Peter walks on water

Kathryn,

Peter, being a non-Catholic himself needs no protection from us.

 

Actually, Peter was a catholic of the day, since at the time of the Apostles, post resurrection, there was only one true, united, universal (catholic) faith.

 

God Bless </font>[/QUOTE]Scripture never makes Peter out to be something he is not. Peter sinned often, even denying the Lord who bought him, but the Holy Spirit called Peter back to repentance and faith in Christ alone.

Peter never set himself up as some sort of super-shepherd. Peter never told people to pray to him. He never told people to trust in his own personnel merits. Instead, he taught people to trust in the merits of Christ alone. He did truly feed Christ's sheep.

Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God. 1 Peter 1:18-21

 

Your trying to imply that while on earth no one ever sought any prayers from Peter? No one ever went up to Peter and said "Peter, my daughter is ill, would you pray for her?" or some such thing? Or of any of the Apostles?

 

Brother Adam,

You said, 'Actually, Peter was a catholic of the day, since at the time of the Apostles . . . '

Ray is saying, 'Probably you are right about Peter being Catholic. But notice what Jesus said to him. "O thou of little faith, why didst thou doubt." I believe Roman Catholics have little faith because they refuse to accept the Bible as the only authority for faith and practice. These people try to hold the Bible and church dogma in either hand when they do not collate. Another thing, if Peter would have denied Jesus once, one would think that he might yet still qualify to be the first pope. But I read that he denied our Lord three times. We are not sure at all that after the 'third strike' that the Lord God would have elevated Peter to so lofty a spiritual designation and position in His church. Maybe when we get to Heaven we will see him still trying to walk on the crystal sea. [Rev. 4:6] Just kidding! {that is about the walking on water}'

 

Ray

And for the umpteenth time, show this "Bible only" fallacy explicitly from scripture...as it is supposedly "the only authority for faith and practice."

 

The problem is, this is all speculation. Our Catholic Brethen and Sistren speculate on one end of the spectrum, we the other. Both make sense in thier own realm of thought.

While Peter, clearly human like us, was also told that the Church would be built upon "this rock". If Peters faith was so small when viewed through the eyes of our Lord, how small then is my own faith? Would I have denied the Lord three times? Chances are in my scepticism, I probably would have written him off as a lunatic (claiming to be God and have risen the dead, telling me I had to eat him).

As far as Roman Catholics having little faith- if you are refering to faith in Christ, I think the opposite is true for the devout Catholic. However it may be true for lukewarm Catholics.

And perhaps for us too. Lukewarmness seems to be the American Christians middle name- God help us.

 

Dr. Bob,
There'll be no "church" in heaven. That is, a body that distinguishes believers from non-believers will not exist in heaven.

Being the "Bride of Christ" here does not hold true in Heaven for there we will not be a "perpetual bride", we will be the wife, having been joined forever in Holy Matrimony with Jesus.

 

The fact of Peter walking on the water illustrates that with the amount of faith that Peter had in Jesus alone, he could and did, for a while walk on the water in the manner that Jesus himself walked on the water.

The other fact is that fear inhibits faith. Peter feared the waves, realized where he was, and his fear "killed" the strength of his faith. Dispite how we think of ourselves as "superheroes, we all suffer from fear, and fear inhibits our faith. That is why every record of angels "visiting" man begins with the angel telling us to "Fear Not". If Jesus himself were to visit us as he did the original church, He too would begin by telling us to "Fear Not".

Heavenly Father, I pray that with you in me I am not a fearful person, but alas, I do retain fear. Strengthen my faith in you and you alone so that fear has no hold on me. Enbolden me, leaving no room in me in which fear can reside. Father, I know and know that you know that I need thee every hour of every day. Abide in me, allow me to lean on your strength and, like Peter, to daily take those all important first steps in "walking on the water" with, and to, your wonderful Son, Jesus. Amen.

 

Delusional. No such concept as a "local congregation" in the Baptistic sense. WHERE do you get your strange history, some Landmark Baptist web site? Surely can't be from the actual history of the Church, since there is no record of such eklessiology existing. (Except perhaps in your mind.)

You really need to be more regular in taking yer meds there, Bobby. Problems and sins are expected in a congregation which has SINNERS in it. As for so called "doctrinal differences", notice what happens with them. In Acts there is a serious doctrinal difference. The Protestants of the time insisted upon a ceremony from the Old Covenant (circumcision) as being necessary for entrance into the kingdom in the New Covenant.

And the Church called a council, decided the matter, and ALL THOSE IN THE CHURCH ABIDED BY THIS TEACHING You show me where anyone who was in the Church continued to preach heresy. Heretics were shown the door and the unity of the Faith was maintained. From heretic Arias, to the Donatists, to the Pelegians, to .... heck, take any of them. They were cast out of the Church until they either died or repented and accepted the teaching of the Church

This is how I know that there was no such thing as a so called "local church". There was no council ever called, there was no great discussion regarding this, heck....all of history is THUNDEROUSLY SILENT regarding eklessiastical governance until the Anabaptists came up with a new and quite unbiblical idea for running their assemblies. No priests, no bishops, no infant baptism, no Eucharist....man, how is it you guys even think to use the word "church" in association with your assemblies when you chucked out almost everything the Church established in 1500 years?

Not what Jesus wanted. He prayed that "they might be all one" No indication that there was supposed to be some kind of delayed application of this principle of unity. In fact, if you really believe that the Cross of Christ destroys the work of sin, you MUST believe in one Church and one set of doctrines here on earth, for it was here on earth that sin separated men at the tower of Babel. Christ's redemptive work is meant to restore that unity here on earth.

 

Kathryn, I did address your questions in the two posts preceding yours.

 

For those who have "ears to hear and eyes to see", the incident of St. Peter walking upon the waters is yet another proof of the papacy.

When Jesus walked on the water, He demonstrated for all to see that He is ruler over nature and that all creation is under His feet. During such a show of His power, authority, and glory, isn't it the most audacious and rude thing imagineable for Peter the Fisherman to ask to share in this glorious moment? Surely Christ will be offended that Peter wishes to share in this. Does Peter, that lunkhead, not understand what is going on here?

Perhaps not, but Jesus understands this moment perfectly, for rather than rebuke Peter, he calls him out to join him, inviting him to share in his authority over nature.

Those of you who insist that all the apostles shared in equal weight of authority and glory need to notice this: JESUS DID NOT CALL ANY OF THE OTHER APOSTLES TO SHARE IN HIS POWER, GLORY, AND AUTHORITY!! Surely there were others who would have found the idea of walking upon the boisterous waters of the sea tempting, but Jesus invites none but Peter

Why?

Because there is a much deeper spiritual significance.

Waters are often used to symbolize the mankind:

As the great King of Glory, it is entirely appropriate for Jesus to walk upon the raging seas and to calm it by His Word. This symbolizes His divine rulership over all mankind.

So what is He doing calling Peter out there with Him? Nothing less than establishing that there will be another who will rule over all mankind in His stead. St. Peter is the only one who stands with Christ on the raging waters, and I am sure that those left in the boats, upon reflection, must have realized in a shadow, something of the unique role which the Lord was giving to St. Peter through this act.

Notice also that only as long as Peter keeps the eyes of faith upon the Lord does he remain victorious over the waters. Once he removes his eyes and loses faith, he begins to sink into the waters. He becomes part of and one with the waters swirling around him. This is what has happened every time a pope has been elected who did not have the "eyes of faith". There have been a few instances of popes who were just like the world around them. In other words, they were swallowed up by the sea of humanity in which they lived, rather than walking victoriously above it. They became corrupt and evil, just like the world. Only the grace and promise of Christ kept them from doctrinally violating the Church (although I am sure the devil tried mightily to get his servants to do so whenever they rarely got into the papal office).

Peter rules because Christ has bid him to rule over the waters of humanity with Him and in His place. This is another reason from the Bible that I must believe in the papacy, even when it is administering the Church poorly.