T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
---|
754.1 | the"confessional" | FABSIX::T_TEAHAN | | Thu Jun 22 1995 22:23 | 5 |
| bob-
you from cambridge, ma.? i knew a bobby shallow from there...
thomas
|
754.2 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Thu Jun 22 1995 23:57 | 17 |
| Well, first of all, the "electronic confessional" on the Internet has
nothing to do with the Church; it is an anti-religious joke.
Second, the bible clearly gives the authority to bind and loose sins
to the apostles and their successors.
Third, the bible clearly talks of confessing sins to each other.
Fourth, the practice is not limited to Roman Catholics, but is used by
a number of churches, including Lutherans.
Fifth, it is God who forgives the sins through the ministry of reconciliation.
Sixth, the penance has nothing to do with the forgiveness, but with creating
the disposition to avoid future sin.
/john
|
754.3 | | ICTHUS::YUILLE | He must increase - I must decrease | Fri Jun 23 1995 10:39 | 43 |
754.4 | Thanks! | N2DEEP::SHALLOW | Subtract L, invert W | Fri Jun 23 1995 15:15 | 17 |
| re: .1
Hi Thomas,
No, from Salem NH...never lived in Cambridge, but I've been there.
Definately a different Bob S.
re: .2 .3,
Thanks John and Andrew for the info. I've always been quite ignorant on
the reasoning behind that. I knew of the admonition to forgive others,
but thought "forgiveness" in the absolute meaning came only from God,
remembering David in Psalms saying "against thee only have I sinned".
Thanks, and God bless!
Bob
|
754.5 | | ICTHUS::YUILLE | He must increase - I must decrease | Fri Jun 23 1995 15:38 | 21 |
754.6 | couple of the verses in question | OUTSRC::HEISER | Maranatha! | Fri Jun 23 1995 17:36 | 18 |
| Matthew 18:18
Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in
heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Does this really apply to sin? I've never been comfortable with
confessing sin with anyone but God. Even while in Catholic H.S. I had
a difficult time calling anyone Father or Holy Father but my Heavenly
Father.
James 5:16
Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be
healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.
I agree with Andrew on the interpretation of this. At our church, and
even in Promise Keepers, they stress the buddy system for
accountability.
Mike
|
754.7 | Fraternal correction & authority of the apostles and successors | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Jun 23 1995 18:25 | 7 |
| re .6
>Does this really apply to sin?
Take a look at the paragraph in which this verse appears.
/john
|
754.8 | In God we trust | VNABRW::WILLIAMS | | Mon Jun 26 1995 10:16 | 16 |
| | I have never been comfortable with confessing sins with anyone but God
A Minister is the physical representation of God. Giving advise in answer
to any problem area you may have and to any question you may have.
Before making a confession I always ask God to lead me to a minister that
is specialized in my problem area and I ask Him to speak through the
minister so that I receive the correct advise.
With the graces you receive from confession the "penance" becomes a joy.
In love of Jesus
Peter
|
754.9 | "Upon This Rock" | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Mon Jun 26 1995 14:40 | 36 |
| Hi,
My understanding is that when Jesus said "upon this Rock", He
was referring to Himself, i.e. He was contrasting Peter with
Himself.
The reason the gates of hell do not prevail against the true
church is because the church is built on the Rock and not on
the sand (which Rock is the chief cornerstone is Christ).
When Jesus asked Peter 3 times, "Do you love Me?" He used the
Greek 'agapao' and when Peter replied, "You know that I love
you" he used the Greek 'eros'. Evidence of a contrast. The
water from the Rock is agape and the Rock is Christ. Peter has
no grace outside of Christ.
Taken alone (i.e. in solitude from the rest of scripture), the
"upon this rock" text is ambiguous. It can go either way. The
rock can be Christ or Peter.
BUT, when the entirety of Holy Writ is brought to view, such as
the storm parable (on rock or sand), the "Do you love Me" account
between Peter and Christ, the chief cornerstone texts, the failing
of Peter in (was it Ephesus?) where Paul rebukes him (see Galatians),
and other scripture...I believe the ambiguity goes away.
And it becomes quite plain that when Jesus said, "And upon this
Rock", he was referring to Himself.
And of course how this passage is translated leads to VERY different
paths.
jmo,
Tony
|
754.10 | rock of the proclamation? | CUJO::SAMPSON | | Tue Jun 27 1995 02:47 | 7 |
| <<< Note 754.9 by YIELD::BARBIERI >>>
-< "Upon This Rock" >-
Hmm, I've always thought Jesus meant that He would build
his Church upon the "rock" of the proclamation (and those making
the proclamation) that He is the Christ, the Son of the Living
God, as Peter had just made.
|
754.11 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Learning to lean | Tue Jun 27 1995 03:14 | 10 |
|
That was my understanding as well.
Jim
|
754.12 | A matter of interpretation | DPPSO::FYFE | I have much more to tell you... | Tue Jun 27 1995 10:01 | 18 |
|
Seems to me to be a matter of interpretation. Although I am in
the other camp which says that Jesus said to Peter;
"You are Peter, and upon this rock...."
Indicating that, since the Father revealed to Peter who Jesus was
indicating His choice, then Jesus affirms this. I can't see it any
other way.
"I have prayed for you Peter, that your faith will not fail, and when
you come back to me you must strengthen your brothers"
Peace,
Tom
|
754.13 | Another Relevent Text | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Tue Jun 27 1995 14:07 | 5 |
| Hi,
I think 1 Corin 3:5-15 is relevent here.
Tony
|
754.14 | | COMPLX::THELLEN | Ron Thellen, DTN 522-2952 | Tue Jun 27 1995 14:17 | 21 |
| > <<< Note 754.12 by DPPSO::FYFE "I have much more to tell you..." >>>
> -< A matter of interpretation >-
> Seems to me to be a matter of interpretation. Although I am in
> the other camp which says that Jesus said to Peter;
> "You are Peter, and upon this rock...."
> Indicating that, since the Father revealed to Peter who Jesus was
> indicating His choice, then Jesus affirms this. I can't see it any
> other way.
> "I have prayed for you Peter, that your faith will not fail, and when
> you come back to me you must strengthen your brothers"
My understanding from sermons in the past is that if you look at the
Greek on the above verse, the word used for "Peter" is petros - a small
pebble, while the word for "rock" (as in, upon THIS rock) is petra - a
large, unmovable boulder. I could have the words wrong, possibly even
backwards, but I'm sure I have the definitions correct.
Ron
|
754.15 | | POWDML::FLANAGAN | I feel therefore I am | Tue Jun 27 1995 15:34 | 10 |
| Tony, and all,
Thanks for the note.
It is fascinating and intriguing.
I tend to agree with Tony, that the Rock as it is used elsewhere is
Christ. But the play on words(rock/pebble) is interesting.
Patricia
|
754.17 | Thanks Brother Bob | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Tue Jun 27 1995 20:06 | 20 |
| re: -1
Hi Bob,
Others have echoed the same thought.
I'm sure open to it!
"The MESSAGE [revelation] of the cross is the power of
God."
I happen to believe that the sole efficacy of the cross is
revelatory, i.e. what they revelation does in the hearts of
those who by faith embrace it.
Thanks Bob!
Bless You,
Tony
|
754.18 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Learning to lean | Tue Jun 27 1995 20:13 | 14 |
|
Did God give the Bible to the deep thinkers who could come up with all
of this efficacy stuff, or did He give it to the common man so that He could
be revealed and that the common man could come to know Him and his expectations
of us and bridge the gap created by the Fall? Sometimes we get into the
twists and turns and all sorts of stuff, when I think we are missing the
main message.
Jim
|
754.19 | Couldn't Pass this By | CPCOD::JOHNSON | A rare blue and gold afternoon | Tue Jun 27 1995 20:26 | 18 |
|
> "The MESSAGE [revelation] of the cross is the power of
> God."
> I happen to believe that the sole efficacy of the cross is
> revelatory, i.e. what they revelation does in the hearts of
> those who by faith embrace it.
Tony,
I was just browsing through here, and though I think that Yeshua's
willingly allowing Himself to be executed for our sins affects hearts,
I think that it really is a whole lot more than that. He made real atonement
for us by taking our sin upon Himself. I'm not sure why life is required as
the cure for sin, but it is, and He gave His to redeem ours.
Leslie
|
754.20 | But I agree with Bob ... | CPCOD::JOHNSON | A rare blue and gold afternoon | Tue Jun 27 1995 20:31 | 5 |
| But just to make things clear, I agree with Bob P. that the
rock on which the church was to be founded is that Yeshua is
the Son of God, and the promised and looked for Messiah.
Leslie
|
754.21 | Sorry Jim/Elaboration Leslie | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Tue Jun 27 1995 20:41 | 22 |
| Hi Jim,
Please excuse me for using the word 'efficacy' which actually
is a fairly common theological term and means 'what it
accomplishes.'
Hi Leslie,
This is a topic that has been quite the rathole thanks largely
to me.
I believe that all that we are delivered from is sin and only
the love that is demonstrated at the cross could be sufficient
revelation to deliver from sin. So yeah, His death was required.
So actually, my view is in harmony with what you said though
I am sure in a way in which you do not agree.
(And thats ok with me!!!)
Tony
|
754.22 | one step further | OUTSRC::HEISER | National Atheists Day - April 1 | Tue Jun 27 1995 23:30 | 1 |
| I think the "rock" is Christ as well as faith in Him.
|
754.23 | Redemption Theology | DPPSO::FYFE | I have much more to tell you... | Wed Jun 28 1995 08:27 | 21 |
|
Re: .19
Hi Leslie,
His life was required in order to satsify the requirements
of redemption or atonement. Man in the form of Adam sinned against
God, but Adam being a man, and therefore finite, could not atone
for this sin, since the person offended was God who is infinite.
Therefore the ONLY solution, was that the Son of God, Jesus, became
man. Hence, being a man, the same race of Adam and being at the
same time God, could indeed atone perfectly for this sin.
There's a whole lotta theology in there somewhere.
Peace,
Tom
|
754.24 | Misc. | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Wed Jun 28 1995 13:01 | 7 |
| I'm open to that Mike.
A tad belated, but...
Your welcome Pat and thanks for the thanks!
Tony
|
754.25 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Jun 28 1995 13:27 | 13 |
| > My understanding from sermons in the past is that if you look at the
> Greek on the above verse, the word used for "Peter" is petros - a small
> pebble, while the word for "rock" (as in, upon THIS rock) is petra - a
> large, unmovable boulder. I could have the words wrong, possibly even
> backwards, but I'm sure I have the definitions correct.
Yes, but you shouldn't look at the Greek, you should look at tha Aramaic.
Jesus named Simon "Kephas" in Aramaic, which doesn't have the "pebble/rock"
distinction. The "petra/petros" distinction didn't enter the text until it
was translated into Greek.
/john
|
754.26 | | ICTHUS::YUILLE | He must increase - I must decrease | Wed Jun 28 1995 13:36 | 7 |
754.27 | Kephas means _rock_ | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Jun 28 1995 14:30 | 9 |
| >What's your source
John 1:42
1 Cor 1:12, 3:22, 9:5, 15:5
Gal 1:18, 2:9, 2:11, 2:14
And scholarly knowledge of the Aramaic language.
/john
|
754.28 | Still: Evidence of Ambiguity (not certainty) | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Wed Jun 28 1995 15:09 | 20 |
| Hi John,
Support then of ambiguity, no?
I mean, Jesus could have referred to Peter or Himself when
He said, "upon this rock" as Jesus is a Kephas as well.
Just another key example of the need to study "line upon
line, precept upon precept, here a little there a little."
No ambiguity as to who the Rock the church is built on *IF*
this is done.
If its not done...plenty of ambiguity!
Again (jmo).
God Bless,
Tony
|
754.29 | Does it matter how big the rock was ? | DPPSO::FYFE | I have much more to tell you... | Thu Jun 29 1995 11:44 | 13 |
|
little rock - big rock, I don't think it's the size that matters.
it is the implication that it was to Peter he was addressing this,
not to anyone or anything else.
BTW: Today is the feast day of Sts.Peter & Paul as celebrated by the
Church.
Peace,
Tom
|
754.30 | Well...It Does Matter!!! | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Thu Jun 29 1995 12:46 | 32 |
| Hi Tom,
Well, yeah, it does matter if when Jesus said "upon this rock"
it referred to a _bigger_ rock than when he said, "You are a
"rock". Then clearly, though Peter is called a rock, he cannot
be the one referred to as that which the church is built on.
If, as John Covert showed us, the rocks are actually the same
word (from the original), it just means there is ambiguity.
When Jesus says, "upon this rock", He can be continuing his
discussion to Peter ABOUT Peter OR He can be drawing a contrast
between Peter and Himself.
That is, taking the passage all by itself, one cannot know who
the rock is when Jesus says "upon this Rock."
And thus we need to compare spiritual with spiritual. Study the
entirety of the scriptures and introduce all texts with similar
word usages, phrase usages. thematic parallels.
And that is the essence of my input. Don't take the text by
itself. Bring in the whole word. And if one does this, I believe
it becomes apparent that Jesus was _contrasting_ Peter with Himself
and the rock referred to when He says "upon this rock" is none
other than Himself.
Again, (jmo).
Peace and God Bless,
Tony
|
754.31 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | He said, 'To blave...' | Fri Jun 30 1995 22:56 | 9 |
| <<< Note 754.25 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>
>Jesus named Simon "Kephas" in Aramaic, which doesn't have the "pebble/rock"
>distinction. The "petra/petros" distinction didn't enter the text until it
>was translated into Greek.
In addition, I recall hearing that in Aramaic, Simon's original
name meant "grain of sand". If Jesus was going to simply change
Peter's name to "pebble" from "grain of sand", well why bother?
|
754.32 | | ICTHUS::YUILLE | He must increase - I must decrease | Sat Jul 01 1995 16:21 | 9 |
754.33 | Peter, the Rock | DPPSO::FYFE | I have much more to tell you... | Mon Jul 03 1995 08:00 | 42 |
|
RE: .30
Hi Tony,
I guess we'll have to agree to differ on this.
I just cannot see any literary justification for taking the
interpretation that you take.
The Father made HIS decision known. Jesus, recognising this, says;
"You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church."
The sentence indicates that the person upon which the Church will
be built is Peter. Peter rallies the other Apostles after the
crucifixion and together they build the foundations of the early
Church. The building is the structure of the Church to which all
are called to hear the Good News. It is the Church which dispenses
the Word of God.
It was to man that Christ entrusted His Word, and it was upon man
that Christ chose to build the structure that would keep His Truth
intact and safe until he should come again. The Holy Spirit was
given to them that they would safeguard the Truth and lead them
into the fullness of that Truth.
Christ was going back to His Father, he could not leave His
embryonic Church without a leader, just as He was leader, he had
learned everything from His Father and given this to His disciples.
Then when it was His time to return to the Father, they chose
another to be the anchor, the rock, the leader to hold his flock
together and continue to build the Kingdom of God on earth.
If you choose to intepret this passage as you do, then you overturn
the Church's teaching from the beginning, you choose not to accept
that the Church was built on Peter which is what the Church has
believed from it's beginning. This is the belief enlightened by the
guidance of the Holy Spirit and entrusted to the Church.
Peace,
Tom
|
754.34 | | ICTHUS::YUILLE | He must increase - I must decrease | Mon Jul 03 1995 10:48 | 24 |
754.36 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Tue Jul 04 1995 21:05 | 7 |
| .35
Amen Bob! I really agree with what you have written and appreciate the
way it was written, very understandable and clear.
Thanks,
Nancy
|
754.37 | Back to the Rock | LARVAE::PRICE_B | Ben Price | Tue Aug 01 1995 16:50 | 14 |
| My study Bible backs up the statement that Jesus is the Rock on which
the church is built (according to the original greek). The fact is that
Jesus is the Chief Cornerstone and how can that Cornerstone be laid on
a human foundation?? The church cannot be based upon a human (or line
of humans) because that foundation is not a strong enough base and it
would be blasphemy to say that the Cornerstone is laid on a human
foundation.
The church must be built on the foundation of Jesus because (as
Gamaliel said in Acts 5:38-39) if it is built on a human foundation it
will crumble (the wise man built his house upon the Rock not the sand).
Love
Ben
|