Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion4.6.12-4.6.14
1. The alleged transfer of the episopal see from Antioch to Rome. Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals is the source for this tripe. A letter of Pope Marcellus is made to say to his bishops, “He to whom the Lord said, `Thou art Peter…is the head of the whole church. For his see was originally in your midst, but at the Lord’s command it was transferred to Rome, in which by the help of divine grace we preside at this day.” How did the Pope know this “commandment?” This is an ad hoc and post hoc reading of history. The Orthodox and the True Catholics (=Confessional Protestants) are not in the market for Romanist sandbags. They've never been fooled by Roman lusts.
2. If so, that is, the alleged transfer from Antioch to Rome, why didn’t original episcopal see, Antioch, retain a secondary role? Where's the rejoinder from Anti-Christ in Rome? If grounded in his “person,” whence the change? Why the loss of a secondary role to Rome? The question is left standing without a Papist answer.
3. How did Alexandria take precedence over Antioch, to wit, the disciple of an apostle, St. Mark at Alexandria, to be superior to the apostle Peter at Antioch (assuming the Papist vanities and lusts for supremacy)?
4. Paul mentions James, Peter and John as the pillars of the church (Gal.2.9). Assuming Anti-christ’s arguments, why hasn’t Jerusalem and Ephesus taken secondary and tertiary roles behind Rome? Answer: the apostles didn’t think like power-aggrandizing Rome. Well did an English Reformer say when he called Rome a "lusty strumpet." It wasn't boorishness or rudeness that prompted such, but insights to Rome's real character by first hand, on-the-scene, and skilled witnesses.
5. According to the canon iii of Constantinople (381), the bishop of Constantinople had the “prerogative of honour after the bishop of Rome” on that ground that “Constantinople is the new Rome.” It was one of honour, not jurisdiction. The East never conceded Papist lusts, then or now. Where’s Jerusalem and Ephesus on Papist presuppositions of personal place establishing the dignity of an apostolic see? Rome rejected this canon.
6.. According to canon xxviii, Council of Chalcedon (451), “For the fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of the elder Rome because that city was the capital.” Rome rejected this canon also. Well did the XXXIX Articles note that Councils can and do err. This power and honour is not for the church leaders to give or take. Revelation 1-3 notes who has “vested” authority over the churches, Christ Himself. Christ lifts up and puts down. Christ has surely "put Romanism" down, although she continues to strut her false Gospel. The points of (3)-(5) observe that “places” of apostolic labours were not the basis of according pre-eminence of jurisdiction, e.g. Ephesus, Jerusalem, or Alexandria.
7. Ergo, let Anti-christ acknowledge the “ordering of church pre-eminence” is “preposterous” or assert that “to each church is due the same degree of honor as to its founder.” This that whore to false spirits will not do.
8. Rome has never been in a mood for logical arguments, but like an ignorant, loud, drunken and blustering sailor, Anti-Christ continues to assert self-claims of supremacy that are obnoxious and are not in the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ…on this point alone, not to mention its false Gospel.
9. Peter’s presence in Rome is disputable while Paul’s most certainly is indisputable. Eusebius asserts that Peter was in Rome for twenty-five years. Yet, Galatians 1 and 2 put Peter at Jerusalem and Antioch for twenty-two years after the death of Christ. Gregory 1 rebuts Eusebius, Letters VII.37, putting Peter at Rome for seven years at the most. This demonstrates that Eusebius' view was not universally held, not even in Rome. From Christ’s death to Nero’s death is thirty-seven years. Subtract twenty years and there is seventeen years divided between “two episcopates,” Antioch and Rome. The evidence is that Peter, if in Rome at all, was there for a short time. Paul’s letter to Rome was while headed to Jerusalem for a follow-on trip to Rome. Peter is not mentioned at all in Romans 16, a most unlikely event were Peter in Rome.
9. Interpretation. The Roman claim to Petrine supremacy, universal episcopacy and sovereign dominion are arguments in a lustful search of sound judgment and are arguments in the exercises of failed judgments.
10. Application. Tell the truth. Hold Papists' feet to the fire. Cast water on the lustful fires of Anglicans who lust for "it." Ask why Confessional Churchmen are not more visible on this doctrine, including the children-leaders in the ACNA, e.g. Iker, Ackerman and other SSC-false-churchmen.
No comments:
Post a Comment