what use are sacraments but man-made obstacles to the real salvation that our Lord provides through His death and resurrection?
I won’t say that we are Christ’s representative. The word ‘representative’ would be a little too heavy. I’d say that people see Christ through us, just as how other parents might see you through your children.
For example, if your children are well-behaved, then other parents perceive you more positively than if your children were the brats of the neighborhood.
ET:
I didn’t know you were studying in a bible college! Which was it? Trinity?
Were you studying to be a minister?
One thing I learned though in reading the Bible, is that usually God explains what some things mean further down the line. Yes, I admit it isn’t that straightforward, but most times it can be found.
Welcome back, Norski!
I’ll go read up on that link later this evening.
I am puzzled by your second statement in summarizing the reason for converting to Roman Catholicism, i.e. “to join the Commander’s outfit. The Commander being Jesus, Second Person of the Trinity.”
What does Roman Catholicism offer that allows a person to join the Commander’s outfit, and more importantly, what exactly is the Commander’s outfit?
I was in London Bible College… because I was staying in my auntie’s place when she further study her music there. I was never encouraged to take up local bible college.
Hope nobody starts debating whether a church should be built on reclaimed land or not.
I *knew* I should have re-thought (and probably skipped) that ‘commander’s outfit’ remark.
The phrase, and the thought is strictly my own.
Trying to answer the question, “What does Roman Catholicism offer that allows a person to join the Commander’s outfit, and more importantly, what exactly is the Commander’s outfit?” -
In the sense I meant the phrase, the Roman Catholic Church *is* “the Commander’s outfit.” As for what Roman Catholicism has to offer, in this regard it’s this:
The Roman Catholic Church dates back to the apostles, and to Jesus Himself.
The Eastern Church can claim the same, but didn’t have a separate identity until somewhere between a few hundred years and a thousand years after the time of the apostles.
So, historically, the Christian was the the Roman Catholic and, later, the Roman and the Eastern Church, until five centuries ago.
Theological considerations aside, I’m inclined to respect age and tradition.
Somewhat odd, considering the reputation Americans have.
Interesting.
I recently had a conversation on this very topic with a Catholic on my blog (specifically, it was on the RCC’s authority over marriage). Unfortunately, at that time, I hadn’t studied up enough on Matthew 16:19 and I, regrettably, too quickly agreed with his interpretation. Since then, a more truthful interpretation has been revealed and I intend to blog on it again soon.
Last night, I read the testimony of a former nun who has since abandoned the RCC. If anyone’s interested, you can read her story here:
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/nun2.htm
An interesting point that she makes in her essay is that if Peter was, in fact, a pope, he never made mention of it, nor did the other apostles. He didn’t seem to be held in any higher esteem than the others for the duration of the New Testament.
Your blog is always a good, easy, thought-provoking read and I appreciate you for it.
Take care,
Free
ET:
That’s most interesting. I’d be most interested to find out what the disagreements were.
Norski,
I hope you don’t think I’m out of line here, but believing that the Roman Catholic Church can trace its lineage to Jesus Christ and the Apostles is perhaps the most erroneous thing to recognize.
As a short answer, the first churches were certainly not Roman Catholic, and certainly the Apostles would not have been ones to practise what the Roman Catholic Church teaches and advocates today.
Let’s make a very simple apple-to-apple comparison. First read Exodus 20:2 and up for the 10 Commandments as recorded in the Bible.
Next read the 10 Commandments as stipulated by the Vatican at
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/command.htm
Notice the differences? Would a Church that claims its roots from Jesus Christ and the Apostles be so very different from what the Bible teaches?
Thank you for the comments and kind words, Free. I’m heading off to read that blog you recommended soon!
Hope to read your blog entry on this as well! It’ll be most interesting to share our views on this issue.
Excellent, excellent points!
There are a lot of comments here, but I’ll add my two cents anyhow
If we take a passage out of context of the content, we have a stand alone passage that can be interpreted however we wish. In saying that, the preceding passage, prior to Christ’s declaration should be read. We MUST understand that Christ was responding to Peter’s declaration which was this:
“And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” –16
In response to that Christ declares this:
“And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven”–17
The Word teaches us that:
“Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.” 1 Corinthians 12:3
What is this rock that Christ speaks of, but the Holy Spirit? Isn’t this validated by Acts 2, when the Holy Spirit came at Penecost and people were converted by the thousands?
Just my two cents
God Bless!
Welcome to my little blog, and thank you for your most kind words, Hannah!
You made an excellent point there — about mentioning the verses preceding that proclamation of our Lord Jesus Christ that HE is the rock upon which the Church will be built.
Taking in its entirety, it gives us the real insight into why our Lord said what He said, and how He chose to put it.
I missed that totally, so thank you for bringing it up!
Shabbat Shalom, and God Bless!
A very insightful article and one which affirms my own beliefs about the RCC. Having been born into a RC family and having attended catechism classes at a young age, my revelations about the RCC only came about when I was a young adult. That fateful day was when I dug up my old catechism study materials and re-read them with a Bible as reference. And it was as Hannah mentioned, “a passage out of the context of the context” in most of the “teachings” that they had been drilling into my young mind at the time.
Its sad to see that the RCC still continues to practice this use of Bible passages taken out of context by way of published Daily Prayers Books (i.e. Bible passages with the Church’s teaching based on that passage printed thereafter) or, for that matter, their Church missals. The lack of the Holy Bible being used as a main source of reference in Catholic Churches and that the RCC’s clergy are the only authoritative voice on how the Bible should be interpreted is why I disapprove of the RCC.
It is very difficult to witness to Roman Catholics, simply because they have been brought up in that way since young.
Some go of their own accord to seek the Truth while others do not, and are content, and think it right, to just follow the traditions of the Church and their forebears.
Just to re-inforce what you said:
Paul excoriates the Corinthians for dividing into personality cults in 1 Corinthinans, chapter 3. If you read the whole chapter, you’ll see him mention cults based upon himself and Apollos in verses 4-6, and also Peter (”Cephas” in the KJV) in verse 22. Roman Catholicism remains stuck in the Copernican debate, thinking that “The Church” is the center of the Universe.
Another title the Pope dares to take upon himself is the Paraclete. That’s blasphemous on the RCC’s part and plain ignorant on the part of anybody who swallows it. Jesus specifically said that the Paraclete would be the Holy Spirit. By extension, every Spirit-indwelt believer has just as much right to call him- or herself a vicar of Christ to the world, just like Harmony said. I don’t think “representative” is too heavy because Paul called himself an ambassador.
O.K. You set the ground rules. Let’s see where they take us.
For all things, let’s look at Scripture because it is taught that “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” (2 Timothy 3:16, KJV).
First off, this is an incomplete quote as this is an incomplete sentence. In order to understand the TRUE meaning of the passage the quote should be:
“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” - 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (KJV)
The next thing we need to determine meaning are the references this passage points to. According to your KJV they are:
2 Peter 1:20 (KJV) Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
2 Corinthians 2:17-18 (KJV) For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.
2 Peter 3:16 (KJV) As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
With the references in place the meaning is clear: Scripture (the Bible) is not subject to private interpretation because it is only to be taught by men of God (ministers).
THIS is how you read the Bible. Take a passage, grab the references and read them as a WHOLE. If the references point to other scripture, grab them, too, and pretty soon Scripture Itself will lead you back to where you started.
The Roman Catholic Church claims that Matthew 16:18-19 firmly establishes Peter as Christ’s ordained leader of His Church. Let’s read that together now:
“And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” – Matthew 16:18-19 (KJV)
Let’s examine the verses in detail, shall we?
Fair enough. I’ll continue to use your KJV and the explanations that follow will come from your own well respected and highly educated Protestant scholars.
Matthew 16:18 (KJV) And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church;
The reference for this passage is:
John 1:42 (KJV) And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone (or Peter according to the footnotes).
(Note: In Syriac, the form of Aramaic which Jesus Christ spoke, there is no difference of genders, as there is in Latin, between petra, a rock, and Petrus, Peter; hence, in the original language, the allusion was both more natural and more simple.)
Matthew 16:18 (KJV) continued… and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
This section of the passage points to:
Isaiah 54:17 (KJV) No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of me, saith the LORD.
Matthew 16:19 (KJV) And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven:
The reference you’ll find is:
Isaiah 22:22 (KJV) And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.
This is the core of the Catholic Church’s claim of the Primacy of Peter, and here’s what two Protestant scholars say:
(Bible de Vence) — Dr. Whitby, a learned Protestant divine, thus expounds this and the preceding verse: “As a suitable return to thy confession, I say also to thee, that thou art by name Peter, i.e. a rock; and upon thee, who art this rock, I will build my Church, and I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, the power of making laws to govern my Church.” (Tom. i, p. 143.)
Dr. Hammond, another Protestant divine, explains it in the same manner. And p. 92, he says: ” What is here meant by the keys, is best understood by Isaias xxii. 22, where they signified ruling the whole family or house of the king: and this being by Christ accommodated to the Church, denotes the power of governing it.”
As the royal son of David, Christ is the owner of the key of David, but this doesn’t mean He can’t give to Peter, as His “prime minister,” the keys to His heavenly Kingdom.
As you will see from Isaiah 22:20-23, Eliakim is made master of the palace, a post roughly equivalent to prime minister. As the king’s right-hand man, the master of the palace is given the “key of the House of David.”
Keys symbolize authority, so bestowing the key to the House of David upon Eliakim is equivalent to giving him, as the king’s duly appointed representative, authority over the kingdom.
Revelation 3:7 speaks of Jesus as “the holder of the key of David.” Some argue this means he fulfills the role Eliakim foreshadowed in Isaiah 22:20-23. They claim this excludes a prophetic application of this text to Peter by Christ in Matthew 16:18-19.
There’s a problem with this argument. In Isaiah 22 Eliakim is master of the palace–the king isn’t. Eliakim possesses the key of the kingdom not as its owner, but as one deputed to oversee the king’s affairs. If we apply this to Christ, then we must conclude He’s not the true Messianic King, merely His prime minister, the Messiah’s chief representative!
Although Jesus is called the “holder of the key of David” in Revelation 3:7, He doesn’t hold it as Eliakim did. As the son of David, Jesus is the heir to the throne of his ancestor (Luke 1:32-33). He really is the King, not the master of the king’s palace, as was Eliakim. As King, Jesus is free to bestow the keys of His Kingdom on whomever he wishes–without losing the authority those keys represent.
It’s the Catholic position that this is precisely what Jesus does in Matthew 16:18-19. Peter identifies Jesus as the Messiah, which means, among other things, acknowledging His Kingship. Christ then shows His Kingly authority by bestowing on Peter something only the King could give–the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven–thus making Peter the Messianic equivalent of Eliakim.
My Roman Catholic defense of the Primacy of Peter ends here. There is no need to proceed further. As for the rest of the scripture passages quoted above, be honest with yourself and gather all the references given. If you do this, you just may discover something you didn’t know before.
here’s another unanswered, rather substantial comment, i think.
i’m not expecting you to reply to all of them, i imagine this could lead to a lengthy debate which probably won’t be resolved (as has been the case with other people, mostly wiser than i am, for hundreds of years), i just feel that it should be noted that many (if not all of) the Catholic Church’s views are actually indeed grounded in scripture, a point that you often ignore (and in fact deny).
but one question is this - how does one believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, without believing in apostolic tradition? how can you be so sure that the Biblical canon you follow is the right one? the oft-quoted verse from 2 timothy (about ‘all scripture’) would have referred to the old testament at the point of writing - yes, perhaps it was written with knowledge of the compiled book that would follow, but how is this assumption made without the belief in apostolic succession? the same applies for revelation (22:18-19) which i sometimes hear being cited as supporting the completeness of the Bible. again i can believe it as referring to the (at that point) future complete volume that is now circulated, but i find this hard to accept without acceptance of apostolic succession.
my basic thought process is this - at one point in time the Bible did not exist as it does now, so obviously the exact canon of what is ‘profitable for doctrine’ had to be decided upon somewhere. the early churches had some differences in what exactly they’d considered to be scripture, with consensus coming about in approx the 4th-5th century (according to wikipedia, anyway).
so - if biblical canon was decided at one point (a few centuries after Jesus’s death) by church leaders, how do you accept this biblical canon without accepting the authority of those church leaders?
Continuing the Discussion