Pentecostal pastor claims Jesus did NOT build his Church on Peter?

[Telstar]

-continued-

Also apparent for me ,is the sheer volume of Paul’s scriptural writings ,that is in comparison with any other apostle,including Peter.
As to longevity of life and ministry ,it seems that that apostle whom Jesus loved and who the same leaned on Jesus breast,and in regards to his walk,Peter inquires ,‘and what of this man?’
John the writer of the Revelation ,outlived them all.

As I said, Paul was very highly educated, so seeing a high volume of his writings in Scripture should be no big surprise. And, John was clearly the youngest of the Apostles, so it’s also no surprise that he naturally would have outlived most of the others. But, their particular talents were clearly in their writing, as well as in their deep understanding of the spirituality of Jesus’ teachings. One of the most important parts of what Jesus brought to the whole world, was a much deeper awareness of the workings of the Holy Spirit, in all of our lives. John and Paul were both gifted with a very deep sense of spirituality, and what Jesus meant by all of His teachings on that part of all Christian’s lives. They were very much like Mary (in the story of Mary and Martha), who chose the “best part”.
"Luke 10: [40] But Martha was busy about much serving. Who stood and said: Lord, hast thou no care that*** my sister hath left me alone to serve***? speak to her therefore, that she help me.

[41] And the Lord answering, said to her: Martha, Martha, thou art careful, and art troubled about many things: [42] But one thing is necessary. Mary hath chosen the best part, which shall not be taken away from her."
Jesus was referring to Mary’s deep inner spiritual life, such as John and Paul also chose. They were the ones who intently “listened” to Jesus, through the inspirations of the Holy Spirit. They didn’t care about whatever else was going on in the world around them (the world of the flesh). They were far more content in contemplating God. That doesn’t mean that they didn’t also play an important part in the early Church, but they were clearly not cut out to be ‘leaders’, because they had their own spiritual work to do. They couldn’t be leaders, worrying about delegating and coordinating everything that needed to be done (physically speaking), because their spiritual roles required them to spend much more of their time, deep in prayer. Their writings clearly show us that they had a much deeper understanding of the spiritual world, and how it all relates to us. That was their calling, to explain it to us so we could understand it a little better.

Then by what authority do Catholic teachings ,make Peter an authority over such as these?

By what authority? By the authority of Jesus Christ, Who gave Peter the position of Chief Steward over His House (the Church), when He gave him the Keys of Heaven; and told him that whatever he would bind or loose on earth, would also be bound or loosed in Heaven. That’s what authority. You can’t get any higher authority than that.

Here:
"Luke 6: [47] Every one that cometh to me, and heareth my words, and doth them, I will shew you to whom he is like. [48] He is like to a man building a house, who digged deep, and laid the foundation upon a rock. And when a flood came, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and it could not shake it; for it was founded on a rock."
In this parable, Jesus is clearly the one building the “house”, but Peter is the rock that Jesus digs so deep to build His House upon.

John 21: [15] When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs.

[16] He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. [17] He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep. [18] Amen, amen I say to thee, when thou wast younger, thou didst gird thyself, and didst walk where thou wouldst. But when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and lead thee whither thou wouldst not. [19] And this he said, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had said this, he saith to him: Follow me. [20] Peter turning about, saw that disciple whom Jesus loved following, who also leaned on his breast at supper, and said: Lord, who is he that shall betray thee?

[21] Him therefore when Peter had seen, he saith to Jesus: Lord, and what shall this man do? [22] Jesus saith to him: So I will have him to remain till I come, what is it to thee? follow thou me."

Peter’s role was much more like Martha’s. He was the one that coordinated everything to keep the Church organized; it grew so fast. It was his business experience that made him the best choice for the job. He was the glue that held it all together. Does that mean that John, Paul, or the others were less important than Peter? Certainly not. Like every business owner will say, everyone in the company has an important job to do. But, without a strong leader to coordinate it, and make the tough decisions, it goes downhill in a hurry. Soon, it’s no longer a business, at all.

Jesus knew what He was doing.

 

[rcwitness]

There also had to be one leader that could sit in the place of Jesus, after His Ascension. One figure of authority that could make the final decisions that needed to be made; not on his own, but after sufficient discussion with the others. Just as in the Trinity there are three Persons, Who are most certainly All equal in God, the Father is still seen as being first in authority. Jesus always followed the will of the Father. Does that mean that Jesus is less important than the Father, in any way? Is He any less a part of God in Power or Glory? Of course not! It’s the same way in the Church that Jesus built.

thanks for sharing these great insights.

If I may just address the bolded first… “In the place of Jesus”
I think, by the rest of your post, you acknowledge the ‘ecclessial authority’ aspect of Jesus which the person appointed to Peter’s office possesses. Its not as though this person conveys the entire glory of Christ, because he is a mere man born from this world like all of us. Its obvious from Catholic Teaching, we should not see the man who is pope as more special than any other member of Christ. We do see his office as being more special than any other member’s place in Christ, in the way that it has direct effects on more of its members than any other.

I really like your analogy of the relation Jesus has to the Father to demonstrate the unobtrusive way we can submit to our leaders. One can only do this in purity if the Holy Spirit is their One Shepherd.

There has to be a line of authority, or else there’s chaos. All we have to do is look at the thousands of Christian denominations that have been created since the time of Martin Luther to realize why this kind of basic structure was necessary.

Right, but Protestantism has the luxury of accepting many Catholic Teachings which do hold it together! So when you say, “chaos” I believe it, but there is not the dramatic extreme in most Protestant communities, so they would think that accussation to be rediculous, and perhaps rightly so. They are able, like us too, to benefit from the hundreds of years of trials and growth which helped form who we are today. What is not functionally sound, is to take what seems to the individual as better and throw out what has been a foundational stone in the house which was given the Word. Its like going into a home and liking the layout but not the furniture, so they remove the basement support post! The home can function for some time, even a long time maybe, but eventually needs foundational re-work. So this explains the endless ‘church establishing’, new denominations, and even ‘church shopping’.

 

[Telstar]

thanks for sharing these great insights.

Thank you so much for your kind words.

If I may just address the bolded first… “In the place of Jesus”
I think, by the rest of your post, you acknowledge the ‘ecclessial authority’ aspect of Jesus which the person appointed to Peter’s office possesses. Its not as though this person conveys the entire glory of Christ, because he is a mere man born from this world like all of us. Its obvious from Catholic Teaching, we should not see the man who is pope as more special than any other member of Christ. We do see his office as being more special than any other member’s place in Christ, in the way that it has direct effects on more of its members than any other.

Oh, absolutely! I only meant that he would fill the position of leadership, here on earth. Jesus was always the leader while He walked the earth, so it only makes sense that in His (physical) absence, someone had to fill that role in the Church. When they all broke bread in commemoration of Jesus, someone had to sit at the head of the table, to bless the bread and the chalice. (Even though they all had that power, as the first ordained Priests.)

I really like your analogy of the relation Jesus has to the Father to demonstrate the unobtrusive way we can submit to our leaders. One can only do this in purity if the Holy Spirit is their One Shepherd.

Amen! I certainly had no intention of leaving out the Holy Spirit, because His action (through His Love) is what makes everything else possible. I should have stated that. Thank you for that clarification.

Right, but Protestantism has the luxury of accepting many Catholic Teachings which do hold it together! So when you say, “chaos” I believe it, but there is not the dramatic extreme in most Protestant communities, so they would think that accussation to be rediculous, and perhaps rightly so. They are able, like us too, to benefit from the hundreds of years of trials and growth which helped form who we are today. What is not functionally sound, is to take what seems to the individual as better and throw out what has been a foundational stone in the house which was given the Word. Its like going into a home and liking the layout but not the furniture, so they remove the basement support post! The home can function for some time, even a long time maybe, but eventually needs foundational re-work. So this explains the endless ‘church establishing’, new denominations, and even ‘church shopping’.

Very true, there are many that have retained some of the basic organization of the Catholic Church, but I was thinking more along the lines of those who break away, again, to form their own little groups, and so on, and so on…

To me, it’s just very sad to see it happen so often. Jesus never meant for any of this to ever happen to us. We are all supposed to be one body in Christ, as God is Three in One. We were not meant to be separated from each other.

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

Hello, Bernard.

There also had to be one leader that could sit in the place of Jesus, after His Ascension. One figure of authority that could make the final decisions that needed to be made; not on his own, but after sufficient discussion with the others. Just as in the Trinity there are three Persons, Who are most certainly All equal in God, the Father is still seen as being first in authority. Jesus always followed the will of the Father. Does that mean that Jesus is less important than the Father, in any way? Is He any less a part of God in Power or Glory? Of course not! It’s the same way in the Church that Jesus built.

There has to be a line of authority, or else there’s chaos. All we have to do is look at the thousands of Christian denominations that have been created since the time of Martin Luther to realize why this kind of basic structure was necessary. There are hundreds, if not thousands of times as many interpretations of the Bible by individuals. How can *anyone *know where the real truth is? Isn’t it obvious? Jesus said He would lead His Church “into all truth”, but every interpretation of Scripture out there can’t possibly be true. So, where is the Truth that Jesus promised us?

-continued in next post-

" consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession"Hebrews3:1

Hi,Telstar
I would agree with you when you say ‘there had to be one leader that could sit in the place of Jesus,after his ascension’.But as this vacancy ( upon earth) was the result of the Son of God departing from an evil world and returning to whence he came,then ought not such holy ground as this space was,be occupied by he whom shared,from all eternity,an equality of authority and that within the Godhead?
This ‘gift’ was before hand ,as you will know ,told in advance ;even he who would comfort ‘and lead’ ’ into all truth’.
One example among many ,in the book of the Acts,shows that the Holy Spirit filled this vacancy to perfection and to the utmost degree and that in his own person.(Acts 13:2)

“the Holy Ghost said,separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them”

It is true that for the purpose of being made like unto sinful man( except without sin),and because of substitutionary atonement,the eternal Son of God ,humbled himself and he was made ‘a little lower than the angels’(Heb 2:7)but before being made so,he ever existed with an equality ( of authority) within the Godhead which of course included his eternal Father.
Therefore in referencing the Godhead ,you,I would say, would be better to highlight a plurality of leadership would you not?
Akin to that which I believe, is seen ,by that sharing of authority among all ( the apostles) who 'being filled 'with the (one) ‘Holy Ghost’ ,where under that ascended but non the less,

‘Apostle and High Priest of our profession’.

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

-continued-

[21] Him therefore when Peter had seen, he saith to Jesus: Lord, and what shall this man do? [22] Jesus saith to him: So I will have him to remain till I come, what is it to thee? follow thou me."[/INDENT]

Peter’s role was much more like Martha’s. He was the one that coordinated everything to keep the Church organized; it grew so fast. It was his business experience that made him the best choice for the job. He was the glue that held it all together. Does that mean that John, Paul, or the others were less important than Peter? Certainly not. Like every business owner will say, everyone in the company has an important job to do. But, without a strong leader to coordinate it, and make the tough decisions, it goes downhill in a hurry. Soon, it’s no longer a business, at all.

Jesus knew what He was doing.

Hi Telstar, you won’t be surprised if I disagree with some of your other points also,this doesn’t mean however, that I do not appreciate your effort ,which I know myself ,requires considerable sacrifice and time to put ones thoughts into a ‘post’.
There is a great depth,I would certainly agree,seen in Mary’s attention being wholly upon the words of the saviour.It is also true that among the twelve there appears to be varying levels of understanding at different times.But I would disagree with you when you say that Peter was in ,as it where ,the Martha camp.
Incidentally Jesus in know way ,I would say,commends Martha,in the choice she had made,but he rather shows her the cause of her distress ,and states that she was ‘anxious and troubled about many things’.
But the instruction for Martha ( and us) was ,I would say,to go and do likewise,that is be found in the place where Mary,is seen to choose that ‘part’ at the feet of Jesus.
For me ,I would say ,that this ‘is the glue ’ that held ,(and still holds) it all together’.
And this Peter certainly did not lack,quoting frequently the words of Christ as found in the Psalms and in the prophets as well as pointing to Paul’s own writings also.
Which writings Paul in no way associates with past knowledge or learning but rather he counted all that went before ’ but dung’( Philipians 3:8)
His was truly as was Peter’s a role of a true leader and that in respect to things eternal and invisible as well as physical and temporal; but most of all they both were to lead out of error and confusion ,and equally ,I would say ,bind up upon the earth ,eternally,that which is seen also to be ,bound ( eternally) in heaven,that is lead out of death and hell itself.

I see you also point to Peter asking Jesus about what John ,the ‘disciple whom Jesus loved’,
Should do.But if Peter ( first Bishop) should depart before him ( which he did) then ought not the 'prime minister ’ or prime apostle, have had some sway,in the directions John should walk ( in following Christ) especially in Peter’s absence, after he went to be with the Lord?

 

[rfournier103]

Good evening, Bernard.

First, I want to say that I admire your rock-like determination. I don’t agree with your steadfast denial in the primacy of Peter and his lawful successors; but I have to say that you sure are stubborn! :banghead: I always say “stick to your guns;” and you’re doing just that!

Did you know that Confederate general James Longstreet was nicknamed “Pete” by his father because of his stubbornness? The nickname followed him all the way to West Point, into the US Army, and into the Confederate Army. He was General Lee’s second in command at Gettysburg… and converted to Catholicism in 1877. You kind of remind me of “Ol Pete”… He never gave an inch even in the defense of a lost cause. I have a feeling you’re not an American due to spelling of the word “SAVIOUR”, but trust me; General Longstreet was quite an important player in the American Civil War. General Lee was revered as almost a god by southerners in the Civil war; and it’s ironic that Longstreet played the role of “Peter” in Lee’s army.

Anywhoo…

First of all, why would Jesus give Simon the name Peter if he wasn’t the rock? Just for kicks? No. He is the rock.

Secondly, if Peter isn’t the rock; why would Jesus give Peter ALONE the Keys to the Kingdom? The ONLY other time in Scripture that ANYONE receives a key of any kind is Isaiah 22:15-25. where Eliakim, who succeeds Shebnah as master of the palace, is given “the key of the house of David,” which he authoritatively “opens” and “shuts” (Isaiah 22:22). This is a clear example of the deputization of Peter. No one else was deputized in this way.

Thirdly, if we look at John 21:15-17 we see that Jesus is placing Peter in a position of leadership that the other Apostles do not have.

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.

Jesus didn’t single out Peter for extra special instruction because he was a bigger dunce than the other eleven; Jesus was giving him his marching orders. It seems pretty obvious to so many that Peter IS the rock…

Protestantism is a whole theology founded on the “protesting” of Catholic theology and the Church; so therefore if one were to accept that Peter were indeed the rock; a Protestant would have to come to grips with the fact that he was in the wrong church.

Of course the Pentecostal minister denies that Peter is the rock (even though Peter’s name IS rock); because if he didn’t, then he’s just another guy with a Bible possessing no more authority than you or I. And if THAT were true; we wouldn’t need him at all!!!

I am curious as to which Protestant community you belong to, Bernard. Would you care to share with the rest of the class?

 

[Telstar]

" consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession"Hebrews3:1

Hi,Telstar
I would agree with you when you say ‘there had to be one leader that could sit in the place of Jesus,after his ascension’.But as this vacancy ( upon earth) was the result of the Son of God departing from an evil world and returning to whence he came,then ought not such holy ground as this space was,be occupied by he whom shared,from all eternity,an equality of authority and that within the Godhead?
This ‘gift’ was before hand ,as you will know ,told in advance ;even he who would comfort ‘and lead’ ’ into all truth’.
One example among many ,in the book of the Acts,shows that the Holy Spirit filled this vacancy to perfection and to the utmost degree and that in his own person.(Acts 13:2)

Of course I realize that the Holy Ghost was sent to spiritually guide the Church, but you know I’m not talking about that. I’m talking about the necessity for the Church to have a visible leader, here on earth, to shepherd the whole flock.

When was the last time you actually saw the Holy Ghost, face to face? I’m willing to bet never, because He is Pure Spirit and He has no actual physical form (unless He takes on the form of a dove, or tongues of fire, as an extraordinary example). Does your church have a human minister that preaches in your church, or does the Holy Spirit preach to the congregation, directly from the pulpit (in Person)? Isn’t your own minister the leader, and the person of ‘authority’, over his flock?

Why would Jesus tell Peter three times to “feed my lambs/sheep”? Jesus is the Good Shepherd. But, He knew that He could not remain on earth, so He left Peter in charge of His entire flock, during His physical absence, until He would come, again. Because Jesus knew, that without a strong leader that was completely dedicated to caring for His flock, that they’d all scatter as soon as a ‘hungry wolf’ came to attack (through persecutions, heresies, etc.). How difficult a concept is that for anyone to grasp, unless you intentionally try to find other meanings, so you don’t have to admit to knowing the real truth? You certainly can’t, as long as you want to espouse the belief that everyone is on their own, with no other authority to answer to.

“the Holy Ghost said,separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them”

It is true that for the purpose of being made like unto sinful man( except without sin),and because of substitutionary atonement,the eternal Son of God ,humbled himself and he was made ‘a little lower than the angels’(Heb 2:7)but before being made so,he ever existed with an equality ( of authority) within the Godhead which of course included his eternal Father.
Therefore in referencing the Godhead ,you,I would say, would be better to highlight a plurality of leadership would you not?

Why? Is there more than One God Who reigns in Heaven? Why would there have to be more than one man to lead His people on earth? Who reigned with Moses? Was there one leader, then? What about Abraham, or Israel? Did they share their position as the head of their people? Or, were they the sole leaders? And, who reigned over the Jews after they asked for an earthly king? Did he ever share his power to rule over them, with anyone else? We’re talking about the True King of the Jews. The King of Heaven and Earth. Doesn’t He have the power to give His keys to just one man, to rule in His stead while He’s away?

Akin to that which I believe, is seen ,by that sharing of authority among all ( the apostles) who 'being filled 'with the (one) ‘Holy Ghost’ ,where under that ascended but non the less,

‘Apostle and High Priest of our profession’.

Jesus certainly left His own Priests (the Apostles), that He Ordained to carry out His Mission for the Church, but when problems arise there has to be one strong leader, like there is in any other earthly organization. One strong leader who is responsible for making sure the whole ‘company’ works together for the same cause. People need someone to look to when they aren’t sure what they should do, especially if there are many different views of what that is. We’re human beings that often make mistakes when we don’t have someone with authority to help us settle our differences. Look at the family. Does every member do whatever they want, or is there someone that takes the lead, and sets down the rules for the whole house? Isn’t that the father’s job, that was given to him by God? Why would the Church be any different?

 

[Telstar]

Hi Telstar, you won’t be surprised if I disagree with some of your other points also,this doesn’t mean however, that I do not appreciate your effort ,which I know myself ,requires considerable sacrifice and time to put ones thoughts into a ‘post’.

Hello again, Bernard.
Of course, I’m not surprised at all. I also appreciate your efforts, as well. It sometimes takes me a while to respond, because I have to really think carefully (and prayerfully) about what I should say. It’s a good thing I have a lot of free time on my hands.

There is a great depth,I would certainly agree,seen in Mary’s attention being wholly upon the words of the saviour.It is also true that among the twelve there appears to be varying levels of understanding at different times.But I would disagree with you when you say that Peter was in ,as it where ,the Martha camp.

I’m certainly not saying that Peter was not spiritually minded at all. Far from it. What I meant was that, like Martha, Peter was also busy taking care of all of the temporal needs of the Church, as well as his spiritual duties as the shepherd of the flock. I wasn’t diminishing his spiritual life or his faith, in any way.

Incidentally Jesus in know way ,I would say,commends Martha,in the choice she had made,but he rather shows her the cause of her distress ,and states that she was ‘anxious and troubled about many things’.

On the contrary, Jesus acknowledges the fact that Martha was serving Him and His disciples in the best way she knew how, by taking care of the cooking, cleaning, serving food, making sure that all of their other temporal needs were met, and they were all comfortable in her home. Jesus didn’t say that what Martha did wasn’t important, because it was very important, and she did it very well. That was her gift.

This story is meant to teach us that we all have different talents, but when all things are done in humility, for the right reasons, they can lead us all to become more holy. In other words, someone that performs manual labor has the same value in God’s eyes, as someone that uses their mind. They both serve an important purpose. Performing those kinds of daily duties, along with prayer, elevates them and makes them the into works of holiness.

But the instruction for Martha ( and us) was ,I would say,to go and do likewise,that is be found in the place where Mary,is seen to choose that ‘part’ at the feet of Jesus.

I have no doubt that Martha also had a rich spiritual life. How could she not when she had the best Spiritual Director of all time, sitting in her own house? But, she was not a contemplative.

For me ,I would say ,that this ‘is the glue ’ that held ,(and still holds) it all together’. And this Peter certainly did not lack,quoting frequently the words of Christ as found in the Psalms and in the prophets as well as pointing to Paul’s own writings also.

A rich prayer life is always necessary to Christians, because without prayer we’d all be hopelessly lost in our own selfish sins. That’s certainly the glue that keeps us ‘stuck’ to God. But, I was referring to Peter, who worked diligently to hold everyone together within the flock.

Which writings Paul in no way associates with past knowledge or learning but rather he counted all that went before ’ but dung’( Philipians 3:8)

“Philippians 3 [8] Furthermore I count all things to be but loss for the excellent knowledge of Jesus Christ my Lord; for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but as dung, that I may gain Christ:”
Actually, I think he’s saying that he sees “all things” that he lost “as dung”, because what he found instead was Jesus, so it was well worth losing everything for Him.

His was truly as was Peter’s a role of a true leader and that in respect to things eternal and invisible as well as physical and temporal; but most of all they both were to lead out of error and confusion ,and equally ,I would say ,bind up upon the earth ,eternally,that which is seen also to be ,bound ( eternally) in heaven,that is lead out of death and hell itself.

Only Peter had the keys to bind and loose, but in a somewhat lesser way, the other Apostles also had the power to preach, to forgive sins, and to ceremonially ‘break bread’, because they were all ordained by Jesus to be Priests (except Paul). As I said before, that doesn’t mean that they were any less important to the Church than Peter. They all had their own special gifts to share. But, Peter was their ‘new’ shepherd, who was specifically chosen by Jesus to lead them.

I see you also point to Peter asking Jesus about what John ,the ‘disciple whom Jesus loved’,
Should do.But if Peter ( first Bishop) should depart before him ( which he did) then ought not the 'prime minister ’ or prime apostle, have had some sway,in the directions John should walk ( in following Christ) especially in Peter’s absence, after he went to be with the Lord?

I’m not sure I follow what you mean, but I think you believe John should have been the one to take Peter’s place after he died. Correct? As I said, John’s greatest calling was to preach the Word through his writing. If he had any problem with another taking the place of Peter, I don’t think there is any indication of it in the Bible. The workings of the Holy Spirit were very evident in the early Church. John was just not meant to lead the Church, or he would have been chosen. I’m not sure why, but I guess he was too busy writing his Gospel, and the Apocalypse, which were his most important works. His writings were deeply spiritual, and showed that he was blessed with many very profound visions of Heavenly things. That was his true calling.

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

Of course I realize that the Holy Ghost was sent to spiritually guide the Church, but you know I’m not talking about that. I’m talking about the necessity for the Church to have a visible leader, here on earth, to shepherd the whole flock.

When was the last time you actually saw the Holy Ghost, face to face? I’m willing to bet never, because He is Pure Spirit and He has no actual physical form (unless He takes on the form of a dove, or tongues of fire, as an extraordinary example). Does your church have a human minister that preaches in your church, or does the Holy Spirit preach to the congregation, directly from the pulpit (in Person)? Isn’t your own minister the leader, and the person of ‘authority’, over his flock?

Hebrews 12:25 “See that ye refuse not him that speaketh …that speaketh from heaven”.

I was not advocating a leaderless’ (or headless) body ‘upon the earth ,but for Christ ,who even though he is ascended ,still reserves ,I would claim ,the right of remaining ’ head ’ of that’ body’ and that to this very day.

Even as the writer to the Hebrews puts it in the present tense,‘refuse not him that speaketh’ ,then even today,he is still speaking( to us).

Not audibly,but spiritually yes,but as Peter shows us also is that what we have now,compared to that which was audibly heard upon the earth,is ‘a more sure word of prophecy’,that is ‘prophecy of the scripture’ (2Peter 1:19&20)

Then the ascended Christ still speaks with the same words (scripture) today.
In this respect then ,'the Lord Jesus Christ ’ ,has not vacated that authority ,which was and is unique to his own( human) person.
he still does reiterate his own words upon the earth;even today, and that with a delegated authority yes,and I do believe ,he has such a one among us ‘,as Paul,the aged’ this I would for my part claim and submit thankfully to it.(him)
But what had Peter or the others to do with this ascended authority ,or that descended authority embodied in the person of Paul?whom ,by his own authority,the Lord Jesus apprehended and sent into the 'church ’ and also into the world?

I would again point out that ,for me ,this same heavenly authority,is in the choice of Saul of Tarsus ,directly seen overturning the then existent and united earthly authority ( the eleven)
who were without the Holy Spirit being given ,clearly seen clutching at straws ,for the twelfth and replacement, apostleship .

This same intervention ,as had been seen and previously witnessed to:in the OT by a singular,prophet,sent to the People of God, has I believe been repeated a number of times since the close of scripture,and the Lord in the face of unfaithfulness has remained faithful and true in providing a choice vessel ,in which to lift up his voice once and again.

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

Good evening, Bernard.

First, I want to say that I admire your rock-like determination. I don’t agree with your steadfast denial in the primacy of Peter and his lawful successors; but I have to say that you sure are stubborn! :banghead: I always say “stick to your guns;” and you’re doing just that!

Anywhoo…

Protestantism is a whole theology founded on the “protesting” of Catholic theology and the Church; so therefore if one were to accept that Peter were indeed the rock; a Protestant would have to come to grips with the fact that he was in the wrong church.

Of course the Pentecostal minister denies that Peter is the rock (even though Peter’s name IS rock); because if he didn’t, then he’s just another guy with a Bible possessing no more authority than you or I. And if THAT were true; we wouldn’t need him at all!!!

I am curious as to which Protestant community you belong to, Bernard. Would you care to share with the rest of the class?

Greetings ,rfournier,
Thanks for the compliment (I think!),I too admire your manner and your straightforward way of ‘speaking’.
Seems to me though that you have inadvertently ,touched on the ‘core’ of the subject.That is when in relation to my 'stubbornness ’ you equate it to 'rock-like determination '.
This in essence is the reason why Peter is so named ,his by now,rock-like ( but not rock itself) belief or understanding thus far.
Do we not see this same identification,so common in the OT, seen to be also evident in connection with Christ in the NT?
1Corinthians 10:4 “And did all drink the same spiritual drink :for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them :and that Rock was Christ”
Paul here ,again ,is someone ,pointing to those rock-like qualities ( or truths)that are so true ,in this case,of Christ ,that these qualities are encompassed together ,and Christ is named(by Paul) as if actually ‘that Rock’ .But Christ was not ‘that Rock’ literally was he?
Furthermore if one looks at this OT event the literal rock did not follow after the Jews but it was the water that followed them was it not?
But Paul says 'that Rock that followed them"
Then it is all to be understood spiritually ‘that spiritual rock’ ;and this identification of Petros ('a rock) is only meant to be spiritually perceived also.Rock itself ,spiritually descended,for me would have to do with the everlasting covenant ( established in eternity past) whereby the Father and then Son determined by the power of the Holy Ghost to save a people .And reveal in time ( to that same people) the salvation of God in three persons.
For me then Peter being one of these people,was shown by the Father,the means ( in the person of the Son) by which he would secure (Peter’s )his eternal safety.
This then is Rock indeed is it not ?A certain salvation for those for whom he would die for.

 

[rfournier103]

Greetings ,rfournier,
Thanks for the compliment (I think!),I too admire your manner and your straightforward way of ‘speaking’.

It was a compliment of sorts. However, I see lots of Scripture-flinging; and not much convincing. You have come to us trying to dis-prove the Church’s position. We defend. You counter. We rebut. On and on… I do say it grows tiresome. Catholic theology has it’s interpretation; and whatever kind of Christian you are (you never did tell us) has it’s own.

Apologetics is the explanation of a subject to someone who inquires or has objections. After the objection has been answered and the subject explained; the inquisitor/objector (that’s you) either takes it or leaves it. We may not convince you that Peter was the rock - I can tell you are Protestant to the bone - but let me give you my deepest assurance… you will never convince us he isn’t.

Seems to me though that you have inadvertently ,touched on the ‘core’ of the subject.That is when in relation to my 'stubbornness ’ you equate it to 'rock-like determination '.

This in essence is the reason why Peter is so named ,his by now,rock-like (but not rock itself) belief or understanding thus far.

Do we not see this same identification,so common in the OT, seen to be also evident in connection with Christ in the NT?

1Corinthians 10:4 “And did all drink the same spiritual drink :for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them :and that Rock was Christ”

Then it is all to be understood spiritually ‘that spiritual rock’ ;and this identification of Petros ('a rock) is only meant to be spiritually perceived also.

I have to ask… How do you know this??? Where does it say that?

Rock itself ,spiritually descended,**for me **would have to do with the everlasting covenant ( established in eternity past) whereby the Father and then Son determined by the power of the Holy Ghost to save a people

**For me **then Peter being one of these people,was shown by the Father,the means ( in the person of the Son) by which he would secure (Peter’s )his eternal safety.
This then is Rock indeed is it not?

Are your summations your opinions? Or those of your particular faith community?

I have bolded two portions of your response where you indicate that your conclusions are your opinion. My conclusions are NOT my opinion; but rather the Truth of Christ’s Church passed down through millennia.

You never even addressed my citation of John 21. I must say that I am somewhat disappointed. This is clearly Jesus putting Peter in a position of authority - thereby having Peter’s ministry continue what Christ started. Peter would need to be a rock to govern the fledgling Church in the face of so many challenges. The first pastor of the original mega-Church… hand-picked by Jesus Christ Himself!

I don’t think you’ve ever addressed why Jesus would rename Simon “Peter” if he wasn’t intended to be the rock. You seem to think that Catholics place him in some sort of equal plane as Christ, but nothing could be further from the truth.

Peter needed to be “rock-like” to lead the Church. Peter was the first stone Christ laid. I will leave you with a few things…

Please look at John 1:42. Jesus renames Simon ‘Kephas’ (Rock) here, too. No mention of Peter’s faith, spirituality, or anything other than the person of Peter.

You cited 1 Cor. 10:4. Jesus is most definitely the Rock being spoken of in this passage. Does this mean that He was in error when he renamed Simon “Peter” in John and Matthew? How can they both be “ROCK”? Is it possible that the Bible can allow a title to be held by more than one person?

In Ephesians 2:20 ~ the Apostles are called the “foundation of the Church”.
In 1 Corinthians 3:11 ~ Jesus Christ is called the “Foundation of the Church”.

In 1 Corinthians 3:12 ~ the faithful build upon the foundation.
In Matthew 16:18 ~ Jesus builds upon the foundation.

In 1 Peter 2:5 ~ the faithful are called the stones of God’s spiritual house.
In Acts 4:11 ~ Jesus is called the Stone of God’s house.

In 1 Corinthians 3:16 ~ The faithful are the Temple of God.
In Revelation 21:22 ~ Jesus is the Temple of God.

In Acts 20:28 ~ the Apostles are called the bishops of the flock.
In 1 Peter 2:25 ~ Jesus is called the Bishop of the flock.

Just because God and Jesus are called “ROCK”, that does not preclude that title from belonging to anyone else, does it? Is Jesus BOTH the Builder and the Rock? Heavenly/divine attributes are often shared in the NT, aren’t they?

Matthew 16:19 ~ Jesus gives the keys to the kingdom of heaven (the House of God) to Peter.
Revelation 3:7 ~ Jesus has the Key of David (the House of God).

Matthew 16:19 ~ Peter has the authority to bind and loose (open and shut).
Revelation 3:7 ~ Jesus has the Authority to open and shut (bind and loose).

In Luke 22:30 ~ The Apostles sit upon heavenly thrones.
In Revelation 7:10, 11, 15, 17 God sits upon His heavenly throne.

None of this in any way takes away from God, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit.

Bernard, I have no idea to what end you desire to continue this debate. I would like to remind you that you enjoy something that we Catholics do not. You are more than welcome to come here and debate us for days on end; while we Catholics are barred from joining Protestant boards or are banned when we stand up for ourselves.

Whatever your motives for being here, I sincerely hope you learn something about Catholicism. I have made my argument as best as I can make it.

If we do not bang heads again, I wish you the best in your future endeavors. I have been as pleasant and as charitable as I have been able.

Have a good night.

 

[Telstar]

Hebrews 12:25 “See that ye refuse not him that speaketh …that speaketh from heaven”.

I was not advocating a leaderless’ (or headless) body ‘upon the earth ,but for Christ ,who even though he is ascended ,still reserves ,I would claim ,the right of remaining ’ head ’ of that’ body’ and that to this very day.

You know very well that I didn’t say Peter (or any Pope) actually takes the place of Jesus. Please, don’t imply that Catholics believe anyone could ever take the rightful place of Jesus, because no one can. Peter was the Vicar of Christ, the visible head of the Church Militant. Jesus is, and always has been, the True Head of the Catholic Church. (There are three parts of the Catholic Church, the Church Militant on earth, the Church Triumphant in Heaven, and the Church Suffering is the souls in Purgatory.) The Pope is the visible head of the Church Militant, and the Bishop of Rome.

Jesus ordained Peter to be the head of the Apostles, as well as the whole Church, by giving him the Keys of the Kingdom, because Jesus knew that He wouldn’t be on earth for very much longer. Shortly after this, they went to Jerusalem for Passover, and we all know what happened, there.

Even as the writer to the Hebrews puts it in the present tense,‘refuse not him that speaketh’ ,then even today,he is still speaking( to us).

I know very well who St. Paul is. You really don’t have to call him the “writer to the Hebrews”. Catholics know the Bible, too. Let’s look at that passage in context:“Hebrews 12: [21] And so terrible was that which was seen, Moses said: I am frighted, and tremble. [22] But you are come to mount Sion, and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to the company of many thousands of angels, [23] And to the church of the firstborn, who are written in the heavens, and to God the judge of all, and to the spirits of the just made perfect, [24] And to Jesus the mediator of the new testament, and to the sprinkling of blood which speaketh better than that of Abel. [25] See that you refuse him not that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spoke upon the earth, much more shall not we, that turn away from him that speaketh to us from heaven.”
In this whole passage, Paul is describing what happens in every Catholic Church during the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, where Jesus speaks to us through the reading of the Gospel. All of Heaven, including the Holy Trinity, all of the angels, and all the Saints of the Church Triumphant are present at every Mass that is offered in His Name. Jesus is also physically present on the Altar, in the Holy Eucharist, that nourishes us both spiritually and physically, whenever we partake of It. Jesus is always physically present in every Catholic Church, in the Holy Eucharist; Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, 24/7/365. We all know very well, why we go there.

Not audibly,but spiritually yes,but as Peter shows us also is that what we have now,compared to that which was audibly heard upon the earth,is ‘a more sure word of prophecy’,that is ‘prophecy of the scripture’ (2Peter 1:19&20)

"Saint Peter 1: [16] For we have not by following artificial fables, made known to you the power, and presence of our Lord Jesus Christ;*** but we were eyewitnesses of his greatness***. [17] For he received from God the Father, honour and glory: this voice coming down to him from the excellent glory: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him. [18] And this voice we heard brought from heaven, when we were with him in the holy mount. [19] And we have the more firm prophetical word: whereunto you do well to attend, as to a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: [20] **Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. **

[21] For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.

[18] For you are not come to a mountain that might be touched, and a burning fire, and a whirlwind, and darkness, and storm, [19] And the sound of a trumpet, and the voice of words, which they that heard excused themselves, that the word might not be spoken to them: [20] For they did not endure that which was said: And if so much as a beast shall touch the mount, it shall be stoned. "
Peter is also speaking of the same Church in the figure of the Holy Mount, and prophetically refers to all those who would leave it, “For they did not endure that which was said”.

Then the ascended Christ still speaks with the same words (scripture) today.
In this respect then ,'the Lord Jesus Christ ’ ,has not vacated that authority ,which was and is unique to his own( human) person.
he still does reiterate his own words upon the earth;even today, and that with a delegated authority yes,and I do believe ,he has such a one among us ‘,as Paul,the aged’ this I would for my part claim and submit thankfully to it.(him)
But what had Peter or the others to do with this ascended authority ,or that descended authority embodied in the person of Paul?whom ,by his own authority,the Lord Jesus apprehended and sent into the 'church ’ and also into the world?

Jesus never ‘vacated that authority’, but He did give it to Peter alone, as well as to all who would be his successors, to exercise it in His stead. That’s what the Keys of Heaven represent; the full Authority of Jesus Christ as King of Heaven and Earth, and Head of His Church. St. Paul was never the head of the Catholic Church, but he is definitely a Great Saint in Heaven.

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

Why? Is there more than One God Who reigns in Heaven? Why would there have to be more than one man to lead His people on earth? Who reigned with Moses? Was there one leader, then? What about Abraham, or Israel? Did they share their position as the head of their people? Or, were they the sole leaders? And, who reigned over the Jews after they asked for an earthly king? Did he ever share his power to rule over them, with anyone else? We’re talking about the True King of the Jews. The King of Heaven and Earth. Doesn’t He have the power to give His keys to just one man, to rule in His stead while He’s away?

Hi,Lori,
Sorry I can’t answer more speedily ,your many pertinent points,I have almost no time during daytime hours ,and late at night seems to be my only slot.

Yes ,indeed There is only one God ,but as we all know :within that Godhead is three persons.So this plurality of persons ,was my intended reference ,not the mystery of unfathomable depths, in regards to the only one true God.

There is of course in the OT examples of individual leaders over God’s people,but all of these communed directly with God ,who appeared in physical manifestation ,or else through the mediation of a prophet ,who himself was found to be in such communion ( direct revelation)
So from this point of view ,they are not individual leaders as such.
Even Saul the first earthly king given to rule over God’s heritage ,had recourse to the Lord’s prophet.And I am sure you will know ,this request ( after the fashion of the nations roundabout) for an earthly leader by Israel,was in the face of a somewhat indignant ,invisible leader of the Jews,and to within the context of the displeasure of the LORD ,their God.

Jesus certainly left His own Priests (the Apostles), that He Ordained to carry out His Mission for the Church, but when problems arise there has to be one strong leader, like there is in any other earthly organization. One strong leader who is responsible for making sure the whole ‘company’ works together for the same cause. People need someone to look to when they aren’t sure what they should do, especially if there are many different views of what that is. We’re human beings that often make mistakes when we don’t have someone with authority to help us settle our differences. Look at the family. Does every member do whatever they want, or is there someone that takes the lead, and sets down the rules for the whole house? Isn’t that the father’s job, that was given to him by God? Why would the Church be any different?

To deny that Peter had much in the way of leadership ability would be foolish,as would be for the Lord not to utilise these( for his own Glory) same particular gifts.But so did James and what else can I say of Paul?
Jesus could have delegated to one man ,of course’ all things’ were possible,and are to him.
But as the old saying goes ,‘Power corrupts and absolute power ,corrupts ,absolutely.’
After the ascension ,with no more (except Paul) direct contact ,like unto the OT, Jesus would he not also ,to avoid future corruption,have distributed equally among the twelve,such authority as this?
If they were all under the same influence ( of the Holy Spirit) then with one purpose and mind they would serve; if an individual showed not the savour of this,then the others would assert ,by their consensus ,a more structured or unanimous 'authority.
By this I do not exclude ,spontaneity ,and a particular calling to assert ,by an individual ,a leading role ( as seen with Paul for example ,with 'circumcision) but this also is within the context of the majority overview and group( apostles ) contemplation.
This seems to me to be what we witness in scripture,and with the close of the same scripture,I would again claim the Lord,reserves for himself ,and from time to time ,sends us ‘one’ like Paul and that to the whole church.

 

[TheSeeker2014]

Even raised as protestant I have to agree with the Catholics

Peter is a common masculine given name. It is derived, via Latin “petra”, from the Greek word πέτρος (petros) meaning “stone” or “rock”. Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_(given_name

Sure Jesus is the ROCK but you still need a leader of the church when Jesus left… the gospel still needed preached… the only ones who were trained were the 12. Jesus felt peter was the best candidate to be the leader. Kinda like a rev of the church… that would be a local shepherd… well peter was the shepherds shepherd. Not to mention if the mind is clouded the Holy Spirit cannot always be heard clearly.

 

[Telstar]

Hi,Lori,
Sorry I can’t answer more speedily ,your many pertinent points,I have almost no time during daytime hours ,and late at night seems to be my only slot.

Hi, Bernard.
I understand. Most people probably don’t have as much time to spend reading and posting as I do.

Yes ,indeed There is only one God ,but as we all know :within that Godhead is three persons.So this plurality of persons ,was my intended reference ,not the mystery of unfathomable depths, in regards to the only one true God.

I realize that, but my point is that because God is One, it makes perfect sense that He would only place one leader to represent Him in His Church. God is also known to us as our Father. So, the position of authority in His Church should also reflect that same Pastoral aspect of God, that of being our Father. Catholics see the position of the Pope as our spiritual ‘foster father’ (very much like St. Joseph was the foster father of Jesus), the head of the Family of God, on earth. St. Joseph was not Jesus’ real father, but he served as His earthly father, having all of the authority over Him that his position of father required. This did not take anything away from the Glory of God the Father, or Jesus the Son. Did it?

One thing that non-Catholics don’t seem to realize, is that the position of Pope is not one of being some kind of dictator, and he certainly doesn’t rule us with an iron fist. The position of Pope, in some ways, is similar to that of a president. He has the final say about what is ‘signed into law’ (proclaimed to be doctrine), but there are other branches of the Church that do a lot of the studying, investigating and discussing of various matters, and giving their recommendations to the Holy Father, long before any decisions can be made.

For the most part, the Pope is the spiritual Pastor of all Catholics, that lovingly leads and directs us on matters of faith and morals. After visiting other Christian forums, and reading their opinions and preconceived notions of who or what they think they “know” about the position of the Pope, or the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, I find what they say to be shocking and downright insulting to any Catholic. It’s heartbreaking to realize that they really have no idea what the actual truth is. We mostly follow the Pope because he represents the great love that Jesus has for all of us, and we love him for that reason. He only wants what’s best for us, to bring us all closer to God. That’s the main focus of his mission as Pope.

Even Saul the first earthly king given to rule over God’s heritage ,had recourse to the Lord’s prophet.And I am sure you will know ,this request ( after the fashion of the nations roundabout) for an earthly leader by Israel,was in the face of a somewhat indignant ,invisible leader of the Jews,and to within the context of the displeasure of the LORD ,their God.

As I said above, the Pope is also counseled by the rest of the Magisterium of the Church, who are all inspired by the Holy Spirit in their work. Their decisions are made after prayerfully searching for the right answers. Please, don’t underestimate the real holiness of the Pope, which is the greatest attribute to be considered by the Cardinals, whenever they have to search for a replacement for the position of Pope.

I know all about how unhappy God was that the Jews asked for a king. But, when the decision was finally made to give them one, He chose one man to lead them. The king did not share his throne with anyone on earth, but even he was still subject to God. The Pope is no different. He is also subject to God, and he is responsible for every soul under his care. He will have to answer to God for everything he did for them, and every decision he made on behalf of them. It might be “good to be the king” in the eyes of the world, but the Pope carries a very heavy cross. His decisions are never made willy-nilly.

To deny that Peter had much in the way of leadership ability would be foolish,as would be for the Lord not to utilise these( for his own Glory) same particular gifts.But so did James and what else can I say of Paul?

I don’t know how many times I have to say that all of the Apostles had different callings, because of their different talents. Do you really read and seriously consider what I, and others, post? As Foghorn Leghorn used to say, “I ain’t just talkin’ to hear my head roar!”

Jesus could have delegated to one man ,of course’ all things’ were possible,and are to him.
But as the old saying goes ,‘Power corrupts and absolute power ,corrupts ,absolutely.’

The Pope doesn’t have absolute power. He has the entire Magisterium of the Church to help him in the decision making process. Just as all of the Apostles helped Peter to decide what he should do for the whole Church.

After the ascension ,with no more (except Paul) direct contact ,like unto the OT, Jesus would he not also ,to avoid future corruption,have distributed equally among the twelve,such authority as this?

No. Why? First, because 12 is an even number. It’s too easy to come to a stalemate when trying to settle disputes. Second, there were 12 Apostles, but with Jesus, there were 13. Did He ever confer with any of them, or ask what they thought He should do? No. Why? Because, He was their sole leader. He didn’t share His authority with any of them, during that time. He didn’t choose Peter to lead them until He was on His way to Jerusalem to die. Because, He knew they would need someone to lead them, someone that was strong and faithful. So, when He heard Peter’s answer to His question, He knew that the Father was speaking through him. This clearly showed Jesus that His Father approved of Peter being the one to lead them all.

 

[Darryl_B]

To me the exchange between Jesus Christ and Peter is very similar in style to a covenant. Would it be wrong to describe this passage in Matthew 16 as the Petrine Covenant?

 

[Darryl_B]

Not to mention if the mind is clouded the Holy Spirit cannot always be heard clearly.

This point was very interesting to me, because sometimes I hear people say “I think God wants me to remain in the church where I am for now rather than entering communion with the Catholic Church”.

That voice is not God.

 

[Telstar]

If they were all under the same influence ( of the Holy Spirit) then with one purpose and mind they would serve; if an individual showed not the savour of this,then the others would assert ,by their consensus ,a more structured or unanimous 'authority.
By this I do not exclude ,spontaneity ,and a particular calling to assert ,by an individual ,a leading role ( as seen with Paul for example ,with 'circumcision) but this also is within the context of the majority overview and group( apostles ) contemplation.
This seems to me to be what we witness in scripture,and with the close of the same scripture,I would again claim the Lord,reserves for himself ,and from time to time ,sends us ‘one’ like Paul and that to the whole church.

Working under the assumption that Jesus didn’t choose Peter to lead them, isn’t it obvious they would have tried to do that? But, what if the ‘vote’ ended in a dead tie? What if there was a two way, or even a three way tie? Wouldn’t they still have to bicker it out? What would that accomplish, other than to make more resentments among them? Is that what Jesus would have wanted for them? I don’t think so.

The only logical solution is that Jesus would have made the choice for them, so they could focus all of their attention on their real mission, spreading the Gospel. Any other alternative would only end up fostering more and more resentment and arguments between them, and the whole thing would have fallen apart in a very short period of time. All of it would have been for nothing. Jesus would have died in vain.

Do you really think Jesus would have been that foolish, to pit them against each other, with no clear leader who could make a decision, and settle all disputes? Is there any mention of anything like that happening in the Gospels, or anywhere else in the NT? Why not? Because it didn’t happen that way. Jesus took charge and made that decision. That is clearly stated in the Gospel. But, too many people refuse to see it that way, because it would mean that the Pope really is the true head of the Church, just like Peter was.

The Church is the body of Christ. Without Jesus being there in bodily form, or anyone else strong enough to gather them all together, to reassure them to continue to have faith and trust in Him, they all would have scattered, too afraid to do anything else. Peter was the one responsible for gathering and keeping them together after Jesus died. He was the shepherd that Jesus commissioned to tend to His whole flock, after He Ascended to the Father. “Feed my sheep” was said to Peter, alone. No one else was ever given that role. Peter was that figure of Christ on earth, who took the Shepherd’s staff from Jesus, to lead all of God’s flock back home to Him in Heaven.

Many people, now, believe in their hearts that they’re led by the Holy Spirit, and they’re so sure that they’re right. But, if that’s true, then why can’t they all agree on what’s true and what isn’t? Why are there so many different opinions, from one extreme to the other? Do they act as if they are all of the same mind? Is the Holy Spirit somehow leading all of them in different directions, and causing more and more divisions among them? For what purpose? What spirit is it, that causes such chaos? Don’t they all say, “Hey, I’ve got the real Jesus over here! The Holy Spirit told me I was right! Don’t listen to that other guy. He’s lying to you!” Is the Holy Spirit really leading all of them? How can you ever possibly know for sure which one is right?

Jesus said this:“DR - Mark 13: [21] And then if any man shall say to you, Lo, here is Christ; lo, he is here: do not believe. [22] For there will rise up false Christs and false prophets, and they shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce (if it were possible) even the elect. [23] Take you heed therefore; behold I have foretold you all things.”

 

[South_Bound]

There is a very anti-Catholic (former cradle Catholic, whose family left the RC church when he was a child and converted to Pentecostalism) pastor that I know through my volunteer work at a program that takes place at his church (even though I do not go to that church). He once said that Jesus did NOT mean for Peter to run the Church. That it was not built on Peter at all and therefore the Catholic Church is wrong wrong wrong.

How could he, a sola scriptura, born again Protestant, believe this, when we read in the Bible:

Matthew 16:18: “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church; and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.”

Matthew 16:19 “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . .”

You have to remember, Protestants believe it’s Peter’s confession and not Peter, himself, because we read the whole passage.

Of course, you believe it’s Peter because you only cited one verse out of the passage.

I don’t think you really have to be an hermeneutics prodigy to know that when a verse begins with the word “and”, that something necessary to understanding the context of the verse came in the previous verse or verses, do you?

 

[Jon_S_1]

You have to remember, Protestants believe it’s Peter’s confession and not Peter, himself, because we read the whole passage.

Of course, you believe it’s Peter because you only cited one verse out of the passage.

I don’t think you really have to be an hermeneutics prodigy to know that when a verse begins with the word “and”, that something necessary to understanding the context of the verse came in the previous verse or verses, do you?

Do you know where this blessing and the keys Jesus gives to Peter comes from?

You want to talk about hermeneutics and holistic reading of scripture, I would suggest you really dive in.

So lets start with your complaint:

Matt 16

13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” 14 And they said, “Some say John the Baptist; and others, [h]Elijah; but still others, *Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.” 15 He *said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are [j]the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon [k]Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 I also say to you that you are [l]Peter, and upon this [m]rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth [n]shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth [o]shall have been loosed in heaven.” 20 Then He [p]warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was [q]the Christ.

Again, you act as if Catholics do not read the entire Bible, which is quite foolish, we have 2000 years of tradition reading ALL of the Bible and millions of pages have been written on every verse, chapter and book.

But regardless, without Confessing who Jesus is, Jesus could not have given him the keys and the authority to bind and loose. This is the authority that we see Jesus define just two chapters later in Matthew 18, where he describes the authority of the Church to settle disputes among believers.

The keys to the kingdom do not just appear here for the first time in scripture either. This is the same sort of authority given in Isaiah 22, an authority any Jew would be familiar with, and a clear reality to the Apostles.

“Then it will come about in that day,
That I will summon My servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah,
21 And I will clothe him with your tunic
And tie your sash securely about him.
I will entrust him with your [t]authority,
And he will become a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.
22 “Then I will set the key of the house of David on his shoulder,
When he opens no one will shut,
When he shuts no one will open.
23 “I will drive him like a peg in a firm place,
And he will become a throne of glory to his father’s house.*