Upon THIS Rock I will build my Church

[ScottA]

A)This statement assumes that authoritative teaching on faith and morals without the Holy Spirit has occurred.
B) It also assumes the Church became a mere human institution after the finalization of the canon of Scripture.
(A)&(B) are absurd. The removal of the divine from the institutional church is a Gnostic error, because the historic Church is an extension of the Incarnation united by the Eucharist. The structure of the Church is modeled after the Davidic Kingdom, and councils are modeled after the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15.

Using the same verses does not mean you are saying the same thing.

John 14:26 – Jesus promises that the Holy Spirit would teach the Church (the apostles and successors) all things regarding the faith. This means that the Church can teach us the right moral positions on such things as in vitro fertilization, cloning and other issues that are not addressed in the Bible. After all, these issues of morality are necessary for our salvation, and God would not leave such important issues to be decided by us sinners without His divine assistance.

John 16:12 – Jesus had many things to say but the apostles couldn’t bear them at that point. This demonstrates that the Church’s infallible doctrine develops over time. All public Revelation was completed with the death of the last apostle, but the doctrine of God’s Revelation develops as our minds and hearts are able to welcome and understand it. God teaches His children only as much as they can bear, for their own good.

John 16:13 – Jesus promises that the Spirit will “guide” the Church into all truth. Our knowledge of the truth develops as the Spirit guides the Church, and this happens over time.

1 Cor. 2:13 – Paul explains that what the ministers teach is taught, not by human wisdom, but by the Spirit. The ministers are led to interpret and understand the spiritual truths God gives them over time.

A. No, it assumes that by reading the account of Jesus asking His disciples who they say He is, that you would recognize that the greater topic was not Peter's involvement, but God's. In other words, there is a fork in the road at that juncture, and some go one way and some go the other. But it's no contest, and if it were it is not against us who have chosen revelation from God rather than filing in behind Peter - it's against God. So, Jesus didn't call Peter aside or call a meeting and say, "Peter I have a job for you." He asked a question to get a specific answer, not from Peter, but from the Father...and Peter was chosen to represent the process which Jesus explained would be the means by which He would build His church.

But it is very telling and important about a person for God to see just who lines up behind Peter, and who has an ear to hear what the spirit says. It tells who is actually getting the message that Jesus was meaning to convey, who is actually hearing from God. And that means little to those of us who have perceived the greater matter of what He said in setting up the fork in the road. But it does mean a lot to those who have not perceived it, and it also means something to God - it means you are not in tune with the greater mission.

So...feed the poor, and preach the word. But by following Peter, you are on the wrong bath to get the same revelation that even Peter got. He was hearing in the spirit, and you have been on the alternate path of following the flesh. Both are necessary, but you cannot claim the spiritual, and walk the other path. Your choice.

A & B. Yes it is absurd to choose one path and think you are accomplishing the other. And the funny hats don't help.

But, not to worry, His strength is made perfect in our weakness.

 

[BreadOfLife]

By this same measure you use, it will be measured back to you.

Obviously you don't see it...I mean you don't even see in your own quotes above, that whoever is given the Holy Spirit...has no authority of "his own."

But when I tell you the very same thing that you quote Jesus saying - you do not receive it. Do you not realize that according to the very verses that you have quoted, this means that you have not received Him, nor He who sent Him?

And WHO ever said that the Authority of the Pope is his “OWN” Authority??
On the contrary - I have shown repeatedly that Jesus transfers HIS own Authority onto Peter.

NOT sure what you’ve been reading, Scott – but I’ll bet it’s another wacky Jack Chick tract . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

No, 'claimed' is your word, not mine. See, you are still the 'wordsmith' I said they believed and acknowledged it (Gen 4:1) (Heb. 11:17-19) See post my post #100, 104. See your constant use of 'claim' in post #98, 115, etc. etc.

What I have said is that Peter never claimed that he was the rock or any such authority that went with it. If any apostle could have it would have been Paul, but neither did he ever claim any such authority.

Which brings me back to my questions. If Peter didn't why does the pope? Why does the Roman Church? In other words, why wouldn't the Roman Church follow Peter's example and not lay claim to something Peter never did?

The answer is pretty obvious. Power. The pope and papacy must establish these links to establish power over the Church of Jesus Christ.

Stranger

“Claimed” and “Acknowledged” imply the SAME thing.
As usual when you’re losing an argument – you play semantic doublespeak.

There is not ONE verse of Scripture nor is there ONE SHRED of Oral Tradition that supports your fallacy.

 

[BreadOfLife]

No, Jesus did not appoint Peter in charge. That he was a leader and one of the inner circle which consisted of Peter, James, and John, yes. That he was appointed as a leader or the rock that the Church is built on, no.

And yet when James died there was no successor? (Acts 12:2)

Stranger

That’s completely FALSE.

According to Eusebius – James was succeeded by St. Simeon (Simon) of Jerusalem. He is the son of Mary and Clopas whom we read about in John 19:25.

Eusebius also points out that is was PETER who appointed James Bishop of Jerusalem.
Jesus appointed Peter to be in charge. “Feed my Lambs” and “Tend my flock” (John 21:15-19) means EVERYBODY.

 

[Stranger]

“Claimed” and “Acknowledged” imply the SAME thing.
As usual when you’re losing an argument – you play semantic doublespeak.

There is not ONE verse of Scripture nor is there ONE SHRED of Oral Tradition that supports your fallacy.

In other words you got caught in a 'falsehood'.

I got it.

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

I already showed you that it God who is called "the Rock" in that passage, NOT Abraham. And by insisting that Peter is the Rock, you are actually promoting heresy. See all the Scriptures I have posted confirmed that only God And Christ are the Rock.

WRONG.

First of all, my ignorant friend – if you are a true follower of Christ, then YOU are a ROCK:
1 Pet. 2:5
As you come to him, the living Stone--rejected by humans but chosen by God and precious to him--YOU also, like LIVING STONES, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

As for your position that Abraham is NOT called the “ROCK” of Isaiah 51:1-2, here are some PROTESTANT scholars who disagree with you . . .

Charles Spurgeon
This is for your comfort, dear friends. If God could make out of Abraham and Sarah so great a nation as that of Israel, what is there that he cannot do? Do you say that the cause of God is brought very low in these evil days? It is not so low as when there seemed to be none but Abraham faithful in the whole world; yet God made that one mighty man to be like a foundation upon which he built up the chosen people, to whose keeping he committed the sacred oracles; and if he did that, what can he not do?

Adam Clarke Commentary
Ye that follow after righteousness - The people who, feeling the want of salvation, seek the Lord in order to be justified.
The rock - Abraham.
The hole of the pit - Sarah; as explained in Isaiah 51:2.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible
Hearken unto me - That is, to the God of their fathers, who now addresses them. They are regarded as in exile and bondage, and as desponding in regard to their prospects. In this situation, God, or perhaps more properly the Messiah (compare the notes at Matthew 3:9, where he says, ‹For I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.‘

The hole of the pit - The word rendered ‹hole‘ means such an excavation as men make who are taking stones from a quarry. It expresses substantially the same idea as the previous member of the verse. This language is sometimes addressed to Christians, with a view to produce humility by reminding them that they have been taken by God from a state of sin, and raised up, as it were, from a deep and dark pit of pollution. But this is not the sense of the passage, nor will it bear such an application. It may be used to denote that God has taken them, as stone is taken from the quarry; that he found them in their natural state as unhewn blocks of marble are; that he has moulded and formed them by his own agency, and fitted them into his spiritual temple; and that they owe all the beauty and grace of their Christian deportment to him; that this is an argument to prove that he who had done so much for them as to transform them, so to speak, from rough and unsightly blocks to polished stones, fitted for his spiritual temple on earth, is able to keep them still, and to fit them for his temple above. Such is the argument in the passage before us; and such a use of it is, of course, perfectly legitimate and fair.

Coffman's Commentaries on the Bible
"Look unto the rock ..." (Isaiah 51:1). Actually, the meaning here is not merely a rock, as indicated by its being called "hole" in the next line. The passage "should be read, `Look unto the quarry whence ye were digged.'"[3] The comparison, of course, is a metaphor instructing faithful believers to look back to their ancestry, Abraham and Sarah.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible
look unto the rock whence ye are hewn; which is in the next verse interpreted of Abraham; so called, not so much for the strength of his faith, as for his old age; when he looked like a hard dry ROCK, from whom no issue could be expected; and yet from hence a large number of stones were hewn, or a race of men sprung:
and to the hole of the pit whence ye are digged; that is, to Sarah, who was for a long time barren, whose womb was shut up, but afterwards opened; and from whom, as from a cistern, (to which a wife is sometimes compared, Proverbs 5:15) flowed the waters of Judah, Isaiah 48:1 or the Jewish nation. Jerom thinks Christ is meant by both, the Rock of ages, in whom is everlasting strength; to whom men are to look for salvation, righteousness, and strength; and out of whose pierced side flowed blood and water: and in this sense he is followed by Cocceius, who interprets the rock of Christ, the Rock of salvation; out of whose side flowed the church, as out of the hole of a pit or cistern.

Geneva Study Bible
Hearken to me, a ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek the LORD: look to the b rock [from which] ye are hewn, and to the hole of the pit [from which] ye were dug.
(a) He comforts the Church, that they would not be discouraged for their small number.
(b) That is, to Abraham, of whom you were begotten, and to Sarah of whom we were born.

Chuck Smith – Calvary Chapel
The Lord is calling unto the nation of Israel, unto His people, and God calls unto them to hearken to Him.
Ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek the LORD (Isa 51:1):
Two important things: following after righteousness, seeking the Lord.
"Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness" (Matthew 5:6).
look to the ROCK from whence ye are hewn (Isa 51:1),
Actually, they are encouraged to look back to their roots. To look back to ABRAHAM. To the heritage that they had. To the covenant that God had made with their fathers.

Adam Clarke Commentary
Ye that follow after righteousness - The people who, feeling the want of salvation, seek the Lord in order to be justified.
The rock - Abraham.
The hole of the pit - Sarah; as explained in Isaiah 51:2.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible
Hearken unto me - That is, to the God of their fathers, who now addresses them. They are regarded as in exile and bondage, and as desponding in regard to their prospects. In this situation, God, or perhaps more properly the Messiah (compare the notes at Matthew 3:9, where he says, ‹For I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.‘
The hole of the pit - It may be used to denote that God has taken them, as stone is taken from the quarry; that he found them in their natural state as unhewn blocks of marble are; that he has moulded and formed them by his own agency, and fitted them into his spiritual temple; and that they owe all the beauty and grace of their Christian deportment to him; that this is an argument to prove that he who had done so much for them as to transform them, so to speak, from rough and unsightly blocks to polished stones, fitted for his spiritual temple on earth, is able to keep them still, and to fit them for his temple above. Such is the argument in the passage before us; and such a use of it is, of course, perfectly legitimate and fair.

Whedon's Commentary on the Bible
1. Hearken to me — This formula is used when there is a turn from one class of hearers to another.
Ye that follow… ye that seek the Lord — The address is to those who fully observe the law, lead just lives, and desire entire approval from Jehovah. Look unto the rock whence…
hewn… hole… whence… digged — Abraham, who was a selected block, so to speak, out of the original quarry of mankind.

Expository Notes of Dr. Thomas Constable
The Lord appealed to the righteous in Israel to listen to Him (cf. Isaiah 50:10). Watts believed the speaker, through Isaiah 51:4, was Darius. [Note: Watts, Isaiah 34-66 , p204.] These were the Israelites who sincerely wanted to trust and obey God, but found it difficult to do so because impending captivity seemed to contradict God"s promises. The Lord directed them to consider their history, their origin.
"Abraham was the rock from which his descendants were hewn-having a rocklike quality imparted to him by God"s faithfulness and grace." [Note: Archer, p645.]
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
(1) Look unto the rock.—The implied argument is, that the wonder involved in the origin of Israel is as a ground of faith in its restoration and perpetuity. The rock is, of course, Abraham, the pit, Sarah.

 

[BreadOfLife]

In other words you got caught in a 'falsehood'.

I got it.

Stranger

Not at ALL - I have Scriptural proof (Matt. 16:18-19).
All YOU have is your failed semantic doublespeak . . .

 

[Stranger]

That’s completely FALSE.

According to Eusebius – James was succeeded by St. Simeon (Simon) of Jerusalem. He is the son of Mary and Clopas whom we read about in John 19:25.

Eusebius also points out that is was PETER who appointed James Bishop of Jerusalem.
Jesus appointed Peter to be in charge. “Feed my Lambs” and “Tend my flock” (John 21:15-19) means EVERYBODY.

James the disciple is not James who was over the Church at Jerusalem. Thus no succession after James the disciple died.

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

Not at ALL - I have Scriptural proof (Matt. 16:18-19).
All YOU have is your failed semantic doublespeak . . .

You were the one using semantics. Not me. What a wordsmith you are.

You got caught. Better get used to it.

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

James the disciple is not James who was over the Church at Jerusalem. Thus no succession after James the disciple died.

Stranger

WHERE did I say that he was James the Apostle??
This is just another little red herring to throw the conversation off-track because I proved you wrong again.

Consider yourself historically-SPANKED . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

You were the one using semantics. Not me. What a wordsmith you are.

You got caught. Better get used to it.

Stranger

Got caught at what, exactly??

 

[Stranger]

WHERE did I say that he was James the Apostle??
This is just another little red herring to throw the conversation off-track because I proved you wrong again.

Consider yourself historically-SPANKED . . .

James the disciple was never the bishop of Jerusalem. That is the sucession you are trying to prove.

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

Got caught at what, exactly??

Speaking a lie about what I said. Then you want to bring up semantics, but it was you have brought in semantics.

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

James the disciple was never the bishop of Jerusalem. That is the sucession you are trying to prove.

Stranger

Where are you getting THIS nonsense??

The office of the Apostles was BISHOPRIC. That doesn't mean that they were the ONLY Bishops, Einstein.
They appointed others. Peter appointed James as Bishop of Jerusalem.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Speaking a lie about what I said. Then you want to bring up semantics, but it was you have brought in semantics.

Stranger

Apparently, you don't understand what "semantics" means.

Your little game of "Claim" vs. "Acknowledgement" is a perfect example of semantics.
However - you never expected to be Scripturally-SPANKED with the truth as I gave it to you regarding Eve and Abraham . . .

 

[Stranger]

Apparently, you don't understand what "semantics" means.

Your little game of "Claim" vs. "Acknowledgement" is a perfect example of semantics.
However - you never expected to be Scripturally-SPANKED with the truth as I gave it to you regarding Eve and Abraham . . .

It wasn't a game. It was a mistake and then a lie on your part. Then when your 'falsehood' was revealed you cry 'semantics'. Please.

You gave nothing regarding Adam and Eve.

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

Where are you getting THIS nonsense??

The office of the Apostles was BISHOPRIC. That doesn't mean that they were the ONLY Bishops, Einstein.
They appointed others. Peter appointed James as Bishop of Jerusalem.

Chapter and verse.

Again, you are not paying attention as usual. The James that was killed in (Acts 12) is not the James who became leader of the Jerusalem church.

Stranger

 

[Taken]

The importance of revelation by the Spirit to a true believer can never be over emphasized. Revelation means more to you than perhaps you realize. Now I am not talking about this Book of Revelation and you. I am talking about ALL revelation. It is tremendously important to the church. Do you remember in Matthew 16 where Jesus asked the disciples this question, "Whom do men say that I the Son of Man am? And they said, Some say that Thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona; for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father Which is in heaven. And I say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

Yes, Simon Bar-jona was given Understanding
From God in Heaven, that Jesus IS the Christ.

Yes, Jesus acknowledged Simons blessing.

Yes, Jesus Then called Simon ~ Peter.

Yes, It is Upon Gods Understanding; that Jesus' Church would be Built.

Yes, most non-Catholic Christians understand;
Christ Thee Lord God IS the Rock and foundation of His Church.
And that the knowledge comes from Scripture and the Understanding of Scripture comes from God.

The Roman Catholics say that the church is built upon Peter. Now that is really carnal. How could God build the church upon a man so unstable that he denied the Lord Jesus and cursed while doing it? God can't build His church upon any man born in sin. And it wasn't some rock lying there as though God had hallowed the ground at that spot. And it isn't as the Protestants say, that the church is built upon Jesus. It was the REVELATION. Read it the way it is written: "Flesh and blood hath not REVEALED it, BUT MY FATHER HATH REVEALED IT, and UPON THIS ROCK (REVELATION) I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH:" The church is built on Revelation, on the "Thus Saith the Lord".

- The Seven Church Ages WMB

Agree.

God Bless,
Taken

 

[ScottA]

And WHO ever said that the Authority of the Pope is his “OWN” Authority??
On the contrary - I have shown repeatedly that Jesus transfers HIS own Authority onto Peter.

NOT sure what you’ve been reading, Scott – but I’ll bet it’s another wacky Jack Chick tract . . .

Not sure who Jack Chick is...but, no, you have not shown that Jesus transferred His own authority unto Peter. You have only shown how you wrongly interpret it.

You are not properly representing all of scripture, only part, that part which suits you. Jesus did not call Peter aside or call a meeting and give Peter a promotion above the work of the Holy Spirit. But rather, He used Peter to make His own point about how He would build His church, by fishing for comments among His disciples...and Peter, by the spirit of God, helped facilitate that point. But anyone who takes that exchange to mean Peter was given more authority than the Holy Spirit, who was given none...has simply missed the point of Jesus' exchange and revelation.

Thus, the best that can be said or claimed, is that Christ alone has all authority, and yet uses the works of the Holy Spirit among the saints to whom Christ has sent Him.

"For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus."

 

[epostle]

A. No, it assumes that by reading the account of Jesus asking His disciples who they say He is, that you would recognize that the greater topic was not Peter's involvement, but God's. In other words, there is a fork in the road at that juncture, and some go one way and some go the other. But it's no contest, and if it were it is not against us who have chosen revelation from God rather than filing in behind Peter - it's against God. So, Jesus didn't call Peter aside or call a meeting and say, "Peter I have a job for you." He asked a question to get a specific answer, not from Peter, but from the Father...and Peter was chosen to represent the process which Jesus explained would be the means by which He would build His church.

But it is very telling and important about a person for God to see just who lines up behind Peter, and who has an ear to hear what the spirit says. It tells who is actually getting the message that Jesus was meaning to convey, who is actually hearing from God. And that means little to those of us who have perceived the greater matter of what He said in setting up the fork in the road. But it does mean a lot to those who have not perceived it, and it also means something to God - it means you are not in tune with the greater mission.

So...feed the poor, and preach the word. But by following Peter, you are on the wrong bath to get the same revelation that even Peter got. He was hearing in the spirit, and you have been on the alternate path of following the flesh. Both are necessary, but you cannot claim the spiritual, and walk the other path. Your choice.

A & B. Yes it is absurd to choose one path and think you are accomplishing the other. And the funny hats don't help.

But, not to worry, His strength is made perfect in our weakness.

Where do you get this crazy idea we follow Peter? Do you "follow Peter" by reading 1st and 2nd Peter? How many recent declarations from the Chair of Peter are you even aware of??? Try picking on the encyclicals taught in the last 100 years, instead of the same boring rhetorical arguments from the 16th century that have been refuted a zillion times.

The "funny hats" started in the 11th century. Should we throw away 1000 years of customs to appease 21st century ethnocentric, white Anglo-Saxon American Protestants whose nonDenoms are Division with a capital D are divided into individualistic segments??? Would burning all the funny hats make them happy?

How about you provide a verse that exempts Christians from having bishops.

Can heaven bind an error??? Your problem is extracting the Holy Spirit from the Church. You have some wacky perceptions of the Church and the papacy that get more strange by the year. If the papacy isn't grounded on the deposit of faith, it's grounded on nothing. If it's grounded on nothing, it would have vanished the day after Pentecost. A logical explanation why the papacy still exists, based on facts and recent scholarship, is absent. It must be proven there was no papacy from the beginning (in its essense)

When you say, "follow Peter", you mean follow the bumbling idiot.
When I say "follow Peter", I mean accept the teachings on faith and morals, binding on the Universal Church, declared from the Chair of Peter, and free of error. Why is it that nobody ever attacks the Catholic Church's teachings on morality?

• Divini Redemptoris (On Atheistic Communism)Pope Pius XI, March 19, 1937
• Humanae Vitae (On the Regulation of Human Births) Pope Paul VI, July 25, 1968
• Laudato si': (Praise be to you - On Care For Our Common Home) - Encyclical, Pope Francis - (May 24, 2015)[ Arabic- English- French- German- Italian- Polish- Portuguese- Spanish ]
• Evangelii Gaudium: Apostolic Exhortation on the Proclamation of the Gospel in Today's World (24 November 2013)