Topic: Apologetics for the Masses – Issue #169 (from: Bible Christian Society)

General Comments

I’m still trying to get back into a regular newsletter-writing routine. Just a lot of things going on that keep getting me out of my regular routine. Right now I’m involved in trying to sell one radio station and buy a better one for Catholic radio here in Birmingham. So please say a prayer that we can swing that whole deal…lots of little pieces that all have to fall into place to make it happen.

Introduction

Well, Mr. Thomas Thrasher finally got back to me with his latest reply in our debate on whether or not Peter was the first Pope and, I have to say, I was disappointed, though not surprised, by his response. As you will see, he essentially answers my arguments not by directly attacking them, but rather by simply repeating what he said previously, almost as if I had never made a response.

Before reading his reply and my response, I recommend you go back and read Issue #166 on the Newsletter page of our website (www.biblechristiansociey.com) to refresh your memories regarding my last set of arguments. Then come back and read this issue.

You know, reading his latest response reminded me of why I decided to take a break from debating his fellow Campbellite Church of Christ member, Mr. Pat Donahue – the debate moves forward to a certain point and then simply stops and even begins to regress. Even though these guys are relatively intelligent human beings, there is something that quite often occurs when you debate with a “Bible-only” person and you start forcing them to dive beneath the surface of their rather shallow theological constructs. When they can’t dive down below, because there is nothing down below to dive into, they have a choice to make. Either they have to admit to themselves that there are questions about their theology that they cannot currently resolve (which, though not frequently, can happen), or they have to try to draw again from a very shallow theological well that has already been tapped out. And when they try to draw again from that tapped out well, the muck they pull up from the bottom can range from the slightly ridiculous to the utterly bizarre. Which results in otherwise intelligent men suffering from a condition that I call “getting stupid in a hurry” when it comes to the Bible. Again, these are not stupid men, but if they are unwilling to accept that they may have a chink in their theological armor, then they are forced, by their own theology, into saying some rather ridiculous things.

Okay, enough on that. Mr. Thrasher’s response is presented first in its entirety, and then I give my response afterwards.

Challenge/Response/Strategy

Thomas Thrasher – 4th Negative:

My friend thinks he “touched a nerve” by using an “insulting epithet” (“Campbellite”). He says, “I didn’t realize that associating his church with its founders (the Campbells) would cause insult.” John is surely not so naïve or uninformed that he does not know the term “Campbellite” is offensive to us. John’s pretense at innocence in repeatedly using that term is quite disingenuous! John then charges that I have been guilty of “insulting” his church; however, he neglects to cite any instances. I have referred to the Roman Catholic Church because that is the term used in his proposition, and he accepts it. Not only do I not accept the term “Campbellite,” I reject it!

John mentions several items again (the term Bible, instrumental music in worship, church meetings on Wednesday nights, and authorship of Bible books). Since I have already commented on these matters, since his remarks do not provide evidence for his proposition, and since my rebuttal space is limited, I ask you to re–read my third speech for my replies to these points.

However, my friend also mentions “contraception” again (apparently a topic of great importance to him), yet he has never submitted a single verse supporting his viewpoint on this issue. If he wishes to introduce some scriptural evidence on “contraception,” I will respond. However, I am confident that whatever he offers will not demonstrate that Peter was Pope!
John asked, “Do the Greek words biblion and biblios … once refer to all 73 books of the Bible as ‘The Bible’”? John, was that a “trick” question? My Bible has 66 books. However, Revelation 20:12, “And the dead were judged … by the things which were writte n in the books” (tois bibliois), is an example.

My opponent also asked, “Of all the Bible verses Mr. Thrasher trots out to prove that ‘God is the source’ of the Gospel of Mark, did one of them ever mention the ‘Gospel of Mark?’” 2 Timothy 3:16 states: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God…”

John states: “To summarize: the Scripture is silent, in his fallible opinion, on Peter being the 1st head of the Church; therefore, he doesn’t believe Peter was.” My friend misrepresents my rebuttal arguments by ignoring many points I have made. For example, note the following scriptural evidence that Peter was not a Pope:

· According to the Bible, Jesus is the only Head of the church (Ephesians 1:22–23; 5:23; Colossians 1:19). What verse teaches Peter or his alleged successors were Heads?
· Peter did not have authority over other apostles. Paul wrote, “In nothing was I behind the most eminent apostles” (2 Corinthians 12:11); “I am not at all inferior to the most eminent apostles” (2 Corinthians 11:5).
· Jesus condemned exalting one disciple above others: “But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren” (Matthew 23:8).
· Peter referred to himself as a fellow elder: “The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder … shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, … and when the Chief Shepherd appears…” (1 Peter 5:1–4). Peter did not claim preeminence over other elders. He declared the oversight of elders is limited to the local church. Peter called Jesus (not himself) the Chief Shepherd.
· Peter’s name is n ot mentioned first in several passages (Galatians 2:9; 1 Corinthians 1:12; 3:22; 9:5), so, by John’s reasoning, Peter must not have been Pope!
· The power to “bind and loose” was given to all the apostles (Matthew 18:18), not just Peter!
· The 12 apostles were (in some sense) to “sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Matthew 19:28).
· Peter did not accept reverence from men (Acts 10:25–26).
· The Bible provides no indication that Peter accepted titles such as Pope, Vicar of Christ, Bishop of Rome, Head of the Church (cf. 1 Peter 1:1; 2 Peter 1:1).
· Elders/Bishops were instructed to “shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers” (1 Peter 5:1–3), not the church universal.
· The term “Holy Father” is never used of Peter. It is only used by Jesus in addressing God the Father (John 17:11).
· Peter said nothing about being a Pope or having any papal successors (Book of Acts; 1 Peter; 2 Peter).
· Peter was a married man (1 Corinthians 9:5; Matthew 8:14). John, who was the last married Pope of whom you have knowledge?
· The office and qualifications of Pope are never mentioned in the Scriptures; however, others are (e.g., apostles––Ephesians 4:11; 2 Corinthians 12:11–12; bishops or elders––Acts 20:17, 28; 1 Timothy 3:1–7; 1 Peter 5:1–3; deacons––Philippians 1:1; 1 Timothy 3:8–13); and evangelists (2 Timothy 4:5). “And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers” (Ephesians 4:11), but no mention of Popes, Cardinals, or Archbishops!
· The a postle Paul wrote several letters to or from Rome, naming many individuals (e.g., Romans 16:1–23; Colossians 4:7–14; 2 Timothy 4:9–21; Philemon 23–24). However, Paul never mentions Peter, a peculiar omission if Peter was Bishop of Rome or Pope!
· Peter did not have primacy. Paul wrote: “God shows personal favoritism to no man—for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me. But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised” (Galatians 2:6–9).
· Peter never celebrated mass, never heard confessions, never directed anyone to pray to Mary or the saints, never advocated the use of holy water, never ordered people to abstain from meat on Fridays or during Lent, never taught that priests and nuns should not marry, never presented his foot to be kissed, and never lived in a palace with soldiers to guard him and numerous servants to supply his wants. He didn’t do these things and many others … because he was never Pope!

John asserts, “In essence, he conceded the debate with those quotations” concerning the early so–called popes. Completely untrue! My friend offered statements regarding the primacy of Peter from Tertullian (ca 213 A.D.), Clement of Alexandria (ca 200 A.D.), Origen (ca 230 A.D.), and Cyprian of Carthage (ca 251 A.D.), writing approximately 170–221 years after the beginning of the church!

My opponent admits, ̶ 0;There was disagreement amongst early Christians as to the order and timing of Peter’s successors.” That is exactly what I was demonstrating—their testimony is not inspired or necessarily trustworthy. Therefore, we ought to depend upon inspired scripture, not uninspired (and often contradictory) statements of men as evidence for John’s proposition. As previously quoted:

“In the article PAPACY we have referred to the uncertainty prevailing in regard to the first bishops of Rome. Roman Catholic writers themselves quite generally admit that the statements of ancient Church–writers on the subject are entirely irreconcilable, and that it is impossible to establish with any degree of certainty the order in which they followed each other, the years of their accession to the see of Rome, and the year of their death” (Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, volume 8, page 409).

John never answered some questions I asked in my second speech: Do you agree with everything written by ‘early Christian writers’? Did each of the four men you quoted write by inspiration, guided by the Holy Spirit as Bible writers were?

My opponent argued that Jesus appointed Peter as “shepherd of His flock” (John 21:15–17); therefore, Peter was over the other apostles and head of the whole church. However, all the apostles were told to feed the sheep in the sense of teaching them (Matthew 28:18–20; Mark 16:15–16) and caring for them (2 Corinthians 11:28). Bishops/elders were also told to feed the flock (1 Peter 5:1–3; Acts 20:28). Are all of them Popes?

The truth is that there is no passage, including John 21, that calls Peter the Chief Shepherd or that states He has authority over the other apostles. Jesus is the Chief Shepherd (1 Peter 5 :4) and Great Shepherd (Hebrews 13:20), not Peter. The fundamental error of the doctrine of Papal authority is that it exalts a man to the place of God. Jesus is Head (Ephesians 1:22–23), Foundation (1 Corinthians 3:11), and Chief Shepherd (1 Peter 5:4).

John asked, “If Jesus is not appointing Peter as the shepherd of His flock … what He is doing”? After Peter’s three–fold denial of the Lord (Luke 22:34, 61), Jesus uses this occasion to restore Peter to His service. Despite Peter’s previous failures, the Lord now admonishes Peter to “follow Me” (John 21:19, 22).

John asked, “Don’t you believe that we aren’t supposed to call anyone ‘father’”? In the sense that Jesus prohibited it, we shouldn’t—“Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven” (Matthew 23:9). John, what do you think th e Lord meant when He said that? Should we do what He said not to do?

John apparently overlooked my response to his argument that Peter’s being told to “strengthen your brethren” (Luke 22:24–26) shows he was to become the Pope:
· Paul and his company “returned to Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch, strengthening the souls of the disciples” (Acts 14:21–22).
· “Judas and Silas, themselves being prophets also, exhorted and strengthened the brethren” (Acts 15:32).
· Paul “went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches” (Acts 15:41) and he “went over the region of Galatia and Phrygia in order, strengthening all the disciples” (Acts 18:23). Strengthening others does not make a person Pope!
Furthermore, my friend evidently thought that the Lord’s praying specifically for Peter meant h e would become Pope. However, my friend again overlooked my observation that Jesus also prayed for all of the apostles (John 17:9). Were all of the apostles Popes? Furthermore, the context shows that Jesus did not pray for Peter to exalt him as Pope, but because Jesus knew that Peter was soon to deny Him (Luke 22:34). The context also indicates that Peter would not be over the other apostles; rather, the apostles [plural] would in some sense “sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (:28–30).

My opponent claims, “It is very clear from Matthew 16:16–19 and Isaiah 22:15–22, that Jesus was indeed appointing Peter to be a pope, or a father, to His people.” Actually, neither passage says anything that necessitates that conclusion. Isaiah 22 has nothing to do with the apostle Peter, despite John’s assertions.

Peter had important work to do in the kingdom. He opened the door to the kingd om through his preaching to Jews (Acts 2) and Gentiles (Acts 10). This is the idea of Peter’s having the “keys of the kingdom” (Matthew 16:19); he had authority to preach the gospel so people could be saved and enter the kingdom.

Others besides Peter also engaged in preaching work that opened the door to the Lord’s kingdom: Paul (1 Corinthians 16:9; 2 Corinthians 2:12; Colossians 4:3; Acts 16:14); Paul and Barnabas (Acts 14:27); the evangelist Titus also had authority (Titus 2:15). The other apostles likewise used the keys of the kingdom, for Jesus told them, “Assuredly, I say to you [plural], whatever you [plural] bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you [plural] loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 18:18; cf. Matthew 16:19). The Lord gave all of the apostles the same binding–and–loosing authority and the same commission (Matthew 16:19; 18:18; 28:18–20; Mark 16:15–2 0).

Please give your attention to my friend’s closing speech.

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Obviously I did “touch a nerve” with Mr. Thrasher regarding the “Campbellite” Church of Christ. I use that appellation to distinguish his Church of Christ from my Church of Christ. It is historical fact that his Church of Christ was founded by the Campbells a couple hundred years ago, so I fail to see why calling his Church of Christ “Campbellite” would be so insulting. But, he is certainly free to reject the term “Campbellite” and to take insult if he so chooses. I do not take offense at the term “Roman Catholic.” The point I was making, is that he has no problem in saying bad things about the Catholic Church; yet, he gets all bent out of shape because I associate his church with its founders?! Again, I find his sensitivity to be a bit disingenuous.

Thrasher has not actually responded to my arguments regarding instrumental music in worship, nor Wednesday night church meetings, nor authorship and inspiration of the Gospel of Mark. I have to conclude that he is either unwilling or unable to do so. This is a very important point, because this line of argumentation strikes at the heart of the main portion of his arguments in this debate.

He uses “silence” in the Bible to justify banning i nstrumental music in the worship of God. Yet, the Bible is not silent on the use of musical instruments in the worship of God. The Bible actually commands that music be used in the worship of God (Ps 33:2–3)! And, the Bible says, “For I, the Lord, do not change,” (Mal 3:6). Mr. Thrasher apparently believes the Lord does change when it comes to the use of musical instruments. Scripture shows the use of instrumental music in worship on Earth and in Heaven. So, for the Campbellite Church of Christ (CCoC) to be true, it must show where God changed His mind and specifically prohibited the use of instrumental music in worship. They can’t, which means the “silence” of Scripture in this case actually contradicts their belief.

Wednesday night church meetings. Thrasher uses Acts 5:42 to justify this practice. Yet, what does Acts 5:42 actually say? It says the Apostles taught eve ry day “in the temple” and “at home.” Two questions: 1) Why then is the CCoC not meeting every day; and, 2) Where does it say anything about gathering at a church? It says at the temple – a public place where the Apostles preached to believers and unbelievers alike; and at home – where private instruction of the faithful took place. Why aren’t they gathering in a public place with unbelievers or at home? Acts 5:42 doesn’t describe exactly what they practice, does it? Seems they interpret the Bible to mean whatever they need it to mean to justify their beliefs.

Thrasher’s comments on contraception indicate the hypocrisy of his arguments and how twisted his logic is when it comes to biblical interpretation. In his “third speech,” he indicates that the CCoC’s ban on instrumental music is scriptural because of the principle: “silence does not authorize, silence prohi bits.” Yet, nowhere does he produce a Scripture verse – Old Testament or New – authorizing contraception. So, were he consistent in his beliefs, he would say that the use of contraception by Christians is prohibited in accord with the “silence” of Scripture on this matter. Yet, the CCoC fully accepts contraception! Apparently, CCoC scriptural reasoning goes like this: A) The Bible is silent on Christians using instrumental music in worship; therefore, it is prohibited; and, B) The Bible is silent on Christians using contraception; therefore, it is permitted. Silence prohibits when it comes to music; silence authorizes when it comes to contraception. Hypocrisy.

Plus, the Bible does, in fact, speak of contraception. There is one contraceptive act in the Bible. In Genesis 38, Onan “spilled his seed on the ground,” to avoid fulfilling his levirate duty to his dead brother. That was an act o f contraception. What did God do? “And what [Onan] did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord and He slew him,” (Gen 38:10). God killed Onan for what “he did,” – spilling his seed on the ground. Furthermore, the Bible says, more than once, go forth and multipy. Nowhere does it say, “Go forth and contracept.” God’s displeasure with “spilling seed,” contraception, is directly spoken of in the Bible.

The whole point I am making by my comments about the banning of musical instruments, Wednesday night church meetings, contraception, and the authorship and inspiration of the Gospel of Mark, is to show that Mr. Thrasher maintains one standard for himself and the CCoC when it comes to the Bible; yet, he imposes a completely different standard when it comes to the Catholic Church of Christ and the Bible. And, the arguments he employs to maintain this double standard are replete wit h circular reasoning, illogic, and outright hypocrisy.

For example, Mr. Thrasher’s whole argument about Peter not being the first Pope can be boiled down to: “The Bible nowhere specifically states that Peter was ‘Pope,’ or ‘Head of the Church,’ or ‘Bishop of Rome.’” So, the standard of proof that he places upon me is that I must show where the Bible specifically uses one of these titles in relation to Peter, or he wins the debate (according to his logic).

But, when I question him about the biblical support for his beliefs, all of a sudden there is a different standard. Mr. Thrasher believes the Gospel of Mark was written by someone named Mark, and that this Mark was inspired by the Holy Spirit and, therefore, that God is “the source” of the Gospel of Mark. Yet, when I ask for specific passages from the Bible that tell us who wrote that Gospel, or that the writer of that Gospel was inspired by the Holy Spirit, or that God is indeed “the source” of the Gospel of Mark, how does Thrasher respond?

He throws out a bunch of Bible verses, none of which are referring to the Gospel of Mark, as if that was actually an answer to my questions. When I point out that not a single verse he quoted from says anything about the Gospel of Mark and, therefore, does not answer my questions, what is his reply? “All Scripture is given by the inspiration of God…”.

In other words, he can “prove” that God is the source of the Gospel of Mark only if he first makes the assumption that it is inspired Scripture, which then allows him to quote from 2 Tim 3:16 about all Scripture being inspired of God, and thereby he can conclude that God is the source of the Gospel of Mark. He has to first assume what he is attempting to prove, in order to prove it! A finer example of circular reasoning I have never seen! The problem is, though, he has yet to give me one shred of evidence, from the Bible, that the writer of the Gospel of Mark was inspired by the Holy Spirit or that God is indeed the source of the Gospel of Mark.

Not only does he not give one single verse that says God is the source of the Gospel of Mark, he actually admits that he doesn’t know who wrote the Gospel of Mark! He admits the Bible is silent on that. So, according to the principle of “silence prohibits,” since the Bible is silent on who wrote the Gospel of Mark, I assume the second Gospel in his Bible is entitled, “The Gospel According to Anonymous,” right? Don’t bet on it. He believes Mark wrote Mark. He does not practice what he preaches.

I have clearly demonstrated that Mr. Thrasher employs double standards, circular reasoning, and hypocrisy in his argumentation. None of which speaks well for his beliefs. So, unless he can give me a Bible passage that specifically contradicts God’s command to use music in worship (in Psalm 33); or that everyone should meet at a church – not at the temple or in a home – on Wednesday nights only rather than every day of the week as the Scripture he cites states; or that specifically allows the use of contraception; or that specifically states that God is “the source” of the Gospel of Mark; then all of his arguments regarding Scripture being silent on Peter as “Pope,” “Head of the Church,” or “Bishop of Rome,” are shown to be null and void. And, since the “silence” argument is the bulk of his argumentation, I win the debate.

Furthermore, as I stated in the last round, his citations regarding the successors of Peter do indeed prove, from history, that Peter was the first Pope. The sources he cited state there is disagreement as to the exact order and timing of Peter 217;s successors as head of the Church. He claims that these citations therefore show that the historical sources I quoted regarding Peter as the first Pope were “not inspired or necessarily trustworthy” in their testimony.

Well, 1) I never claimed they were inspired. These are historical sources. Since the Bible nowhere mentions Hannibal, does Mr. Thrasher then not believe Hannibal existed? By the way, on what historical sources does he rely to claim that his church is the historical Church of Christ? Or that the CCoC’s elders have authority to preach and teach? 2) To state these sources are not trustworthy because they disagree as to the exact order and timing of Peter’s successors, is an absolutely ridiculous claim. His sources and mine agree on these historical facts: A) Peter was the first Bishop of Rome and head of the Church; B) Peter had successors; and C) The names of those successors. They disagree o n matters of timing, but not on the matter of primacy and succession. Does that make them untrustworthy? It does only if you are desperately trying to deny something that is as plain as the nose on your face. So, again, from an historical standpoint, even his own sources prove Peter was the first head of the Church. I win the debate.

His response to my comments on the obvious connection between Matthew 16 and Isaiah 22 was, essentially, “Unhh, unhh.” Both passages mention the keys of the kingdom and binding (closing) and loosing (opening). The parallels are easy for all to see except those who have eyes but will not see. Thrasher simply pronounces that these two passages have nothing to do with each other – no reasons why, no arguments – just an infallible “Unhh, unhh.” As mentioned previously, in Isaiah 22 the chief steward of the Kingdom of David, the holder of the keys, is called a father (papa, pope) to his people. Jesus gives Peter the keys to the Kingdom, which means he is a father (papa, pope) to his people. He has no response, I win the debate.

Again, from my first four affirmatives, Scripture tells us the following about Peter and Peter alone:

1) Peter walked on water

2) Peter called for a replacement to Judas

3) Peter settled the issue at the Council of Jerusalem

4) Peter was appointed, by Jesus, as shepherd of Jesus’ flock

5) Jesus prayed specifically for Peter

6) Peter spoke for the Apostles on the Day of Pentecost

7) Peter received a special vision from God to bring the Gospel to the Gentiles

8) Peter was given a special revelation about Jesus being the Messiah

9) Peter was given the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven

10) Jesus paid the temple tax for Himself and Peter only

11) Paul comes to Peter to consult with him

12) Peter generally speaks for all the Apostles

13) Peter spoke judgment upon Ananias and Sapphira

14) Peter has his name changed to “Rock.”

About no other Apostle can these things be said. Peter’s role is unique. Scripture, history, and tradition (the same tradition Thrasher relies on to know his Bible is the inspired Word of God) all show that Peter was indeed the first head of the Church.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

[I will now be interested in whether or not Mr. Thrasher would like to debate the proposition: “The Church of Christ to which Thomas Thrasher belongs is the same scriptural and historical Church of Christ that we see in the New Testament; and the Roman Catholic Church is not.” Three rounds, same 2000 word limit, and since I was the affirmative this time, he will be the affirmative and go first this next time, should he choose to accept the assignment.]

In Conclusion

The lesson I should be learning is not to even bother to debate with someone from the Campbellite Church of Christ. Not because their arguments are so strong or convincing, but because the “methodology” they employ – illogic, circular reasoning, double standards, and outright hypocrisy – can be a real pain in the tookis to deal with. But, I really want to do one more debate with this guy – the one I mention at the end of my comments – because I really want to see how he would respond to what I have in store for him.

Scripture Alone: Protestants poison to Christianity

Here, I share how to disproves the "Scripture Alone"; a well known Protestant pillar of faith. A lot of Catholics mislead to belief that our faith is not authentic, a lot of good Catholics were moved to hold "Bible Alone" as their banner of faith.

But where in the Bible says "Bible Alone"? Where in the Bible Saint Paul taught to believe in a Scripture alone? Rather to believe in what the scripture taught us to believe?

[Gen. to Rev. - Scripture never says that Scripture is the sole infallible authority for God's Word. Scripture also mandates the use of tradition. This fact alone disproves sola Scriptura.]

There is NO verse that could say out right that Bible alone is a pure Christian teaching. Yes, Scripture is indeed needed. Christians need to soaked into God's pure Words, but God did not say "Book alone" nor Jesus Christ, told His disciples that they would be left with a instructional book guide, that would take care of the rest of it.
"Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, ²just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, ³I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first,^* to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, ⁴so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed." Luke 1: 1-4

Read the highlighted phrases... AS THEY WERE HANDED ON TO US... It does not say "As they were written to us?" right?

So where did this Bible Alone started anyway? Here are some of the verse that Protestants used to convey such false ideas:


2 Tim. 3:16-17 All scripture is inspired by God and is^* useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, ¹⁷so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.

This verse says "proficient" or in some Bible translated as "Profitable" which means "Ophelimos" only means useful. Which also means that scripture is NOT A REQUIREMENT to be SAVED!!!!

Most importantly, St. Paul is referring to the OLD TESTAMENT not the Bible you know. Plus, have you read "Scripture Alone" in the verse? Where?

Read it again... Did you see it? Nope?

Yes, there is no such "Scripture Alone" in 2 Tim. 3:16-17.

Here are some commentaries that you need to know.

2 Tim. 3:14 - Protestants usually use 2 Tim. 3:16-17 to prove that the Bible is the sole authority of God's word. But examining these texts disproves their claim. Here, Paul appeals to apostolic tradition right before the Protestants' often quoted verse 2 Tim. 3:16-17. Thus, there is an appeal to tradition before there is an appeal to the Scriptures, and Protestants generally ignore this fact.

2 Tim. 3:15 - Paul then appeals to the sacred writings of Scripture referring to the Old Testament Scriptures with which Timothy was raised (not the New Testament which was not even compiled at the time of Paul's teaching). This verse also proves that one can come to faith in Jesus Christ without the New Testament.

2 Tim. 3:16 - this verse says that Scripture is "profitable" for every good work, but not exclusive. The word "profitable" is "ophelimos" in Greek. "Ophelimos" only means useful, which underscores that Scripture is not mandatory or exclusive. Protestants unbiblically argue that profitable means exclusive.

2 Tim. 3:16 - further, the verse "all Scripture" uses the words "pasa graphe" which actually means every (not all) Scripture. This means every passage of Scripture is useful. Thus, the erroneous Protestant reading of "pasa graphe" would mean every single passage of Scripture is exclusive. This would mean Christians could not only use "sola Matthew," or "sola Mark," but could rely on one single verse from a Gospel as the exclusive authority of God's word. This, of course, is not true and even Protestants would agree. Also, "pasa graphe" cannot mean "all of Scripture" because there was no New Testament canon to which Paul could have been referring, unless Protestants argue that the New Testament is not being included by Paul.

2 Tim. 3:16 - also, these inspired Old Testament Scriptures Paul is referring to included the deuterocanonical books which the Protestants removed from the Bible 1,500 years later.

2 Tim. 3:17 - Paul's reference to the "man of God" who may be complete refers to a clergyman, not a layman. It is an instruction to a bishop of the Church. So, although Protestants use it to prove their case, the passage is not even relevant to most of the faithful.

2 Tim. 3:17 - further, Paul's use of the word "complete" for every good work is "artios" which simply means the clergy is "suitable" or "fit." Also, artios does not describe the Scriptures, it describes the clergyman. So, Protestants cannot use this verse to argue the Scriptures are complete.

James 1:4 - steadfastness also makes a man "perfect (teleioi) and complete (holoklepoi), lacking nothing." This verse is important because "teleioi"and "holoklepoi" are much stronger words than "artios," but Protestants do not argue that steadfastness is all one needs to be a Christian.

Titus 3:8 - good deeds are also "profitable" to men. For Protestants especially, profitable cannot mean "exclusive" here.

2 Tim 2:21- purity is also profitable for "any good work" ("pan ergon agathon"). This wording is the same as 2 Tim. 3:17, which shows that the Scriptures are not exclusive, and that other things (good deeds and purity) are also profitable to men.

Col. 4:12 - prayer also makes men "fully assured." No where does Scripture say the Christian faith is based solely on a book.

2 Tim. 3:16-17 - Finally, if these verses really mean that Paul was teaching sola Scriptura to the early Church, then why in 1 Thess. 2:13 does Paul teach that he is giving Revelation from God orally? Either Paul is contradicting his own teaching on sola Scriptura, or Paul was not teaching sola Scriptura in 2 Tim. 3:16-17. This is a critical point which Protestants cannot reconcile with their sola Scriptura position.

[SOURCE: www.scripturecatholic.com]

Catholic Apologetics in the Philippines

In Catholics in the Philippines need more Apologetics. The rise of man made religion sprung all over the country. Some of them were spill over coming from the United States.

More and more Filipinos are captivated with the new way of relationship to God. This is due to the western occupation in the Philippines. Filipinos see Westerners as bearer of Wisdom and Good judgement. Though some practices are proven good, like the Catholic faith, spread by the Spanish conquerors in 1500's.

Today, the Philippine Family, especially the Catholics were attacked left and right by the new way of life. The practice of Reproductive Health, bannered by the United States, scar the foundation of the Christian values of the Youth.

Some ill minded people wish this new practice to speed up solutions to poverty. People who had no access on the Catholic teachings taught this is the true solution, against poverty.

If these are solutions to poverty, why is it the United States still had homeless people?

Divine Revelation "By Letter" (2 Thess 2:15): The Bible

For Catholic Christians, the Bible--the Old and New Testaments--is more than a document of mere historical interest. The Bible calls itself "the Word of God." In many ways God spoke to us--He revealed Himself. Yet, Jesus, the Son of God, is the perfect revelation of the Father.

The community of believers, the Church, sought to know what God authoritatively revealed to humankind.

The Bible itself does not define what it includes; nor does it claim to contain all that God revealed. Paul affirms that some of what is handed on--the way Jews passed on revelation--was "by letter," in writing.

What is the standard--the canon--of the written Word of God? The Church recorded the history of the development of the canon of the Bible under the authority of the Holy Spirit.

A primary criterion of canonicity is inspiration, the divine influence on human writers such that God is said to be the author. And God's revelation, faithfully written, aptly expressed, was expressed with infallible truth.

We discover the meaning of the Bible--hermeneutics--by the literal sense of the words first, then the fuller sense, and then the typical sense of the words of Sacred Scripture.

The Bible: Written Revelation

The Word of God revealing Himself to His People through the sacred authors was first of all oral. Periods of oral transmission varied. The revelation of Genesis, from prehistory to the time of Moses is an example of oral transmission; the period from the resurrection and ascension of Jesus (about 30 AD) until some of Paul's letters (about 51 AD) or the writing of the first Gospel, Mark's (about 65 AD), is another example of oral transmission of revelation. The Word of God as eventually written down is contained in the Bible. The Bible is the collection of sacred books, written through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and recognized by the Church as such.

The title of this collection of sacred books comes from the Latin biblia, which in turn comes from the Greek, ta biblia. The Greek word means "The Books." Hence, the Bible is a library of books rather than a single book.

The two divisions of the Bible are called Testaments, the Old Testament (or the Hebrew Scriptures) written before the coming of Jesus Christ, and the New Testament, written after the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.

The canon of the Bible refers to the definitive list of the books which are considered to be divine revelation and included in the Bible. ("Canon" (Gk. kanon) means a reed; a straight rod or bar; a measuring stick; something serving to determine, rule, or measure.) Over the centuries, the different faith communities which use the Bible (e.g. Jews, Catholics, Protestants) have developed different canons, i.e. different lists of which books belong in the Bible "library."

The original language of the Old Testament was predominantly Hebrew, with some later books having been written in Greek and Aramaic. The entire Old Testament was translated into Greek well before the time of Christ. The New Testament was entirely written in Greek. Not a single original manuscript (i.e. autograph) for either Testament exists today.

This library contains among its books, many kinds and types of literature. There are law books or literature (e.g. Leviticus), there are books of history (e.g. the books of Kings and Chronicles), poetry (e.g. Song of Songs) and hymn books (e.g. Psalms), parables or stories (e.g. Job), biography (e.g. Gospels), prophetical (e.g. Revelation), collections of sayings (e.g. Proverbs), etc.

Much printed currently within this library is not a part of the revelation of the Word of God. The writers of the books of the Bible did not title the books (with the possible exception of Mark's Gospel). Hence the titles of the books are not the Word of God. The sacred authors did not write in paragraphs or use punctuation or label sections or outline their books. Cardinal Stephen Langton created the chapters of both the Old and New Testaments in the Latin version of the Bible in 1228. Verses within chapters in the Latin version of the Old Testament were the work of the Dominican friar Santes Pagnini in 1528. The verses for the Greek New Testament were created by the Protestant Robert Estienne in 1555. Some brief books have no chapters but only verses (e.g. Philemon).

The Church has always believed that the Word of God is not wholly contained in the library of the Bible. As the opening of the Gospel of John proclaims, the Word of God existed eternally and became flesh in Jesus to dwell among us (John 1:1-14). The Church, birthed by the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, existed, grew before, during and after the New Testament was written and the books of the Bible determined. The Church recognizes that the books of the Bible are but one source of information about God's revelation, although a very important source. The Word of God and the Spirit of Truth are too dynamic to be limited to the written Word only.

Because the Bible is an important source for God's revelation, we should know:

• where the Bible comes from;
• what books are included in the Bible;
• how God uses the Bible to reveal Himself; and
• how do we interpret the information in the Bible

By Paul Flanagan and Robert Schihl.
Catholic Biblical Apologetics, © Copyright 1985-2004, Paul Flanagan and Robert Schihl

ARE YOU SAVED?

The Catholic Response to "Are You Saved?"

The Catholic Christian answers this question in three stages or levels corresponding to the three meanings the words "saved" and "salvation" have in the Bible. (These meanings are found in the previous section, "Salvation: A Biblical Portrait." )

Catholic Christians can respond that they have been saved. This acknowledges the first meaning of "saved" and "salvation" in scripture--Jesus Christ, Savior, by whose act of salvation we are objectively saved--He died, rose from the dead, saved them from sin.

2 Cor 5:17

So whoever is in Christ is a new creation

Catholic Christians can also respond that they are being saved. This acknowledges the second meaning "saved" and "salvation" have in scripture--the present experience, God's power delivering constantly from the bondage of sin.

1 Cor 15:2

Through it (the gospel) you are also being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.

Catholic Christians also respond that they will be saved, that they have hope and confidence that God will give them the grace of perseverance; that they will respond to it; and accept his gift of salvation until their death. This acknowledges the third meaning the words "saved" and "salvation" have in scripture--the future deliverance of believers at the Second Coming of Christ.

Rom 5:9

How much more then, since we are now justified by his blood, will we be saved through him from the wrath.

The Primacy of Peter

Perhaps a most pivotal passage of the Bible which divides Roman Catholic Christians from Protestant and Pentecostal Christians is the scripture where Christ singles out Peter from the rest of the Apostles for special consideration and authority. That Bible passage is in the Gospel according to Matthew, chapter 16, verse 18.

The Catholic Church teaches that the first principle of hermeneutics, the science of the translation and interpretation of the Bible, is the literal meaning of the text.

Divino Afflante Spiritus (Pius XII, September 30, 1943)

... discern and define that sense of the biblical words which is called literal ... so that the mind of the author may be made clear. ... the exegete must be principally concerned with the literal sense of the Scriptures.

Spiritus Paraclitus (Benedict XV, September 15, 1920)

As Jerome insisted, all biblical interpretation rests upon the literal sense ...

The definition of the literal sense: The sense which the human author directly intended and which his words convey.

The question to be asked in seeking to grasp the literal meaning of Matthew in conveying what Christ had in his mind in these words to Peter is what was understood by Peter and the other apostles and what was handed on (paradosis) by the Apostolic Church and the constant faith and practice of the Church regarding the meaning of these words of Christ.

Some basic facts about the author, Matthew, are in order to aid the proper search for the meaning of his gospel.

• Matthew is the tax collector called by Christ in 9:9-13;
• Matthew is one of the twelve Apostles, an eye witness;
• Matthew's gospel is directed to a Jewish audience;
• Matthew's gospel is a Gospel of the Church, the only evangelist to use the word "church," and use it twice, 16:18 and 18:17.

The context for interpreting the meaning of the passage is set in the confession of Peter.

Mt 16:13-17

When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" They replied, "Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God." Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father."

Christ then gives Simon son of Jonah a new name and a commission.

Mt 16:18

And so I say to you, you are "Rock", and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

Since the New Testament was written in the Greek language, it is right to begin the consideration of this critical passage in the language in which it was written:

kago de soi lego oti su ei Petros kai

I also And to you say - You are Peter and

epi taute te petra oikodomeso mou ten ekklesian;

on this - rock I will build of me the church;

As Greek declined in the Mediterranean world and Latin became the common tongue, the first translations of the Bible were in the Latin language. Hence, it is natural for us to consider also the way in which this critical passage was translated into Latin by Jerome (Rome, 383/384 AD).

et ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus et

and I say to you because you are Peter and

super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam

upon this rock I will build church my

Two observation must be made on the Greek and the Latin translations of Matthew 16:18. Note in the Greek that the name of Peter is Petros, and the word for rock is petra. In Latin the name of Peter is Petrus and the word for rock is petra. This follows from the demands of the respective languages. Nouns in these languages, unlike English, have gender: some are masculine (e.g., -os or -us ending to words); some are feminine (e.g., -a or -am ending to words). The word for a rock in both languages is, of its nature, feminine; Peter, being a male, could not take a feminine ending to his name. It would be like calling him "Rockette" instead of "Rocky." Quite a difference! Hence it is only the demands of language that the gender of the words is different.

Jesus renamed Simon bar-Jonah for a purpose. The literalness of the play on words--a linguistic pun--is made clear. A pun is a pun because of the literalness of the play on words. This was precisely what Jesus was saying. "You are Rocky and on this rock I will build my church." His intent becomes clear when we examine the Aramaic in which language Jesus addressed Peter.

'aph 'ena' 'amar-na' lak da'(n)t-(h)uw ke'pha'

and I say - I to thee that-thou-art Kephas

we`'al hade' ke'pha' 'ebneyh le`i(d)tiy

and upon this rock I will build her namely my church

Note that the word for Peter, ke'pha', is the same word for rock. The words are equated: Peter is the rock.

The core of the meaning appears to rest in the two words for a "rock." If Matthew recorded that Christ used the same word both for (1) the proper name of Peter and (2) the foundation on which Christ says he will build the church, then an interpretation follows that the foundation of the church is Peter.

Because the Word of God as recorded in Matthew had to be intelligible in its literalness for all people including the more simple people of the early centuries of the Church, a more involved interpretation demanding extensive hermeneutics and linguistic acumen would be unwarranted. Ultimately, when there are differing interpretations, the principle question then becomes, "by what authority is the truth appealed."

The Roman Catholic Church has infallibly defined the interpretation of Matthew 16.

The Council of Ephesus, 431 AD

No one doubts, in fact, it is obvious to all ages that the holy and most Blessed Peter, head and Prince of the Apostles, the pillar of faith, and the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the savior and redeemer of the human race.

First Vatican Council, 1870, The First Dogmatic Constitution of the Church of Christ, Chapter 2

Therefore if anyone says that the blessed Apostle Peter was not constituted by Christ the Lord as the Prince of all the Apostles and the visible head of the whole Church militant, or that he received immediately and directly from Jesus Christ our Lord only a primacy of honor and not a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction: anathema sit.

Christ continues with the conferral of the "keys" which appears to be a clear statement of a position of leadership authority.

Mt 16:19-20

I will give you (singular) the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

This biblical commission echoes one other conferral of keys in the Bible. Eliakim receives the keys of the royal palace.

Is 22:22

I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open.

Apart from this passage, there is no background in biblical language for binding and loosening. In Rabbinical Judaism, the words signify rabbinical decisions; to bind is to give a decision that imposes an obligation, and to loose is to give a decision that removes an obligation.

Mt 18:15-18

"If your brother sins (against you), go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother. If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that 'every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church (ekklesia). If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector. Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

In Matthew 18:18, the Apostles share in the power to bind and loose that was given to Peter in 16:19; what was given to Peter alone is now shared by the whole Church in the person of the Apostles.

If Peter held a position of primacy, the other Apostles would have to know that and would have reflected that role thrust on Peter by Christ in their relationships to him. In other words, does the Bible reveal a primary place or role for Peter consciously acknowledged by the New Testament writers? Yes, the biblical portrait of Peter presented earlier in this chapter attests to the preeminent role of Peter among the writers of the New Testament.

Among the Apostolic Fathers, the same recognition can be shown.

Tertullian (Rome, 160 - 220 AD), On Monogamy, Chapter 8

Peter alone do I find ... to have been married. Monogamist I am led to presume him by consideration of the church, which, built upon him, was destined to appoint every grade of her Order from monogamists.

Clement (Alexandria, 150 - 215 AD), Who Is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved?, Chapter 21

Therefore, on hearing those words, the blessed Peter, the chosen, the pre-eminent, the first of the disciples, for whom alone and Himself the Savior paid tribute, quickly seized and comprehended the saying. And what does he say? "Lo, we have left all and followed Thee."

Cyprian (Carthage, 200 - 258 AD), On the Unity of the Catholic Church, Chapter 4

Upon him (Peter), being one, He (Christ) built His Church and although after His resurrection He bestows equal power upon all the Apostles, and says: "As the Father has sent me, I also send you. Receive the Holy Spirit: if you forgive the sins of anyone, they will be forgiven him; if you retain the sins of anyone, they will be retained" (Jn 20:21), that He might display unity, He established by His authority the origin of the same unity as beginning from one.

Cyril (Jerusalem, 315 - 387 AD), Catecheses, No. 2:19

Peter, the chiefest and foremost of the Apostles, denied the Lord thrice before a little maid: but he repented himself, and wept bitterly.

Augustine (Numidia, now Algeria, 354 - 430 AD), Letters, No 53

For, if the order of succession of Bishops is to be considered, how much more surely, truly and safely do we number them from Peter, to whom, as representing the whole Church, the Lord said: "Upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Mt 16:18). For, to Peter succeeded Linus, to Linus Clement, to Clement Anacletus, to Anacletus Evaristus ...

SOURCE: http://www.catholicapologetics.org

Peter: A Biblical Portrait

In the 16th chapter of Matthew's Gospel, Christ singled out the Apostle Peter for the central position of founding His Church and gives to Peter the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.

The best spokespersons for an understanding of Matthew would be members of the Apostolic Church, those who heard the words of Christ and writers of the New Testament who recorded the words and deeds of Christ and the early church.

The Evangelists usually make Peter the spokesperson for all the apostles.

Mk 8:29

And he (Jesus) asked them, "But who do you say that I am?" Peter said to him in reply, "You are the Messiah."

Mt 18:21

Then Peter approaching asked him, "Lord, if my brother sins against me, how often must I forgive him? As many as seven times?"

Lk 12:41

Then Peter said, "Lord, is this parable meant for us or for everyone?"

Jn 6:67-68

Jesus then said to the Twelve, "Do you also want to leave?" Simon Peter answered him, "Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life."

In especially dramatic scenes in the Gospels, Peter is often the central figure.

Mt 14:27-28

At once (Jesus) spoke to them, "Take courage, it is I; do not be afraid." Peter said to him in reply, "Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the water."

Lk 5:3-8

Getting into one of the boats, the one belonging to Simon, he (Jesus) asked him to put out a short distance from the shore. ... He said to Simon, "Put out into deep water and lower your nets for a catch." Simon said in reply, "Master, we have worked hard all night and have caught nothing, but at your command I will lower the nets." When they had done this, they caught a great number of fish and their nets were tearing. ... When Simon Peter saw this, he fell at the knees of Jesus and said, "Depart from me, Lord, for I am a sinful man."

Mk 10:28

Peter began to say to him, "We have given up everything and followed you."

Mt 17:24-25

...the collectors of the temple tax approached Peter and said, "Doesn't your teacher pay the temple tax?" "Yes," he said. When he came into the house, before he had time to speak, Jesus asked him, "What is your opinion, Simon?"

Peter is always named first when the apostles are listed in the synoptic gospels and the Acts of the Apostles.

Mk 3:16-17

He (Jesus) appointed the twelve: Simon, whom he named Peter; James, son of Zebedee, and John ...

Mt 10:2

The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon called Peter, and his brother Andrew; James, the son of Zebedee, and his brother John;

Lk 6:13-14

When day came, he called his disciples to himself, and from them he chose Twelve, whom he also named apostles: Simon, whom he named Peter, and his brother Andrew, James, John, Philip, Batholomew

Acts 1:13

When they entered the city they went to the upper room where they were staying, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip ...

It is not uncommon that the apostles are simply referred to as Peter and "his companions" or "the apostles."

Acts 2:37

... they asked Peter and the other apostles, "What are we to do, my brothers?"

Lk 9:32

Peter and his companions had been overcome by sleep ...

Acts 5:29

But Peter and the apostles said in reply, "We must obey God rather than men."

In light of the special calling on his life, the sacred authors refer to Peter as being singled out and being shown signs of respect.

Jn 20:3-8

So Peter and the other disciple went out and came to the tomb. They both ran, but the other disciple ran faster than Peter and arrived at the tomb first, ... but did not go in. When Simon Peter arrived after him, he went into the tomb and saw the burial cloths ... Then the other disciple also went in, the one who had arrived at the tomb first ...

Jn 21:15-17

Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs" ... "Tend my sheep." ... "Feed my sheep."

In Paul's letters, Peter is called the first witness to the Resurrection.

1 Cor 15:3-5

... Christ died ... was buried ... was raised on the third day ... that he appeared to Kephas, then to the Twelve.

Paul repeatedly call Peter "Kephas," the name given him by Christ.

Gal 1:18

Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to confer with Kephas and remained with him for fifteen days.

Gal 2:9

James and Kephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas their right hands in partnership ...

Gal 2:11

And when Kephas came to Antioch, I opposed him ...

Gal 2:14

... I said to Kephas in front of all ...

1 Cor 1:12

I mean that each of you is saying, "I belong to Paul," ... "I belong to Kephas," ...

1 Cor 3:22

Paul or Apollos or Kephas, or the world or life or death, or the present or the future: all belong to you ...

1 Cor 9:5

Do we not have the right to take along a Christian wife, as do the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Kephas?

Luke, in the Acts of the Apostles, clearly acknowledges Peter's leadership role.

Acts 2:14

Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice, and proclaimed to them, "You who are Jews ..."

Acts 3:12

When Peter saw this, he addressed the people, "You Israelites, why are you amazed at this?"

Acts 4:8

Then Peter, filled with the holy Spirit, answered them, "Leaders of the people and elders"

Acts 5:3

But Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart ..."

Acts 5:29

But Peter and the apostles said in reply, "We must obey God rather than men."

Acts 8:20

But Peter said to him, "May your money perish with you ..."

Acts 10:34

Then Peter proceeded to speak and said, "In truth, I see that God shows no partiality."

Acts 11:4

Peter began and explained it to them step by step, saying...

Acts 15:7

After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them ...

Acts 3:6

Peter said, "I have neither silver nor gold, but what I do have I give you: in the name of Jesus Christ the Nazorean, (rise and) walk."

Acts 9:34

Peter said to him, "Aeneas, Jesus Christ heals you. Get up and make your bed."

Acts 9:40

Peter sent them all out and knelt down and prayed. Then he turned to her body and said, "Tabitha, rise up."

Acts 5:15

Thus they even carried the sick out into the streets and laid them on cots and mats so that when Peter came by, at least his shadow might fall on one or another of them.

Acts 10:9-10

The next day, ... Peter went up to the roof terrace to pray at about noontime. ... he fell into a trance.

Acts 10:46-47

Then Peter responded, "Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people, who have received the holy Spirit even as we have?"

The Gospels make explicit statements about Peter's unique role in the church.

Lk 22:31-32

"Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers."

Jn 21:15-17

When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs." He then said to him a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep." He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, "Do you love me?" and he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." (Jesus) said to him, "Feed my sheep."

Mt 16:15-19

He (Jesus) said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God." Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Source:

http://www.catholicapologetics.org