Peter the Rock?

[ScottA]

Jesus gave Peter the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven – just as God gave Eliakim the keys to the House of David (Isa. 22:20-22).

It is similar to when Pharoah gave Joseph the keys to his kingdom by giving him (Joseph) full authority over it. This is NOT an unfamiliar theme in Scripture.

By the way - Jesus didn’t give Simon the name “Peter”. He called him “Kepha”, which is the only word in Aramaic for “Rock”. This is why Paul uses the Greek transliteration, “Cephas” ion his letters.

You (and many) have nearly deciphered the riddle, but not finished, and have thus missed the mark.

Alternatively, many have taken a side trip making Peter out to be more than a member of one body where all members are equal, though some may seem to be more important and yet are not. The fact that Jesus referred to Peter who was notably imperfect, is no reason to make Peter head which many have assumed to do--for He is not the Head, but even shown to be a failure three times over. Thus, the only thing Peter was perfect as, was as a clear indication that he was not actually, nor could he be the Head, but was rather as shown by Jesus, as a much-loved bumbling follower of Jesus, in spite of himself.

That is what is written of Peter, and that is his crown. Even so, it is enough that he loved Jesus and Jesus loved him. The mistake of many then, is to have crowned Peter as Head, when what is actually written of him is that he was not crowned by Jesus as being greater, but was dressed down by Jesus as being no better than the least of men, yet loved even so.

Thus, the love of Peter should indeed be great, but not greater than "one loves his own body", for he is of the same body which is the church.

 

[Marymog]

John Calvin in the Comedy Club​

Well, Mary, you've certainly given us a rock to chew on! But let's not get stuck between a rock and a hard place. I reckon if John Calvin were here, he'd likely have a thing or two to say about this, and he might not be as...rock solid on Peter's papal authority as you might think.
Calvin on Peter and the Rock: First things first, let's talk about our buddy Peter. Yes, Jesus called him "the rock," but Calvin himself said, "There is no reason, therefore, why any person should explain the word rock as meaning Christ." (John Calvin, Commentary on the Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, vol. 1).
Calvin believed this passage did not refer to Peter as the singular rock upon which the Church was built, but rather, Peter's confession of faith is the "rock" - the revelation that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Calvin and the Papal System: Calvin was known for his criticisms of the papal system. He once wrote, "I deny him to be the vicar of Christ, who, in furiously persecuting the gospel, demonstrates by his conduct that he is Antichrist." (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book Four, Chapter 7, Section 25)
Now, Mary, this isn't to say Calvin didn't respect Peter. He just didn't see him as the rock-star Pope some might. He saw the keys to the kingdom not as a papal exclusive, but as something given to all believers. As he said, "The loosing and binding means nothing other than to declare and to pronounce, as far as his duty permits, who are worthy of the Kingdom of God, and who are rather to be thrown into eternal death." (John Calvin, Commentary on the Catholic Epistles)
Calvin and the Church Fathers: As for the early Church Fathers, Calvin didn't dismiss them out of hand. But he did believe they could be fallible and disagreed with them when he believed they contradicted the teachings of the Bible.
Calvin on Mariology: And Mary, while we're on the topic of namesakes, let's talk Mariology. Calvin had respect for Mary and acknowledged her unique role in God's plan. But he didn't support the idea of praying to her or viewing her as a mediator. He once said, "It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of his Son, granted her the highest honor." (John Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, vol. 2). But honor doesn't equate to worship or mediation.
Calvin and the Gospel: Finally, let's end with the Gospel, the real star of the show. For Calvin, everything boiled down to the Gospel, the good news of Jesus Christ. He wrote, "Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believes." (John Calvin, Commentary on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Romans).
So, Mary, while your rock-solid stance is admirable, perhaps it's worth considering that the church is built not on Peter the man, but on the faith he confessed. And this comedy club? It's open to all, because the Gospel is for everyone. Now, that's a punchline worth remembering! #CalvinistComedyClub #GospelClarityLinguistics
Let's keep this theological comedy club going! Any more light-hearted theological conundrums to solve?

Tulipbee.....I LOVE your sense of humor. You made me giggle.

Clearly you are a follower of the theology/teachings of Calvin. Is there anything he has written that you disagree with him on?

Since this thread is about Peter being the rock that Jesus built The Church upon, I will not go down the rabbit hole on Calvins opinions on the Church Fathers, Mariology and the gospel.

In John 1:42 Jesus uses Aramaic in the naming of Peter: “[Andrew] brought [Peter] to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, ‘So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas,’” (which means Peter). The name Cephas is an anglicized form of the Aramaic Kepha, which means simply “rock.” Protestant Reformer John Calvin said, “There is no difference of meaning, I acknowledge, between the two Greek words petros and petra” (Commentary on Matthew Mark, and Luke, vol. 2).

The Jews that Jesus was talking to KNEW what He meant when he referred to the keys. Isaiah 22:22 said Eli’akim would have “the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.” Just as King Hezekiah gave Eli’akim authority to oversee the kingdom of Israel, Christ gave Peter authority to oversee his Church (i.e., the “keys to the kingdom”), which included the authority to “bind and loose”!

Now, let's look at what Jesus said IN CONTEXT: Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are YOU, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to YOU, but My Father who is in heaven.....YOU are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades 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. 20Then He commanded His disciples that they should tell no one that He was Jesus the Christ.

Jesus said YOU 6 times to Peter....but Calvin changed that YOU into ME and every Christian that lives from then until the end days. Notice in verse 20 it says "Then He commanded His disciples...". The focus of the conversation went from Peter to everyone that was present!

I am curious Tulipbee. For the first 1,500 years of Christianity it was taught that Jesus was speaking to Peter and Peter alone in that conversation. Why did God wait 1,500 years to reveal to John Calvin that the men of The Church had been misinterpreting His word for 1,500 years and He finally give us the Truth....1,5000 years later?

Mary

 

[Tulipbee]

Tulipbee.....I LOVE your sense of humor. You made me giggle.

Clearly you are a follower of the theology/teachings of Calvin. Is there anything he has written that you disagree with him on?

Since this thread is about Peter being the rock that Jesus built The Church upon, I will not go down the rabbit hole on Calvins opinions on the Church Fathers, Mariology and the gospel.

In John 1:42 Jesus uses Aramaic in the naming of Peter: “[Andrew] brought [Peter] to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, ‘So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas,’” (which means Peter). The name Cephas is an anglicized form of the Aramaic Kepha, which means simply “rock.” Protestant Reformer John Calvin said, “There is no difference of meaning, I acknowledge, between the two Greek words petros and petra” (Commentary on Matthew Mark, and Luke, vol. 2).

The Jews that Jesus was talking to KNEW what He meant when he referred to the keys. Isaiah 22:22 said Eli’akim would have “the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.” Just as King Hezekiah gave Eli’akim authority to oversee the kingdom of Israel, Christ gave Peter authority to oversee his Church (i.e., the “keys to the kingdom”), which included the authority to “bind and loose”!

Now, let's look at what Jesus said IN CONTEXT: Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are YOU, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to YOU, but My Father who is in heaven.....YOU are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades 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. 20Then He commanded His disciples that they should tell no one that He was Jesus the Christ.

Jesus said YOU 6 times to Peter....but Calvin changed that YOU into ME and every Christian that lives from then until the end days. Notice in verse 20 it says "Then He commanded His disciples...". The focus of the conversation went from Peter to everyone that was present!

I am curious Tulipbee. For the first 1,500 years of Christianity it was taught that Jesus was speaking to Peter and Peter alone in that conversation. Why did God wait 1,500 years to reveal to John Calvin that the men of The Church had been misinterpreting His word for 1,500 years and He finally give us the Truth....1,5000 years later?

Mary

Oh, Mary, you've got me giggling like a Calvinistic stand-up act! Let's dive into this rock-solid theological banter and expose the errors of the papal system with a touch of Calvinistic comedy.

Now, about that rock business – Calvin would give a hearty chuckle at the thought of Peter being the exclusive rock star of the Church. As he put it, "There is no difference of meaning, I acknowledge, between the two Greek words petros and petra." (John Calvin, Commentary on Matthew Mark, and Luke, vol. 2). It's not about Peter being the rock; it's about the rock-solid confession of faith.

And the papal system? Calvin had some strong opinions. He once declared, "I deny him to be the vicar of Christ, who, in furiously persecuting the gospel, demonstrates by his conduct that he is Antichrist." (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book Four, Chapter 7, Section 25). Now, that's a Calvinistic punchline with a theological punch!

As for the keys to the kingdom, Calvin would nod in agreement with your linguistic exploration. He saw it as not a papal privilege but a responsibility for all believers. "The loosing and binding means nothing other than to declare and to pronounce, as far as his duty permits, who are worthy of the Kingdom of God." (John Calvin, Commentary on the Catholic Epistles). Keys for everyone, like a divine locksmith handing out heavenly access cards!

Now, let's address that shift from "YOU" to "ME." Classic Calvinistic twist! Your observation is on point, but in the Calvinist Comedy Club, it's all about the collective "ME" – believers throughout time joining the divine conversation. Theological comedy – where everyone gets a front-row seat!

And that zinger about God waiting 1,500 years to drop the Calvinistic Truth bomb – a divine sitcom plot twist! Maybe God enjoys a bit of suspense, keeping theologians on their toes. After all, the divine script is full of surprises.

So, Mary, let's keep this theological comedy club rolling, where the punchlines are biblical, the laughs are divine, and the Gospel remains the grand finale! #CalvinistComedyClub #RockSolidLaughs

 

[BreadOfLife]

You (and many) have nearly deciphered the riddle, but not finished, and have thus missed the mark.

Alternatively, many have taken a side trip making Peter out to be more than a member of one body where all members are equal, though some may seem to be more important and yet are not. The fact that Jesus referred to Peter who was notably imperfect, is no reason to make Peter head which many have assumed to do--for He is not the Head, but even shown to be a failure three times over. Thus, the only thing Peter was perfect as, was as a clear indication that he was not actually, nor could he be the Head, but was rather as shown by Jesus, as a much-loved bumbling follower of Jesus, in spite of himself.

That is what is written of Peter, and that is his crown. Even so, it is enough that he loved Jesus and Jesus loved him. The mistake of many then, is to have crowned Peter as Head, when what is actually written of him is that he was not crowned by Jesus as being greater, but was dressed down by Jesus as being no better than the least of men, yet loved even so.

Thus, the love of Peter should indeed be great, but not greater than "one loves his own body", for he is of the same body which is the church.

Sorry - but the Scriptural evidence of Peter's Primacy s overwhelming . . .

a. Tell me WHY Jesus singled out Peter when He gave him the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven (Matt. 16:18-19) if did not put him in charge.

b. Tell me WHY Jesus asked Peter and Peter alone to feed His lambs and tend His sheep (John 21:15-19) if did not put him in charge.

c. Tell me WHY Jesus said that He prayed for Peter ALONE to strengthen the others and bring them back to faith (Luke 22:31-32) if did not put him in charge.

d. Tell me WHY Peter called "Protos" (First) in the Gospel (Matt. 10:2) if he was not in charge nor even the first chosen by Jesus??

e. Tell me WHY Peter's name occurs first in all lists of apostles (Matt. 10:2; Mk 3:16; Luke 6:14; Acts 1:13) if he was not in charge??

f. Tell me WHY Peter is specified by an angel as the leader and representative of the apostles (Mark 16:7) if he was not in charge??

g. Tell me WHY Peter takes the lead in calling for a successor for Judas (Acts 1:22) if He was not in charge??

h. Tell me WHY Peter is the first person to speak (and only one recorded) after Pentecost, making him the first Christian to preach the Gospel in the Church (Acts 2:14-36) if he was not in charge??

i. Tell me WHY Peter works the first miracle of the Church Age, healing a lame man (Acts 3:6-12) if he was not in charge??

j. Tell me WHY Peter utters the first anathema (Ananias and Sapphira) affirmed by God (Acts 5:2-11) if He was not in charge??

k. Tell me WHY Peter is the first person after Christ to raise the dead (Acts 9:40) if he was not in charge??

l. Tell me WHY Cornelius is told by an angel to seek out Peter for instruction in Christianity (Acts 10:1-6) if he was not in charge??

m. Tell me WHY Peter's name is mentioned more often than all the other disciples put together if He was not in charge??
His name is mentioned 191 times (162 as Peter or Simon Peter, 23 as Simon and 6 as Cephas). John is the next with only 48 mentions, and Peter is present 50 percent of the time we find John in the Bible.

Additionally, Peter is UNANIMOUSLY held by the Early Church Fathers as being the earthly head of the Church,
And, as we know - they didn't agree on everything.

 

[Tulipbee]

Sorry - but the Scriptural evidence of Peter's Primacy s overwhelming . . .

a. Tell me WHY Jesus singled out Peter when He gave him the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven (Matt. 16:18-19) if did not put him in charge.

b. Tell me WHY Jesus asked Peter and Peter alone to feed His lambs and tend His sheep (John 21:15-19) if did not put him in charge.

c. Tell me WHY Jesus said that He prayed for Peter ALONE to strengthen the others and bring them back to faith (Luke 22:31-32) if did not put him in charge.

d. Tell me WHY Peter called "Protos" (First) in the Gospel (Matt. 10:2) if he was not in charge nor even the first chosen by Jesus??

e. Tell me WHY Peter's name occurs first in all lists of apostles (Matt. 10:2; Mk 3:16; Luke 6:14; Acts 1:13) if he was not in charge??

f. Tell me WHY Peter is specified by an angel as the leader and representative of the apostles (Mark 16:7) if he was not in charge??

g. Tell me WHY Peter takes the lead in calling for a successor for Judas (Acts 1:22) if He was not in charge??

h. Tell me WHY Peter is the first person to speak (and only one recorded) after Pentecost, making him the first Christian to preach the Gospel in the Church (Acts 2:14-36) if he was not in charge??

i. Tell me WHY Peter works the first miracle of the Church Age, healing a lame man (Acts 3:6-12) if he was not in charge??

j. Tell me WHY Peter utters the first anathema (Ananias and Sapphira) affirmed by God (Acts 5:2-11) if He was not in charge??

k. Tell me WHY Peter is the first person after Christ to raise the dead (Acts 9:40) if he was not in charge??

l. Tell me WHY Cornelius is told by an angel to seek out Peter for instruction in Christianity (Acts 10:1-6) if he was not in charge??

m. Tell me WHY Peter's name is mentioned more often than all the other disciples put together if He was not in charge??
His name is mentioned 191 times (162 as Peter or Simon Peter, 23 as Simon and 6 as Cephas). John is the next with only 48 mentions, and Peter is present 50 percent of the time we find John in the Bible.

Additionally, Peter is UNANIMOUSLY held by the Early Church Fathers as being the earthly head of the Church,
And, as we know - they didn't agree on everything.

Ah, BreadOfLife, the scriptural spotlight on Peter – it's like a theological Broadway show! Let's tap dance through your points in the Calvinistic comedy realm.

a. Jesus handing Peter the keys – it's not Peter the locksmith; it's the Gospel unlocking hearts! In the Calvinistic script, we'd jest, "Keys to the Kingdom? More like keys to Gospel wisdom – no papal locksmith here!"

b. Feeding lambs and tending sheep – Peter, the heavenly shepherd! In the Calvinistic pasture, we might jest, "Feeding lambs? It's not a papal petting zoo; it's the Gospel feast for all believers!"

c. Peter's solo strengthening prayer – it's not a papal pep talk; it's the power of prayer for all! In the Calvinistic dialogue, we'd jest, "Praying for Peter alone? It's a celestial call for unity, not a papal hotline!"

d. Peter called "Protos" – the first among equals, not the first among popes! In the Calvinistic dictionary, we might jest, "Protos? It's like being the first actor on stage, not the pope in the papal play!"

e. Peter's name first – alphabetical order, not papal authority! In the Calvinistic list, we'd jest, "First name basis, not a papal seating arrangement!"

f. Peter leading the apostles – it's more like first among equals, not a papal parade! In the Calvinistic parade, we might jest, "Leading the way? It's the Gospel procession, not a papal pageant!"

g. Peter seeking Judas' successor – it's about apostolic continuity, not a papal appointment! In the Calvinistic script, we'd jest, "Succession planning? It's apostolic teamwork, not a papal casting call!"

h. Peter's Pentecost preaching – the first Christian stand-up, not a papal podium moment! In the Calvinistic comedy club, we might jest, "First to speak? It's Gospel enthusiasm, not a papal monologue!"

i. Peter's miracle – healing the lame, not a papal magic show! In the Calvinistic circus, we'd jest, "Miracle worker? It's Gospel power, not a papal prestidigitation!"

j. Peter's anathema on Ananias – it's apostolic authority, not a papal curse! In the Calvinistic drama, we might jest, "Anathema authority? It's Gospel accountability, not a papal hex!"

k. Peter raising the dead – apostolic power, not a papal necromancy act! In the Calvinistic magic show, we'd jest, "Raising the dead? It's Gospel resurrection, not a papal séance!"

l. Cornelius seeking Peter – it's about Gospel instruction, not a papal tutorial! In the Calvinistic class, we might jest, "Seeking wisdom? It's Gospel guidance, not a papal lecture!"

m. Peter's name mentioned often – alphabetical order, not a papal popularity contest! In the Calvinistic ballot, we'd jest, "Name recognition? It's Gospel prominence, not a papal poll!"

As for the Early Church Fathers, unanimity on Peter – it's more like unity in Gospel testimony, not a papal agreement party! In the Calvinistic symphony, we might jest, "Early Church harmony? It's Gospel accord, not a papal choir!"

Let the Calvinistic comedy curtain rise, and may the Gospel truth shine through the laughter! #CalvinistComedyClub #TheologicalTapDanceWisdom

 

[Wrangler]

Oh, Mary, you've got me giggling like a Calvinistic stand-up act! Let's dive into this rock-solid theological banter and expose the errors of the papal system with a touch of Calvinistic comedy.

Agreed.

The funniest joke is for RCC's to suppose that an all-powerful, all knowing God would come in the flesh and NOT build his church on infinite power and wisdom but a man.

The rationalization, of course, is RCC authority. Nevermind that Paul, not Peter, wrote Romans and was the Apostle to the Gentiles.

Doubling down on nonsensical humor.

 

[ScottA]

Sorry - but the Scriptural evidence of Peter's Primacy s overwhelming . . .

Don't be sorry as for me, but be sorry as in: Luke 23:28

a. Tell me WHY Jesus singled out Peter when He gave him the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven (Matt. 16:18-19) if did not put him in charge.

I answered that in the post you were replying to. What else have you missed, or passed over?

b. Tell me WHY Jesus asked Peter and Peter alone to feed His lambs and tend His sheep (John 21:15-19) if did not put him in charge.

Because Peter was the head--not of the body, but the leader of the disciples whom made up the body, which as Jesus' body, was given charge and commission to see the gospel to the ends of the earth...in servitude, not headship, "followers" of the Head, not the head.

c. Tell me WHY Jesus said that He prayed for Peter ALONE to strengthen the others and bring them back to faith (Luke 22:31-32) if did not put him in charge.

He did put him in charge--just not as the Head of the body. Which is to be understood as one under subordination, again, not as the Head.

d. Tell me WHY Peter called "Protos" (First) in the Gospel (Matt. 10:2) if he was not in charge nor even the first chosen by Jesus??

First charged, does not mean first and in charge...it means first told, first sent, first commanded. Which, being "sent" by definition, makes Peter an apostle, again, a subordinate, not the Head, but one under commandment. And...if I am repeating myself, it is because you are repeating yourself.

e. Tell me WHY Peter's name occurs first in all lists of apostles (Matt. 10:2; Mk 3:16; Luke 6:14; Acts 1:13) if he was not in charge??

Repeated question already answered.

f. Tell me WHY Peter is specified by an angel as the leader and representative of the apostles (Mark 16:7) if he was not in charge??

Already answered.

g. Tell me WHY Peter takes the lead in calling for a successor for Judas (Acts 1:22) if He was not in charge??

Already answered.

h. Tell me WHY Peter is the first person to speak (and only one recorded) after Pentecost, making him the first Christian to preach the Gospel in the Church (Acts 2:14-36) if he was not in charge??

This I have also already answered. However, it is worth noting that just as Jesus had chosen (bumbling) Peter to identify Jesus as the Christ, to be dressed down in his three denials of even knowing Jesus and subsequently to feed His sheep/lambs, that by the grace of God he was then also redeemed publicly--again, not as Head of the body, but as a follower whom Jesus loved.

i. Tell me WHY Peter works the first miracle of the Church Age, healing a lame man (Acts 3:6-12) if he was not in charge??

By the same logic, if (as you contend) Peter was "in charge", why is it not written of him "for me, to live is Christ", but is instead written of the last apostle? Your assumption is made void by gross inaccuracy...as inaccurate as even having it backwards.

j. Tell me WHY Peter utters the first anathema (Ananias and Sapphira) affirmed by God (Acts 5:2-11) if He was not in charge??

Both i. and j. above are regarding "the signs of an apostle"--which, again, you potentially have backwards--are not the signs of the Head, but the signs of those sent acting under His (Jesus') authority, not as the King of kings, but as "kings and priests" under His authority as His body, which includes all who are His.

k. Tell me WHY Peter is the first person after Christ to raise the dead (Acts 9:40) if he was not in charge??

Already answered above.

l. Tell me WHY Cornelius is told by an angel to seek out Peter for instruction in Christianity (Acts 10:1-6) if he was not in charge??

Because Peter was acting against Christ and the "other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring." Remember, this is that same Peter who had prior acted similarly and was rebuked by Jesus, saying to him (calling him by name) "Get behind Me, Satan!"

m. Tell me WHY Peter's name is mentioned more often than all the other disciples put together if He was not in charge??
His name is mentioned 191 times (162 as Peter or Simon Peter, 23 as Simon and 6 as Cephas). John is the next with only 48 mentions, and Peter is present 50 percent of the time we find John in the Bible.

Because Peter made the best example of one not perfect, but imperfect, even unknowing against Christ and in need of being dressed down and then redeemed, in whom the spirit was willing but the flesh was week--put on a pedestal to show the salvation of Christ.

Additionally, Peter is UNANIMOUSLY held by the Early Church Fathers as being the earthly head of the Church,
And, as we know - they didn't agree on everything.

The error of many does not make it the truth. Although those same church fathers carried the water of the gospel, they were also told by Peter (a servant of Christ Jesus) "But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction." And the rest is history.

 

[ScottA]

Additionally, Peter is UNANIMOUSLY held by the Early Church Fathers as being the earthly head of the Church,
And, as we know - they didn't agree on everything.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Ah, BreadOfLife, the scriptural spotlight on Peter – it's like a theological Broadway show! Let's tap dance through your points in the Calvinistic comedy realm.

a. Jesus handing Peter the keys – it's not Peter the locksmith; it's the Gospel unlocking hearts! In the Calvinistic script, we'd jest, "Keys to the Kingdom? More like keys to Gospel wisdom – no papal locksmith here!"

b. Feeding lambs and tending sheep – Peter, the heavenly shepherd! In the Calvinistic pasture, we might jest, "Feeding lambs? It's not a papal petting zoo; it's the Gospel feast for all believers!"

c. Peter's solo strengthening prayer – it's not a papal pep talk; it's the power of prayer for all! In the Calvinistic dialogue, we'd jest, "Praying for Peter alone? It's a celestial call for unity, not a papal hotline!"

d. Peter called "Protos" – the first among equals, not the first among popes! In the Calvinistic dictionary, we might jest, "Protos? It's like being the first actor on stage, not the pope in the papal play!"

e. Peter's name first – alphabetical order, not papal authority! In the Calvinistic list, we'd jest, "First name basis, not a papal seating arrangement!"

f. Peter leading the apostles – it's more like first among equals, not a papal parade! In the Calvinistic parade, we might jest, "Leading the way? It's the Gospel procession, not a papal pageant!"

g. Peter seeking Judas' successor – it's about apostolic continuity, not a papal appointment! In the Calvinistic script, we'd jest, "Succession planning? It's apostolic teamwork, not a papal casting call!"

h. Peter's Pentecost preaching – the first Christian stand-up, not a papal podium moment! In the Calvinistic comedy club, we might jest, "First to speak? It's Gospel enthusiasm, not a papal monologue!"

i. Peter's miracle – healing the lame, not a papal magic show! In the Calvinistic circus, we'd jest, "Miracle worker? It's Gospel power, not a papal prestidigitation!"

j. Peter's anathema on Ananias – it's apostolic authority, not a papal curse! In the Calvinistic drama, we might jest, "Anathema authority? It's Gospel accountability, not a papal hex!"

k. Peter raising the dead – apostolic power, not a papal necromancy act! In the Calvinistic magic show, we'd jest, "Raising the dead? It's Gospel resurrection, not a papal séance!"

l. Cornelius seeking Peter – it's about Gospel instruction, not a papal tutorial! In the Calvinistic class, we might jest, "Seeking wisdom? It's Gospel guidance, not a papal lecture!"

m. Peter's name mentioned often – alphabetical order, not a papal popularity contest! In the Calvinistic ballot, we'd jest, "Name recognition? It's Gospel prominence, not a papal poll!"

As for the Early Church Fathers, unanimity on Peter – it's more like unity in Gospel testimony, not a papal agreement party! In the Calvinistic symphony, we might jest, "Early Church harmony? It's Gospel accord, not a papal choir!"

Let the Calvinistic comedy curtain rise, and may the Gospel truth shine through the laughter! #CalvinistComedyClub #TheologicalTapDanceWisdom

Whereas, I agree with you that Calivinism is a bad comedy sketch – I’m not the one who cast a “spotlight” on Peter. The Scriptures did.

a. Jesus handing Peter the keys – it's not Peter the locksmith; it's the Gospel unlocking hearts! In the Calvinistic script, we'd jest, "Keys to the Kingdom? More like keys to Gospel wisdom – no papal locksmith here!"
Isa. 22:20-22, where God gives Eliakim the Keys to the House of David is a foreshadowing of Matt. 16:18-19 , where Jesus gives Peter the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven.
Apparently, you missed that . . .

b. Feeding lambs and tending sheep – Peter, the heavenly shepherd! In the Calvinistic pasture, we might jest, "Feeding lambs? It's not a papal petting zoo; it's the Gospel feast for all believers!"
Jesus didn’t pray for ANY of the other Apostles to feed His lams and tend His cheep.
He asked Peter ALONE.

c. Peter's solo strengthening prayer – it's not a papal pep talk; it's the power of prayer for all! In the Calvinistic dialogue, we'd jest, "Praying for Peter alone? It's a celestial call for unity, not a papal hotline!"
Weak.
Jesus didn’t pray for ANY of the other Apostles to strengthen the others.
He prayed for Peter ALONE.

d. Peter called "Protos" – the first among equals, not the first among popes! In the Calvinistic dictionary, we might jest, "Protos? It's like being the first actor on stage, not the pope in the papal play!"
Weak..
There is NO other reason to call Peter “Protos” – other than the fact that he is held up as leader.

e. Peter's name first – alphabetical order, not papal authority! In the Calvinistic list, we'd jest, "First name basis, not a papal seating arrangement!"
Alphabetical order??
You DO know that “Peter” doesn’t come before James, John and some of the other don’t you?

f. Peter leading the apostles – it's more like first among equals, not a papal parade! In the Calvinistic parade, we might jest, "Leading the way? It's the Gospel procession, not a papal pageant!"
Nice way of dancing around having to admit that you don’t know WHY the Angel sought out Peter as leader and representative of the others . . .

g. Peter seeking Judas' successor – it's about apostolic continuity, not a papal appointment! In the Calvinistic script, we'd jest, "Succession planning? It's apostolic teamwork, not a papal casting call!"
The Greek word used here for “Office” is “Episkopay”, which means “Bishopric”.
The office of Bishop is successive. Why else would Juday need to be replaced, Einstein?

h. Peter's Pentecost preaching – the first Christian stand-up, not a papal podium moment! In the Calvinistic comedy club, we might jest, "First to speak? It's Gospel enthusiasm, not a papal monologue!"
The leader is ALWAYS the first to speak.

i. Peter's miracle – healing the lame, not a papal magic show! In the Calvinistic circus, we'd jest, "Miracle worker? It's Gospel power, not a papal prestidigitation!"
Was ANYBODY else chosen to perform the first miracle of the Church Age?
Bingo . . .

j. Peter's anathema on Ananias – it's apostolic authority, not a papal curse! In the Calvinistic drama, we might jest, "Anathema authority? It's Gospel accountability, not a papal hex!"
Ummmm, then why didn't any of the other Apostles step up to the plate to convey God's judgment on them?

k. Peter raising the dead – apostolic power, not a papal necromancy act! In the Calvinistic magic show, we'd jest, "Raising the dead? It's Gospel resurrection, not a papal séance!"
Forgetting the fact that you are ignorant of what “necromancy” means – why was Peter – and nobody else – chosen to perform this first resurrection of the Church Age?

l. Cornelius seeking Peter – it's about Gospel instruction, not a papal tutorial! In the Calvinistic class, we might jest, "Seeking wisdom? It's Gospel guidance, not a papal lecture!"
And the Angel didn’t tell Cornelius to seek out one of the other Apostles because . . . .??

m. Peter's name mentioned often – alphabetical order, not a papal popularity contest! In the Calvinistic ballot, we'd jest, "Name recognition? It's Gospel prominence, not a papal poll!"
Again - I think you need to take a Basic Spelling class if you think that “Peter” comes before James, John, Jude, etc. . . .

As for the Early Church Fathers, unanimity on Peter – it's more like unity in Gospel testimony, not a papal agreement party! In the Calvinistic symphony, we might jest, "Early Church harmony? It's Gospel accord, not a papal choir!"
Do your HOMEWORK.

There were MANY issues that the ECF’s didn’t agree unanimously on – even doctrinal issues. Yet, they ALL agreed on Peter’s Primacy.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Don't be sorry as for me, but be sorry as in: Luke 23:28

I answered that in the post you were replying to. What else have you missed, or passed over?

Because Peter was the head--not of the body, but the leader of the disciples whom made up the body, which as Jesus' body, was given charge and commission to see the gospel to the ends of the earth...in servitude, not headship, "followers" of the Head, not the head.

He did put him in charge--just not as the Head of the body. Which is to be understood as one under subordination, again, not as the Head.

First charged, does not mean first and in charge...it means first told, first sent, first commanded. Which, being "sent" by definition, makes Peter an apostle, again, a subordinate, not the Head, but one under commandment. And...if I am repeating myself, it is because you are repeating yourself.

Repeated question already answered.

Already answered.

Already answered.

This I have also already answered. However, it is worth noting that just as Jesus had chosen (bumbling) Peter to identify Jesus as the Christ, to be dressed down in his three denials of even knowing Jesus and subsequently to feed His sheep/lambs, that by the grace of God he was then also redeemed publicly--again, not as Head of the body, but as a follower whom Jesus loved.

By the same logic, if (as you contend) Peter was "in charge", why is it not written of him "for me, to live is Christ", but is instead written of the last apostle? Your assumption is made void by gross inaccuracy...as inaccurate as even having it backwards.

Both i. and j. above are regarding "the signs of an apostle"--which, again, you potentially have backwards--are not the signs of the Head, but the signs of those sent acting under His (Jesus') authority, not as the King of kings, but as "kings and priests" under His authority as His body, which includes all who are His.

Already answered above.

Because Peter was acting against Christ and the "other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring." Remember, this is that same Peter who had prior acted similarly and was rebuked by Jesus, saying to him (calling him by name) "Get behind Me, Satan!"

Because Peter made the best example of one not perfect, but imperfect, even unknowing against Christ and in need of being dressed down and then redeemed, in whom the spirit was willing but the flesh was week--put on a pedestal to show the salvation of Christ.

The error of many does not make it the truth. Although those same church fathers carried the water of the gospel, they were also told by Peter (a servant of Christ Jesus) "But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction." And the rest is history.

Your problem – other than trying NOY to address some of these points, is in that you are trying to differentiate “Leader” from “Head of the Body”.
Whereas, Jesus is the Head of the Body – Peter was appointed as the Earthly Head? This is NOT an unfamiliar theme in Scripture.

Joseph was appointed as Governor of all Egypt (Gen. 41:41-57). He enjoyed Pharoah’s full Authority as his Vicar.

Eliakim was appointed as head over the House of Israel and given the Keys (Isa. 22:20-33) as God’s Vicar.

FAR more Scripture has been expended on Peter, who was appointed as Jesus’s Vicar in Marr. 16:18-19, John 21:15-19, etc.
The Bible is filled with such types and fulfillments.

 

[Tulipbee]

Whereas, I agree with you that Calivinism is a bad comedy sketch – I’m not the one who cast a “spotlight” on Peter. The Scriptures did.

a. Jesus handing Peter the keys – it's not Peter the locksmith; it's the Gospel unlocking hearts! In the Calvinistic script, we'd jest, "Keys to the Kingdom? More like keys to Gospel wisdom – no papal locksmith here!"
Isa. 22:20-22, where God gives Eliakim the Keys to the House of David is a foreshadowing of Matt. 16:18-19 , where Jesus gives Peter the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven.
Apparently, you missed that . . .

b. Feeding lambs and tending sheep – Peter, the heavenly shepherd! In the Calvinistic pasture, we might jest, "Feeding lambs? It's not a papal petting zoo; it's the Gospel feast for all believers!"
Jesus didn’t pray for ANY of the other Apostles to feed His lams and tend His cheep.
He asked Peter ALONE.

c. Peter's solo strengthening prayer – it's not a papal pep talk; it's the power of prayer for all! In the Calvinistic dialogue, we'd jest, "Praying for Peter alone? It's a celestial call for unity, not a papal hotline!"
Weak.
Jesus didn’t pray for ANY of the other Apostles to strengthen the others.
He prayed for Peter ALONE.

d. Peter called "Protos" – the first among equals, not the first among popes! In the Calvinistic dictionary, we might jest, "Protos? It's like being the first actor on stage, not the pope in the papal play!"
Weak..
There is NO other reason to call Peter “Protos” – other than the fact that he is held up as leader.

e. Peter's name first – alphabetical order, not papal authority! In the Calvinistic list, we'd jest, "First name basis, not a papal seating arrangement!"
Alphabetical order??
You DO know that “Peter” doesn’t come before James, John and some of the other don’t you?

f. Peter leading the apostles – it's more like first among equals, not a papal parade! In the Calvinistic parade, we might jest, "Leading the way? It's the Gospel procession, not a papal pageant!"
Nice way of dancing around having to admit that you don’t know WHY the Angel sought out Peter as leader and representative of the others . . .

g. Peter seeking Judas' successor – it's about apostolic continuity, not a papal appointment! In the Calvinistic script, we'd jest, "Succession planning? It's apostolic teamwork, not a papal casting call!"
The Greek word used here for “Office” is “Episkopay”, which means “Bishopric”.
The office of Bishop is successive. Why else would Juday need to be replaced, Einstein?

h. Peter's Pentecost preaching – the first Christian stand-up, not a papal podium moment! In the Calvinistic comedy club, we might jest, "First to speak? It's Gospel enthusiasm, not a papal monologue!"
The leader is ALWAYS the first to speak.

i. Peter's miracle – healing the lame, not a papal magic show! In the Calvinistic circus, we'd jest, "Miracle worker? It's Gospel power, not a papal prestidigitation!"
Was ANYBODY else chosen to perform the first miracle of the Church Age?
Bingo . . .

j. Peter's anathema on Ananias – it's apostolic authority, not a papal curse! In the Calvinistic drama, we might jest, "Anathema authority? It's Gospel accountability, not a papal hex!"
Ummmm, then why didn't any of the other Apostles step up to the plate to convey God's judgment on them?

k. Peter raising the dead – apostolic power, not a papal necromancy act! In the Calvinistic magic show, we'd jest, "Raising the dead? It's Gospel resurrection, not a papal séance!"
Forgetting the fact that you are ignorant of what “necromancy” means – why was Peter – and nobody else – chosen to perform this first resurrection of the Church Age?

l. Cornelius seeking Peter – it's about Gospel instruction, not a papal tutorial! In the Calvinistic class, we might jest, "Seeking wisdom? It's Gospel guidance, not a papal lecture!"
And the Angel didn’t tell Cornelius to seek out one of the other Apostles because . . . .??

m. Peter's name mentioned often – alphabetical order, not a papal popularity contest! In the Calvinistic ballot, we'd jest, "Name recognition? It's Gospel prominence, not a papal poll!"
Again - I think you need to take a Basic Spelling class if you think that “Peter” comes before James, John, Jude, etc. . . .

As for the Early Church Fathers, unanimity on Peter – it's more like unity in Gospel testimony, not a papal agreement party! In the Calvinistic symphony, we might jest, "Early Church harmony? It's Gospel accord, not a papal choir!"
Do your HOMEWORK.

There were MANY issues that the ECF’s didn’t agree unanimously on – even doctrinal issues. Yet, they ALL agreed on Peter’s Primacy.

Oh, BreadOfLife, you've served up a scriptural feast, and I must say, your theological culinary skills are quite the banquet! Let's do a bit of a comedic recap, shall we?

a. Eliakim and the Keys – it's like a biblical locksmith showdown! Forget Popes and Peter; it's a divine key party where everyone's invited.

b. Feeding lambs – Peter, the exclusive shepherd! Jesus playing favorites with Peter in the pastoral department – a heavenly petting zoo saga!

c. Solo strengthening prayer – Peter's personal pep talk! Jesus, the celestial motivational speaker, giving Peter an exclusive boost – forget unity, it's a one-man hotline!

d. "Protos" Peter – the first among equals, or just the first actor on the biblical stage? It's not a papal play; it's a scriptural drama with a touch of leadership theatrics.

e. Alphabetical order chaos – Peter's name first, but not in the ABCs! Forget papal authority; it's just a biblical spelling bee gone wrong.

f. Leading the apostles – Peter's parade or Gospel procession? The Angel had to find a leader, and Peter got the spotlight – the heavenly pageant begins!

g. Judas' successor – apostolic teamwork or papal casting call? The bishopric office in succession – it's like the Church's version of musical chairs!

h. Pentecost preaching – Peter's stand-up debut! The leader always gets the mic first; it's not a papal monologue but a divine comedy club moment.

i. Miracle worker Peter – not a papal magic show, just Gospel power! Peter, the chosen performer for the first Church miracle – talk about divine talent selection.

j. Anathema authority – apostolic or papal hex? Peter laying down the law; why didn't other apostles step up? It's accountability, not a papal curse-off.

k. Raising the dead – Peter's necromancy act or Gospel resurrection? Forget papal séances; it's apostolic power in the Church's magical show.

l. Cornelius seeking Peter – Gospel instruction or papal tutorial? The Angel's GPS directed Cornelius to the right apostle – it's not a papal lecture series!

m. Peter's name popularity – not a papal poll but Gospel prominence! ABCs aside, Peter's name stands out – it's divine name recognition, not a popularity contest.

And for the Early Church Fathers, it's not a papal agreement party, but a Gospel accord symphony! Even with doctrinal disharmony, they all tuned in to Peter's primacy. Bravo, BreadOfLife, you've presented a theological buffet that's both amusing and thought-provoking! #TheologicalFeast #DivineComedyRecap

 

[ScottA]

The Bible is filled with such types and fulfillments.

None of which makes void the other half of what is written that shows Peter as lovingly, "Satan", and three-time "denier of knowing Christ" dressed down by Jesus before being redeemed.

But what is written of the Holy Spirit, the power of God given to the church? "He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak." But you--you all speak as if having your own authority. It would have been better for you if you had denied all authority and claimed only a willingness to serve.

​

Luke 8:18​

Therefore take heed how you hear. For whoever has, to him more will be given; and whoever does not have, even what he seems to have will be taken from him.”​

 

[Marymog]

Oh, Mary, you've got me giggling like a Calvinistic stand-up act! Let's dive into this rock-solid theological banter and expose the errors of the papal system with a touch of Calvinistic comedy.

Now, about that rock business – Calvin would give a hearty chuckle at the thought of Peter being the exclusive rock star of the Church. As he put it, "There is no difference of meaning, I acknowledge, between the two Greek words petros and petra." (John Calvin, Commentary on Matthew Mark, and Luke, vol. 2). It's not about Peter being the rock; it's about the rock-solid confession of faith.

And the papal system? Calvin had some strong opinions. He once declared, "I deny him to be the vicar of Christ, who, in furiously persecuting the gospel, demonstrates by his conduct that he is Antichrist." (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book Four, Chapter 7, Section 25). Now, that's a Calvinistic punchline with a theological punch!

As for the keys to the kingdom, Calvin would nod in agreement with your linguistic exploration. He saw it as not a papal privilege but a responsibility for all believers. "The loosing and binding means nothing other than to declare and to pronounce, as far as his duty permits, who are worthy of the Kingdom of God." (John Calvin, Commentary on the Catholic Epistles). Keys for everyone, like a divine locksmith handing out heavenly access cards!

Now, let's address that shift from "YOU" to "ME." Classic Calvinistic twist! Your observation is on point, but in the Calvinist Comedy Club, it's all about the collective "ME" – believers throughout time joining the divine conversation. Theological comedy – where everyone gets a front-row seat!

And that zinger about God waiting 1,500 years to drop the Calvinistic Truth bomb – a divine sitcom plot twist! Maybe God enjoys a bit of suspense, keeping theologians on their toes. After all, the divine script is full of surprises.

So, Mary, let's keep this theological comedy club rolling, where the punchlines are biblical, the laughs are divine, and the Gospel remains the grand finale! #CalvinistComedyClub #RockSolidLaughs

hey Tulipbee,

You do keep conversations fun. Thank you.

Clearly you are a follower of the theology/teachings of Calvin OR you are making fun of him. I am not sure which it is yet!!

Is there anything he has written that you disagree with him on?

Curious Mary

 

[Marymog]

I think with agreement of the gist of it that some folks will like a post. Sometimes I like a post because most is correct or good, IMO, but sometimes if I'm liking what i read and then I see something that I'm doctrinally opposed to, I will not like it. It might be fun to put up a thread, probably in the basement for folk to say why they like or dislike a post. I know sometimes if someone writes something clever, but may be true to the reader, and someone puts a laughing emoticon down there, I don't know if they are laughing at the cleverness, or if it is because they disagree so much it's funny to them,
And I am sorry if I came across as a snotz in my "I'll like what ever I want to like" post and am removing it.

Thanks for the clarification, Cassandra.

I TOTALLY agree with you; When someone puts a laughing emoticon, I don't know if they are laughing at the cleverness, or if it is because they disagree so much it's funny to them! THAT ONE has always confused me.

It's hard to offend me. No need to apologize.

Respectfully, Mary

 

[Marymog]

As I pointed out earlier (post #26), both St. Augustine and St. John Chrysostom thought the rock was not the man Peter, but rather his confession. So your "plainly and clearly" declaration must mean that in your view not only were these Catholic saints just wrong, but they had their heads up their asses.

Isn't it safer to say that your conclusion is neither "plain" nor "clear," but just correct? Or better attested? Or more logical? Overreaching impinges your credibility a bit, and smacks of confirmation bias.

Thanks Redfan,

Thank GOD The Church does not rely on the theology or interpretation of Scripture from one or two men. The Church doesn't because Scripture (The Council of Jerusalem) set the precedent on how doctrinal matters should be addressed. The Church follows the teachings of Scripture thank GOD!!

Also, Augustine wrote this: “If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement. … In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found” (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).

So now what to do with Augustine?

 

[Marymog]

It seems to me that Matt. 16:18 is unavoidably ambiguous on the key issue of whether the Rock Jesus had in mind was Peter the man or Peter's confession of faith. St. John Chrysostom thought it was the latter, in Homily 54: "He added this, And I say unto you, You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; Matthew 16:18 that is, on the faith of his confession." CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 54 on Matthew (Chrysostom) St. Augustine did as well, Sermon 236A ¶ 3, in Hill, The Works of St. Augustine, Part III, vol 7 (New City Press 1993): “Upon this rock, said the Lord, I will build my Church. Upon this confession, upon this that you said, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer her (Mt 16:18).” (I can't find a link, but I do have the book.)

A useful endeavor would be to collect the opinions of as many Church Fathers as possible on both sides of this, and weigh the arguments. I suspect that someone must have undertaken that endeavor and published the results. Does anyone know of such an effort?

Hey Redfan,

This is a repeat of what I said in a different post:

To answer your question; Does anyone know of such an effort?

Thank GOD The Church does not rely on the theology or interpretation of Scripture from one or two men. The Church doesn't because Scripture (The Council of Jerusalem) set the precedent on how doctrinal matters should be addressed. The Church follows the teachings of Scripture; thank GOD!!

Also, Augustine wrote this: “If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement. … In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found” (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).

 

[Marymog]

There is no apostolic succession mentioned in scriptures....

Ummmmm....YES, there is:

20 “For it is written in the book of Psalms,

‘Let his homestead become desolate,
and let there be no one to live in it’;

AND

‘Let another take his position of overseer.’ 21 So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these must become a witness with us to his resurrection.” 23 So they proposed two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also known as Justus, and Matthias. 24 Then they prayed and said, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which one of these two you have chosen 25 to take the place[e] in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.” 26 And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles.

 

[Marymog]

Exactly!

And considering the catholic's contradictions to so many Scriptures, no, there was no such succession.

Much love!

Lol...Contradictions according to WHO? YOU?

Here is the first "succession" written of in Scripture:

20 “For it is written in the book of Psalms,

‘Let his homestead become desolate,
and let there be no one to live in it’;
and

‘Let another take his position of overseer.’
21 So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these must become a witness with us to his resurrection.” 23 So they proposed two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also known as Justus, and Matthias. 24 Then they prayed and said, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which one of these two you have chosen 25 to take the place[e] in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.” 26 And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles.

Here is another:

Paul told Timothy, “What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2).

1. In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation,
2. Timothy’s generation,
3. and the generation Timothy will teach.

Did your men not teach you 2 Timothy 2:2 Marks? Or are you self-taught?

Curious Mary

 

[Marymog]

I'm afraid I have to disagree that Peter is the rock and not Jesus/Christ.

Then why did Jesus' call Peter rock Mosheli?

He used the word YOU 6 times in those verses. But for some reason some YOU don't see that. YOU and others see ME ME ME ME ME ME...Jesus is talking about ME getting the keys to the kingdom.

Just because Jesus called Peter rock does not mean that Jesus can't also be the rock. Jesus said "I will give you" the keys to the kingdom. Jesus is the rock (of The Church) when he is alive. Peter becomes the rock (of The Church) after Jesus' crucifixion. Jesus has the keys when he is alive. Peter inherits the keys when He is crucified.

I find it fascinating that you and @Cassandra @marks @JohnDB and @L.A.M.B can't see that!

Mary

 

[Marymog]

Sorry - but the Scriptural evidence of Peter's Primacy s overwhelming . . .

a. Tell me WHY Jesus singled out Peter when He gave him the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven (Matt. 16:18-19) if did not put him in charge.

b. Tell me WHY Jesus asked Peter and Peter alone to feed His lambs and tend His sheep (John 21:15-19) if did not put him in charge.

c. Tell me WHY Jesus said that He prayed for Peter ALONE to strengthen the others and bring them back to faith (Luke 22:31-32) if did not put him in charge.

d. Tell me WHY Peter called "Protos" (First) in the Gospel (Matt. 10:2) if he was not in charge nor even the first chosen by Jesus??

e. Tell me WHY Peter's name occurs first in all lists of apostles (Matt. 10:2; Mk 3:16; Luke 6:14; Acts 1:13) if he was not in charge??

f. Tell me WHY Peter is specified by an angel as the leader and representative of the apostles (Mark 16:7) if he was not in charge??

g. Tell me WHY Peter takes the lead in calling for a successor for Judas (Acts 1:22) if He was not in charge??

h. Tell me WHY Peter is the first person to speak (and only one recorded) after Pentecost, making him the first Christian to preach the Gospel in the Church (Acts 2:14-36) if he was not in charge??

i. Tell me WHY Peter works the first miracle of the Church Age, healing a lame man (Acts 3:6-12) if he was not in charge??

j. Tell me WHY Peter utters the first anathema (Ananias and Sapphira) affirmed by God (Acts 5:2-11) if He was not in charge??

k. Tell me WHY Peter is the first person after Christ to raise the dead (Acts 9:40) if he was not in charge??

l. Tell me WHY Cornelius is told by an angel to seek out Peter for instruction in Christianity (Acts 10:1-6) if he was not in charge??

m. Tell me WHY Peter's name is mentioned more often than all the other disciples put together if He was not in charge??
His name is mentioned 191 times (162 as Peter or Simon Peter, 23 as Simon and 6 as Cephas). John is the next with only 48 mentions, and Peter is present 50 percent of the time we find John in the Bible.

Additionally, Peter is UNANIMOUSLY held by the Early Church Fathers as being the earthly head of the Church,
And, as we know - they didn't agree on everything.

FYI....and you may have figured this out already.... @ScottA believes he is divinely guided by the Holy Spirit. This means no matter how much Scriptural evidence you give that he is wrong...Scott will always be right. He believes that HE can 'decipher the riddle of Scripture' and once you have finished deciphering the riddles of Scripture YOU will agree with HIM. Until then YOU "have thus missed the mark".

Mary