Feed My Sheep

Of course, Catholics look at any verse singling out Peter as proof of a universally supreme and infallible Papacy!

No, since Peter denied Jesus thrice, Christ asked Peter if he loved Him thrice. He was restoring Peter as an apostle, not commissioning him to be universal pontiff.

 

Peter is definitely an interesting person.
In Acts 10 he had another "3" experience. In this case, a dream, he also said "NO" three times to the Lord.
In Galatians 2 we have the example of Peter being rebuked by Paul for being afraid of the Jews from Jerusalem.
But we also have the books of First and Second Peter, which give wonderful testimony and teaching.
As to Peter's relationship with Paul, Peter says it well:
2PE 3:15 Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

 

Well said!

Rufus

 

I think the words that Jesus used are of interest. Even though He gave peter the charge three times, He used different words to do it (like when He asked Peter if He loved Him...different words were used, but it was lost in the translation).

In Christ,
Trotter

 

"different words were used, but it was lost in the translation"

I don't understand why people concerned about different translations or the meaning of something in the original Greek when it comes to the teachings of Jesus and the New Testament.

Jesus never said that He would go away and send back a Greek version of the bible that would lead and guide us into all truth and be to us whatever we need?

On the contrary Jesus stated:
John 16:7 "Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you.
16:8 "And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
16:9 "of sin, because they do not believe in Me;
16:10 "of righteousness, because I go to My Father and you see Me no more;
16:11 "of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.
16:12 "I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.
16:13 "However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.
16:14 "He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you.
16:15 "All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you.

1John 2:27 But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him.

 

I agree that it was more intended to restore Peter because I see a significance in the fact that he asked Peter 3 times and Peter denied Christ three times. If this were merely intended to give Peter a significant role as the head shepard, there would be no need to repeat that question 3 times. I do not see any supporting evidence in the Bible that this means Peter was given a special role in the church.

Instead we see in the Word that Peter and Paul tell others to be shepard of their own flocks. The only one they ever mention as "Chief Shepard" or head of that flock is Christ. There is never any mention of Peter having a more significant role over the entire flock, in fact Paul says that he was sent to the Gentiles not Peter and Paul had to oppose Peter and correct him publically at one time. If Peter were the chief shepard he would have had to correct Paul, not the other way around.

What I always ask myself is this. If no one had told me this is what the passage meant, would I have ever understood the passage to mean that? Without any other supporting scriptures to back up the claim there is no evidence supporting such a claim. That is man's interpretation used to support their man made doctrine.

~Lorelei

 

Lorelei,

I agree. The supremecy of "Peter" took several centuries in the Church. The Bishop of Rome was initially given just a primacy of honor ("first among") equals because of: (1) The position of Rome as the imperial capital, (2) Rome being the site of the martyrdoms of Paul AND Peter, and (3) Rome's reputation (at least at the time) for defending orthodoxy in belief and practice. Overtime however this primacy of honor began to be gradually regarded by the Popes (and others in the West) as supremacy OVER the Church. As this took place, Western Theologians (and not a few Roman Bishops!) began to interpret these "Petrine" Scriptures as applying to the Roman Pope exclusively, and not to all the bishops as was the patristic Tradition. This of course led to the Great Schism as the Eastern Patriarchates regarded such a claim as ahistorical and therefore false.

Anyway, sorry for rambling....

 

greatday,

Are you saying that you don't care what the Bible actually says (it is primarily a Greek book)? Or are you just being lazy and attempting to give theological justification for your sloth (in learning Greek)?

Two greek words are used in the text (phileo and agape). Biblical scholars debate about their importance in this text, but it seems to me that they are used in a consistant way to transmit something. The first two times Jesus asks Peter if he loves him Jesus uses a form of the word agape, and Peter replies with a form of phileo. The third time Jesus also uses the word phileo. It seems that Peter is now recognizing his failure to live up to his words (the denial) and is now cautious about what he says. Therefore, I think that the relationship to the denial is key to understanding this text, and this does not place Peter above any other apostle. In fact if you read the rest of the chapter, the other disciple (whom Jesus loved) seems to be more important to the audience of John's gospel.

Grace and Peace, Danny

 

Has anybody read the book Feed My Sheep: A Passionate Plea for Preaching, by John Piper, R.C. Sproul, R. Albert Mohler, Jr., James Boice, John MacArthur, and others.

MA

 

Micahaaron, I am presently reading it.

Dr. Bob, I wholeheartedly agree with Dr. Carson on this.

The point was on what Peter needed to do once Christ left.

FEED MY SHEEP.

It wasn't a love issue at all.

The different greek words could be used interchangably in certain circumstances.

 

Gunther,
What chapter are you on and what do you think of it so far?

 

I just finished Mohler's take. It is just saturated with Scripture and proper exegesis.

This is the typical take with most people:

Jesus used everyday illustrations.

We need to use everyday illustrations.

Sermons are just boring if you don't use illustrations and "connect" with people.

How absurd. The Bible is what connects with people. A boring exposition of Romans 4 will do more for the person who truly desires a God-ward worship than some mindless drivel about how God does everything he can for you.

People grow because the Spirit of God takes the truth of God's word and works in a person's life to bring about Christlikeness.

So, since the Spirit is the teacher, the truly hungry soul will leave satisfied with a deeper communion with Christ.

Can I get a witness in the congregation?

If I could, I would send this book to alot of others. No one in particular, just maybe the purpose driven types.

 

In talking of the different words, I was meaning the different ways that Jesus told Peter to feed His sheep. The philio-agape comment was meant as an illustration, not the subject matter.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

ok thats well said .another thing that catholics harps on is the verse acts 5:7-11.they say that it cleary says that peter has authority in the gentiles.hope you can see something about that.