Peter Is Not The Rock!

[MamaZ]

what does the rock signify? What did Christ mean by this? And on this Rock I will build my church? Not on who mind you but what does rock signify?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Hi Simon,

Thanks for the welcome. Your novice here went through extensive studies but my shortcoming is my memory. I don't think I can remember what I've studied and quote them and use them the way you can. But the beamishboy is still growing. Biologically, I only have a few more years to say that cos growth stops at 17 or 18. Hehe.

Greetings bm!!! I don't know about that as I grew almost 3 inches when I turned 18

Luke 16:24 And he sounding said: "Father Abraham! be thou merciful to-me! and send Lazarus!, that he should be dipping the tip of the finger of him of water, and should be cooling down the tongue of me,--that I am being pained in the Flame/flogi <5395>, this."

Acts 7:30 And of being filled years, forty, was seen to him in the wilderness of the mount Sinai a messenger of Lord, in a Flame/flogi <5395> of fire of a bush, 38 "This is the one-becoming in the Out-Called/ in the wilderness with the Messenger the one speaking to him in the Mount Sinai, and with our fathers who receives oracles/words, living, to give to us.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Word for the day: Autocephalous

Forgive me...

 

[simonthezealot]

.

I believe the subject of this thread is whether or not the "Rock" in Matt .16 refers to Peter. The answer is, IT DOES, as these protestant ministers point out:


ALBERT BARNES (NINETEENTH-CENTURY PRESBYTERIAN)
JOHN BROADUS ( NINETEENTH-CENTURY CALVINISTIC BAPTIST)
CRAIG L. BLOMBERG ( CONTEMPORARY BAPTIST)
J. KNOX CHAMBLIN ( CONTEMPORARY PRESBYTERIAN)
R. T. FRANCE ( CONTEMPORARY ANGLICAN)
HERMAN RIDDERBOS ( CONTEMPORARY DUTCH REFORMED)
DONALD HAGNER ( CONTEMPORARY EVANGELICAL)

Kath,
Look at that list and and think about the fact they we don't put near as much weight into scholars as you do ECF's and then consider this list of Early Christians fathers who believed that this Matthew verse was on the "faith of his/peters confession"
Chrysostom
Isodore of Pelasium
Hillary
Theodoret
Theophanu
Theophylact
john of Damascus

Just to name a few...So your silly list really means ZILCH

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Word for the day: Autocephalous

Forgive me...

Is that any resemblance to His Head or Headship?

14 The yet head/kefalh <2776> of Him/autou <846>, and the hairs white as wool, white as snow, and the eyes of Him as flame of fire.

2776. kephale kef-al-ay' from the primary kapto (in the sense of seizing); the head (as the part most readily taken hold of), literally or figuratively:--head.
847. autou ow-too' genitive (i.e. possessive) of 846, used as an adverb of location; properly, belonging to the same spot, i.e. in this (or that) place:--(t-)here.

 

[katholikos]

Although St. Peter never called himself "pope" in Scripture, he did indeed have a special apostolic primacy and jurisdiction. The Scriptural evidence for this is substantial and explicit.

Of the Twelve Apostles, St. Peter is by far the one mentioned most often in Scripture. He appears 195 times. The next most often mentioned Apostle was St. John, who comes in at a whopping 29 times. St. James the Greater is mentioned 19 times, St. Philip 15, and the numbers dwindle rapidly for the others. Does this in itself prove St. Peter's primacy? No, but it does shed considerable light on his importance. What does that light reveal?

Among other things, we see that when the Twelve Apostles are listed by name (Matt. 10:2-5; Mark 3:16-19; Luke 6:14-17, and Acts 1:13), St. Peter's name is always first - and Judas Iscariot is always listed dead last. Far more commonly, though, the New Testament refers to simply "Peter and the Twelve," as if to say that the tempestuous fisherman signified in himself the unity of the whole apostolic college.

There are many other biblical signs of St. Peter's preeminence among the Apostles. He is the only one who receives a name change from Christ. He was Simon, but Christ calls him "Rock" (Matt. 16:18). Name changes given by God that we read about in Scripture have huge significance and imply an elevation in importance and a special mission given to that person by God (e.g. Abram to Abraham, Jacob to Israel). He is also singled out by Christ to receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven and is promised, "Whatever you (singular) bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you (singular) bind on earth will be bound in heaven" (Matt. 16:19).

St. Peter is the lone Apostle Christ calls out of the boat to walk on water (Matt, 1:28-29). At the tomb of Christ, St, John waits to allow St. Peter to enter ahead of him (John 20:6). It is to him among the Apostles that God first reveals the Resurrection (Mark 16:7). The risen Christ appears to him first, before the other Apostles (Luke 24:34). Christ preaches the gospel to the crowds from St, Peter's fishing boat (Luke 5:3). St. Peter is told by Christ, "Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed that your (singular) faith may not fail. And once you (singular) have turned back, you (singular) must strengthen your brethren" (Luke 22:31-32).

Christ makes St. Peter the shepherd of His Church (John 21:15-17). In Acts 1:13-26, St. Peter leads the other Apostles in choosing Matthias as successor to Judas, and he leads the Apostles in preaching on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:14). He performs the first Pentecost miracle (Acts 3). He speaks in the name of all the Apostles and for the whole Church when the Twelve are brought before the Sanhedrin for a trial (Acts 4). It is to St, Peter alone that God sends the revelation that gentiles are to be allowed into the Church (Acts 10), and he is the Apostle who first welcomes them into the Church (Acts 11). St. Peter's dogmatic pronouncement is accepted, and causes all disputes to cease at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15). After his conversion and healing from blindness, St. Paul visits St, Peter to have his teachings confirmed by him (Gal. 1:18).

Having said that, what should we make of St, Peter's reference to himself in 1 Peter 5:1 as a "fellow presbyter"? Does this signal that he was unaware of his special role as chief of the Apostles? The answer is found in the same passage, "Clothe yourselves in humility in your dealings with one another," he says, "for God opposes the proud but bestows favor on the humble. So humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt you in due time" (1 Peter 5:5). Since he was cautioning his Christian audience to be humble, it makes perfect sense that he would take his own advice and, setting an example for them, speak of himself in humble terms. And in doing so, he was following Christ's command, "Whoever wishes to be great among you shall be your servant, whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave" (Matt, 20:26-27). But this humility shouldn't blind us to the substantial body of biblical evidence showing that he did receive a special apostolic preeminence and authority from Christ - evidence that critics of the papacy often ignore or strain to explain away.

St. Paul, like St. Peter was also humble when referring to himself. He was by far the most prominent and prolific New Testament writer, responsible for about half of the New Testament, but he said, "I am the least of the apostles, not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the Church of God" (1 Cor. 15:10), and, "To me the very least of all the holy ones, this grace was given" (Eph, 3:8). On numerous occasions he called himself a mere deacon, the very lowest level of ordained ministry in the Church (cf. 1 Cor. 3:5, 4:1; 2 Cor. 3:6, 6:4, 11:23; Eph. 3:7; Col. 1:23, 25). But clearly, St. Paul had an authority far greater than that of a deacon.

As with St. Peter, these examples of St. Paul's humility are balanced St. Paul had an authority far greater than that of a right to order you to do what is proper, I rather urge you out of love" (Phil, 8-9), and, "Although we were able to impose our weight as apostles of Christ. Rather, we were gentle among you, as a nursing mother cares for her children" (1 Thess. 2:7).

St. Peter's calling himself a "fellow presbyter" doesn't disprove his primacy any more than St. Paul's habit of calling himself a "deacon" proves he had no authority greater than a deacon's.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Among other things, we see that when the Twelve Apostles are listed by name (Matt. 10:2-5; Mark 3:16-19; Luke 6:14-17, and Acts 1:13), St. Peter's name is always first - and Judas Iscariot is always listed dead last. Far more commonly, though, the New Testament refers to simply "Peter and the Twelve," as if to say that the tempestuous fisherman signified in himself the unity of the whole apostolic college.

Yes, I wouldn't hold too much stock in order of the names.
Look at the order of the 12 tribes in Reve. Judah was born 4th but he is listed first. Benjamin however was born last and still listed last here [the Tribe Paul is from btw].


Reve 7: (judah)"I will praise the Lord (reuben)He has looked on me (gad)granted good fortune. (asher)Happy am I (naphtali) wrestling God is (manasseh)making me to forget. (simeon)God hears me and is (levi)joined to me. He has (Issachar)purchased me (zebulun)a dwelling. (joseph)God will add to me the (benjamin)Son of His right hand."

 

[Rick Otto]

I smell Pope Fiction.

"-evidence that critics of the papacy often ignore or strain to explain away."

Watch me as I strain.(lol)

 

[katholikos]

.

The well-known Lutheran scholar W. Pannenburg has this to say when asked about the Papacy: "Leaving aside for the moment the question whether the Papacy is of divine or human right, the need for a ministry of unity in the Church is so evident that negative Protestant attitudes ought no longer be adopted."

[W. Pannenburg in '"Una Sancta"' 30 (1975) 220-221]

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

.

The well-known Lutheran scholar W. Pannenburg has this to say when asked about the Papacy: "Leaving aside for the moment the question whether the Papacy is of divine or human right, the need for a ministry of unity in the Church is so evident that negative Protestant attitudes ought no longer be adopted."

[W. Pannenburg in '"Una Sancta"' 30 (1975) 220-221]

Greetings. How can there be unity between the denominations of Catholicism, Orthodoxism and Protestantism when the RCC still hangs on to a relic like the popes. Ya'll are still a "mystery church" to me LOL..........

Reve 2:26 And the one-conquering and the-one guarding/keeping until end/finish/telouV <5056> the works of Me, I shall be giving to him Authority upon the Nations

Reve 15:3 And they are singing the Song of Moses, the bond-servant of the God, and the Song of the Lambkin saying: "Great and marvelous the works of Thee Lord! the God, the Almighty, just and true are the ways of Thee, the King of the Ages. [Exodus 15:1,2]

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Is that any resemblance to His Head or Headship?

14 The yet head/kefalh <2776> of Him/autou <846>, and the hairs white as wool, white as snow, and the eyes of Him as flame of fire.

2776. kephale kef-al-ay' from the primary kapto (in the sense of seizing); the head (as the part most readily taken hold of), literally or figuratively:--head.
847. autou ow-too' genitive (i.e. possessive) of 846, used as an adverb of location; properly, belonging to the same spot, i.e. in this (or that) place:--(t-)here.

In common terms it would be "self ruled". Self headed could be substituted I suppose.

The idea is that a Church that is Autocephalous has no needs outside of her own communion to express every portion of the true Christian faith. She has her own Bishop and everything needed to sustain herself as a Church. There are many Autocephalous Churches who are truely orthodox.

There has NEVER been a time when one Autocephalous Church was over other Autocephalous Churches. That is historical fact.

Ask yourself, at what point did the Churches of Jerusalem and Antioch answer to The Church of Rome who in essense is the daughter of both of these Autocephalous Churches? How can someone say that one or the other broke away from something that it was never subservient to? And how is it that a subservient Church could produce it's parent?

Never did the Churches of Jerusalem and Antioch ever belong to Rome. How then does the idea that The Church of Rome has always enjoyed headship over all The Church stand in the very face of the two Churches that are older than she? It is a claim that is unfounded.

If the Apostles were all gathered together at Jerusalem, as in ACTS 15, and one of them walked away, is it fair for that one to say that all the other Apostles left him? They were all equals, and Peter was the eldest of them.

Now interject the fact that Christ left James, his brother in charge of The Church of Jerusalem from which Christ himself said they would begin thier Journey, and the whole Apostolic group (including Peter) elected St. James to be their Bishop.

Luk 24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Add to that that Peter was not a Bishop until he was made Bishop of Antioch. Now historically there were several Christian worshiping bodies in Rome from the time of Christ's death. St. Peter left Antioch to go assist these small groups become a unified worshiping body and to teach them in person the things that he and the others had been doing in all the other Churches. For it was Christ himself that taught James, John and Peter the entire deopsit of faith and they were charged by Christ to teach it completely to the others.

Romes superiority came from being proclaimed superior not by Christ nor his Apostles, but rather by their own ancient secular government. Rome has never been superior to the other Autocephalous Churches.


Forgive me...

 

[Rick Otto]

"Leaving aside for the moment the question whether the Papacy is of divine or human right, the need for a ministry of unity in the Church is so evident that negative Protestant attitudes ought no longer be adopted."

Negative Protestant attitudes underlie much of today's problems.

That kind of stuff reminds me of "Alice In Wonderland" and evokes the deeply passionate yet somber renderings of The Reader's Digest style. Heady stuff.

 

[katholikos]

Greetings. How can there be unity between the denominations of Catholicism, Orthodoxism and Protestantism when the RCC still hangs on to a relic like the popes.....

If you don't like the office of Peter which Jesus established, then tell Jesus about it when you meet him.

The only thing preventing unity is the pride of those who who think they are the final arbiter of which doctrines are right and which doctrines are wrong: "The way of a fool is right in his own eyes" (Proverbs 12:15).

Sound familiar? The ultimate relic is people who turn away from that which God established... ....and I can assure you, God established the Catholic Church. That is your relic, and the relic of your CF peers

 

[Rick Otto]

Ottocephalous.

 

[Rick Otto]

The only thing preventing unity is the pride of those who who think they are the final arbiter of which doctrines are right and which doctrines are wrong: "The way of a fool is right in his own eyes" (Proverbs 12:15).

That proverb cuts both ways, bro.
Arbitration mach das leiben suess.
Your concept of unity rests on arbitration.
Mine rests on harmony.

 

[katholikos]

The statement on the question of authority in the Church agreed upon by Catholic and Anglican theologians at Venice in 1976 acknowledges a 'primatial authority' side by side with a 'conciliar authority.' The document then goes on to affirm that 'the only See which makes any claim to universal primacy and which has exercised and still exercises such "episcope" is the See of Rome, the city where Peter and Paul died. It seems appropriate that in any future union a universal primacy such as has been described should be held by that See."
- "Authority in the Church. A statement on the question of authority: its nature, exercise and implication." Agreed by the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission Venice 1976. London, CTS/SPCK, 1977, no.23

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

The statement on the question of authority in the Church agreed upon by Catholic and Anglican theologians at Venice in 1976 acknowledges a 'primatial authority' side by side with a 'conciliar authority.' The document then goes on to affirm that 'the only See which makes any claim to universal primacy and which has exercised and still exercises such "episcope" is the See of Rome, the city where Peter and Paul died. It seems appropriate that in any future union a universal primacy such as has been described should be held by that See."
- "Authority in the Church. A statement on the question of authority: its nature, exercise and implication." Agreed by the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission Venice 1976. London, CTS/SPCK, 1977, no.23

No proof of that whatsover.........

Matthew 24:3 Of-sitting/kaqh-menou <2521> (5740) yet of Him upon the Mount of the Olives, toward-came to Him the disciples according part/to-own saying, "Be telling to us when these shall be? And what the sign of-the Thy Parousia/parousiaV <3952> , and *of-the together-finish of the Age?"

Revelation 18:7 So as She-glorifies Herself and indulges so much, be ye giving! to Her torment and mourning. That in the heart of Her She is saying 'I am sitting/kaqh-mai <2521> (5736) a Queen, and a Widow/chra <5503> not I-am, and mourning not no I may be seeing'

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

No proof of that whatsover.........

Matthew 24:3 Of-sitting/kaqh-menou <2521> (5740) yet of Him upon the Mount of the Olives, toward-came to Him the disciples according part/to-own saying, "Be telling to us when these shall be? And what the sign of-the Thy Parousia/parousiaV <3952> , and *of-the together-finish of the Age?"

Revelation 18:7 So as She-glorifies Herself and indulges so much, be ye giving! to Her torment and mourning. That in the heart of Her She is saying 'I am sitting/kaqh-mai <2521> (5736) a Queen, and a Widow/chra <5503> not I-am, and mourning not no I may be seeing'

No proof, however ALL the Apostolic Churches agree to it as being absolute truth.

Forgive me...

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

No proof, however ALL the Apostolic Churches agree to it as being absolute truth.

Forgive me...

That is fine with me as it matters little to me where or even how they died as they got the Job done.

Btw do ya think Peter and Paul knew about and preached the book of Revelation

2 Peter 2:1 There became yet also False-Prophets in the people as also in ye shall be False-Teachers who-any shall be carrying in sects of destruction, and the One buying them, Owner/despothn <1203>, disowning-- bringing on them swift destruction. [Matt 24:11/Jude 1:4]

Reve 6:10 And they cry out to a voice, great, saying: "Till when the Owner/despothV <1203> the Holy and True not Thou are judging and avenging/out-justicing the blood of us out-of the ones homing upon the land?"

 

[katholikos]

No proof of that whatsover...........

.

I'm sorry. Were you under the impression I was trying to prove something? I don't need to prove the truth. The Pope is the successor of Saint Peter and Vicar of Christ. That is a fact. Whether you choose to accept that fact or remain in your error does not alter the fact that the Pope is the successor of Saint Peter and Vicar of Christ. I have no need to prove truth.

The Bible proves the Papacy. The Early Fathers attest to the fact that the church of Rome was the central and most authoritative church. They attest to the Church&#8217;s reliance on Rome for advice, for mediation of disputes, and for guidance on doctrinal issues. They note, as Ignatius of Antioch does, that Rome "holds the presidency" among the other churches, and that, as Irenaeus explains, "because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree" with Rome. They are also clear on the fact that it is communion with Rome and the bishop of Rome that causes one to be in communion with the Catholic Church. This displays a recognition that, as Cyprian of Carthage puts it, Rome is "the principal church, in which sacerdotal unity has its source."

That is fact, and that fact does not require your approval.