Peter Is Not The Rock!

[narnia59]

Can Christ fail to bear fruit? For it is He in us that produces the fruit.

Without the cooperation of our will? I think not.

Read carefully the 15th chapter of John's Gospel. Christ is clear that a branch "in him" can cease to bear fruit. And that when this occurs, His Father will cut that branch off, and the branch will be thrown into the fire and burned.

Thus, he tells his disciples to "remain in him". He promises his own faithfulness -- that if they remain in him, He will remain in them. But he clearly indicates they have a choice to make, for if there was no choice, there would be no need for him to give them this command.


1 "I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. 2 He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful. 3 You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. 4 Remain in me, and I will remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me. 5 "I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. 7 If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you. 8 This is to my Father's glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples.

 

[Rick Otto]

Seems to hinge on the definition of "subject".
The pope can by his own definition consider a person subject even if that person rejects papal authority.

 

[Rick Otto]

Without the cooperation of our will? I think not

Our will cannot co-operate with anything spiritual until our wills are spiritualy regenerated by unmerited divine merciful intervention (grace) which makes saving faith possible.
1Co 2:14 - Show Context But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

 

[narnia59]

Our will cannot co-operate with anything spiritual until our wills are spiritualy regenerated by unmerited divine merciful intervention (grace) which makes saving faith possible.
1Co 2:14 - Show Context But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

I believe in the John 15 discussion with his apostles, Jesus is certainly referring to those who have experienced this -- otherwise, they could not be a vine "in him". Or would you have another view that says a person can be "in Christ" without experiencing regeneration?

 

[squint]

Squint, when I said "The position I've taken in this thread that you seem to disagree with is that the Catholic church does not teach that one must be formally in the Catholic church in order to be saved."


Your response is "Not true at all with the RCC".

As stated prior, that IS what they hold out with BUTS attached. When the BUTS of the RCC come OUT into the open IT'S NOT TRUE WHATSOEVER.

You then proceed to talk about excommunication. Of course if you're not in communion with us, you're "excommunicated". It's sort of what the term basically means.

If you read the prior links attached you will SEE how that RCC member and I arrived at the RCC conclusion.

You, however, seem to be of the opinion that because you are "excommunicated", the church says you cannot be saved. That would be incorrect. This is why I'm having difficulty with your contention that my statement is not true from the perspective of the Catholic church.

The absolute BEST that the RCC has to offer to those in major ex. is the possibility of PURGATORY and to that I say it's better than NOTHING...

But of course that does not change our 'current' status now does it?

The 'official' RCC position is that those who are in open, knowing disagreement are NOT saved, NO salvation period, with the commitment being MAYBE purgatory. Maybe. But certainly NOT imperfect communion EVER at least as it pertains to our present lives.

enjoy!

squint

 

[MoNiCa4316]

I wanted to share this:

"Catholics believe that Jesus had a very specific purpose in saying that Peter was the Rock upon which he would build his Church. He was evoking Isaiah 22:22.

Isaiah 22:15-24 (Shebna)
you have cut out a tomb here for yourself ... in the rock? ...I will thrust you from your office....22:20 On that day I will call my servant Eliakim son of Hilkiah, 21 and will clothe him with your robe and bind your sash on him. I will commit your authority to his hand, and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. 22 I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and no one shall shut; he shall shut, and no one shall open. 23 I will fasten him like a peg in a secure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his ancestral house [succession]. 24 And they will hang on him the whole weight of his ancestral house, the offspring and issue, every small vessel, from the cups to all the flagons....

Mat 16:18-1922:15
you are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.


In the Isaiah passage, Shebna was the Chancellor (like a Prime Minister) under King Hezekiah. This Prime Minister had a special role above the cabinet. He got the keys to the kingdom. Shabna messed up and was unfaithful so God appointed Eliakim to Prime Minister and gave him the keys. In Mat 16:18, Peter got the keys just the way Eliakim got them in Isaiah 22:15-24.
Protestant theologian Albright says:

Isaiah 22, verse 15, undoubtedly lies behind this saying of Jesus (Mat 16:18). The keys are the symbol of authority and ... the same authority vested in the vicar, the master of the house, the chamberlain of the royal household in ancient Israel. In Isaiah 22 Eliakim is described as having the same authority. (ibid)
​

David Palm wrote the following:

Long before I had any inkling of becoming Catholic I came to embrace the current majority report among Protestant scholars, namely, that "this rock" of Matt 16:18 refers to the person of Peter and that he is the foundation on which Christ would build His Church. I was challenged later, by those same scholars and by Catholic apologists, to see from the use of Isa 22:22 in Matt 16:19, that our Lord, as the son of David and new King of Israel, reestablished the office of "steward" or "one who is over the house" (in modern parlance, the prime minister). He [Jesus] gives that office to Peter, as symbolized by the "keys of the kingdom." This establishes that in principle there is nothing antithetical between the supreme Lordship of Jesus Christ and a mortal man serving as His "vicar" on earth. (http://www.mwt.net/~lnpalm/jw_jpk.htm)
​

When Jesus says "whatever you bind" to Peter in Mat 16:18, the Greek text used for "you" is singular. In Mat 18:18 the Greek text, the word for "you" in "whatever you bind" is plural. Catholics think these two juxtaposed but similar phrases lay out the early structure of the Church with Peter as the Pope and the other apostles as priests."

http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/pope.htm

 

[MoNiCa4316]

“Simon, Simon! Remember Satan has asked for you (Greek plural-“you all”), to sift you all like wheat. But I have prayed for you (Greek singular-“you alone”) that your faith may never fail. You in turn must strengthen your brothers” (Luke 22:31-32).

 

[narnia59]

[/size][/font][/color]

As stated prior, that IS what they hold out with BUTS attached. When the BUTS of the RCC come OUT into the open IT'S NOT TRUE WHATSOEVER.

[/size][/font][/color]

If you read the prior links attached you will SEE how that RCC member and I arrived at the RCC conclusion.



The absolute BEST that the RCC has to offer to those in major ex. is the possibility of PURGATORY and to that I say it's better than NOTHING...

But of course that does not change our 'current' status now does it?

The 'official' RCC position is that those who are in open, knowing disagreement are NOT saved, NO salvation period, with the commitment being MAYBE purgatory. Maybe. But certainly NOT imperfect communion EVER at least as it pertains to our present lives.

enjoy!

squint

When I read the link you provided I see that you came to an agreement that you are indeed "excommunicated". I do not see any agreement that means that therefore, you cannot be saved. And again, that conclusion is what would be incorrect.

And you also seem to have a false impression of Purgatory, because if you believe that the church says that maybe you can get to Purgatory, by default you believe that church says that yes, you can indeed be saved and we'll see you in heaven.

 

[Anglian]

We are, I think, still awaiting an exegesis of the meaning of Our Lord in changing Simon's name to Peter.

The Orthodox would hold that it signifies Peter's confession of faith, but when combined with what Our Lord says in Matthew 16:16, this, or other explanations other than the obvious one, start to look like straining for effect.

However, that said, if Peter is, himself, the rock on which the Church is built, how do we read those many verses cited here by others which show that Christ Himself is that rock?

The second question along that line I have is this: if an office was created and invested in Peter, why does Rome claim to have that office when Peter was first bishop of Antioch? That Antioch has never made such a claim is one of the reasons I remain sceptical that the Roman Catholic interpretation is the correct one - although I do not deny that it is a traditional one with deep roots.

peace,

Anglian

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

We are, I think, still awaiting an exegesis of the meaning of Our Lord in changing Simon's name to Peter.

The Orthodox would hold that it signifies Peter's confession of faith, but when combined with what Our Lord says in Matthew 16:16, this, or other explanations other than the obvious one, start to look like straining for effect.

However, that said, if Peter is, himself, the rock on which the Church is built, how do we read those many verses cited here by others which show that Christ Himself is that rock?

The second question along that line I have is this: if an office was created and invested in Peter, why does Rome claim to have that office when Peter was first bishop of Antioch? That Antioch has never made such a claim is one of the reasons I remain sceptical that the Roman Catholic interpretation is the correct one - although I do not deny that it is a traditional one with deep roots.

peace,

Anglian

It is true that Antioch has never made such a claim.

Forgive me...

 

[narnia59]

We are, I think, still awaiting an exegesis of the meaning of Our Lord in changing Simon's name to Peter.

The Orthodox would hold that it signifies Peter's confession of faith, but when combined with what Our Lord says in Matthew 16:16, this, or other explanations other than the obvious one, start to look like straining for effect.

However, that said, if Peter is, himself, the rock on which the Church is built, how do we read those many verses cited here by others which show that Christ Himself is that rock?

The second question along that line I have is this: if an office was created and invested in Peter, why does Rome claim to have that office when Peter was first bishop of Antioch? That Antioch has never made such a claim is one of the reasons I remain sceptical that the Roman Catholic interpretation is the correct one - although I do not deny that it is a traditional one with deep roots.

peace,

Anglian

Regarding your first question Anglian, I think it's a problem to say the firm statement of Scripture that Christ is the Rock (we all agree with that) excludes that Christ was referring to Peter being the rock Christ, as builder of the church, would use. I pointed to a couple of examples. Scripture says the husband is the 'head' of the Christian home which is a position of authority in the home (in our view the domestic church), but people do not seem to view that to contradict Christ being the Head of the church.

God said that He himself would shepherd the Israelites, but the method He chose to do that was to appoint one shepherd, his servant David over them. This does not contradict with God being the shepherd. It explains the method he chose to shepherd.

Regarding the second question, my understanding would be that the authority of the papacy stems from the succession of Peter and not geographic "Rome". Although there are certainly references to Peter being in Rome and along with Paul building the church there, that is not the basis of the claim.

 

[squint]

When I read the link you provided I see that you came to an agreement that you are indeed "excommunicated".

I and nearly ALL other believers according to the RCC with the exception of the IGNORANT ones.

I do not see any agreement that means that therefore, you cannot be saved. And again, that conclusion is what would be incorrect.

Well, how civil of YOU!

Here is a clue for YOU. I do love my neighbors as myself. I do not condemn them. I do not measure to them the measure of CONDEMNATION or MAYBE you have a 'chance.' And could care less what the RCC has to say bout it.

Nor do I condemn ANY RCC member for putting the measure of NO SALVATION currently upon my back. That's YOUR burden to carry.

And you also seem to have a false impression of Purgatory, because if you believe that the church says that maybe you can get to Purgatory, by default you believe that church says that yes, you can indeed be saved and we'll see you in heaven.

Now that would depend on who one is speaking to in the RCC. I would venture that MOST of them believe that there are going to be quite a few millions or billions of my fellow man who WILL be burning alive forever in fire. And again, that will be THEIR BURDEN to carry in this present life.

enjoy!

squint

 

[Anglian]

Dear Narnia,

When you write:

Regarding your first question Anglian, I think it's a problem to say the firm statement of Scripture that Christ is the Rock (we all agree with that) excludes that Christ was referring to Peter being the rock Christ, as builder of the church, would use. I pointed to a couple of examples. Scripture says the husband is the 'head' of the Christian home which is a position of authority in the home (in our view the domestic church), but people do not seem to view that to contradict Christ being the Head of the church.

God said that He himself would shepherd the Israelites, but the method He chose to do that was to appoint one shepherd, his servant David over them. This does not contradict with God being the shepherd. It explains the method he chose to shepherd.

I would have no problem with that, and am grateful for your explanation.

When you write:

Regarding the second question, my understanding would be that the authority of the papacy stems from the succession of Peter and not geographic "Rome". Although there are certainly references to Peter being in Rome and along with Paul building the church there, that is not the basis of the claim.

I am still left wondering. The tradition that St. Peter was bishop of Antioch is, at least. as strong as that which has him as bishop of Rome. If there was an office inhering in St. Peter, why was it not passed on in Antioch?

It looks as though the reason was that Rome was the capital of the empire, but your comment above seems to negate that.

That said, I see you are still awaiting a response to your question about the meaning of Christ's renaming of Simon Bar-Jonah.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[Rhamiel]

Purgatory is only for the Saved, it is where you wash up before you enter Heaven, Christ loves us so much that through His Grace, the last vestages of this world are striped from your soul

 

[MoNiCa4316]

We are, I think, still awaiting an exegesis of the meaning of Our Lord in changing Simon's name to Peter.

The Orthodox would hold that it signifies Peter's confession of faith, but when combined with what Our Lord says in Matthew 16:16, this, or other explanations other than the obvious one, start to look like straining for effect.

However, that said, if Peter is, himself, the rock on which the Church is built, how do we read those many verses cited here by others which show that Christ Himself is that rock?

The second question along that line I have is this: if an office was created and invested in Peter, why does Rome claim to have that office when Peter was first bishop of Antioch? That Antioch has never made such a claim is one of the reasons I remain sceptical that the Roman Catholic interpretation is the correct one - although I do not deny that it is a traditional one with deep roots.

peace,

Anglian

those are good questions Anglian..

for the first one, I think that Christ and Peter are 'the rock' in a different way.. rather, Christ is the Rock and Peter is His visible representative in the Church so He's the "visible rock". lol I'm not sure. Just an idea I had and thought I'd share.

about Rome vs Antioch..

I just googled "Catholic Church and primacy of Rome" lol.. and found this article:
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num12.htm

don't know how accurate it is, but it doesn't seem to be too biased.. so maybe that'll offer the other side of the issue..

as to why not Antioch.. I really don't know .. I have to do some research on this. I guess it was not God's will? lol..

what do we know about Apostle Peter? I mean about his biography.. maybe I'll ask at OBOB

(edit: I was just told in OBOB that the Papacy is not about the location, but the person.. I have more questions though myself, lol, I started a thread there about this topic as well)

 

[narnia59]

I and nearly ALL other believers according to the RCC with the exception of the IGNORANT ones.

I’ve already agreed that you are indeed ‘excommunicated’, as in, ‘not in communion’ with the Catholic church.

Well, how civil of YOU!

Here is a clue for YOU. I do love my neighbors as myself. I do not condemn them. I do not measure to them the measure of CONDEMNATION or MAYBE you have a 'chance.' And could care less what the RCC has to say bout it.

Nor do I condemn ANY RCC member for putting the measure of NO SALVATION currently upon my back. That's YOUR burden to carry.

It has nothing to do with my being civil, although I do strive to be, so thank you for noticing. I also have never questioned that you possess desirable Christian virtues, but I am glad you know you do.

What remains, however, is the claim you have made that because the church views you as excommunicated, it also says you have no chance of salvation. If you have a Catholic source that indicates that to be the case, I would be happy to see that. I believe you have placed this burden on your own back brother, and could certainly be free of it at your own choosing.

Now that would depend on who one is speaking to in the RCC. I would venture that MOST of them believe that there are going to be quite a few millions or billions of my fellow man who WILL be burning alive forever in fire. And again, that will be THEIR BURDEN to carry in this present life.

enjoy!

squint

Based on my knowledge of Catholics which spans about 50 years now, I would have to say that your ‘venture’ is incorrect. But we’re really not speaking about what views individual Catholics may have, for they may or may not align with church teaching. If individuals have opted for the burden of the judgment of their fellow man, you are correct, it is their burden. But they have chosen it on their own, and are actually taking upon themselves a role the church says is reserved only for God.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

Anglian, maybe something here would help?

http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_Roman_Residency.asp

 

[MoNiCa4316]

Purgatory is only for the Saved, it is where you wash up before you enter Heaven, Christ loves us so much that through His Grace, the last vestages of this world are striped from your soul

 

[Rhamiel]

Anglian

However, that said, if Peter is, himself, the rock on which the Church is built, how do we read those many verses cited here by others which show that Christ Himself is that rock?

The second question along that line I have is this: if an office was created and invested in Peter, why does Rome claim to have that office when Peter was first bishop of Antioch? That Antioch has never made such a claim is one of the reasons I remain sceptical that the Roman Catholic interpretation is the correct one - although I do not deny that it is a traditional one with deep roots.

I just thought something, even if the Catholic Church accepts that Peter is not the Rock, Jesus still gave him authority with the passing of the keys and the role of papal primacy still stands, just from a plain reading of the Bible it seems to make Peter look like the Rock but maybe I am looking at it through "Rome tinted glasses"

I used to have problems with Peter being the Rock when the Bible calls Jesus the Rock. first off, I think we can drop the "R", this is not a title, it is poetic language, Jesus is the Rock because He is what I cling to in this tumultious world, Peter is the Rock because Jesus used him as a leader of the apostles, Peters proffesion of Faith is also Rock. Rock is not a legal term, it is a sign of something being strong and something you can build on.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

Anglian
I just thought something, even if the Catholic Church accepts that Peter is not the Rock, Jesus still gave him authority with the passing of the keys and the role of papal primacy still stands, just from a plain reading of the Bible it seems to make Peter look like the Rock but maybe I am looking at it through "Rome tinted glasses"

I used to have problems with Peter being the Rock when the Bible calls Jesus the Rock. first off, I think we can drop the "R", this is not a title, it is poetic language, Jesus is the Rock because He is what I cling to in this tumultious world, Peter is the Rock because Jesus used him as a leader of the apostles, Peters proffesion of Faith is also Rock. Rock is not a legal term, it is a sign of something being strong and something you can build on.

YES.. lol. I think too often people use it as a legal term.

and for the same reason some people have problems with various titles of Mary, etc.

it's just words folks God is bigger than our words. The truth is more than we can describe. And all we're trying to do is attach some words to what He is showing us. It's hard and we don't always agree. So let's look at the meanings more..