Peter as the Rock

[rinnie]

The theory of ‘development of doctrine’ is a nineteenth century rationalization (and an admission really) for the fact that Roman Catholic doctrine has been added to in the last ten centuries, as if that has been necessary.

That is not ‘development’, it is more like ‘accumulation’ of doctrine. The church has no business doing that. Stick with the original deposit of Apostolic Faith and leave the ‘opinions’ out of dogma, and stop making new doctrines out of ideas that the Apostolic churches have never known to be doctrines.

It weakens the general credibility of the church in the public mind, divides Christians for no good purpose and abets the critical rejection of Christianity by modern sceptics.

We can see at least two new ones coming down the pike, and no one knows how many more you guys will declare in time. Your particular church couldn’t do that in the first millennium, because the bishop of Rome [indeed, no individual bishop anywhere, not even the real saint Peter]did not have such authority to proclaim dogmas in the first 18 centuries, and the western churches couldn’t dominate the Councils in the first ten.

I realize that you have no choice but to defend it, it is your church and you want it to be perceived in as good a light as possible. But it’s still wrong, and over the last few centuries your church has distanced itself further and further from the church of the Fathers, the Apostolic churches, raising new obstacles to church unity where there should be none.

You make it much harder for us to restore communion with you, for no good reason. It fills us with sorrow.

Let’s say we do it your way. Okay its over, we KNOW everything GOD wants us to know. So then what is the reason for Jesus to leave us the Advocate the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth.

Because according to what you are saying we have it all. We understand it all.

If this is true why don’t we KNOW it all. Why does it take us a lifetime of living, of mistakes in our own lives to even begin to understand all of our mistakes. Why does it takes years in school to learn things.

Now back to the RCC. Do you reject or forget the words of Jesus? The Advocate will lead you into ALL truth. Is that not continued developement of doctrine?

Lets think back to the word of God, there is much that I must say to you, but you cannot bear to hear it now. Look at the Apostles, remember when Jesus died? what did they do? Go out and spread the good news? OR did they HIDE? Was it not until the PROMISED Advocate appeared on Pentecost and GAVE THE THE WORDS?

What happend to, I will be with you UNTIL the end of AGE? I will not leave your Orphans? Are we left Orphans? Or is it not only normal that the HOLY SPIRIT would continue to teach and tell us what Gods wants us to know the way he set it up. or why would we need the Holy Spirit to guide and teach us at all.

Because according to what you are saying WE KNOW IT ALL!! Correct. WHy have a advocate to teach and guide us? What can the Holy Spirit teach us that we don’t already know. Right?

And now correct me if I am wrong, But you not only reject the current Pope, You also reject the previous St Peter. Wow. So I guess you are right, if you reject him, why listen to the current one right:shrug:

Then answer me this? Where do we go? ST Peter the one we are actually IMO debating also said those words once. What is your answer.

Because if the RCC lead by the current Pope who has equal rank to ST Peter is to be rejected, why do you accept the previous Popes words. That would be Peter. OR do you reject them. I am quite confused here by your statements.

 

[rinnie]

In Matthew 18:18 we learn that God is willing to go along with US, his followers, tightening and relaxing the law. The same authority he gives Peter in Matthew 16:19 he gives to all of us

When we bind people up, refuse to forgive, legalistically judge and control each other we bind them up in the very name of God…when we forgive and let go and relax our demands on each other Jesus says he will honor that too.

Our forgiveness is God’s forgiveness…our controlling each other by judgements and accusations become the very binding up of God. Amazing authority and amazing power that we must all use with great care. As God tells us in Genesis 1:28 we are to have dominion over the earth…Jesus clearly affirms that we each have the authority and responsibility to respond to God’s directive.

WOW we have authority to do the same as ST PETER? Then can you honestly say you can say to me that you can give me total Absolution for MY sins? As my old auntie used to say goodness gracious honey

Now here is my FAVORITE part GOD is WILLING TO go ALONG with us. This is SO great to hear. SIn all you want Guys. God’s cool with it, Because he’s willing to go along with us.

Then why does the Church and the APostles and the Bible tell us when we are in a state of MORTAL SIN we Separated ouself from GOD and must Repent. WHY? I mean from what you are teaching we are not separated from God with our sin, he is willing to jump on the ole wagon. I guess its if you can’t beat em’ join em’ Is this really what you Church teaches? That God is willing to go along with us?

Jesus says you are either WITH me or AGAINST ME. But this willing to go along with us. That one I NEED to SEE! Can’t wait to see it. As my protestants teach me, SCRIPTURE PLEASE!!

 

[PRmerger]

Perhaps you misread? I wrote WHEN WE REFUSE TO FORGIVE…it is not authority given to us…it is us exercising our self will that binds people up as it is now for them to discern if our refusal is from self or from God.

Then you have yet to provide an example of a Christian being given the power to bind. How is it, as you interpret Matt 18, that God has given Christians an authority to “bind”?

What you have given, tskrob, is an example of Christians following self rather than God’s command to bind.

Please provide an example of Christians using this power to bind in the way that God authorized.

Unless you are claiming that God’s command in Matt 18 is a license to refuse to forgive?

 

[rinnie]

Refusing to forgive someone has a binding effect only on the one holding the resentment.

This is so true. You have created for yourself a Cross that is very heavy to carry.

 

[GaryTaylor]

In Matthew 18:18 we learn that God is willing to go along with US, his followers, tightening and relaxing the law. The same authority he gives Peter in Matthew 16:19 he gives to all of us

When we bind people up, refuse to forgive, legalistically judge and control each other we bind them up in the very name of God…when we forgive and let go and relax our demands on each other Jesus says he will honor that too.

Our forgiveness is God’s forgiveness…our controlling each other by judgements and accusations become the very binding up of God. Amazing authority and amazing power that we must all use with great care. As God tells us in Genesis 1:28 we are to have dominion over the earth…Jesus clearly affirms that we each have the authority and responsibility to respond to God’s directive.

The fraternal correction has nothing to do with the “authority” specifically given to St Peter. Do you not catch the part that CHRIST said “YOU” Peter??? Did He say that to “anyone” else? Do you think God was mistaken?

Do you actually have a “Catholic” link to support any of what you are saying?

Peace

 

[guanophore]

Perhaps you misread? I wrote WHEN WE REFUSE TO FORGIVE…it is not authority given to us…it is us exercising our self will that binds people up as it is now for them to discern if our refusal is from self or from God.

If authority is given to bind and loose, then why don’t you have authority to refuse to forgive? Otherwise, what would it mean when it says **John 20:23
23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained." **

If retaining sins is just “self will” then why does Jesus affirm that it is ok to do?

Why should it be up to others to discern if you are acting according to God’s will, or not? Is this not your responsibility? What if a Christian decides to retain the sins of a non-Christian? should the non-Christian discern if your refusal to forgive is from yourself, or from God? If so, how are they to do this?

 

[rinnie]

Peter was given Authority by Christ to speak for his Church on earth, He was given the keys to the kingdom, what he binds on earth is bound in heaven.

The Other Apostles have also the Power of the Holy Spirit to teach in the name of Christ.

The Pope and the Bishops with him have the authority and the command to continue to teach in his name.

When you read this you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which has NOT made KNOW to HUMAN BEINGS in other generations, that the Gentiles are coheirs MEMBERS of the Same Body and copartners in the promise in Christ Jesus through the Gospel. God might now be made KNOWN thought he CHURCH to the principalites and authorities in heaven. Eph 5:6

Jesus left St Peter as the Rock to strenghten all of the other Apostles. Jesus told him that he prayed for him that his faith would not fail.

Today as yesterday the authority to lead the Church is given to the Pope and his Bishops to continue to teach and to continue to bind and loose today as yesterday.

 

[tskrobacz]

Then you have yet to provide an example of a Christian being given the power to bind. How is it, as you interpret Matt 18, that God has given Christians an authority to “bind”?

What you have given, tskrob, is an example of Christians following self rather than God’s command to bind.

Please provide an example of Christians using this power to bind in the way that God authorized.

Unless you are claiming that God’s command in Matt 18 is a license to refuse to forgive?

Matthew 18:15 If your brother sins, go and show him his fault 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 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 a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.

As for your other posts I’m going to choose to remain silent.

 

[tskrobacz]

WOW we have authority to do the same as ST PETER? Then can you honestly say you can say to me that you can give me total Absolution for MY sins? As my old auntie used to say goodness gracious honey

Now here is my FAVORITE part GOD is WILLING TO go ALONG with us. This is SO great to hear. SIn all you want Guys. God’s cool with it, Because he’s willing to go along with us.

Then why does the Church and the APostles and the Bible tell us when we are in a state of MORTAL SIN we Separated ouself from GOD and must Repent. WHY? I mean from what you are teaching we are not separated from God with our sin, he is willing to jump on the ole wagon. I guess its if you can’t beat em’ join em’ Is this really what you Church teaches? That God is willing to go along with us?

Jesus says you are either WITH me or AGAINST ME. But this willing to go along with us. That one I NEED to SEE! Can’t wait to see it. As my protestants teach me, SCRIPTURE PLEASE!!

Thanks for sharing your perspective.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Perhaps you misread? I wrote WHEN WE REFUSE TO FORGIVE…it is not authority given to us…it is us exercising our self will that binds people up as it is now for them to discern if our refusal is from self or from God.

You’re ignoring the context of the passage. Jesus is speaking to the Twelve, not to “all believers”. Your taking it beyond its meaning to justify your position.

Acts 15:7 "And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, "Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.

Luke 22:[31] “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you(all), that he might sift you(all) like wheat, [32] but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.”

John 21:[15] 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."
[16] A second time he said to him, “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
[17] He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the 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.

So what do these passages mean to you, namely Acts 15?

 

[tskrobacz]

If authority is given to bind and loose, then why don’t you have authority to refuse to forgive? Otherwise, what would it mean when it says **John 20:23
23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained." **

If retaining sins is just “self will” then why does Jesus affirm that it is ok to do?

Why should it be up to others to discern if you are acting according to God’s will, or not? Is this not your responsibility? What if a Christian decides to retain the sins of a non-Christian? should the non-Christian discern if your refusal to forgive is from yourself, or from God? If so, how are they to do this?

Indeed you have the free will to refuse to forgive. However in retaining a sin…refusing to forgive…you are binding up the other person. If the other person has come to make amends and you refuse then you are not using your authority responsibly. If the refusal to forgive is born in a discernment of God’s will for the situation, then so be it.

 

[tskrobacz]

You’re ignoring the context of the passage. Jesus is speaking to the Twelve, not to “all believers”. Your taking it beyond its meaning to justify your position.

Acts 15:7 "And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, "Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.

Luke 22:[31] “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you(all), that he might sift you(all) like wheat, [32] but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.”

John 21:[15] 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."
[16] A second time he said to him, “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
[17] He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the 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.

So what do these passages mean to you, namely Acts 15?

Perhaps, or perhaps your interpretation is too narrow to “justify” your position? In any event we each are responsible for taking up our cross, individually, and following Jesus. Our actions in the world either bring light or they bring darkness.

 

[rinnie]

Indeed you have the free will to refuse to forgive. However in retaining a sin…refusing to forgive…you are binding up the other person. If the other person has come to make amends and you refuse then you are not using your authority responsibly. If the refusal to forgive is born in a discernment of God’s will for the situation, then so be it.

How does the other person refusing to forgive you bind them Up? Would you not be putting yoursefl in the place of God if you say that if you refuse to forgive them they are not forgiven?

I was taught that if we sin we are told to repent and ask God to forgive us for all of our sins.

Lets put it this way, If I cheat on my spouse and commit adultery and ask my spouse to forgive me and he refuses, but I also go to the Church and confess my sin, repent my sin, and ask the God for forgiveness and the Priest says you are forgiven, are you saying that the Spouse overpowers the Authority given to the Priest by God?

What I am asking would you say that I am still in a state of Mortal sin because my spouse refuses to ACCEPT my apology?

I think you are getting confused on being in a state of Sin with God, and a human being. Humans can refuse to forgive me, but I do not see where Humans have the authority to know my heart or my soul as my Lord does.

If I apologize and my spouse refuses to accept my apology all I can do is pray for Gods grace to open up their mind and heart. But in the end it what Gods thinks of me, not humans, do you not agree?

 

[GaryTaylor]

“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 a Gentile and a tax collector.”

And this has absolutely nothing to do with the Authority given to Peter by God. And most definately has nothing to do with you as an individual.

For one who is CATHOLIC you are trying very hard to discredit St Peter and the God given authority. Why is that??

Do you even read the footnotes in the Bible?

Still waiting for the links to support “your thinking”

Peace

 

[PRmerger]

Indeed you have the free will to refuse to forgive. However in retaining a sin…refusing to forgive…you are binding up the other person. If the other person has come to make amends and you refuse then you are not using your authority responsibly. If the refusal to forgive is born in a discernment of God’s will for the situation, then so be it.

You have forgotten to read the verse before which says, “Receive the Holy Spirit.”

[SIGN1]
Can you tell us, in your paradigm, how someone can be “filled with the Holy Spirit” yet refuse to forgive?[/SIGN1]

[BIBLEDRB]John 20:21-23[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[PRmerger]

Matthew 18:15 If your brother sins, go and show him his fault 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 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 a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.

Amen!

However, you have as of yet still not provided an example of a Christian, with God’s permission, binding someone. That is, where is an example of a Christian binding, when it is not sinful?

As for your other posts I’m going to choose to remain silent.

As you wish. But it does leave the impression that your silence is from an inability to refute the argument.

 

[guanophore]

Matthew 18:15 If your brother sins, go and show him his fault 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 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 a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.

How does one “tell it to the Church”? How is is the “Church” to be recogized?

When a person is acting in unity with the authority appointed by Christ over the Church, then one can enjoy the privileges of that authority. If one does not “take it to the Church”, but decides instead to form his own Church, then the promises made by Jesus to His One Church do not apply. Jesus made this promise to His Church, and those in unity with it. Taking it out of that context removes the meaning of the passage.

As for your other posts I’m going to choose to remain silent.

Why is that?

 

[guanophore]

Indeed you have the free will to refuse to forgive. However in retaining a sin…refusing to forgive…you are binding up the other person. If the other person has come to make amends and you refuse then you are not using your authority responsibly. If the refusal to forgive is born in a discernment of God’s will for the situation, then so be it.

Where does it say that amends from the other are required for us to forgive them?

Matt 18:35
35 So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart."

Luke 11:2-4

“Father, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. 3 Give us each day our daily bread; 4 and forgive us our sins, for we ourselves forgive every one who is indebted to us; and lead us not into temptation.”

Are you adding in the phrase “if the other person comes to make amends” into these scriptures?

 

[guanophore]

Perhaps, or perhaps your interpretation is too narrow to “justify” your position? In any event we each are responsible for taking up our cross, individually, and following Jesus. Our actions in the world either bring light or they bring darkness.

Yes, we are each responsible for taking up our cross and carrying it. However, Catholics don’t use Scripture to “justify our position”. On the contrary, the position of Peter was justified long before a word of the NT was ever written.

Since the NT was written by, for, and about Catholics, we know there is nothing in it that contradicts the Catholic faith. We understand what is written in the light of the faith of those who wrote it.

 

[mirandajb]

Exactly…you protest a "notion,"not an early church tradition and belief. If the belief of Peter not being the Head and Prince Apostle should easily have been displayed throughout the centuries. Where are the protests stating Peter was not the Head?

As for unbibical? Show me where Jesus authorized anyone to found their own church and teaching conflicting beliefs? That is what I have been waiting for years to see the biblical proof of such a belief?

As for unbiblical beliefs and practices on Peter? Here a few verses out of 50 New Testament verses which show the ‘primacy’ of St. Peter…

Go ahead and refute the Word of God:

• Peter’s name occurs first in all lists of apostles (see Mt 10:2; Mk 3:16; Lk 6:14; Acts 1:13). Matthew even calls him “the first” (10:2). (Judas Iscariot is invariably mentioned last.)
• Peter is almost without exception named first whenever he appears with anyone else. In one example to the contrary, Galatians 2:9, where he is listed after James and before John, he is clearly preeminent in the entire context (see, for example, Gal 1:18-19; 2:7-8). Taken in context, Paul is in Jerusalem (2:1), the See of James. Protocol, even to this day is for the Bishop of the diocese to be mentioned first before any visitor is mentioned, even for the Pope. Saint Paul is merely following proper protocol in vs 2:9.
• Peter alone among the apostles receives a new name, “Rock,” solemnly conferred (Jn 1:42;
  Mt 16:18).
• Peter is asked three times by Christ to feed His lambs, is regarded by Jesus as the chief shepherd after himself (Jn 21:15-17), singularly by name, and over the universal Church, even though others have a similar but subordinate role (Acts 20:28; 1 Pt 5:2).
• Peter alone among the apostles is mentioned by name as having been prayed for by Jesus Christ in order that his “faith fail not” (Lk 22:32).
• Peter alone among the apostles is exhorted by Jesus to “strengthen your brethren” (Lk 22:32).
• Peter first confesses Christ’s divinity (Mt 16:16).
• Peter alone is told that he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation (Mt 16:17).
• Peter is regarded by the Jews (Acts 4:1-13) as the leader and spokesman of Christianity.
• Peter is regarded by the common people in the same way (Act 2:37-41;5:15).
• Jesus Christ uniquely associates himself and Peter in the miracle of the tribute money
  (Mt 17:24-27).
• Peter is specified by an angel as the leader and representative of the apostles (Mk 16:7).
• Peter leads the apostles in fishing (Jn 21:2-3,11). The “bark” (boat) of Peter has been regarded by Catholics as a figure of the Church, with Peter at the helm.
• Peter alone casts himself into the sea to come to Jesus (Jn 21:7).
• Peter’s words are the first recorded and most important in the Upper Room before Pentecost
  (Acts 1:15-22).
• Peter takes the lead in calling for a replacement for Judas (Acts 1:22).
• Peter is the first person to speak (and only one recorded) after Pentecost, so he was the first Christian to “preach the Gospel” in the Church era (Acts 2:14-36).
• Peter works the first miracle of the Church Age, healing a lame man (Acts 3:6-12).
• Peter utters the first anathema (Ananias and Sapphira) emphatically affirmed by God
  (Acts 5:2-11).
• Peter’s shadow works miracles (Acts 5:15).
• Peter is the first person after Christ to raise the dead (Acts 9:40).
• Cornelius is told by an angel to seek out Peter for instruction in Christianity (Acts 10:1- 6).
• Peter is the first to receive the Gentiles, after a revelation from God (Acts 10:9-48).
• Peter instructs the other apostles on the catholicity (universality) of the Church (Acts 11:5-17).
• Peter is the object of the first divine interposition on behalf of an individual in the Church Age
  (an angel delivers him from prison - Acts 12:1-17).
• The whole Church (strongly implied) prays for Peter “without ceasing” when he is imprisoned (Acts 12:5).
• Peter presides over and opens the first council of Christianity, and lays down principles afterward accepted by it (Acts 15:7-11).
• Paul distinguishes the Lord’s post-resurrection appearances to Peter from those to other apostles
  (1 Cor 15:4-5).
• Peter is often spoken of as distinct among apostles (Mk 1:36; Lk 9:28,32; Acts 2:37; 5:29;
  1 Cor 9:5).
• Peter is often spokesman for the other apostles, especially at climactic moments
  (Mk 8:29; Mt 18:21; Lk 9:5; 12:41; Jn 6:67).
• Peter’s name is always the first listed of the “inner circle” of the disciples
  (Peter, James and John - Mt 17:1; 26:37,40; Mk 5:37; 14:37).
• Peter is often the central figure relating to Jesus in dramatic Gospel scenes such as walking on the water (Mt 14:28-32; Lk 5:1, Mk 10:28; Mt 17:24).
• Peter is the first to recognize and refute heresy, in Simon Magus (Acts 8:14-24).
• Peter’s name is mentioned more often than all the other disciples put together: 191 times
  (162 as Peter or Simon Peter, 23 as Simon and 6 as Cephas).
  John is next in frequency with only 48 appearances, and Peter is present 50 percent of the time we find John in the Bible. Archbishop Fulton Sheen reckoned that all the other disciples combined were mentioned 130 times. If this is correct, Peter is named a remarkable 60 percent of the time any disciple is referred to.

Thanks a lot…great references. God bless.