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

[Gabriel_of_12]

And is to be passed on the way the Apostles did it, until Jesus comes back again in his glory.

Matthew 16:28 Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of man coming in His Kingdom. (Jesus speaks this before His passion).

John 21:20-23; "Peter turned and saw following them the disciple whom Jesus loved (John)…When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, “Lord, what about this man?” Jesus said to him (Peter), “if it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? Follow me!”
(Jesus speaks here after His resurrection and before His ascension into heaven, He has Peter follow Him)

There are many scriptures that speak of the apostolic succession and practice, but these two scriptures, because it is God incarnate speaking His Words never end. God’s Word remains eternal, in the past, present and future.

Just a thought

 

[dronald]

So Peter is the only rock or the Apostles too or there are more rocks building up the Church? I got all three answers.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

So Peter is the only rock or the Apostles too or there are more rocks building up the Church? I got all three answers.

There is only One Rock, who is Jesus Christ. What you ask deals with all those whom God ordained and called into the body of Jesus Christ =Rock the Church. We are all different members that make up the body of Christ. Some apostles, some preachers, teachers, prophets etc…

I believe to reach into the spiritual reality of the Rock which is eternal, One enters into communion with God via the Sacraments of Jesus Christ, which He instituted within HIs body, to become One with Christ, when we all become rocks = partakers of His divinity (I Peter 1:4) being built up into the household of God.

We the baptised in the blessed Trinity, are all living stones of the Rock Jesus Christ.

**Jesus is in full communion with His body the Church. That Church has a visible head on earth exercising the will God in Jesus Christ through Peter and the apostles. The head of the Whole Church Triumphant in heaven and Church Militant on earth is Jesus Himself.

His Vicar is Peter on earth, the visible Rock of Which Jesus builds His Church until Jesus returns for her.**

 

[JRKH]

You know - - one can dance around with the words - who is the rock - how many rocks…who is the cornerstone, the foundation, the bedrock and what have you…
And one can try to dissect the matter and come up with all sorts of ideas, nuances, insights and conclusions…

But the bottom is that the holy Spirit caused the inspired writers of the holy books to:

1. Record that Jesus Simon’s name to Rock, be it Peter (Petra) or Cephas (Kepha).
2. That upon this Kepha, He, Jesus, would build a Church.
   There must have been something quite special about this since the Holy Spirit inspired it’s recording.

I wonder what it could have been???

Peace
James

 

[Non_Serviam]

If I were the pentecostal pastor, I would be more convinced that I was correct after reading this, then I was before this “evidence” was presented. Let’s review:

1. In 1Peter 2 dronald points out that Peter identifies Christ as the cornerstone or foundation stone depending on your preferred translation (since Jesus is the one were are called to believe in).
2. rcwitness points out that in Ephesians 2 Paul tells us that the cornerstone or foundation stone is Jesus.

So we have Peter and Paul, who were both closely associated with the church in Rome being contradicted by those who identify as current members of that church.

When dronald argues that the passage in Matthew refers to Peter and the rest of the apostles he is told that he is reading into the passage and it must only apply to Peter, but when rcwitness discusses Ephesians, he says it can’t only apply to Jesus, but we have to use a “both/and” method of understanding to read Peter into it even though only Jesus is mentioned.

Not very convincing thusfar.

Now let’s look at 2 more scriptures:

Acts 15:7-8

After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, “My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the holy Spirit just as he did us.

Peter describes his understanding of the role God called him to fill in Matthew 16-he would confess Jesus to the Gentiles, just as he confessed Jesus. The church was “built” through his preaching, being opened to the Jews, the Samaritans and finally the Gentiles. By granting the Spirit to the Gentiles, God showed that Peter had fulfilled this mission. Note that Peter says nothing about this being an ongoing office or authority over other believers, any reference he makes to that in his writings, is referenced to his eldership or apostleship and not this special calling he explains here.

I Corinthians 1:11-13

For it has been reported to me about you, my brothers, by Chloe’s people, that there are rivalries among you. I mean that each of you is saying, “I belong to* Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ." Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

Here **Paul **talks about factions, some claiming to follow him, some Apollos, and some Cephas or Kepha (rock) in Aramaic, which is, as randycarson pointed out the name used for Peter in Jesus’ discussion in Matthew 16. While some catholic commentators have tried to avoid the plain meaning of the passage by suggesting another Cephas, looking at the passage and the broad awareness of Paul and Apollos demonstrates that the Cephas mentioned must be equally well known, which points to Peter, another apostle who had influence on the Gentile churches (If one of the catholic posters can identify another Cephas with equal awareness and authority to Paul and Apollos, please present your evidence). His message is clear, making Paul, or Apollos or Peter your foundation directs away from Christ and divides the church.

So, taking all of this evidence into account, I think there is a reasonable case for the pentecostal minister to believe as he does. While catholics may validly disagree and argue other interpretations, I believe it’s only fair to acknowledge that the interpretation of Peter’s role provided here is reasonable and that one cannot dismiss the pentecostal ministers arguments in an intellectually honest fashion without producing more evidence than has been provided by catholics so far.

While one can certainly make an argument that there are differences between the pentecostal church structure and the one found in the New Testament (and this might be a better strategy for the OP to pursue initially), claiming that the New Testament clearly depicts the establishment of a foundational office, first occupied by Peter alone, with authority over all the others in the church, is a stretch at best, without more solid evidence to back it up and leaves the OP open to easy refutation.

 

[rcwitness]

That’s a great exhortation rc:thumbsup:
Really loved your post, I learned some new insights in regards to the High priesthood of Jesus Christ and His body the Church, thanks;
Gabe;

Thank you Gabriel. I have a focus to recognize the genuine Catholic faith which many Protestants have. That means they are correct about sooo much! But I am given enough understanding of the Catholic faith to keep me convicted, Confirmed and always satisfied that I find Jesus within, even when He is hidden from our pride and fallen nature.

So Peter is the only rock or the Apostles too or there are more rocks building up the Church? I got all three answers.

below

There is only One Rock, who is Jesus Christ. What you ask deals with all those whom God ordained and called into the body of Jesus Christ =Rock the Church. We are all different members that make up the body of Christ. Some apostles, some preachers, teachers, prophets etc…

I believe to reach into the spiritual reality of the Rock which is eternal, One enters into communion with God via the Sacraments of Jesus Christ, which He instituted within HIs body, to become One with Christ, when we all become rocks = partakers of His divinity (I Peter 1:4) being built up into the household of God.

We the baptised in the blessed Trinity, are all living stones of the Rock Jesus Christ.

**Jesus is in full communion with His body the Church. That Church has a visible head on earth exercising the will God in Jesus Christ through Peter and the apostles. The head of the Whole Church Triumphant in heaven and Church Militant on earth is Jesus Himself.

His Vicar is Peter on earth, the visible Rock of Which Jesus builds His Church until Jesus returns for her.**

We are not actually stones But for analogy of a strong house, we are stones built together making a great house of God!

Each generation is a new level atop the other. Each contains a foundation. All are founded on Jesus, who is the immovable foundation. He, in the nature of His Father, created a new man in His image. This is one analogy Jesus provided for us. There are others.

The Shepherd, who leaves others (first Peter) to tend and feed.
The Door, who leaves Peter the keys
The Vine who sprouted from the stump.
The Rock, who named Peter the same.

We all are in these images because we have the Spirit of the One who perfectly fullfills these images. But if we are to resemble the Church Jesus established, we must submit to an Apostolic body, which He laid down.

 

[andrewstx]

Sure. So the Church was built only on Peter and the other Apostles?

I thought Jesus was too obvious to mention of course. But Jesus is not here on earth as we speak.

 

[JRKH]

So, taking all of this evidence into account, I think there is a reasonable case for the pentecostal minister to believe as he does. While catholics may validly disagree and argue other interpretations, I believe it’s only fair to acknowledge that the interpretation of Peter’s role provided here is reasonable and that one cannot dismiss the pentecostal ministers arguments in an intellectually honest fashion without producing more evidence than has been provided by catholics so far.

While one can certainly make an argument that there are differences between the pentecostal church structure and the one found in the New Testament (and this might be a better strategy for the OP to pursue initially), claiming that the New Testament clearly depicts the establishment of a foundational office, first occupied by Peter alone, with authority over all the others in the church, is a stretch at best, without more solid evidence to back it up and leaves the OP open to easy refutation.

Not to dismiss the rest of your fine post - I wanted to pull this out…

I think that you bring out a very important point here and one that should be addressed.
The Catholics stand, not solely on what is in Scripture, but also what was written by the Early Church Fathers and indeed the whole history of the Church.
This is fine in some discussions - the other person will accept such extra-biblical writing as valid evidence. However in other cases the other person will refuse to accept any extra-biblical writing as having any bearing on the matter.

Looking at BOTH of the main ancient Christian Churches, the RC and the EO, one finds nearly identical structures. Tracing back through history does not find any truly radical changes in these - even back to the Apostles.
This fact is, to me, a huge body of evidence in and of itself and one that the protestant is hard pressed to explain away…especially given what we read in the holy Scriptures.

To me - the whole focus being on Peter is a mistake. It is an easy target for the “Bible only” protestant but it misses the larger point. Catholics would do well to shift the conversation as quickly as possible to the larger issue of General Church structure and what the NT calls for. Only then - in that sort of context - does the idea of the Pope make sense.

Just some thoughts

Peace
James

 

[dronald]

If I were the pentecostal pastor, I would be more convinced that I was correct after reading this, then I was before this “evidence” was presented. Let’s review:

1. In 1Peter 2 dronald points out that Peter identifies Christ as the cornerstone or foundation stone depending on your preferred translation (since Jesus is the one were are called to believe in).
2. rcwitness points out that in Ephesians 2 Paul tells us that the cornerstone or foundation stone is Jesus.

So we have Peter and Paul, who were both closely associated with the church in Rome being contradicted by those who identify as current members of that church.

When dronald argues that the passage in Matthew refers to Peter and the rest of the apostles he is told that he is reading into the passage and it must only apply to Peter, but when rcwitness discusses Ephesians, he says it can’t only apply to Jesus, but we have to use a “both/and” method of understanding to read Peter into it even though only Jesus is mentioned.

Not very convincing thusfar.

Now let’s look at 2 more scriptures:

Acts 15:7-8

Peter describes his understanding of the role God called him to fill in Matthew 16-he would confess Jesus to the Gentiles, just as he confessed Jesus. The church was “built” through his preaching, being opened to the Jews, the Samaritans and finally the Gentiles. By granting the Spirit to the Gentiles, God showed that Peter had fulfilled this mission. Note that Peter says nothing about this being an ongoing office or authority over other believers, any reference he makes to that in his writings, is referenced to his eldership or apostleship and not this special calling he explains here.

I Corinthians 1:11-13

Here **Paul **talks about factions, some claiming to follow him, some Apollos, and some Cephas or Kepha (rock) in Aramaic, which is, as randycarson pointed out the name used for Peter in Jesus’ discussion in Matthew 16. While some catholic commentators have tried to avoid the plain meaning of the passage by suggesting another Cephas, looking at the passage and the broad awareness of Paul and Apollos demonstrates that the Cephas mentioned must be equally well known, which points to Peter, another apostle who had influence on the Gentile churches (If one of the catholic posters can identify another Cephas with equal awareness and authority to Paul and Apollos, please present your evidence). His message is clear, making Paul, or Apollos or Peter your foundation directs away from Christ and divides the church.

So, taking all of this evidence into account, I think there is a reasonable case for the pentecostal minister to believe as he does. While catholics may validly disagree and argue other interpretations, I believe it’s only fair to acknowledge that the interpretation of Peter’s role provided here is reasonable and that one cannot dismiss the pentecostal ministers arguments in an intellectually honest fashion without producing more evidence than has been provided by catholics so far.

While one can certainly make an argument that there are differences between the pentecostal church structure and the one found in the New Testament (and this might be a better strategy for the OP to pursue initially), claiming that the New Testament clearly depicts the establishment of a foundational office, first occupied by Peter alone, with authority over all the others in the church, is a stretch at best, without more solid evidence to back it up and leaves the OP open to easy refutation.

And to add to this:

1 Corin 3:4 For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not mere human beings?

5 What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task. 6 I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God has been making it grow. 7 So neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow. 8 The one who plants and the one who waters have one purpose, and they will each be rewarded according to their own labor. 9 For we are co-workers in God’s service; you are God’s field, God’s building.

10 By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as a wise builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should build with care. 11** For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.**

Can you imagine if a Protestant were to tell a Catholic that Paul, Apollos or Peter aren’t anything? That would upset quite a few.

Sure, Peter was a “rock” but weren’t the other Apostles? Aren’t you a stone helping to build the Church of God? I actually don’t claim to be anyone, rather than a servant of God, but I know God has His purpose for Peter, Paul, me, you, etc. I take no pride and I don’t think Paul or Peter did either. They saw themselves as servants and exhorted others to be the same.

So when it comes down to it, we become a part of the Church, “This Rock” when we confess that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. And then go out and fulfill His ministry.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Not to dismiss the rest of your fine post - I wanted to pull this out…

I think that you bring out a very important point here and one that should be addressed.
The Catholics stand, not solely on what is in Scripture, but also what was written by the Early Church Fathers and indeed the whole history of the Church.
This is fine in some discussions - the other person will accept such extra-biblical writing as valid evidence. However in other cases the other person will refuse to accept any extra-biblical writing as having any bearing on the matter.

Looking at BOTH of the main ancient Christian Churches, the RC and the EO, one finds nearly identical structures. Tracing back through history does not find any truly radical changes in these - even back to the Apostles.
This fact is, to me, a huge body of evidence in and of itself and one that the protestant is hard pressed to explain away…especially given what we read in the holy Scriptures.

To me - the whole focus being on Peter is a mistake. It is an easy target for the “Bible only” protestant but it misses the larger point. Catholics would do well to shift the conversation as quickly as possible to the larger issue of General Church structure and what the NT calls for. Only then - in that sort of context - does the idea of the Pope make sense.

Just some thoughts

Peace
James

I’m glad to see you respect the distinctions I made, and I respect the ones you proposed in return. While we might disagree over what is “radical change” there are certainly some aspects of catholic practice that are clearly visible in the New Testament.

My point in writing was to demonstrate to the OP that many of the arguments being put forth here to use with the pastor need more support to be convincing, so it would be advisable to adopt another approach in discussions. It’s nice we can agree that a more general approach regarding church structure and practice might bear more immediate fruit.

 

[JRKH]

…

So when it comes down to it, we become a part of the Church, “This Rock” when we confess that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. And then go out and fulfill His ministry.

I heartily agree with this - - and I wish that this were all there was to it.

Yet - in the passages quoted from Paul about the divisions we see the very root of our problem here.
Paul is not calling these people back to a focus on Christ so that they can then ignore the legitimate authority of their Church leaders. Instead, He is calling on them to work together to end factionalism.
This is what the Church consistently worked to minimize and overcome through her many councils - called to resolve matters that were disturbing the peace of the Church.

Was it not factionalism that caused people to follow Luther or Calvin or Zwingli or Joseph Smith or Oral Roberts or whoever??? Is it not factionalism to have one group saying that water baptism is necessary while another group says that it is not (and holding to SS)? Is it not factionalism to have one SS group say that the Lord is truly present in the Lord’s supper, while another SS group says it’s only symbolic?

What efforts are there in the broad protestant communion to end factionalism.
As Catholics we know that our model works to reduce, if not entirely eliminate, factionalism in teaching. Does the current Protestant model offer the same blessing?

I don’t say the above to divert the conversation - or to “pick a fight”…but rather to point out that the passage quoted about factionalism can cut both ways…

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

I’m glad to see you respect the distinctions I made, and I respect the ones you proposed in return. While we might disagree over what is “radical change” there are certainly some aspects of catholic practice that are clearly visible in the New Testament.

My point in writing was to demonstrate to the OP that many of the arguments being put forth here to use with the pastor need more support to be convincing, so it would be advisable to adopt another approach in discussions. It’s nice we can agree that a more general approach regarding church structure and practice might bear more immediate fruit.

Thank you. This idea and approach comes from many many conversations with protestants both as an observer and a participant.

ISTM that many many protestants think of the papal office in very narrow terms. They think if it as strictly singular and they tend to think mostly, if not exclusively, in terms of “power” - something they are fearful of (and perhaps rightly so). However - the Papal office, while singular in certain ways is extremely collaborative in most ways. And far from being an office of “power” (authority)…it is much more an office of great and grave responsibility.
The Pope does not make teaching willy-nilly nor does he act without seeking the counsel of others. He prays a lot, writes a lot, discusses a lot. The issues and questions facing the Church are researched and prayed over; discussed and debated; prayed over some more and researched some more…The the pope might make some pronouncement…or not…

But he is always cognizant of the fact that whatever he teaches, he will stand before God and have to answer for.

I wish more protestants would consider the papacy from this perspective…

peace
James

 

[Non_Serviam]

Thank you. This idea and approach comes from many many conversations with protestants both as an observer and a participant.

ISTM that many many protestants think of the papal office in very narrow terms. They think if it as strictly singular and they tend to think mostly, if not exclusively, in terms of “power” - something they are fearful of (and perhaps rightly so). However - the Papal office, while singular in certain ways is extremely collaborative in most ways. And far from being an office of “power” (authority)…it is much more an office of great and grave responsibility.
The Pope does not make teaching willy-nilly nor does he act without seeking the counsel of others. He prays a lot, writes a lot, discusses a lot. The issues and questions facing the Church are researched and prayed over; discussed and debated; prayed over some more and researched some more…The the pope might make some pronouncement…or not…

But he is always cognizant of the fact that whatever he teaches, he will stand before God and have to answer for.

I wish more protestants would consider the papacy from this perspective…

peace
James

While I respect the attempt to find common ground, it must be noted that it is catholics that assert that the only true churches in right relationship with God are those in submission to the bishop of rome. That is the defining characteristic that is put forth for us to accept or reject, whether bluntly in “Unum Sanctam” or more gently in the CCC and I would suggest that, as in the time of Paul, a foundational emphasis on Peter is as much a cause of division in the overall church as it is a point of unity for those who rally round him.

While I agree that many who have held the office have sought to do the best with it that they could to nurture those who seek leadership from them, I believe you would also agree that there have been some occupants of the office whose self-serving behaviour suggests no trace of consideration for their eternal destiny. These have been few, but their existence demonstrates why, if the catholic beliefs about Peter are incorrect, and we grant license to the holders of the office based on those beliefs, they have the possibility of inflicting serious harm and suffering on others.

I think we are starting to move away from the original purpose of the thread and we should either move elsewhere, or agree to disagree on good terms.

 

[SteveVH]

While I agree that many who have held the office have sought to do the best with it that they could to nurture those who seek leadership from them, I believe you would also agree that there have been some occupants of the office whose self-serving behaviour suggests no trace of consideration for their eternal destiny. These have been few, but their existence demonstrates why, if the catholic beliefs about Peter are incorrect, and we grant license to the holders of the office based on those beliefs, they have the possibility of inflicting serious harm and suffering on others.

And yet, even with the few “bad” popes we have had, not one of them has ever changed a dogma or doctrine of the Catholic Church. The truth given to the Church has been successfully protected from error. We have never claimed that our popes are impeccable. They are, however, protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching erroneous doctrine.

 

[dronald]

And yet, even with the few “bad” popes we have had, not one of them has ever changed a dogma or doctrine of the Catholic Church. The truth given to the Church has been successfully protected from error. We have never claimed that our popes are impeccable. They are, however, protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching erroneous doctrine.

I was thinking of making a thread on the fourth lateran council because I’m curious what it means to Catholics now and if that counts.

Anyways, another thread some day.

 

[Non_Serviam]

And yet, even with the few “bad” popes we have had, not one of them has ever changed a dogma or doctrine of the Catholic Church. The truth given to the Church has been successfully protected from error. We have never claimed that our popes are impeccable. They are, however, protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching erroneous doctrine.

This of course is an assumption without evidence that there is a papacy, which is the actual topic of the discussion with the pastor. So claiming the behaviour of the popes as proof of the papacy begs the question.

Since the dogma of the papacy itself is a subject of debate among the churches that claim to be the original church, it could be (and is) viewed as just such a change from the teaching of the apostolic church. But I’ll leave that discussion to the orthodox as it depends on the interpretation of evidence beyond scripture and history specifically.

Discussing specific historical activities of popes in a negative fashion, including teaching, leaves one in the position of potentially running afoul of the forum rules and being the subject of discipline, so while I believe there are specific actions that could be discussed as examples of departure from apostolic teaching, I’ll have to refrain until there is a clarification in the forum rules.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

The OP deals with the Pentecostals private claim and own foundational Christian community, instead of what Jesus said and did.

Do the non-Catholics discount what Jesus said and did in divine revelation? And then try and use His own Word to discredit Jesus against His acts, as if not to pay any mind to what Jesus revealed?

**How in the world does a schism in the Corinthian Church over rate Jesus commissioning of Peter?

The Corinthians are babes in Christ, Paul is using their false understanding of who they think their own Church belongs to. Many apostles early on in their evangelization overlapped Church communities, Paul is saying the Church does not belong to either of these men. Paul’s instruction never conflicts or contradicts Jesus teachings or commissioning of Peter to tend and feed His flock. Nor does Paul’s instruction to the infant Church in Corinth, conflict with Jesus building His Church upon Peter. Context, context please.**

1 Corin 3:11 For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Here is Jesus when He laid the foundation;

Matthew 16:13…"Who do men say that the Son of man is?.. Simon replied, “You are the Son of the living God.”…17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 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. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven”.

We Catholics have no problem with obeying and following Jesus here; If the discussion is not with Jesus own words? Then the problem is never with Jesus and Peter, the problem is what Paul is addressing the baby Corinthians problems. They are viewing Men like the Pentecostal preacher is viewing himself as the one Jesus personally built the Pentecostal preacher’s own church by men of the flesh.

I don’t think the non-Catholic posters are being fair to themselves. By not providing evidence on the contrary to support their disagreements of Jesus building His Church upon Peter according to the first century biblical interpretations of the scriptures presented.

I ask for the non-Catholic posters to bring your evidence in support of or in difference of the OP. Don’t deny the argument or move away from the evidence, by proposing and interpreting sacred scripture as if to use it to contradict or conflict with God.

I would like to know from non-Catholic posters, How do you justify the Pentecostal pastor claims or your own view of what Jesus meant when He changed Simons name to Peter and gave him keys from which Jesus will build His Church upon.

In regards to the OP.
Catholics here can be confirming Peter’s office from biblical times all through recorded history to the present time. How does the Pentecostal preacher justify his claims that Jesus did not build his church upon Peter?

 

[Non_Serviam]

The OP deals with the Pentecostals private claim and own foundational Christian community, instead of what Jesus said and did.

Do the non-Catholics discount what Jesus said and did in divine revelation? And then try and use His own Word to discredit Jesus against His acts, as if not to pay any mind to what Jesus revealed?

How in the world does a schism in the Corinthian Church over rate Jesus commissioning of Peter?

You create a false dichotomy here. I never said Jesus didn’t commission Peter, I simply disagreed with your interpretation of what Peter was commissioned to do, and provided Peter’s own explanation of his commissioning.
"Acts 15:7-8 NAB:

After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, “My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the holy Spirit just as he did us.

These are Peter’s words from his own mouth explaining the commissioning he was given in Matthew-how is it you place someone else’s words over those of Peter when you claim to submit to his authority? You need to explain away this passage and Peter’s own words before you can offer another interpretation.

The Corinthians are babes in Christ… (snipped for length-see previous post)…Context, context please.

Paul clearly shows that some were dividing the church by putting their dedication to an apostle ahead of their unity in Christ. Why do you engage in a behaviour he specifically warned against? What is your justification in placing loyalty to Peter ahead of our unity in Christ?

1 Corin 3:11 For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Here is Jesus when He laid the foundation;

Matthew 16:13-19

(quote removed due to message length)

We Catholics have no problem with obeying and following Jesus here; If the discussion is not with Jesus own words? Then the problem is never with Jesus and Peter, the problem is what Paul is addressing the baby Corinthians problems. They are viewing Men like the Pentecostal preacher is viewing himself as the one Jesus personally built the Pentecostal preacher’s own church by men of the flesh.

You add another example of Paul identifying Christ as the foundation in addition to the verses provided previously showing that Peter and Paul both taught that Christ IS the foundation, rather than Peter. Yet immediately after typing a verse where Paul says Christ IS the foundation you argue that Christ LAID the foundation with Peter.

How do you justify immediately claiming a different interpretation of the foundation of the church from Paul’s teaching having just quoted him? You provide no evidence for your interpretation, ignore Peter’s evidence against your interpretation and even provide other scripture that states something contrary to your interpretation, yet you feel no compulsion to defend your interpretation and keep asserting it without evidence and criticize us for not accepting it without evidence.

I don’t think the non-Catholic posters are being fair to themselves. By not providing evidence on the contrary to support their disagreements of Jesus building His Church upon Peter according to the first century biblical interpretations of the scriptures presented.

I ask for the non-Catholic posters to bring your evidence in support of or in difference of the OP. Don’t deny the argument or move away from the evidence, by proposing and interpreting sacred scripture as if to use it to contradict or conflict with God.

I would like to know from non-Catholic posters, How do you justify the Pentecostal pastor claims or your own view of what Jesus meant when He changed Simons name to Peter and gave him keys from which Jesus will build His Church upon.

I have provided evidence from the teaching of both Peter and Paul as well as Peter’s own words about his commissioning. If I have to choose between your assertion of your interpretation of what God said to Peter and Peter’s interpretation of what was said to him, yours is a very distant 2nd place without you providing much more in the way of justification and evidence. I’ve accepted literally Peter’s explanation of the event, what is your justification for not believing him and asserting something else? How do you transform Peter’s speech from preaching to the Gentiles into an office and authority over the entire church?

I also give you the opportunity to provide a 1st century interpretation of Matthew 16 that clearly and unambiguously teaches an office of universal authority over the church held by Peter. Your claim is that this is “first century biblical interpretation” so please provide some evidence of that claim. I’ve provided Peter’s explanation from Acts 15.

In regards to the OP.
Catholics here can be confirming Peter’s office from biblical times all through recorded history to the present time. How does the Pentecostal preacher justify his claims that Jesus did not build his church upon Peter?

I see lots of assertion of the office, but little interaction with the evidence provided from scripture that presents a different understanding that your interpretation of Matthew 16. No assertion without evidence will convince this pastor, so there needs to be proof for the catholic interpretation of Matthew 16, proof that is at least as convincing as the arguments laid out here.

 

[JRKH]

While I respect the attempt to find common ground, it must be noted that it is Catholics that assert that the only true churches in right relationship with God are those in submission to the bishop of Rome.

Quite true. When wee put forth this proposition it is because we Love our fellow Christians so much and wish them to have the absolute fullness of faith - which we firmly believe resides within the Catholic Church.

That is the defining characteristic that is put forth for us to accept or reject, whether bluntly in “Unum Sanctam” or more gently in the CCC and I would suggest that, as in the time of Paul, a foundational emphasis on Peter is as much a cause of division in the overall church as it is a point of unity for those who rally round him.

And I think that the “emphasis” that you speak of tends to be more in the minds of the protestant than in the mind of the Catholic…or at least in a very different way, as I suggested in my earlier post. I don’t say this as a slap to anyone - just as an observation.

While I agree that many who have held the office have sought to do the best with it that they could to nurture those who seek leadership from them, I believe you would also agree that there have been some occupants of the office whose self-serving behaviour suggests no trace of consideration for their eternal destiny. These have been few, but their existence demonstrates why, if the catholic beliefs about Peter are incorrect, and we grant license to the holders of the office based on those beliefs, they have the possibility of inflicting serious harm and suffering on others.

Yes - the big thing here is “IF” our belief is incorrect, and certainly history has given us ample reason to be careful.
Yet - as another has pointed out, those who were bad popes did not change fundamental teaching. The reason being (IMHO) is that they simply were not that interested in these things. As you say - their behavior suggests no consideration of things eternal.

I think we are starting to move away from the original purpose of the thread and we should either move elsewhere, or agree to disagree on good terms.

Well yes and no…These conversations can often be free-wheeling and as you can see, I prefer to NOT keep such conversation too narrowly defined because I think it bears less fruit. As I mentioned earlier, I believe that it is a too narrow conversation that can be a roadblock to coming to a real understanding.

That said, I do not expect that you and I should come to agreement here. Each is seeking only to plat a few seeds and to try to understand the other a bit better.
I think we are accomplishing that.

Peace
James

 

[rcwitness]

And to add to this:

1 Corin 3:4 For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not mere human beings?

5 What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task. 6 I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God has been making it grow. 7 So neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow. 8 The one who plants and the one who waters have one purpose, and they will each be rewarded according to their own labor. 9 For we are co-workers in God’s service; you are God’s field, God’s building.

10 By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as a wise builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should build with care. 11** For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.**

Can you imagine if a Protestant were to tell a Catholic that Paul, Apollos or Peter aren’t anything? That would upset quite a few.

Sure, Peter was a “rock” but weren’t the other Apostles? Aren’t you a stone helping to build the Church of God? I actually don’t claim to be anyone, rather than a servant of God, but I know God has His purpose for Peter, Paul, me, you, etc. I take no pride and I don’t think Paul or Peter did either. They saw themselves as servants and exhorted others to be the same.

So when it comes down to it, we become a part of the Church, “This Rock” when we confess that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. And then go out and fulfill His ministry.

Once again, Paul’s writting are proved to be difficult to understand.

You might do well to remember who in the Christian communities is divided. Where have all these Protestant churches started? They have divided at specific points in history, which were founded by certain men! Look up the roots of your denomination, and you will find it was founded by someone other than Jesus. The Church built on Peter was founded by Jesus.

We do not say that Peter is our Saviour. We do not say that He founded the Church. We do not follow Peter. What we believe, is what the Lord said…

And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter,[d] and on this rock[e] I will build my church, and the powers of death[f] shall not prevail against it.[g] 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,[h] and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Jesus Himself founded the Church on Peter. We dont say Peter is the Rock of our Salvation, or the Rock of our Faith, but that Peter is the rock which Jesus built His Church on. That is overwhelmingly evident in the rest of the N.T. Peter was a Chief Apostle. That meant he had authority among the rest. Still, like all the Apostles, that authority came by Jesus and the Gospel they received from Jesus.

Just Go to a Mass, you will see for yourself. We hold Jesus as our Priest, Prophet, and King, in whom we are given all things.