Peters restoration by the Lord Jesus – Feed my sheep

[Tanner9188]

Why don’t we look at the Greek of Matthew 16 to see if Our Lord was specifically talking to Peter or to the multitudes?

16 ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ Σίμων Πέτρος εἶπεν, Σὺ εἶ ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος. 17 ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτῷ, Μακάριος εἶ, Σίμων Βαριωνᾶ, ὅτι σὰρξ καὶ αἷμα οὐκ ἀπεκάλυψέν σοι ἀλλ’ ὁ πατήρ μου ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. 18 κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι **σὺ **εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς. 19 δώσω σοι τὰς κλεῖδας τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν δήσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται δεδεμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν λύσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται λελυμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς.

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18 And I say also unto thee, That **thou **art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

σὺ - 2nd person singular

So, Our Lord was talking to Peter only.

Why don’t we look at the Greek of Matthew 16 to see if Our Lord was specifically talking to Peter or to the multitudes?

16 ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ Σίμων Πέτρος εἶπεν, Σὺ εἶ ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος. 17 ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτῷ, Μακάριος εἶ, Σίμων Βαριωνᾶ, ὅτι σὰρξ καὶ αἷμα οὐκ ἀπεκάλυψέν σοι ἀλλ’ ὁ πατήρ μου ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. 18 κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι **σὺ **εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς. 19 δώσω σοι τὰς κλεῖδας τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν δήσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται δεδεμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν λύσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται λελυμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς.

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18 And I say also unto thee, That **thou **art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

σὺ - 2nd person singular

So, Our Lord was talking to Peter only.

Whatever; I have addressed this on many posts. I agree with your assessment of the 2nd Person Singular; not to mention it is quite obvious. However; practically speaking, Christ said “I will build my church” and other Scriptures state the church is built on the foundations of the prophets and apostles (plural). The reality is that we can observe this to be true. Also, to make Peter out to be something God did not and Peter certainly did not; is a real sham IMO. In Heaven their are places of honor for all the apostles and the New Earth has 12 foundation stones; not one…this should give you some insight as to what god actually intended.

God bless and have a good night and weekend.

 

[Tanner9188]

I guess I’m a little flabbergasted that you would call Peter the “weakest spiritually; next to Judas Iscariot.” Are we reading the same Bible? How many of the other apostles walked on water (if only for a moment)? Peter’s faith enabled him to walk on water. How crazy is that?!?! My faith isn’t good enough to walk on water. Is yours?

Where in the Bible do you get this hierarchical ordering of spiritual strength (with Peter and Judas at the bottom)? Or is this something you’ve “inferred?”

Again, this is a little shocking: I can’t judge the spiritual strength of people I know, people I can see and observe on a daily basis let alone judge the faith of a saint who has been dead for almost 2000 years, knew Christ in person, and was asked by Christ to tend His flock.

Hi,

I think you misunderstand; Peter was chosen by God to help lay a foundation to which Christ is building His church; Peter was made the leader of the apostles; no doubt.

It was Peter that Jesus rebuke and said get behind me Satan, he was the one to cut of the ear of the guards assistant, he was the one who denied Christ 3 times and in that sense he was like Judas. The difference is Jesus chose to pray for Peter’s faith and Jesus always prayed and acted exactly as the Father willed and therefore Peter could not be lost at that point; whereas the will of the Father was for someone to have the role of the son of perdition and Judas apparently fit the bill. Peter was restored and made to be the leader of the apostles, but from a human standpoint before He was made the leader he had his share of spiritual failures compared to the other apostles; that’s all I meant.

This does speak volumes about the role of faith apart from anything else when it comes to justification. After all Jesus told them; you did not choose me; I chose you.

I love the apostle Peter and I am glad God used him on such a great way.

God bless!

Tanner

 

[jlhargus]

Based on that false theory if you look at Hebrews 6:1-9, but particular attention to versus 4-6, then based on what you just claimed; you would have invented a new "Luther sounding theology one might label “Once Lost Always Lost” (OLAL).

JL: I do not hold OLAL that is your invention to divert attention from the clear fact that Hb6:4-6 teaches a saved individual can loose his salvation and you cannot refute it. As you clearly say, “you would have INVENTED a new "Luther sounding theology ONE MIGHT LABEL “Once Lost Always Lost” .

So you KNOW and ADMIT it is INVENTED therefore YOU KNOW there is no such thing as OLAL, on this I agree with YOU. I will keep your post to remind you of your invention when you say OLAL. Just as I have kept your contradictions of OSAS. You even know one can fall away as you stated in this and another thread, in reference to those disciples who walked away from Christ in Jn 6 because they took him literally

4 For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 and {then} have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.

If the writer is speaking to Christians, then they can never come back (OLAL).

JL: How can one be RENEWED AGAIN if they have never been FIRST RENEWED? Remember you said ONCE LOST ALWAYS LOST is an invention, so we can disregard OLAL, as not even a possibity, except for blaspheme against the Holy Spirit, Mk3:28-29. We BOTH know and agree it is FALSE as you say an invention, you even accuse ME of inventing it, that which you now try to use as a defence, duh.

If the writer is speaking to non-believers, then they were exposed to all the truth of the gospel and participated with the people of God, then rejected or turned away from the right path, which is what “fallen away” refers to, which describes an apostate or plain unbeliever. Either way you slice it; you are mislead by some false teaching on this or ignorance. Doesn’t have to remain that way however.

JL: Show me where I am mislead or ignorant, remember a statement made without evidence is evidence the statement is false. You state, “If the writer is speaking to non-believers”: So the writer is writing scripture to the church of non-believers? Wow that church dwafs the believing Church even today and only has a one book bible. How kind of that church of non-believers to preserve the book of Hebrews and pass copies to the believing Church of God. How then do you even know it is scripture except by Tradition passed on by the Catholic Church?

How can non-believers be, [ONCE ENLIGHTENED, and have TASTED of THE HEAVENLY GIFT, and were MADE PARTAKERS OF THE HOLY GHOST, 5 And have TASTED the good WORD OF GOD, AND THE POWERS OF THE WORLD TO COME, Hb6:4-5]. Not be believers?

If this isn’t describing believers then how would you describe a believer? How can one fall AWAY from what they do not first possess? How can one be RENEWED AGAIN if never FIRST RENEWED? How can one be an apostate from what they did not first hold? Yes an apostate is an unbeliever, AFER they have apostatized, fallen away, from believing.

If one who is in a fallen state hears and rejects the gospel they have not FALLEN from anything, have they? They simply REMAIN in their FALLEN STATE. If they are enlightened and share in the Holy Spirit then they are Holy Spirit filled believers and CAN FALL AWAY, because they have first possed what they have fallen from.

[Hb6:4 For it is impossible for those who were ONCE ENLIGHTENED, and have TASTED of THE HEAVENLY GIFT, and were made PARTAKERS OF THE HOLY GHOST, 5 And have TASTED the good WORD OF GOD, AND THE POWERS OF THE WORLD TO COME, 6 IF THEY SHALL FALL AWAY, TO RENEW THEM AGAIN unto repentance; SEEING THEY CRUCIFY to themselves THE SON of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.]

How can you RENEW AGAIN a person who has never been FIRST RENEWED? Paul is addressing a Christian community of those who have been ENLIGHTENED. They are not on the brink of being enlightened they are ENLIGHTENED and HAVE TASTED OF THE HEAVENLY GIFT, MADE PARTAKERS OF THE HOLY GHOST, They have the indwelling Holy Ghost.

Paul warns BELIEVERS, with the indwelling Holy Spirit, of the danger of apostasy, alluding to those ONCE Christian Hebrews, who LEFT fell away from the Christian community and returned to Judaism. Having rejected Christ’s sacrifice, returning to Judaism placing their faith in circumcision and animal sacrifice, which can never renew them again to repentance taking away sin. It is impossible for them to repent and be renewed, apart from Christ and the Christian Community. As long as they remain hostile to the Gospel, it is impossible to renew them unto repentance. [Mk3:28 Verily I say unto you, ALL SINS SHALL BE FORGIVEN UNTO THE SONS OF MEN, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: 29 BUT he that shall BLASPHEME AGAINST THE HOLY GHOST HATH NEVER FORGIVENESS, but is in danger of eternal damnation.] The fast and simple answer would be they have blasphemed the Holy Ghost. So we see there is no such thing as OSAS or OLAL, as you admit OLAL is an invention.

The Amplified Bible puts it very well in, 2Pt2:20 For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through [the full, personal] knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they again become entangled in them and are overcome, their last condition is worse [for them] than the first. 21 For never to have obtained a [full, personal] knowledge of the way of righteousness would have been better for them than, having obtained [such knowledge], to turn back from the holy commandment which was [verbally] delivered to them. 22 There has befallen them the thing spoken of in the true proverb, The dog turns back to his own vomit, and, The sow is washed only to wallow again in the mire.

Sources: RSV, Ignatius Catholic Study Bible, Commentary and Notes by Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch. Douay-Rheims Bible, footnotes, Loreto Publications. NAB, The Catholic Answer Bible footnotes, Our Sunday Visitor Publishing Division. And a Protestant source, David Guzik’s Commentaries on the Bible, on line @ studylight.org/com/guz/view.cgi?book=heb&chapter=006

 

[jlhargus]

Side note: Oh; you are the one that thinks I am, if I recall, Rev. Kevin or Keith? Did you contact Michael Francis as I mentioned earlier to resolve you preconceived notion.

JL: I have nothing to resolve. I don’t know who KEITH is, do you also have a membership under Keith? I do know who you and Rev Kevin are, but I cannot prove that. As far as contacting Michael I will leave you to guess. As I said before, I just wanted you to know I know. It will be our little secret, tee hee. Would you agree it would be dishonest for a Christian to have a double membership?

Also I notice you did not do the word search on FALLEN AWAY as you so rudely (you who never tire of telling people how uncharitable they are) told me to do in your previous post # 47 above, to which I answered; *“You do the word search on fallen away and prove your point if you can. We both know you can’t or you would have posted your evidence.” * So why no word search to prove your point, can’t prove it can you? I guess I wasn’t so ignorant after all. Yes indeed anyone who “FALLS AWAY FROM THE GOSPEL” has in effect rejected the gospel. Tell me how can one already in a fallen state fall from a state they don’t first have? One in a fallen state would remain in a fallen state, they fall from nothing.

 

[Tanner9188]

JL: I do not hold OLAL that is your invention to divert attention from the clear fact that Hb6:4-6 teaches a saved individual can loose his salvation and you cannot refute it. As you clearly say, “you would have INVENTED a new "Luther sounding theology ONE MIGHT LABEL “Once Lost Always Lost” .

So you KNOW and ADMIT it is INVENTED therefore YOU KNOW there is no such thing as OLAL, on this I agree with YOU. I will keep your post to remind you of your invention when you say OLAL. Just as I have kept your contradictions of OSAS. You even know one can fall away as you stated in this and another thread, in reference to those disciples who walked away from Christ in Jn 6 because they took him literally

JL: How can one be RENEWED AGAIN if they have never been FIRST RENEWED? Remember you said ONCE LOST ALWAYS LOST is an invention, so we can disregard OLAL, as not even a possibity, except for blaspheme against the Holy Spirit, Mk3:28-29. We BOTH know and agree it is FALSE as you say an invention, you even accuse ME of inventing it, that which you now try to use as a defence, duh.

JL: Show me where I am mislead or ignorant, remember a statement made without evidence is evidence the statement is false. You state, “If the writer is speaking to non-believers”: So the writer is writing scripture to the church of non-believers? Wow that church dwafs the believing Church even today and only has a one book bible. How kind of that church of non-believers to preserve the book of Hebrews and pass copies to the believing Church of God. How then do you even know it is scripture except by Tradition passed on by the Catholic Church?

How can non-believers be, [ONCE ENLIGHTENED, and have TASTED of THE HEAVENLY GIFT, and were MADE PARTAKERS OF THE HOLY GHOST, 5 And have TASTED the good WORD OF GOD, AND THE POWERS OF THE WORLD TO COME, Hb6:4-5]. Not be believers?

If this isn’t describing believers then how would you describe a believer? How can one fall AWAY from what they do not first possess? How can one be RENEWED AGAIN if never FIRST RENEWED? How can one be an apostate from what they did not first hold? Yes an apostate is an unbeliever, AFER they have apostatized, fallen away, from believing.

If one who is in a fallen state hears and rejects the gospel they have not FALLEN from anything, have they? They simply REMAIN in their FALLEN STATE. If they are enlightened and share in the Holy Spirit then they are Holy Spirit filled believers and CAN FALL AWAY, because they have first possed what they have fallen from.

[Hb6:4 For it is impossible for those who were ONCE ENLIGHTENED, and have TASTED of THE HEAVENLY GIFT, and were made PARTAKERS OF THE HOLY GHOST, 5 And have TASTED the good WORD OF GOD, AND THE POWERS OF THE WORLD TO COME, 6 IF THEY SHALL FALL AWAY, TO RENEW THEM AGAIN unto repentance; SEEING THEY CRUCIFY to themselves THE SON of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.]

How can you RENEW AGAIN a person who has never been FIRST RENEWED? Paul is addressing a Christian community of those who have been ENLIGHTENED. They are not on the brink of being enlightened they are ENLIGHTENED and HAVE TASTED OF THE HEAVENLY GIFT, MADE PARTAKERS OF THE HOLY GHOST, They have the indwelling Holy Ghost.

Paul warns BELIEVERS, with the indwelling Holy Spirit, of the danger of apostasy, alluding to those ONCE Christian Hebrews, who LEFT fell away from the Christian community and returned to Judaism. Having rejected Christ’s sacrifice, returning to Judaism placing their faith in circumcision and animal sacrifice, which can never renew them again to repentance taking away sin. It is impossible for them to repent and be renewed, apart from Christ and the Christian Community. As long as they remain hostile to the Gospel, it is impossible to renew them unto repentance. [Mk3:28 Verily I say unto you, ALL SINS SHALL BE FORGIVEN UNTO THE SONS OF MEN, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: 29 BUT he that shall BLASPHEME AGAINST THE HOLY GHOST HATH NEVER FORGIVENESS, but is in danger of eternal damnation.] The fast and simple answer would be they have blasphemed the Holy Ghost. So we see there is no such thing as OSAS or OLAL, as you admit OLAL is an invention.

The Amplified Bible puts it very well in, 2Pt2:20 For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through [the full, personal] knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they again become entangled in them and are overcome, their last condition is worse [for them] than the first. 21 For never to have obtained a [full, personal] knowledge of the way of righteousness would have been better for them than, having obtained [such knowledge], to turn back from the holy commandment which was [verbally] delivered to them. 22 There has befallen them the thing spoken of in the true proverb, The dog turns back to his own vomit, and, The sow is washed only to wallow again in the mire.

Sources: RSV, Ignatius Catholic Study Bible, Commentary and Notes by Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch. Douay-Rheims Bible, footnotes, Loreto Publications. NAB, The Catholic Answer Bible footnotes, Our Sunday Visitor Publishing Division. And a Protestant source, David Guzik’s Commentaries on the Bible, on line @ studylight.org/com/guz/view.cgi?book=heb&chapter=006

Hello, Anyone in there? :idea:

If it is IMPOSSIBLE to RENEW them again and you claim they are believers, then OLAL is the only conclusion you can logically reach…Do You Follow so far?

Like you; I do not believe that OLAL except in one circumstance, the sin against the Holy Spirit…Are You Still with me?

So either this is the sin against the Holy Spirit OR the writer is speaking of NON-BELEIVERS, we both agree that OLAL is not the option…are you keeping up on this logic and reasoning?

You have 3 choices

1. Holy Spirit offense
2. OLAL (which we both agree is not the case)
3. Non Believer

I might add and this will be real hard for you to understand. To maintain your broken theology; you must choose #1. Then you must support the position…good luck.

I eagerly wait for a response!

The problem is you cannot separate mysticism from practical reality. You are in much company, but it does not have to remain that way.

 

[Tanner9188]

JL: I have nothing to resolve. I don’t know who KEITH is, do you also have a membership under Keith? I do know who you and Rev Kevin are, but I cannot prove that. As far as contacting Michael I will leave you to guess. As I said before, I just wanted you to know I know. It will be our little secret, tee hee. Would you agree it would be dishonest for a Christian to have a double membership?

I know you haven’t talked to Michael, because you would stop the stupid accusations.
Yes it would be dishonest to have a double membership, which i don’t believe you could and not have them identify it as such plus I think it is against the forum rules.

Also, I have a static IP address, I don’t know if you know the difference between a dynamic and a static IP address, but on a static IP, my address never changes and so If I had two memberships, mine would be very easy to spot.

Also I notice you did not do the word search on FALLEN AWAY as you so rudely (you who never tire of telling people how uncharitable they are) told me to do in your previous post # 47 above, to which I answered; “You do the word search on fallen away and prove your point if you can. We both know you can’t or you would have posted your evidence.” So why no word search to prove your point, can’t prove it can you? I guess I wasn’t so ignorant after all. Yes indeed anyone who “FALLS AWAY FROM THE GOSPEL” has in effect rejected the gospel. Tell me how can one already in a fallen state fall from a state they don’t first have? One in a fallen state would remain in a fallen state, they fall from nothing.

I have written extensively on the Hebrews 6 issue, but this is one of the more complex areas of Scripture; especially among the poorly informed; therefore you can make logical and reason from the Scripture and have the Scripture validate you logic and reasoning, but only to a regenerate mind or a mature Christian. I have only seen a few here that would meet that qualification.

 

[jlhargus]

Hello, Anyone in there? :idea:

If it is IMPOSSIBLE to RENEW them again and you claim they are believers, then OLAL is the only conclusion you can logically reach…Do You Follow so far?

Like you; I do not believe that OLAL except in one circumstance, the sin against the Holy Spirit…Are You Still with me?

So either this is the sin against the Holy Spirit OR the writer is speaking of NON-BELEIVERS, we both agree that OLAL is not the option…are you keeping up on this logic and reasoning?

You have 3 choices

1. Holy Spirit offense
2. OLAL (which we both agree is not the case)
3. Non Believer

I might add and this will be real hard for you to understand. To maintain your broken theology; you must choose #1. Then you must support the position…good luck.

I eagerly wait for a response!

The problem is you cannot separate mysticism from practical reality. You are in much company, but it does not have to remain that way.

JL: I see you are still trying to put me down with uncharitable remarks, you always do that when you can’t answer.

[Hb6:4 For it is impossible for those who were ONCE ENLIGHTENED, and have TASTED of THE HEAVENLY GIFT, and were made PARTAKERS OF THE HOLY GHOST, 5 And have TASTED the good WORD OF GOD, AND THE POWERS OF THE WORLD TO COME, 6 IF THEY SHALL FALL AWAY, TO RENEW THEM AGAIN unto repentance; SEEING THEY CRUCIFY to themselves THE SON of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.]

If this isn’t describing believers then how would you describe a believer? How can one fall AWAY from what they do not first possess? How can one be RENEWED AGAIN if never FIRST RENEWED? How can one be an apostate from what they did not first hold? An apostate is an unbeliever, ONLY AFER they have apostatized, fallen away, from believing.

If one who is in a fallen state hears and rejects the gospel they have not FALLEN from anything, have they? They simply REMAIN in their FALLEN STATE. If they are enlightened and share in the Holy Spirit then they are Holy Spirit filled believers and CAN FALL AWAY, because they have first possed what they have fallen from.

The Amplified Bible puts it very well in, 2Pt2:20 For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through [the full, personal] knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they again become entangled in them and are overcome, their last condition is worse [for them] than the first. 21 For never to have obtained a [full, personal] knowledge of the way of righteousness would have been better for them than, having obtained [such knowledge], to turn back from the holy commandment which was [verbally] delivered to them. 22 There has befallen them the thing spoken of in the true proverb, The dog turns back to his own vomit, and, The sow is washed only to wallow again in the mire.

 

[jlhargus]

I know you haven’t talked to Michael, because you would stop the stupid accusations.
Yes it would be dishonest to have a double membership, which i don’t believe you could and not have them identify it as such plus I think it is against the forum rules.

Also, I have a static IP address, I don’t know if you know the difference between a dynamic and a static IP address, but on a static IP, my address never changes and so If I had two memberships, mine would be very easy to spot.

JL: Sure ok.

I have written extensively on the Hebrews 6 issue, but this is one of the more complex areas of Scripture; especially among the poorly informed; therefore you can make logical and reason from the Scripture and have the Scripture validate you logic and reasoning, but only to a regenerate mind or a mature Christian. I have only seen a few here that would meet that qualification.

JL: So who published your writtings on Hebrews 6, I would like to read them?

but this is one of the more complex areas of Scripture; especially among the poorly informed; therefore you can make logical and reason from the Scripture and have the Scripture validate you logic and reasoning, but only to a regenerate mind or a mature Christian. I have only seen a few here that would meet that qualification

.

JL: Yes anyone can MAKE scripture VALIDATE what they want, we have thousands of contradicting groups to prove that, even your posts are a good example of that. That’s why God in his wisdom gave us a pillar and ground of TRUTH THE CHURCH. Actually Hebrews is very simple, one can lose their salvation.

JL: You sound just like a selfrighteous person I knew on another Catholic line.

 

[Randy_Carson]

**Jesus said **“I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.”
The practical reality is He used all the apostles and prophets as the foundation of the church and then all the godly men across the ages, since the day of Pentecost till this day, to build His church upon the message that was delivered by the Holy Spirit and Jesus to all of the apostles. That is practical reality.

Sounds great. But remember, the Lord left one man to feed and tend His flock. Peter was the first pope, and his successors have been the visible representatives of Christ on earth ever since.

As I keep telling you; you focus too much on the messenger(s) and not enough on the message.

Yes, you do say this a lot.

Having a leader to direct the apostles, not the “Church”, except the local churches Peter ministered to, was the choice Jesus made to probably maintain some order among the apostles as Scripture seems to confirm.

Yeah…Jesus chose Peter merely to maintain order. That’s the ticket…

It is a great imposition on God’s Word to elevate the messenger, Peter, to such a level that Peter himself would rebuke and has rebuked any such notion through his own pen. (1 Peter & 2 Peter & Acts)

The only imposition at work here is YOUR impostition of a Protestant interpretation of the text. Peter never wrote anything that would undermine his own position as head of the earthly Church.

Furthermore, the early church fathers referred to who as the “Vicar of Christ”? They were correct until corruption changed the definition much later in history; something you are very familiar with and chose to ignore IMO.

Me and about a billion other souls. But I’m happy to review any references from the Church Fathers that you care to provide. Really.

Would that be similar to the following: "Immaculate conception, Catholic Priest, Sacraments, Absolution, Confessional et al? So if the Scripture is silent on these, which it is not on most, if not all, then silence is an illegitimate defense in some cases or perhaps most? If that is the case, then we have opened a Pandora’s box to anything goes and anything can be added because the Scripture is silent; isn’t this exactly one of the tools of false religions? JW’s and Mormons come to mind.

Scripture is not silent on these issues. And Protestants are not above twisting the scriptures to suit their own ideas.

Do you agree the visible church is different than the true church yet to be revealed?

Of course.

Is the true church yet to be revealed have any tares?

No.

Do the visible local churches have tares among the wheat?

Yes.

Get the point! There is no “universal visible church” on earth; nor was there an intention of such. As you know the ECF’s used a little “c” for church and not the big “C” for church; but you chose to ignore that as well. How much does one person have to ignore before they are far from grace? I don’t know.

I get the point, but you do not.

Perhaps you should review Matthew 13 which reads in part:

Matthew 13:30
Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’ "

UNTIL THE HARVEST.

The harvest has not yet occurred, and until it does, the wheat and the tares grow together in the visible, universal Church. The Lord will separate them on the last day.

How much scripture are you going to ignore in your attempt to discredit Christ’s own Church?

 

[Randy_Carson]

CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

At least you acknowledge their were witnesses; but based on practicality and what we actually see and the simple example I gave on loose and binding; you have to again what is obvious and real in everyday life. But when one leads of life of mysticism; reality becomes a different perception to that which is observable.

Consider this, why would Jesus be repeating to the apostles that which he already spoke of in the Sermon on the Mount? Would it not make sense that He was rather teaching a different crowd in Matthew 18; it is so obvious to me that Jesus is in full preaching mode, but you cannot accept what God says IMO.

Matthew 5 - (NOTICE the same language)
29 "If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 "If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell.’

**Compare to Matthew 18 - **
29 "If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 "If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell. (Interesting I just noticed the verse numbers are identical 29-30 - weird??)

None of which has anything to do with the fact that Jesus gave Peter indivdually the authority to bind and loose in Matthew 16 and repeated this to the rest of the 12 in Matthew 18.

Perhaps built around seven hills in your understanding.

Ooh…the obligatory “Whore of Babylon” reference…I haven’t seen that in awhile. MOST Protestant apologists who tread these waters are more subtle than that. Having exhausted your limited arguments, are you are resorting to name-calling instead?

Seriously; look how many times the earthly church is “churches”; not that there is more than one true Christian “church”,

but rather on earth it is collectively made of local churches and was intended to be that way.

I’m sure that your “faith community” thinks of each local congregation as an independent “church”, but the original Christians saw themselves as members of the One Body of Christ, and the local “churches” to which you refer are simply seperate congregations of the one Church - not separate churches.

I pray you will review and consider what is and isn’t in this post and perhaps prayerful consider what is said and contemplate; then read it again.

If the prayer of a righteous man availeth much, then what can we conclude from the fact that I won’t be reviewing, considering, prayerfully considering, contemplating or reading your post again?

 

[Randy_Carson]

**1) If it is not; then explain where these extra rules of faith originate? **

**(Listen to JESUS - “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.!”) **
**Matthew 4 - **
**“If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread.” 4 But He answered and said, "It is written, **‘MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE, BUT ON EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD.’ ****

**That is pretty darn definitive about where we get our information on faith, practice, morals and all spiritual realities concerning the things of God. Where are the things of divine revelation written that were spoken? The Protestant Bible. **Amen! Catholics love that verse as we do every one contained in all 73 books of the Bible. But that verse does not say that the Bible is the sole rule of faith for the believer. Keep looking.

**

1. Never said Peter was not a shepherd; that would be stupid. I have acknowledged that and his appointed leadership role among the apostles; I won’t deny what the Scripture says. But I will not impose onto Scripture the nonsense of succession in the Catholic sense and “Peterine Primacy”.

Don’t worry…you won’t have to impose any of that on the scriptures.

It’s already in there.

 

[Tanner9188]

Me and about a billion other souls. But I’m happy to review any references from the Church Fathers that you care to provide. Really.
Tertullian demonstrates this fact in the following quotes:
“Grant, then, that all have erred; that the apostle was mistaken in giving his testimony; that the Holy Ghost … He, the Steward of God, the Vicar of Christ …[1]
”
“For what kind of (supposition) is it, that, while the devil is always operating and adding daily to the ingenuities of iniquity, the work of God should either have ceased, or else have desisted from advancing? whereas the reason why the Lord sent the Paraclete was, that, since human mediocrity was unable to take in all things at once, discipline should, little by little, be directed, and ordained, and carried on to perfection, by that Vicar of the Lord, the Holy Spirit.[2]

He nailed it!
Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicar_of_Christ

Matthew 13:30

 

[Tanner9188]

None of which has anything to do with the fact that Jesus gave Peter indivdually the authority to bind and loose in Matthew 16 and repeated this to the rest of the 12 in Matthew 18.

how do you blindly deny what i put in your face from the very word of God?

Ooh…the obligatory “Whore of Babylon” reference…I haven’t seen that in awhile. MOST Protestant apologists who tread these waters are more subtle than that. Having exhausted your limited arguments, are you are resorting to name-calling instead?

** No; referring to Rome. Babylon would be Baghdad I believe; not Rome.**

I’m sure that your “faith community” thinks of each local congregation as an independent “church”, but the original Christians saw themselves as members of the One Body of Christ, and the local “churches” to which you refer are simply seperate congregations of the one Church - not separate churches.

All believers are a member of the body of Christ; just not the Catholic church.

If the prayer of a righteous man availeth much, then what can we conclude from the fact that I won’t be reviewing, considering, prayerfully considering, contemplating or reading your post again?

Was that necessary?

**Anyway; I’m closing shop here; I will see you around other threads; Lord willing.

God bless and have a good night and a good weekend!

Tanner**

 

[dpgreen]

Just wondering if Tanner’s use of attention grabbing statements is an attempt to “lord” it over us.

In all seriousness, would you please desist from doing this. I guarantee most readers skim over most of your ‘message’ because it is so difficult to read.

Would you also please desist from bringing the debate to its lowest common denominator by making inferences about the state of ‘opponents’ souls. Jesus said that people would know we were Christians by our love. I’m not getting any warm and fuzzies from you at the moment. Please try to take control of your emotions.

You have been given a a thorough account for the teaching the CC holds regarding Peter and the keys - FROM SCRIPTURE. Why should anyone take your word on your interpretation when you are just a man (isn’t this your whole objection to Peter being put on a pedestal). In fact there are many well respected protestant bible scholars who agree emphatically with the Catholic interpretation of the passage in Matthew echoing Isaiah. If you would like me to post some of what they have to say, I will be happy to do so, however, I am not going to waste my time if you continue not to address the outstanding witness some of the contributors have made to you concerning this issue.

 

[erikd]

In fact, if you look carefully at the passage, the word “lording” means “to exercise dominion over”. Why would Peter do the exact opposite of what he encourage ministers not to do? In my humble opinion and knowledge; the Roman Catholic Church may be guilty of “Lording” over the church of Christ and using Peter as the reason for doing so, which is contradictory to what Peter taught. Is Peter then a hypocrite?

Perhaps this will help.

CHAPTER VI. "That the ruler should be, through humility, a companion of good livers, but, through the zeal of righteousness, rigid against the vices of evildoers. The ruler should be, through humility, a companion of good livers, and, through the zeal of righteousness, rigid against the vices of evil-doers; so that in nothing he prefer himself to the good, and yet, when the fault of the bad requires it, he be at once conscious of the power of his priority; to the end that, while among his subordinates who live well he waives his rank and accounts them as his equals, he may not fear to execute the laws of rectitude towards the perverse."
Pope Gregory the Great 540 - 604 AD Pastoral Rule Book II Chapter 6
newadvent.org/fathers/36012.htm

 

[erikd]

Also, to make Peter out to be something God did not and Peter certainly did not; is a real sham IMO.

I don’t think it’s the Catholic Church making Peter out to be the leader, I believe it was our Lord Himself. If you don’t believe me, perhaps you will believe language scholars, some of the protestant variety.

18 And I say to thee: That thou art (Petros) Peter; and upon this (petra) rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
St. Matthew 16:18

Here are the two definitions of the words from Strong’s dictionary, including their reference numbers:

4074 Petros {pet’-ros} apparently a primary word; TDNT - 6:100,835; n pr m 1) one of the twelve disciples of Jesus 2) a rock or a stone

4073 petra {pet’-ra} from the same as 4074; TDNT - 6:95,834; n f 1) a rock, cliff or ledge 1a) a projecting rock, crag, rocky ground 1b) a rock, a large stone 1c) metaph. a man like a rock, by reason of his firmness and strength of soul.

In Aramaic, the language that would have been spoken during this exchange, the word for both would have been “kephas” or “cephas” therefore saying “you are kephas and upon this kephas I will build My Church.”

These definitions are not Catholic, they are linguistic. They can be found on Catholic and Protestant sites. Several Protestant language scholars have agreed that Peter is in fact the Rock upon which Jesus build His church. Here’s a commentary you might be interested in, from a noted Protestant Greek scholar Marvin Vincent:

“The reference of petra to Christ is forced and unnatural. The obvious reference of the word is to Peter. The emphatic this naturally refers to the nearest antecedent; and besides, the metaphor is thus weakened, since Christ appears here, not as the foundation, but as the architect: ‘On this rock will I build.’”
Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, Vol. 1, 91-92.

The issue of Peter being the Rock is understanding of the verses as they are spoken. Language scholars of many Christian denominations (non-Catholic) agree. Among them are R.T. France, D.A. Carson, Robert McAfee, and others. Also, a popular Bible commentary book named “Peake’s Commentary,” a Protestant commentary on the Bible agrees (check page 787 of the 1962 edition). Another Protestant commentary from the Zondervan NIV Bible states this:

“The rock on which Jesus would build His Church has been identified as 1: Jesus Himself (His work of salvation by dying for us on the cross); 2eter (the first great leader in the Church at Jerusalem).”

Based on this it seems that the Protestant commentators are split on whether Jesus refers to Himself as the Rock, though none of the ones I mentioned are split as to Peter being the rock.

 

[jlhargus]

I have written extensively on the Hebrews 6 issue, but this is one of the more complex areas of Scripture; especially among the poorly informed; therefore you can make logical and reason from the Scripture and have the Scripture validate you logic and reasoning, but only to a regenerate mind or a mature Christian. I have only seen a few here that would meet that qualification.

JL: I notice you did not answer my question of who published your extensive writings on Hebrews 6. Judging by your remarks here on Hebrews 6, the only publisher would be a magazine asking for the dumbest scripture interpretations ever heard. We both know the only place you have written extensively is on debate forums.

If you got your interpretation from Calvary Chapel Vineyard Outreach bible study, I would run from there.

 

[guanophore]

I hope you see this has nothing to do with Peter except a restoration; nothing more.

I am sure you do hope this. It must be a terrible nuisance to have so many people clinging to what the Apostles believed and taught, over and above your personal understanding of the Scriptures.

You have maintained that Jesus made only two prophesies about Peter, but you leave out the third, that Peter is “rock” and upon this Rock He will build His church. It boggles the mind how one cannot equate the changing of Simon’s name to “Rock” (Cephas) to the statement about the building of the Church. Jesus grafts Peter into His own “Rockness” and recognizes the statement made by Peter as a “rocky” statement.

If you don’t see it read it over again; this is by God’s design and you must connect all the pieces to see and understand; The meaning of the names, particularly John as in “son of John” was no coincidence. This is the type of thing that makes the word of God so deep and rich. God bless

Fortunately, our rereading this passage as we do often will not result in departure from the Apostolic Teaching, as you seem to hope it will.

 

[brb2]

John 10:16 And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be ONE FLOCK, ONE SHEPHERD.

John 21:15- 17 “Simon, son of John, do you love me MORE THAN THESE?” … and Peter replied “YES, Lord; …” He [Christ] said to him “Feed, my lambs.” … {yet again} He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” … and yet a third time "“Feed my sheep”.

Tanner …

3 X’s the authority is given to Peter. This you cannot deny

And, there is ONE CHURCH … and ONE leader for it. The ‘shepherd’, assigned to Peter by Christ ---- is human leader of Catholic Church. You as, schizmatic Protestant, need to return to the ONE Flock … and show some respect/obedience to command of Christ.

Will you HEED the ‘voice’ of Christ ?

 

[Randy_Carson]

A friend commented on my refutation of Tanner as follows:

It may be added that the idea that Peter could lose his place as an Apostle and need to be reinstated by Christ could backfire in the sense that he had fallen away and had to confess in order to come back, which means “eternal security” isn’t. Another thought that comes to mind in the passage in John 21 is that Christ didn’t just reinstate Peter; He set him up as His personal representative. Note the language used in reference to tending and feeding sheep and flocks: Peter is going to be the earthly human shepherd who acts on behalf of the Eternal Divine Shepherd. If a declaration of love were all that was required, Jesus would have simply accepted Peter’s answers without the additional admonition to care for His sheep and flocks. He would have said, “Thank you.” or “Be at peace, then.”

Finally, in Scripture, three is used to convey superlative; God is holy, holy, holy, meaning all and only holy. Peter is shepherd, shepherd, shepherd until Christ returns to take command of His Church. That means that the office of Peter was given an ongoing permanent commission to act as the Lord’s Vicar until His return at the end of time.