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

[jpaul1953]

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 . . .”

Dear 7watersdaughter,

So what if he has to steal convert by lying to them. Shame on him and my only hope is that God has mercy on his soul for lying to his flock. He knows the truth inside himself, he is just lying. Shame on him.

May God Bless you

Jpaul1953

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

Hello again, Bernard.

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.

I was’nt suggesting that domestic duties were less important and less spiritual than other aspects of The Christian life,only that on his occasion ,it would appear,that Jesus is recommending to Martha the example of her sister.Where does Jesus acknowledge Martha’s choice here? She was anxious about many things when one thing was needful: which thing ,with Christ being so accessible ,Mary her sister had chosen correctly and was also ‘doing’ the ‘better part’.Could not Jesus ,if needed,have provided for five thousand guests personally,without anxiety or without even ‘cooking’?

“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.

Yes I agree overall he is declaring this to be his praise; but included in his ‘all things’ must be (verse 4)‘Though I might have confidence in the flesh’ as a zealot ,learned Jew,that is before is experience on the road to Damascus,then all his learning ‘in the flesh’ must be included,wouldn’t you say?

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.

No I was meaning that when Peter asks Jesus about the disciple whom Jesus loved,’ and what about this man, ’ Jesus says, ‘what’s that to thee’ ‘follow thou me’ ,if Peter was already the ‘rock’ on which Christ was to build his church,( as claimed by RC’s )would not ‘this man’ have a great deal to do with Pertros? Being as is claimed he was in matters of authority :subordinate to the holder of the keys?

 

[Telstar]

I was’nt suggesting that domestic duties were less important and less spiritual than other aspects of The Christian life,only that on his occasion ,it would appear,that Jesus is recommending to Martha the example of her sister.Where does Jesus acknowledge Martha’s choice here?

The lesson, here, is twofold. First, it shows that there are those who are the “doers” (Martha). They are the ones that work hard to serve others, and deal with all of the temporal needs of the Church, or any other part of a Christian’s life. Second, that there must also be the “thinkers” (Mary, Paul, John, etc.) that spend more of their time in thinking about (contemplating) God. They open themselves up to communicating with Him much more deeply than the average person can, so they can learn His will and share whatever they learn with the rest of the congregation. They’re the ones that dedicate themselves almost completely to prayer. They study the deeper, more esoteric and spiritual side of the Faith. In the process, they can get much closer to God than anyone that has to worry about temporal things.

Where does Jesus acknowledge Martha’s choice? In the way He spoke to her. He never told her that she was wrong in doing all that she was doing, because her special gift was to physically ‘serve’, and look after all of the temporal needs of those who visited her home. Her role was still very good, but Mary’s was the “better part”, because she spent all of her time in listening to Jesus (God). I think Mary, the Mother of Jesus, was the perfect example of both roles, but that’s just my humble opinion.

She was anxious about many things when one thing was needful: which thing ,with Christ being so accessible ,Mary her sister had chosen correctly and was also ‘doing’ the ‘better part’.

Yes, she was anxious, because it was a lot of responsibility and physically exhausting work for her to have to handle it all on her own. By acknowledging her efforts, He was praising her for how well she did it, validating the choice that she made to take on that “part” of serving God, in her own way. She was not meant to be like Mary.

Mary was a pure contemplative. If you don’t know what that means, then you should do a little digging to see what it means to be a true contemplative, according to the Catholic Church. St. John and St. Paul were also great contemplatives, who preferred devoting their time to prayer, rather than anything else. Their heads were always “in the clouds”, so to speak; meaning that they were more focused on being with God, even while they were still here on earth.

Could not Jesus ,if needed,have provided for five thousand guests personally,without anxiety or without even ‘cooking’?

Are you serious? Do you really think Jesus would whip up a huge feast just to keep Martha from having to serve Him in her own way? What kind of lesson would that teach us? :ehh:

Yes I agree overall he is declaring this to be his praise; but included in his ‘all things’ must be (verse 4)‘Though I might have confidence in the flesh’ as a zealot ,learned Jew,that is before is experience on the road to Damascus,then all his learning ‘in the flesh’ must be included,wouldn’t you say?

No, I don’t think so, at all. Before he was converted, he was actually a very good Jew, who faithfully lived his life according to the Mosaic Law. There was nothing wrong with that, because that’s what the Jews thought they must do (and they were right). Even when he was persecuting the Church, he did it because he (mistakenly for sure) thought it was the correct thing to do, because he truly believed that the High Priest spoke for God. So, if he told him to persecute the Christians, then he would follow that directive without question. He didn’t realize that the High Priest was completely wrong about Jesus, at the time.

The high ranking Jews at that time were abusing their power, and not actually following the Law that they claimed to believe in, except outwardly in the site of others. They were taking advantage of the ‘average’ Jews, and ignoring the needs of the poor, so they could get rich, themselves. Inwardly, they didn’t really believe in any of it. That’s what Paul spoke so vehemently about; the fact that they were hypocrites, just like Jesus said they were. The Law itself was basically good, except for the parts that had been changed to accommodate men who wanted to justify their own sinfulness (like allowing divorce).

No I was meaning that when Peter asks Jesus about the disciple whom Jesus loved,’ and what about this man, ’ Jesus says, ‘what’s that to thee’ ‘follow thou me’ ,if Peter was already the ‘rock’ on which Christ was to build his church,( as claimed by RC’s )would not ‘this man’ have a great deal to do with Pertros? Being as is claimed he was in matters of authority :subordinate to the holder of the keys?

I think, basically, Jesus was telling Peter that it was none of his business what John or anyone else would have to do, as far as what their role would be in the future Church, or anything else. That was all up to Jesus, just like Peter’s role was. Instead, He meant that Peter should only focus on and worry about what Jesus wanted him to do; that being to “feed my sheep”, and safely lead them all to Jesus in Heaven, by ‘the way’ that He had taught them.

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

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

Hi,rfournier ,

"Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine,and doeth them,I will liken him unto a wise man,which built his house upon a rock:
And the rain descended,and the floods came,and the winds blew,and beat upon the house;and it fell not :for it was founded upon a rock.

And everyone that heareth these sayings of mine,and doeth them not,shall be likened unto a foolish man,which built his house upon sand:
And the rain descended,and the floods came,and the winds blew,and beat upon the house;and it fell:and great was the fall of it.

And it came to pass,when Jesus had ended these sayings,the people were astonished at his doctrine:
For he taught them as one having authority and not as the scribes" (Matthew 7:24-29).

In Matthew 16:15-20 ,is Simon Peter,at work (according to the words in Matthew7) and ‘like unto wise man’ (builder),is to be seen,building his house upon ‘a rock’?

Likewise, in Matthew 16:15-20, do we see Christ Jesus ,'like unto a wise man '(builder) who is at work,and is also seen to be ‘building his house upon a rock’?

Then from my point of view ,I would suggest both these builders are seen to be building upon the same rock ,which 'rock 'according to the words of Jesus in Matthew 7, is not a particular person ,but has to do with his ‘sayings’ ,and ‘therefore’ ‘whosoever heareth these sayings of mine,and doeth them’.

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.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Hi,rfournier ,

"Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine,and doeth them,I will liken him unto a wise man,which built his house upon a rock:
And the rain descended,and the floods came,and the winds blew,and beat upon the house;and it fell not :for it was founded upon a rock.

And everyone that heareth these sayings of mine,and doeth them not,shall be likened unto a foolish man,which built his house upon sand:
And the rain descended,and the floods came,and the winds blew,and beat upon the house;and it fell:and great was the fall of it.

And it came to pass,when Jesus had ended these sayings,the people were astonished at his doctrine:
For he taught them as one having authority and not as the scribes" (Matthew 7:24-29).

In Matthew 16:15-20 ,is Simon Peter,at work (according to the words in Matthew7) and ‘like unto wise man’ (builder),is to be seen,building his house upon ‘a rock’?

Likewise, in Matthew 16:15-20, do we see Christ Jesus ,'like unto a wise man '(builder) who is at work,and is also seen to be ‘building his house upon a rock’?

Then from my point of view ,I would suggest both these builders are seen to be building upon the same rock ,which 'rock 'according to the words of Jesus in Matthew 7, is not a particular person ,but has to do with his ‘sayings’ ,and ‘therefore’ 'whosoever heareth these sayings of mine,and
.

You are correct that it is Jesus and his teachings carried in his body the church! Remember Jesus did not write a word. Sola Scriptura? Couldn’t work while Jesus walked the earth. He gave us the rock…the church and Peter holds the authority of this rock.

“if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.”

1 Timothy 3:15

15 “If your brother sins[k], go and [l]show him his fault [m]in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16 But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every [n]fact may be confirmed. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as [o]a Gentile and [p]a tax collector. 18 Truly I say to you, whatever you [q]bind on earth [r]shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth [t]shall have been loosed in heaven.

Matt 18

Tell me, is your church the pilar of all truth?

Is your church able to settle this doctrinal dispute between us with any authority at all?

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

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.

Hi ,Telstar

“Every good gift is from above and cometh down from the Father of lights,with whom is no variableness ,neither shadow of turning” ( James 1:17)

It seems to me that if the LORD was not pleased with Israel’s request for an earthly king,like to the nations around about them,then his desire was and still is,I believe,to rule and guide his own people ,invisibly ,from above .
This does not mean however that we do not see this authority which is seated in the heavens, manifest and asserted by and among the children of men.
But in the OT it was through the prophet ,uttering the very oracles or word of the LORD which came from heaven.An example of such is seen in the life and ministry of the prophet Samuel ,who preceded that earthly rule or authority as seen throughout the reign of King Saul.

It is therefore my opinion that this same rule is evident still and that throughout the NT .
The one exception being of course : God in the Person of the Son,choosing for himself ,the twelve,during his earthly sojourn .
But after he ascended ,do we not see a rerun to the original emphasis,that is in the calling and preparing and sending of Saul of Tarsus ?
Just like John the Baptist’s ministry was commissioned from above and he spoke by the command and word of God even so do we not see Paul’s ministry follow exactly that pattern?
Just like that previously seen in the prophets of old we see in Paul a superior rule being implemented .Even Peter ( among others) feeling the reverberation and submitting to Paul’s God given light( Galations 2:6 )on that authority which the circumcision still asserted as their own ,which of course which was still a force to be overthrown.
As has been said before,Peter ( 2Peter 3:6) shows us that Paul’s epistles are the very word of God also :" as they do also the other scriptures"
The word of God therefore remains ,for me the final authority whereby all human dispute is seen to be resolved.
Is this not the witness ,even when the twelve were alive,as seen in Peter’s own words ( and actions)?

 

[Telstar]

Hi ,Telstar

Hi, Bernard

“Every good gift is from above and cometh down from the Father of lights,with whom is no variableness ,neither shadow of turning” ( James 1:17)

It seems to me that if the LORD was not pleased with Israel’s request for an earthly king,like to the nations around about them,then his desire was and still is,I believe,to rule and guide his own people ,invisibly ,from above.

He does desire it, and is still ruling, as He always has for the past 2000 years. But, He does it by leading His Church directly through the Holy Spirit, who inspires the Pope. Some people choose not to believe it, but that doesn’t change the truth.

This does not mean however that we do not see this authority which is seated in the heavens, manifest and asserted by and among the children of men.

Absolutely. It’s very easy to see it. Jesus reigns in Heaven and on Earth. We’re in the “1000 year reign” of Jesus, right now.

But in the OT it was through the prophet ,uttering the very oracles or word of the LORD which came from heaven.An example of such is seen in the life and ministry of the prophet Samuel ,who preceded that earthly rule or authority as seen throughout the reign of King Saul.

We still have that leadership.

It is therefore my opinion that this same rule is evident still and that throughout the NT.
The one exception being of course : God in the Person of the Son,choosing for himself ,the twelve,during his earthly sojourn .

You’re right in that it’s been clear since the time of the Apostles, when Jesus appointed His Father’s choice to lead us. The only way that wouldn’t be true, is if we chose to abandon the 12 Apostles that Jesus chose to carry out His mission, and followed our own path. Then, we’re blown around by the winds of error.

But after he ascended ,do we not see a rerun to the original emphasis,that is in the calling and preparing and sending of Saul of Tarsus ?

No! God is the same, always. He is constant and does not change. Read the first quote you posted! Why would Jesus decide to completely abandon the plan that He had spent over 3 years building? Why would He take away Peter’s commission, and toss all that work out the window, to choose Paul to lead?

Just like John the Baptist’s ministry was commissioned from above and he spoke by the command and word of God even so do we not see Paul’s ministry follow exactly that pattern?

So what if Paul had a dramatic calling from God? Didn’t others all have similar experiences? What about what Jesus said to Peter? He was singled out from the 12 by the Father!

Just like that previously seen in the prophets of old we see in Paul a superior rule being implemented .Even Peter ( among others) feeling the reverberation and submitting to Paul’s God given light( Galations 2:6 )on that authority which the circumcision still asserted as their own ,which of course which was still a force to be overthrown.

Overthrown? Superior rule? Do you think Paul was superior to Jesus? Paul’s gift was in understanding the things that Jesus taught, so he could better explain them to the people.

It was Peter that made the final decision about circumcision. He listened to what Paul and the others had to say, first. Then, Peter said that he also realized the truth of it when he went to the Centurion’s house, and they all ‘fell silent’. So, it was settled.

As has been said before,Peter ( 2Peter 3:6) shows us that Paul’s epistles are the very word of God also :" as they do also the other scriptures"
The word of God therefore remains ,for me the final authority whereby all human dispute is seen to be resolved.

“2 Peter 3: [16] As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.”
This is a perfect example of what Peter said! The “scriptures” that he refers to, are the ones about the scoffers in the last days, who would question the promise that Jesus would return. “2 Peter 3: [4] Saying: Where is his promise or his coming? for since the time that the fathers slept, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.”

You just proved why we shouldn’t interpret scripture on our own, without the guidance of the Church (who wrote the Bible).

Paul would be the last one to ever claim superiority over the Apostles that Jesus first picked. Why do you think he ranted at those that argued over which Apostle was the greatest? He knew his own calling, and he was perfectly happy to be doing what he was called to do. He was called to preach the Gospel to certain groups of people for a particular purpose. He had the education and position in the world at that time, that the others lacked. He had connections. But, he was not called to lead them, in the place of any of the others. To even hint at something like that is an insult to Paul, and to all of the other Apostles. He always submitted to their authority, particularly to Peter. He always saw himself as “lesser”: 1 Corinthians 15:9 For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

Is this not the witness ,even when the twelve were alive,as seen in Peter’s own words ( and actions)?

No! Peter knew he was the one that Jesus told to “feed my sheep”, not Paul. The rest of the Apostles knew it, too. Paul’s role was not less important, despite the way he referred to himself, it was just different. Period.

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

Hi, Bernard

Overthrown? Superior rule? Do you think Paul was superior to Jesus? Paul’s gift was in understanding the things that Jesus taught, so he could better explain them to the people.

It was Peter that made the final decision about circumcision. He listened to what Paul and the others had to say, first. Then, Peter said that he also realized the truth of it when he went to the Centurion’s house, and they all ‘fell silent’. So, it was settled.

“2 Peter 3: [16] As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.”
This is a perfect example of what Peter said! The “scriptures” that he refers to, are the ones about the scoffers in the last days, who would question the promise that Jesus would return. “2 Peter 3: [4] Saying: Where is his promise or his coming? for since the time that the fathers slept, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.”

Hi ,Telstar
My point was that Paul asserted ,by his teaching ,( and God given light) that authority established,and seated in the heavens .
Not that he himself was pope or supreme among the other eleven.
It is the true teachings of Christ that he is seen to be ,alone ( when he challenges Cephas) upholding at this time .
Yes Paul was little, also in his own eyes,but those same eyes ,as you know, were blinded from above,when as one born out of due season,Paul was chosen and sent( from above) in a singular manner,that is he alone of all the apostles,received his ministry from an ascended Christ ,still in the Glory.
Then what part or say did the others have in this choice? Only to receive one who formerly was a persecutor and waster of the saints and offer to him in equality ,the right hand of fellowship.
It was Paul who set Peter back on course and re-establishes him in the way of salvation according to the original Gospel .Peter may have been brought to understand the vision (and threefold injunction) in the house of Cornelius ,but this he was soon seen to have forgotten,and like the Galatians he was brought to his senses :
"Are ye so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit,are ye now made perfect by the flesh? "

There is no doubt false ‘brethren’ would wrest ( out of context) Peter’s words also; but do you doubt that Peter in affirming Paul’s ,‘things hard to be understood’,as ‘other scriptures’,was pointing to the writings of Paul as ‘scripture’?
Then even at the time of Peter’s letter ,Paul’s words were given directly from heaven ,this Peter recognises and humbly acknowledges this authority before his readers.

Like the prophets of old the truth of the word of God was the priority,organising those who were seen to be faithful to it :subservient to this which organising Paul also has an equal and pertinent share.

 

[zz912]

It seems to me that if the LORD was not pleased with Israel’s request for an earthly king,like to the nations around about them,then his desire was and still is,I believe,to rule and guide his own people ,invisibly ,from above .

Before the kings, God did not rule directly. Judges ruled the people directly.

 

[Telstar]

Hi ,Telstar
My point was that Paul asserted ,by his teaching ,( and God given light) that authority established,and seated in the heavens .
Not that he himself was pope or supreme among the other eleven.

It is the true teachings of Christ that he is seen to be ,alone ( when he challenges Cephas) upholding at this time .

Hello, Bernard
Are you suggesting that Peter and the rest of the 12 had abandoned what Jesus taught them and were no longer guided by the Holy Spirit, but Paul was the only one that was? That’s ridiculous. Paul was certainly enlightened concerning the subject of circumcision, but so was Peter, through his visions. They came to the same conclusion because they were both guided by the Holy Spirit. Together, they convinced the others that it was true. But clearly, Peter had the last word in the discussion in Jerusalem. Then his decision was agreed upon by all, and was made final. End of discussion.

Yes Paul was little, also in his own eyes,but those same eyes ,as you know, were blinded from above,when as one born out of due season,Paul was chosen and sent( from above) in a singular manner,that is he alone of all the apostles,received his ministry from an ascended Christ ,still in the Glory.

None of the original 12 had any choice in their calling, either. All they had to do was to choose to follow Jesus or not, even though they didn’t know where He would lead them. Paul was no different than them. The only difference was that it was much more unlikely, because he was actively persecuting the Church at the time. This was meant to be an extreme example, to show us that even those that it seems impossible that they would ever follow Jesus, can be converted through prayer. I’m sure there were lots of prayers going up to Heaven, asking God to change the hearts of those who were persecuting them, no doubt including Saul. The story of Saul/Paul clearly shows that those prayers could always be answered, even in a very dramatic way.

Then what part or say did the others have in this choice? Only to receive one who formerly was a persecutor and waster of the saints and offer to him in equality ,the right hand of fellowship.

They might have still refused to accept him, if they had not been guided by the Holy Spirit to do so.

It was Paul who set Peter back on course and re-establishes him in the way of salvation according to the original Gospel. Peter may have been brought to understand the vision (and threefold injunction) in the house of Cornelius ,but this he was soon seen to have forgotten,and like the Galatians he was brought to his senses :
"Are ye so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit,are ye now made perfect by the flesh? "

Peter was certainly confronted by Paul about not eating with the Gentiles when the Jews from Jerusalem were with them, even though he had done so in the past. Peter was intimidated by them and did it as a sign of submission to their beliefs. He didn’t want to ‘cause waves’. Paul reminded him that if the Gentiles were truly equal to the Jews in the eyes of God, then there was no reason for him to avoid eating with them as those Jews under the Old Law would. The group from Jerusalem (under James) still thought they had to observe that Law. This episode was to clearly show them all that they were no longer bound by it. This was the reason for the council at Jerusalem to be called, to settle the dispute about having to follow the Old Law, or not.

There is no doubt false ‘brethren’ would wrest ( out of context) Peter’s words also; but do you doubt that Peter in affirming Paul’s ,‘things hard to be understood’,as ‘other scriptures’,was pointing to the writings of Paul as ‘scripture’?

In that entire chapter, he’s clearly speaking about the far future, the ‘last days’, when scoffers would begin to question the truth of Scripture as a whole, such as the Second Coming of Jesus. Peter was talking about our present day, when everybody and his brother would think they can interpret scripture on their own whims, instead of following the leadership that Jesus left for them to follow, in His Church. It’s clear to me that he was certainly correct in everything he said.

Then even at the time of Peter’s letter ,Paul’s words were given directly from heaven ,this Peter recognises and humbly acknowledges this authority before his readers.

Peter certainly recognizes Paul’s great gift for interpretation of scripture, as well as for better defining what Jesus taught. But, Peter says those who would try to interpret things on their own (in the future) were the ones that would fall into error, because they wouldn’t have the same guidance that Paul had. Paul was anointed by the Apostles (Bishops) for his ministry, just like Priests are anointed by the Bishop, today. He followed all that had been given to him, by them. That’s why Paul had such a wonderful gift of interpretation, through the guidance of the Church and the Holy Spirit.

Like the prophets of old the truth of the word of God was the priority,organising those who were seen to be faithful to it :subservient to this which organising Paul also has an equal and pertinent share.

The key word here is ‘share’. Even though Peter was their leader, chosen by Jesus through the inspiration of the Father, the others all shared in the process of making decisions and spreading the Gospel. No individual can ever do anything right on their own; meaning without the guidance of the rest of the “body”, which is the Body of Christ, His Church. Peter was absolutely right.

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

Before the kings, God did not rule directly. Judges ruled the people directly.

Hi ,sorry I am so long in replying to your interesting point.

'And the anger of the LORD was hot against Israel,and he delivered them into the hands of spoilers that spoiled them,and he sold them the hands of spoilers that spoiled them,and he sold them into the hands of their enmities round about,so that they could not any longer stand before their enemies ’ (Judges 2:14)

‘Nevertheless the LORD raised up judges,which delivered them out of the hand of those that spoiled them’(16)

And when the LORD raised them up judges,then the LORD was with the judge,and delivered them out of the hands of their enemies all the days of the judge’(18)

From the context of this chapter it seems the LORD is directly in control .
Firstly ,after Joshua and his generation ‘there arose another generation that knew not the LORD,nor yet the works which he had done for Israel’(2:10)
the LORD in adverse providences brings a people to their knees and secondly brings his truth and true judgements in providing them with a judge.

This however is identical to the sending of his singular prophet to a disobedient nation is it not?
Prophets and judges being a temporary measure ,intended to restore his people to faithfulness( and prosperity)
Kings however pass on to their heirs, their authority and their seat of power remains indefinitely, throughout every succeeding generation.This is being so whether the king was good or bad.
Is this why the LORD was not pleased that Israel sought an earthly rule(ruler)?

I believe that my belief of a continuation of this same formula ,is seen in the NT .
Like Joshua and his generation ,the generation after the last apostle,John departed ,quickly (like Israel of old) fell into error and false worship,the Lord according to his good pleasure,sends to a remnant ,a choice individual and does do ,in my opinion even to this day.
But as there was no one apparently sent for 400 years after the last OT prophet ( recorded in scripture )until the one crying in the wilderness came forth,then long intervals ,I believe ,have elapsed also between times of such sendings since Paul was directly from the Glory called and sent.

This does not exclude a heritage of Godly teachings on which to enrich present faith,and
With each sending ( and restoration) subjection and due reverence was manifest among the faithful ,in respect to such Godly men ,sent from above who themselves revered and were in subjection to the completed word of God( in the Bible)

 

[KathleenGee]

Problem is you are not drawing on what happened to Christianity after the death of the last apostle.

PS, I am still a Christian.

 

[Telstar]

Hi ,sorry I am so long in replying to your interesting point.

'And the anger of the LORD was hot against Israel,and he delivered them into the hands of spoilers that spoiled them,and he sold them the hands of spoilers that spoiled them,and he sold them into the hands of their enmities round about,so that they could not any longer stand before their enemies ’ (Judges 2:14)

‘Nevertheless the LORD raised up judges,which delivered them out of the hand of those that spoiled them’(16)

And when the LORD raised them up judges,then the LORD was with the judge,and delivered them out of the hands of their enemies all the days of the judge’(18)

From the context of this chapter it seems the LORD is directly in control .
Firstly ,after Joshua and his generation ‘there arose another generation that knew not the LORD,nor yet the works which he had done for Israel’(2:10)
the LORD in adverse providences brings a people to their knees and secondly brings his truth and true judgements in providing them with a judge.

This however is identical to the sending of his singular prophet to a disobedient nation is it not?
Prophets and judges being a temporary measure ,intended to restore his people to faithfulness( and prosperity)
Kings however pass on to their heirs, their authority and their seat of power remains indefinitely, throughout every succeeding generation.This is being so whether the king was good or bad.
Is this why the LORD was not pleased that Israel sought an earthly rule(ruler)?

I believe that my belief of a continuation of this same formula ,is seen in the NT .
Like Joshua and his generation ,the generation after the last apostle,John departed ,quickly (like Israel of old) fell into error and false worship,the Lord according to his good pleasure,sends to a remnant ,a choice individual and does do ,in my opinion even to this day.
But as there was no one apparently sent for 400 years after the last OT prophet ( recorded in scripture )until the one crying in the wilderness came forth,then long intervals ,I believe ,have elapsed also between times of such sendings since Paul was directly from the Glory called and sent.

This does not exclude a heritage of Godly teachings on which to enrich present faith,and
With each sending ( and restoration) subjection and due reverence was manifest among the faithful ,in respect to such Godly men ,sent from above who themselves revered and were in subjection to the completed word of God( in the Bible)

So, all this boils down to your firm belief that the Holy Spirit of God totally failed to lead Jesus Christ’s Church ‘to all truth’, less than 100 years after Jesus walked the earth. Really? So, the Holy Spirit really isn’t as powerful as we all think He is? Or, did Jesus lie to us, when He said He’d be with us ‘all days’. “Matthew 28:[19] Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. [20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.”

That’s what Joseph Smith believed, too.

I don’t think so. :nope:

 

[MartinJordan]

Problem is you are not drawing on what happened to Christianity after the death of the last apostle.

PS, I am still a Christian.

This kind of reminds me of a Christian denomination website I just visited recently. In the “About us” section show the “history of the church” It has a time line, which states

33 AD Jesus Christ died for us
.
.(this part is totally blank!)
.

1986 While attending a ‘International Conference for itinerant evangelists’ in Amsterdam, an American evangelist prophesied that Pastor {skip name as Im not here to scandalize anyone} would “build and pastor a large white church.”

1987 26 May 1987 In Louisiana, USA, while driving towards Denver, Pastor {so and so} received a vision of a majestic white church named skip name} Cathedral,and the strong impression of the Holy Spirit to build this Cathedral.

So on and So forth



MJ

 

[KathleenGee]

Jesus Christ is the greatest event in mankind’s history.

After the apostles died, where are witnesses of faith the Protestants can identify with for the past 2000 years besides Corrie Ten Boom…I read her book when it first came out in 1974 while in the missions, and greatly admire her. So I don’t mean it a put down.

Then…here is a little humor…

If you can remember the commercial…so if they cannot see any witness of Christianity for 1500 years up to Luther…‘Where is the beef?’

I am on another very anti Catholic forum right now and hope I am helping some to see how they have been indoctrinated. Right now they are giving the prosperity evangelists hell for meeting with Pope Francis.

 

[siamus2k13]

Don’t be so literal in your reading.

You have to be able to see the big picture.

 

[siamus2k13]

Disappearing acts can be so childish.

 

[zz912]

Hi ,sorry I am so long in replying to your interesting point.

‘Nevertheless the LORD raised up judges,which delivered them out of the hand of those that spoiled them’(16)

And when the LORD raised them up judges,then the LORD was with the judge,and delivered them out of the hands of their enemies all the days of the judge’(18)

From the context of this chapter it seems the LORD is directly in control .

No, the Lord is NOT directly in control. His control is exercised through a judge. God was directly in control ONCE, for 3 years, when He walked the earth before His Paschal sacrificed and for 40 days after. Before, and from then on, God has used men with authority to guide His people.

I believe that my belief of a continuation of this same formula ,is seen in the NT .
Like Joshua and his generation ,the generation after the last apostle,John departed ,quickly (like Israel of old) fell into error and false worship,the Lord according to his good pleasure,sends to a remnant ,a choice individual and does do ,in my opinion even to this day.

Please give a citation or some evidence of this false worship that happened after the Apostle John died.

But as there was no one apparently sent for 400 years after the last OT prophet ( recorded in scripture )until the one crying in the wilderness came forth,then long intervals ,I believe ,have elapsed also between times of such sendings since Paul was directly from the Glory called and sent.

One VAST difference between the OT and NT times, Jesus built a Church to guide us. And He promised that this Church would be with us, and would never fail. He promised never to leave us orphans. Who do you claim has been a prophet since the apostolic age?

This does not exclude a heritage of Godly teachings on which to enrich present faith,and
With each sending ( and restoration) subjection and due reverence was manifest among the faithful ,in respect to such Godly men ,sent from above who themselves revered and were in subjection to the completed word of God( in the Bible)

Your view ignores the DRAMATIC and NEW thing that God Himself promised to build. He promised, and did build a CHURCH. He didn’t leave us a Bible, but a Church to guide us.

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

So, all this boils down to your firm belief that the Holy Spirit of God totally failed to lead Jesus Christ’s Church ‘to all truth’, less than 100 years after Jesus walked the earth. Really? So, the Holy Spirit really isn’t as powerful as we all think He is? Or, did Jesus lie to us, when He said He’d be with us ‘all days’. “Matthew 28:[19] Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. [20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.”

That’s what Joseph Smith believed, too.

I don’t think so. :nope:

Not until the return of the ‘cornerstone’ will we all truly know the entirety of that which constitutes what Peter terms ‘a spiritual house’.
Truly there will be some saints when he comes again ,for these ‘shall be caught up together with them in the clouds’((1Thess 4:17) but for me it seems that luke18:8 significantly limits the number of saints faithful to that Gospel truly preached in the beginning.

‘Nevertheless when the son of man cometh,shall he find faith on the earth?’

This day already known of the Father and this verse through the Spirit of God,recorded for us,is not inconsistent to that picture seen ( foreseen ) else’s where:
‘But as the days of Noah were ,so shall also the coming of the son of man be’(Matthew 27)
Of a world of great multitudes,how many were to be found in safety ,upon the ark?

If ,perhaps ,the end is much nearer than that which we imagine it to be
‘For in such an hour as ye think not the son of man cometh’(Matthew24;44)

Then what of the millions upon millions of Catholics( and Protestants ) unto this very hour?

My own belief is therefore ,that for those saints and faithful followers upon the earth,irrespective of however large or small in number,in any generation,Christ ,by the sending of the gift of the holy Spirit to,never does ,and never will leave them.

As to that ‘falling away’ since the close of scripture,we need not venture outside of the same recorded testimony:
Paul declares 1Timothy1:15 ,‘all they of Asia be turned away from me’
Peter ,knowing his own death was near warns his readers ,of those who ,in regards to Paul’s writings ( the same ,being equal to scripture) would ‘wrest’ his holy words,‘as they do also the other scripture’(2Peter 3:16)

Of the seven churches mentioned at the beginning of the Revelation ,what faithfulness is recorded ( for us) in way of praise by this revelation to the ‘churches’ ?
Very little!

‘He that hath an ear,let him hear’

Notice the cry by the Spirit,is it not for an individual hearer in the midst of all that professed to his name?

John in his epistle mentions and reminds his readers,on a number of occasions,about ‘that which was from the beginning’
Already in his own long ,lifetime,things apparently,with only this apostle remaining,were dangerously slipping away,then what after he had gone?

 

[KathleenGee]

Bernard,

Again, without documented history of the Church, you won’t be able to understand.

To believe that the Catholic/Orthodox Church is the true apostolic Church one has to have grace of faith which is another issue.

We are ecclesial deists meaning we believe Christ is God enough, big enough, strong enough, to work through treasures in clay, a term used by Bishop Sheen. That is part of the mystery of faith.

Would you prefer Christ stay here and sit on the seat of Peter??? That would not be faith or hope.

If you study history, you will see the Holy Spirit at work in us, inspite of ourselves.

Of all the apostles, Peter appeared to be the weakest, the most impulsive and volatile. And yet Christ chose Peter…because Peter would need Him the most. That is the secret.