Ted, I have four questions for you.

 

1) Jesus changed Peter's name to 'Kephas'. Can you tell me why Jesus did this?

 

2) From the Jewish culture Jesus lived in, can you tell me what the significance of the rabbinical formula: 'Bind and loose' mean?

 

3) From the Jewish culture Jesus lived in, can you give me the history of the 'keys' that were given to Peter?

 

4) Can you cite just *one* Church Father which understood the 'rock' being someone other than Peter?

 

[My intent was not to ask just any Church Father, but any Church Father in the first four centuries only.]

 

You ask excellent questions. For the first one, I have a question in reply. When did Jesus change Peter's name? There is good evidence that 'petros' is a Greek loanword to Hebrew and may very well have been Peter's nickname all along. Jesus then used the nickname to make His point, and did not change Peter's name at all. (see http://www.JerusalemPerspective.com/articles/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=1463)

 

No. I don't think that is what John 1:42 says at all. James and John were surnamed in Mark 3:17, but still retained their original names. It is rather your imposition on the text which allows you to draw that conclusion.

 

I can't directly answer your question regarding 'binding and loosing' from a rabbinical perspective. But two points must be made.

 

I think you should. It's important to know what Jesus meant from the culture He lived in. It's extremely important to understand what 'binding and loosing' means since it has a direct impact on *your* salvation.

 

First, the power was given to ALL of the disciples, not just to Peter. (See Matt 18:18). The language is exactly the same. Therefore, there is no hint of Petrine supremacy.

 

Yes, the power was given to all of the Apostles, but it was given to Peter *independently* of the other Apostles as well. So what do you think that means?

 

Second, the translation commonly seen 'shall be bound/shall be loosed' is wrong. The Greek is properly translated in the future perfect tense in English as 'shall have been bound/shall have been loosed'. Instead of implying that the event occurs on Earth, then in Heaven, it implies that the binding and loosing occur in Heaven, then the apostles carry it out on earth. This puts them all in the proper position as servants, not as ones with power over heaven. In other words, they will be ones with a pipeline into heaven, which allows them to clearly hear God's commands. Note: ALL the apostles got this boon.

 

Translation? Oh. I believe that 4 PROTESTANT translations: KJV, NIV, RSV, and NASB support my position rather than yours. Can you explain that?

 

But, for the sake of argument, what difference does it make whether the decision is made in heaven before, during or after Peter's decision? The point is that it is *THROUGH* him and the other Apostles that we know what heaven has 'bound' and what heaven has 'loosed'.

 

This leads directly to the 'keys'. Only one other text makes reference to keys, Is 22:22. This obscure referent is to a symbol of delegated authority from the sovereign

 

Obscure? No, I don't think it's 'obscure' at all. But, I can understand why you would want to push this issue into this realm given your sensibilities on the topic

 

In Isaiah it is a Messianic prophecy and Christ gets the keys. Since only one person can truly have this symbol of power, the reference in Matt 16:19 is to the further delegation of authority WHICH IS FULLY REVOKABLE (notice that Judas was in the assembly).

 

Revocable? Yes. I agree with that. But, tell me, do you have that authority to revoke the authority that Jesus gives to Peter without additional revelation?

 

The person with the symbol of authority serves at the pleasure of the king. Failure to please the king or follow his commands leads to revocation of the keys, and possibly of life.

 

Let me help you out with the keys. The significance of the 'keys' expresses the meaning of authority and power especially in Isaiah 22:15-25 (Cf. Matthew 23:13, Revelation 1:18, Revelation 3:7, Revelation 20:1). The prophet draws a comparison between Shebna and Eliakim. Shebna shall be deprived of his office, and Eliakim shall succeed him. The office is symbolized by the possession of the keys which empower its holders to 'open' and 'shut': 'Then I will set the key of the house of David on his shoulder, when he opens no one will shut, when he shuts no one will open' (Isaiah 22:22). The keeper of the keys was one of the most important roles a household servant could hold (Cf. Mark 13:32-34). In David's kingdom, 'the House of David,' was established in the 11th century B.C. The first thirty-nine chapters of Isaiah was written in the 8th century B.C. Hence, the keys had been passed down in succession for approximately three centuries. The descendants of the house of Judah include King David (Cf. Genesis 49:10, Micah 5:2), and his lineage which includes King Hezekiah (Cf. Isaiah 22) and the Messiah (Cf. Matthew 1). In Isaiah 22, Shebna acted as overseer for King Hezekiah as Joseph did for the Pharaoh over his house in Genesis 41.

 

Another revealing fact is that the Prophet records that Shebna shall be 'hurled out' and 'cast into a vast country to die', and he shall be 'deposed from his office' and be 'pulled down from his station' (Cf. Isaiah 22:17-19). If Eliakim was the prototype of Peter, then there should be a parallel of Shebna in the New Testament as well. In fact, there is a remarkable parallel between Shebna and the Scribes and the Pharisees, and in particular, the High Priest of the Sanhedrin: 'The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; therefore, all that they tell you, do and observe. But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from men.'(Matthew 23:2-3,13).

 

Far from encouraging rebellion, however, Jesus commands his followers to heed the 'seat of Moses' and implicitly recognizes the authority that they have by using Old Testament rabbinical language such as the power to 'shut off.' Until the New Covenant has been established by Christ's death on the cross, therefore, the power rested with them. After the redemption, however, the High Priest's authority (Shebna) is passed on to Peter (Eliakim) who receives the power of the keys from Jesus (King Hezekiah). In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus is the master of the house, and has the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. In the Old Testament, God lays the keys to the House of David on the Eliakim's shoulders with authority and stewardship over that house. In the New Testament, Jesus does the same with Peter: He entrusts him with the authority to administer the House of God, the Church, until He returns. This is not to say that the keys now belong to Peter. Christ still holds the keys as a Master holds the ultimate authority over his House, but holding authority certainly does not preclude the Master from delegating it as He wishes. Hence, Peter's successors would shoulder the responsibilities and authority throughout the duration of the Church until Jesus returns just as Ahishar, the first recorded palace administrator (Cf. 1 Kings 4:6) who is given the identical title as Eliakim, had successors flowing through the history of Israel.

 

As for Church Fathers, let us review the list. Hilary states, 'This faith it is which is the foundation of the Church; through this faith the gates of hell cannot prevail against her. This is the faith which has the keys of the kingdom of heaven.' Of similar view were Gregory Nyssen, Chrisostom, Origen, Cyril of Alexandria and Augustine of Hippo. Augustine's comment in his 'Retractiones' is most telling.

 

'I have somewhere said of St. Peter that the church is built on him as the rock. . . But I know that I have since frequently said that the word of the Lord, 'Thou are Petros, and on the petra will I build my church,' must be understood of him, whom Peter confessed as Son of the living God; and Peter, so named after this rock, represents the person of the church, which is founded on this rock and has received the keys of the kingdom of heaven. For it was not said to him: 'Thou art a rock' (petra), but 'Thou art Peter' (Petros); and the rock was Christ, through confession of whom Simon received the name Peter.'

 

Launoy (a Catholic ) surveyed the ante-Nicene fathers and found 17 supporting Peter as the rock, 16 supporting Jesus as the rock, 8 felt that the apostles were the rock, and 44 that the confession of faith in Jesus by Peter was the rock. I think I have answered the issue. We may also put to rest the idea of 'unanimous consent of the Fathers', so conveniently cited by several Popes. It doesn't exist.

 

Let me ask the same question again. Can you please cite the *ACTUAL WRITINGS* of these Fathers which you claim do not support Peter as the rock. I consider St. Augustine, who did believe in Papal supremacy in any case, to be in the fifth century.

 

I don't wish to be harsh, but facts are unyielding.

 

The facts? It all depends on the facts you wish to suppress.

 

Ah, an articulate response. It makes me think carefully, and that is good. Let us get down to details.

 

Yes. Let's get it on. Unless otherwise noted, my citations will be from RSV (Catholic edition).

 

I will give you the naming of Peter in John 1:42. I had not noticed it in my studies. It changes nothing in Matthew 16, since that is a totally different situation, and was recorded in inspired scripture.

 

A "totally" different situation? I think it's quite God-incidental, don't you? I find it difficult to understand that you won't admit the obvious and apparent parallel:

 

"Jesus looked at him and said, 'You shall be called 'Cephas' (which means Peter)." (John 1:42)

 

"And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church." (Matthew 16:18)

 

Can you tell me which language the word 'Cephas' comes from and why it appears in a Greek text?

 

You must excuse me if I seem a little persistent on this matter, but I must press you on it since it concerns your eternal salvation. I have asked this question twice before, and you have not answered it. I will not let it go until you address it:

 

What two other biblical persons had their names changed by God and what was the significance of it?

 

Matthew contrasts petros and petra.

 

Yes. But do you know why he has NO CHOICE IN THE MATTER? The problem in Greek, as it is in other languages, is that one cannot conjugate a linguistically feminine name 'rock', into a personal male name for rock. [In Aramaic, there is no need to do this, and Aramaic was the original language of the Gospel.]

 

Conjugation required: Greek: "You are Petros, and upon this petra I will build my church." Spanish: "You are Pedro, and upon this piedra I will build my church." Italian: "You are Pietro, and upon this pietra I will build my church."

 

No conjugation required: Aramaic: "You are Kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my church." French: "You are Pierre, and upon this pierre I will build my church." English: "You are Rock (Peter which means rock), and upon this rock I will build my church."

 

No argument about Greek vs. Hebrew vs. Aramaic can change that.

 

Is that right? Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew in Greek? Lets ask the early Christian witnesses such as Papias (130-150 A.D.), Irenaeus (180 A.D.), Origen (244 A.D.), Eusebius (325 A.D.), Chrysostom (370 A.D.), ETC. ETC. {who believed that he wrote it in Aramaic}.

 

Would you like some references from modern biblical scholars as well? I will be happy to provide you with some direct quotes from them as well as from the Fathers cited above.

 

In fact, how do you know that the book of Matthew you are reading from right now was, in fact, from Matthew, the Apostle? Does it say, "I, Matthew, am writing this Gospel", and even if it did, how do you know it is really from him and not just a spurious Gospel? What, or rather, WHO are you relying on to verify this claim?

 

And even if he did write this Gospel in Greek, which he did not, how does that answer the point I made above?

 

As Paul points out (2 Tim 2:15), the scripture itself is inspired, and since the Greek is what Matthew wrote, we must deal with IT, not hypotheticals about something else.

 

No. You have not a clue as to which language Matthew wrote his Gospel because you do not have his inspired writing available to you. You have copies of copies of copies of it. And you owe much to the Catholic monks for this. At least Luther was honest to admit this. But I've addressed this question above, in any case.

 

All scripture is inspired, but just which "scriptures" are inspired and which are not? Let me give you some background on this topic: Centuries after the original Apostles had died, there was no definite agreement on what constituted an authentic Apostolic letter because there were many spurious fabrications claiming to be Apostolic (i.e. the Gospel of James, the Gospel of Thomas, the Acts of Pilate, Acts of Paul and Thecla and 50 other 'Acts' as well as a small number of Epistles and Apocalypses.) There were also the Apocrypha or contested books which were considered by many to be inspired and apostolic as much as the current canon. These included the 'Shepherd' of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabas, the Didache, the Gospel According to the Hebrews, St. Paul's Epistle to the Laodiceans, and the Epistle of St. Clement. AND NOT ONLY THAT!!! According to Eusebius (325A.D.), there were a number of books which were not originally widely received as 'authentic' until the Church finally decided the question , including the Epistle of St. James, Epistle of St. Jude, 2nd Epistle of St. Peter, 2nd and 3rd of St. John, Hebrews, and Revelation.

 

Read Luke 1:1 carefully.

 

The Rabbinical perspective may add to the overall understanding of Matt 16:19 and 18:18, but it is not essential

 

Rubbish. Listen closely. Jesus was a Jew speaking from the Jewish tradition. He was God and He chose His words carefully so that they would not be misunderstood among his followers. He was a rabbi too. And being a rabbi, He chose to use language that would convey his meaning *unequivocally* in RELIGIOUS AND JEWISH terms. To rip the clear and obvious context of his teaching away from the culture and tradition in which He lived is inexcusable. You do not assume a lawyer is speaking outside his frame of reference when he gives you his opinion on a legal matter do you? Well, then, why do you do that with Jesus?

 

"The power of binding and loosing was always claimed by the Pharisees. Under Queen Alexandra the Pharisees, says Josephus (War of the Jews 1:5:2), 'became the administrators of all public affairs so as to be empowered to banish and readmit whom they pleased, as well as to loose and bind.'�The various schools had the power to 'bind and loose'; that is, to forbid and to permit (Talmud: Ta'anit 12a). This power and authority vested in the rabbinical body of each age or in the Sanhedrin, received its ratification and final sanction from the celestial court of justice (Sifna, Emor, ix; Talmud: Makkot 23b).' In this sense Jesus, when appointing his successors, he used the familiar formula (Matt. 16:19, 18:18). By these words he virtually invested them with the same authority as that which he found belonging to the scribes and Pharisees who 'bind heavy burdens and lay them on men's shoulders, but will not move them with one of their fingers'; that is, 'loose them,' as they have the power to do (Matthew 23:2-4)" - David H. Stern, Jewish New Testament Commentary, (Clarksville, MD: Jewish New Testament Publications, 1992), p.56-57.

 

since the translation is incorrect as I noted. It should be 'shall have been' not 'shall be'. This denies a power to bind unilaterally on earth.

 

Conceding, for the sake of argument that the translations are ALL faulty, you have still not addressed the point of my last post. Here it is again: The fact that the decision to bind is made before, during, or after the decision is made in heaven is irrelevant to the fact that Jesus is pointing to WHERE and WHO you should look to ON EARTH for that decision.

 

{As Catholic Apologist, Mark Bonocore, explains: "The first verb in the couplet is an active aorist and the second is a perfect passive participle which is best translated into English as a passive future perfect. Thus, the verses literally say "Whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in Heaven." The obvious meaning of the Matt 16:19 &18:18 statements is that whatever the Apostles (and their successors) bind upon the faithful (i.e., faith or morals) will not be their own teaching but what has already been bound upon the Church by God in eternity."}

 

Further, a power given to all the disciples denies that that same power given to one yields any supremacy for him.

 

I think not. Even if we ignored that the keys were given to Peter ALONE which is where the ultimate authority lies (Cf. Matthew 23:13, Revelation 1:18, Revelation 3:7, Revelation 20:1), the power given to Peter was given to him *independently* of the other Apostles so he has the authority to loose and bind *independently* of them. Matthew 18:18 INCLUDED Peter in it, and therefore without him, the decision is null and void. If he looses and the others bind, then Matthew 18:18 is out as a judiciary mechanism to decide matters of faith in the Church. We can only fall back on Matthew 16:18. What happens when half the Apostles want to bind and the other half wants to loose? How do you decide? Peter of course - go read the doctrines you accept as a Christian, and go and see who DEFENDED them against the heretics of the East. And please don't say that the Pope was just lucky to be on the right side!

 

As I noted before, the language of Matthew 16 does NOT grant Peter anything exclusively. Because visual cues are not present in the account, it is possible to construe it that way

 

Here, let me give you some "visual cues":

 

Jesus frequently chose a location for teaching a significant doctrine or making a serious revelation. Recall the Sermon on the Mount, Jacob's Well in Samaria, Mt. Horeb for the Transfiguration, and Jerusalem for His crucifixion. Therefore, when Jesus spoke to Peter and called him the rock on which He would build His church, it is not surprising that He revealed this in Caesarea Philippi (Cf. Matthew 16:13).The neighbourhood of Caesarea Philippi was in the midst of a massive wall of rock rising over the source of the Jordan. Here was the sacred river taking its origin through an opening in a massive wall of rock, an opening which could evoke the wide-open jaws of death. Against this backdrop, Jesus spoke these words to Peter. And it was Peter who is the rock. He was the rock in John 1:42 and he is the same rock that Jesus builds His Church on in Matthew 16:18.

 

but that stands in contrast to the rest of scripture, and must therefore be rejected.

 

Shall we discuss the 50+ passages which refute your Protestant understanding of Scripture?

 

It is very easy to do a demonstration where the exact same text grants the power to all the disciples. I do it when I teach this subject. The granting of the power to all the disciples agrees with Matt 18:18 and the rest of scripture, and is therefore the correct understanding.

 

Well, then you do not teach very critically. Let us take this question one step at a time. Do you believe the Apostles had the SOVEREIGN right to teach the TRUE gospel of Jesus Christ? [When I say, "sovereign", I mean to the exclusion of the disciples when they disagree with the Apostles.] YES OR NO?

 

Translations… There are a host of translation issues scattered throughout the Bible. Most of them come from the KJV, which was translated before substantial amounts of theological knowledge had been developed. The key is that the verb should be future perfect tense, not simple future. The NASB makes this note in its margin, and I have double checked with several Greek scholars, all of whom agree with my point. To further illustrate the point, look at 1 Peter 1:20 (unrelated to the topic at hand). 20 For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you (NASB) All of the translations you listed have the same flavour. But the NASB notes that the literal Greek is 'at the end of the times', not 'in these last times'. The translators kept the same flavour as the KJV because it was familiar, even though it was incorrect. It happens that, properly translated, Peter is making a powerful point about Jesus beginning His ministry at the proper time to complete the 69 weeks of Daniel 9:25 (another horribly translated text).

 

You say that, "Most of them come from the KJV, which was translated before substantial amounts of theological knowledge had been developed." But, these editions are centuries after the KJV:

 

RSV: 1965 NASB: 1977 NIV: 1978

 

I find your argument far too facile simply because all of these translations hold to the traditional rendering, and they certainly cannot be held to be theologically biased towards the Catholic position. What you are asking me to do is to believe *you* and your scholars over them.

 

In any case, whether it is the simple future or the future perfect tense, it still doesn't help your case very much.

 

Back on Matt 16:18, even if you use simple future tense, it is possible to have the same understanding as future perfect tense. That is, the binding done is done because it was already bound in heaven. It is simply clearer in the future perfect tense.

 

Again, how does this help your position when Jesus is clearly identifying WHO Christians should look to when they are bound to or loosed from something?

 

Certainly, the decision is COMMUNICATED through the apostles (not just Peter). That is one function of an apostle.

 

Ah…now we are getting somewhere. I'll take what I can get and go with it for now- even if you leave Peter out. You have offered a certain, distinguishable group through whom a decision is communicated. This is good. The Catholic Church, of course, follows this model.

 

We agree that only the sovereign can revoke the authority symbolized by the keys. But this leads to the issue of apostolic succession, which rests on two faulty premises: 1) Petrine supremacy, an idea totally absent in scripture,

 

I would not necessarily tie Petrine supremacy with the idea of apostolic succession. Go try telling that to the Eastern Orthodox, and see what kind of reaction you get.

 

and also absent from the early church

 

Come now, Ted, shall I pull out the buzillions of references?

 

and 2) the ability to pass on the apostolic office, a concept which again is absent from scripture

 

Tell me what you think Acts 1:20 means.

 

And try to argue the "absence" of such an office from either Jewish or Christian tradition, or for that matter, logic itself when every "Joe Heretic" fool comes and tries to share 'the Gospel' with you.

 

Of course, I see you are not bold enough to claim that it was "absent" from the early Church.

 

, and which the history of the RCC shows to be an evil joke. See http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/shots2.htm

 

The evil joke is not apostolic succession. The evil joke is the division that exists in Christianity's 28,000 sects, which is brought about by obstinate people who refuse to submit to their leaders (Cf. Hebrews 13:17). Can you give me just ONE reference in the whole Bible where God approves of his people usurping legitimate authority?

 

You do a nice job on Is 22, but you make a fatal error. Eliakim in Is 22 is Christ, not Peter. Is 22 is a MESSIANIC prophecy. Certainly you can make parallels with the Pharisees, as they are fair game for many parallels, but the role of Shebna is that of Satan. If you want the proper parallel, see Ezekiel 28:12-19. Since Jesus is in view in Is 22, only He can delegate the keys to successors. This stands in contrast to human kingdoms, where there was defined succession due to death. Jesus lives forever, and delegated once, not continuously. (The detailed exegesis of this passage is much too long for this thread, and perhaps we can tackle it in another place.)

 

Let me shorten it for you , Ted.

 

Let's take a visual look at the two passages

 

King Hezekiah (2 Kings 20:8)

 

King Hezekiah is identified with the Messiah in Jewish literature. The messianic king of Isaiah (Cf. Isaiah 33:17-22 and Isaiah 22) is identified with King Hezekiah and the Lord God. Moreover, Jesus is not the steward of the house of God as Isaiah 22:15 says of that office, He is the MASTER of it. Eliakim and Peter are the appointed administrators of the house which again is brought home more than abundantly in conferring the authority of the keys. The passage is inescapable. Listen closely what a Lutheran biblical scholar says on the issue:

 

"In Matthew 16:19 it is presupposed that Christ is the master of the house, who has the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, with which to open to those who come in. Just as in Isaiah 22:22 the Lord lays the keys of the house of David on the shoulders of his servant Eliakim, so Jesus commits to Peter the keys of his house, the Kingdom of Heaven, and thereby install him as administrator of the house." (Oscar Cullman, Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, 1953)

 

This should not be used to deny any ecclesiastical authority. Obviously many texts refer to such authority, but it is widely distributed and present in every body of believers, not just in Rome.

 

That is absurd and unbiblical. When EVERYONE has authority, then NO ONE has authority. I think that is rather an elementary concept to grasp. From a biblical perspective, read Acts 1:24 and 2 Cor 11:4, and tell me who the 'we' are.

 

True, Augustine was post-Nicene. However, he was the most respected church scholar and teacher of his day. It is curious that you note that Augustine believed in Papal supremacy, but he denied the interpretation of Matt 16:18-19 you propose.

 

Surely you jest. If you think St. Augustine *did not* believe in Papal supremacy, how do you explain these:

 

i) "[On this matter of the Pelagians], two Councils have already been sent to the Apostolic See; and form there rescripts too have come. The matter is at an end; would that the error too might sometime be at an end." (Sermons, 131,10)

 

ii) "If you should find someone who does not yet believe in the Gospel, what would you answer him when he says: 'I do not believe?' Indeed, I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so." (Against the Letter of Mani, 5,6)

 

If you want some more, then just say so.

 

I also quoted Hilary, who died in 367, 42 years after Nicaea, so you are technically correct about not giving you any ante-Nicene quotes. However, as I noted, many exist, and I will dig them up as time permits.

 

Well, you'll be digging for a long time. I would also like to see the Hillary ACTUAL reference.

 

I think it is most curious that the testimony of the one person who allegedly received a unique authority is consistently ignored by Catholic apologists. Peter himself, in 1 Peter 2, goes through an extended discussion of the structure of the church, using the metaphors (plural) of Matt 16:18. He shows how the members are all living stones, and that the church is based on Christ, the chief cornerstone (not Peter).

 

Very nice, but this hardly proves your point. Other members of the body can be described as 'stones', 'foundations' with Jesus as the Chief Cornerstone. No Christian - Protestant or Catholic - rejects this. These analogies do not detract, but rather enhance Peter being the Rock on which the Church is built. On the contrary, these other analogies, save Blessed Jesus Himself, do not specify ONE individual at all as being THE rock.

 

If Peter had any thought of his own importance, he would have listed it here, but his silence speaks volumes.

 

Yes. Silence does speak volumes of something, but not of substance. Arguing from sufficiency may work on one of your students who have not yet taken 'Critical Thinking 101', Ted, but not me. But let me gently point you in the direction of Galatians 1:18. Perhaps one day you can bring yourself to do what even St. Paul did.

 

(Yes, he uses lithos instead of petros/petra, but his discussion is developed from the Septuagint rendering of OT passages, so he uses that language, and descriptors which fill in the petros/petra distinction.) He begins the epistle calling himself 'an apostle', not the chief apostle. If he were the chief apostle, how is it that he never mentions it? Popes certainly never shy away from claiming their alleged status.

 

Before you were arguing from sufficiency, now it's from necessity. Good grief. I can say I play for the Dallas Cowboys without having to say that I'm the captain too. If you are the president of the company and are writing to your employees, do you say, "I, Ted, PRESIDENT OF ABC Company…." Of course not. They ALREADY know WHO you are!!!! You don't need to remind them of what they already know.

 

A second point that must be considered is that of the ante-Nicene fathers. If Peter was indeed the chief apostle, this fact would have been made evident to them BY PETER, and would be present in writings about issues OTHER THAN Matt 16:18. I cannot claim to be fully versed in what they wrote, but I have never heard a Catholic apologist bring forward other statements by these early pioneers which would bolster this claim. Now is their opportunity.

 

After a few minutes of research I have found a few. I can post them if you want, but I don't know what the point will be since it would probably have little influence over you.

 

The discussions by the ante-Nicene fathers about Matt 16:18 are in the nature of exploratory exegesis. They were wrestling with the text, as the diversity of opinion shows.

 

But you see, "the diversity of opinion" DOES NOT show because you have not provided it. What you have done is rely on third party opinions. That will not do for someone who is challenging you on that point.

 

Now if Peter were the chief apostle, he would have told the leaders of the churches he visited, and they would have taken this apostolic word as a fact. This fact would have been repeated, and there would have been no doubt as to the meaning of Matt 16:18. There would have been no doubt available for Augustine, since he would have had writings of those to whom it was received fact.

 

The fact is, Ted, that the Fathers' understanding of Peter's primacy is much more unanimous than their understanding of how you understand the Trinity today. And if you don't believe me, I invite you to read a debate I am having with a Unitarian. See how that, if you want to be a Trinitarian, you gotta be Catholic - there's no middle road.

 

As for Augustine, well, St. Augustine can understand a particular passage differently from his contemporaries and still accept papal primacy, which he did. Interesting isn't it? Why does St. Augustine do that? What other passages is he relying on if he doesn't accept Matthew 16:18?

 

As I said before, facts are unyielding. All of the early fathers would have yielded to such a fact, but the evidence of it is absent.

 

No, Ted. If you knew only the very rudiments of what the Church Fathers taught on this issue, you would know that they already yield to the fact of Peter's primacy, and that is why they were 'Fathers', 'Doctors', and Saints of the Holy Catholic Church. They were not schismatics.

 

Seven pages. WOW! I will try to be more brief than that. You show the years of your education.

 

30 years of age; degree in business; professional accountant - no formal education in biblical or theological studies got hooked on the truth 2 � years ago, and have been defending and propagating it ever since.

 

You also turn phrases nicely. 'God-incidental' is a well crafted construction. Unfortunately, you also neglect the essentials to turn peripheral issues into the core of your argument. This avoids the truth of the issue.

 

Peripheral issues? No, I like to address the issues *head on.* Not sure what you mean here.

 

Yes, I know that Abram (Gen 17:5) and Jacob (Gen 32:28) were renamed by God, but in each case the parallel with Peter breaks down because in each situation God gives a distinct reason for the renaming. He does not do so with Peter. In anticipation of your reply, that the reason was delayed to be given in Matt 16:18, I will deny your conclusion, for reasons which follow next.

 

No. I don't think that you do know what I mean since it is not apparent from the reason you provide subsequently. In Genesis 17:5, God changed Abram's name to Abraham. By changing Abram's name, there was a change in function and mission from shepherd to founder of the Jewish nation. In Hebrew, Abram means 'exalted father', and Abraham is rendered as 'chief of the multitude.' Likewise, Jacob's name was changed to Israel in Genesis 32:28 in order to change his function to be the founder of the twelve tribes of Israel. So the fact that Jesus changes Peter's name from Simon to 'Kepha' (Cf. John 1:42), and does not do so with anyone else is significant in itself since it designates a function of leadership not given to the others. Now, you may want to ignore or 'contextualize' away the clear biblical basis for believing that WHENEVER GOD CHANGES SOMEONE'S NAME in the Bible, the person's function or office changes as well. You have therefore two options to deny the biblical evidence for Peter's primacy in this case: you can resort to special pleading or you can claim an authority to interpret the Scriptures which I do not have. Which will it be?

 

In gospel reporting of Jesus' teachings and words, the evangelists report according to the standards of their day, and so the stories vary slightly. The harmony is there, but the exactness of the reporting which would be required by your learned discussion of languages is not. Under these standards, the passage in Matthew could have been reported in Greek in any of several equivalent ways which would avoid the debate we are having.

 

But you see, this assumes that all points of doctrine are so clear, so perspicuous, and so unquestionable that there should be very little disagreement. Is that the case in 'Bible only' Christianity, Ted? Of course not. You reject *de facto* that there can even be a legitimately debatable passage without appealing to 'if that is what Jesus meant, He could have said this'. Good grief. Shall I sit you in a room with a Baptist, Lutheran, Church of Christ, and Fundamentalist, throw out the topic of infant baptism, and let you watch the fireworks? Among those fireworks, you would inevitably find the argument that you just presented. (And that, by the way is within Protestantism only - never mind your beefs with us.)What about certain Evangelicals who affirm that Jesus *became* the Son *only* by the virtue of His incarnation. Tell me, is that *clear* in the Bible - because that is not what traditional Christianity believes.

 

Do you think God is so dull as to not realize that such an argument might arise from the language when He inspired its writing? Just to give one example, Jesus could have named Peter 'Lithos' (also 'Stone'), and inspired the passage using 'lithos', just as Peter does in 1 Peter 2. The ambiguity would have disappeared, just as well as the linguistic argument you present. Instead, He let the contrast stand, and inspired His penman to use one of the favourite Rabbinical tools, the pun, to make His point about contrast. You can see that the argument about linguistic necessity fails when we allow God to be God. Of course, the argument can be reversed, but that continues the point. The CONCLUSIVE argument presented by the RCC is nothing of the sort, and stands in contradiction to many lines of evidence. Therefore, it must be rejected in favour of the argument I present.

 

Again. This type of reasoning is hopelessly futile. You don't want to face the fact that the Bible is not clear on *many* doctrines so you resort to diversion. Shall I show you the diversity of opinion on the subject of 'faith and works' WITHIN Protestantism? Shall I show you the diversity of opinion on predestination WITHIN Protestantism? Will you say to them, 'if Jesus meant this, he could have said that'? They will say the SAME thing to you of the SAME passage!!!! Of course, there is a very simple solution to this mess, and that is, simply, that the Bible alone WAS NEVER MEANT to be ALONE, just like faith was never meant to be alone. Fifteen centuries of Christianity witness to it before the Deformers spread their demonic heresy.

 

Certainly there is discussion in scholarly circles about a hypothetical 'Q' document which is supposed to be source material for the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke. Its existence cannot be proven, and even if it existed, the original of the gospel was written in Greek. (See F. F. Bruce, 'The Canon of Scripture'.) (For the onlookers, 'Q' is supposed to be some sort of journal or similar document kept by an unnamed member of Jesus' entourage which was used by the writers of the synoptic gospels to keep their stories straight.) I have seen no evidence that any NT book was written in any language other than Greek.

 

Who said anything about 'Q'? Not me. I reject Q as an hypothesis. I did not bring up 'Q' in supporting Matthew being originally written in Aramaic. I referred to the early Fathers and Protestant biblical scholars.

 

This does not mean that that is the language which Jesus spoke. He read from the scroll of Isaiah in Hebrew, and probably spoke Aramaic on a daily basis (The two languages are very similar.). There are suggestions that his sermons drew from the Septuagint, which was in Greek. None of this matters, because God inspired the scriptures, and the original of those is what we must consider, not the sources. If you have contradictory evidence, please present it. I have looked, but have not found it. Your greater years of study offer you an opportunity to note things I have not yet discovered.

 

In regards to the original language of Matthew, we simply do not know *conclusively. But, I believe I am on a better historical ground than you because this has been the opinion of the early Church from the very beginning.

 

So you say Jesus spoke Aramaic. Good. Tell me how Jesus would have ACTUALLY said, 'You are Peter…' See my point? He called Peter 'Kephas' in John 1:42. And there is no translational conjugation required in Aramaic, BUT THERE NECESSARILY MUST BE IN Greek. Matthew had no choice in the matter if he was to follow the rules of Greek grammar.

 

Matthew does not claim authorship of the gospel attributed to him, but his authorship is attested by careful scholarship over many years. Probably the only NT book where the author is seriously in doubt is Hebrews. The authorship is unimportant in any case. What is important is the content.

 

But this is special pleading in the worst degree. It was *a group of Christians* in the fourth century who finally decided the *CONTROVERSIAL* topic of the canon. "Scholarship" is a good tool, but it cannot tell you whether a particular book is *inspired*.

 

I will not rehash the process of recognizing the canon here, nor will I debate it. Anyone who wishes to understand it can read any of the standard works such as the F.F. Bruce work listed above for detail. I will only point out that no council of any church determined which books became part of the canon.

 

Have you ever heard of the Councils of Hippo and Carthage in the late fourth century? They were the first councils to attest to *your* 27 books of the New Testament. (Another 'God-incidence'?) Or perhaps, you prefer Martin Luther's approach of ranking the 27 books and wanting to eject St. James?

 

Canonical books are inherently canonical, self authenticating, and contain the power of God within them.

 

Rubbish. If I give you 20 passages, 15 of which come from what you consider 'Apocrypha', and ask you to tell me which 5 are inspired, will God tell you which writings are inspired? There is no such thing as something being 'self-authenticating' unless there is an authenticator.

 

They were accepted as canonical by the church (widely, not just in Rome) because the church had no choice in the matter. This is part of what God meant by 'the gates of hell will not prevail against it.' That is also why the spurious writings failed to make it into the Bible.

 

Eureka! This is good. If God promised that the Gates of hell would not prevail against the Church ON THIS MATTER, why would He not extend that promise when it comes to interpreting it? What good is an infallible (inerrant Bible) without an infallible medium for communicating it?

 

Premise 1: The Bible alone is the sole source of divine revelation. Premise 2: Only those maxims that are explicitly taught in the Bible are binding on a Christian. Premise 3: Jesus and the Apostles preached the infallible Gospel message. Premise 4: Jesus and the Apostles were infallible in their teaching. Premise 5: God's revealed truth can be known definitively at any point in time. Premise 6: The New Testament demonstrates that the infallible Gospel message was preached by infallible teachers.

 

Conclusion: An infallible message must be given by an infallible messenger.

 

In order to reject the conclusion, which premise(s) do you reject?

 

Again, did you read the reference from Eusbesius I gave you in the last post? There was no unanimous agreement AT ALL. That's pretty strange for an alleged 'self authenticating' work. But hear ye, what St. Augustine says about the question of the canon:

 

"But let us now go back to consider the third step here mentioned, for it is about it that I have set myself to speak and reason as the Lord shall grant me wisdom. The most skilful interpreter of the sacred writings, then, will be he who in the first place has read them all and retained them in his knowledge, if not yet with full understanding, still with such knowledge as reading gives, those of them, at least, that are called canonical. For he will read the others with greater safety when built up in the belief of the truth, so that they will not take first possession of a weak mind, nor, cheating it with dangerous falsehoods and delusions, fill it with prejudices adverse to a sound understanding. Now, in regard to the canonical Scriptures, he must follow the judgement of the greater number of catholic churches; and among these, of course, a high place must be given to such as have been thought worthy to be the seat of an apostle and to receive epistles. Accordingly, among the canonical Scriptures he will judge according to the following standard: to prefer those that are received by all the catholic churches to those which some do not receive. Among those, again, which are not received by all, he will prefer such as have the sanction of the greater number and those of greater authority, to such as are held by the smaller number and those of less authority. If, however, he shall find that some books are held by the greater number of churches, and others by the churches of greater authority (though this is not a very likely thing to happen), I think that in such a case the authority on the two sides is to be looked upon as equal." Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series: Volume II, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1997. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series: Volume II, On Christian Doctrine, Book II, Chapter 8

 

As for the original text of any book, it is true we do not have the original monographs, but we have so much material that there are fewer than 40 lines of the NT which have any doubt as to their original content.

 

Yes, but the point is that you believe 'the original text' was written by an Apostle (or associate thereof) because the Christian Church has guarded it thus. You must appeal to the Christian tradition outside of the book to test its authenticity. One Christian says to another 'this is the letter of Matthew' and so on and so on.

 

I do not suggest that Jesus was speaking outside of His context. I merely pointed out that Matt 18:18 denies the possibility that Matt 16:18 grants an exclusive to Peter, and that the nature of the binding and loosing was such that man cannot bind heaven. Again, you take material which is present, but non-essential to try to contradict the plain meaning of scripture.

 

We'll let our readers be the judge of that.

 

Your commentary quote is good. You also forget to note that this expands on the point I made about the keys. The power was delegated, and could be revoked by the sovereign. Never did the binding or loosing obligate the sovereign, who had the ultimate power.

 

But you see, Ted, I readily affirm that Jesus has the ultimate power. The Catholic Church is subject to Her Master, of course. What I find rather extraordinary in the above is this: "The power was delegated, and COULD be revoked by the sovereign." Amen! So be it! But please…..you're killing me with suspense…..WHERE is the scripture which DOES IN FACT revoke the powers given to Peter via the keys?

 

Your discussion about Caesarea Philippi shows again the contrast. Notice what happens. The disciples are assembled, and Jesus is teaching them. Peter speaks up with one answer. Notice that the contrast is immediately drawn first between Christ, the Son of the living God and Peter (before 'petra' appears). Then Jesus looks up from Peter to the twelve with the cliff in the background, and says TO THE TWELVE, 'and on this petra I will build my church'. This is what I meant by the lack of visual clues. The address about 'petra' is not to Peter alone, but to the twelve.

 

I find it rather amusing that you would bring this up because it favours the Catholic view more than it does yours. The Apostles are there with Peter, but Jesus SINGLES out Peter in particular to the exclusion of the twelve. But let's back up a bit. What was Jesus' original question? Which of the Apostles GOT IT RIGHT and WHICH GOT IT WRONG? Peter, among all the Apostles, was the only one to recognize WHO JESUS REALLY IS. The others were off in la-la land. And so it has been down through the centuries.

 

The followup of the keys and binding/loosing is also to the twelve, EXACTLY AS IT IS IN Matt 18:18. The twelve cannot miss the contrast because they are looking straight at it.. This is the demonstration I give in my class. This is not careless as you suggest, but carefully showing that the RCC position is by no means demanded by the text.

 

Pity that error is being given an audience. Who were the keys given to? To all of the Apostles or Peter alone? Before you answer, I suggest you take a look at the Greek pronoun used in the text.

 

We may also look to the chiasm, a favorite Jewish writing tool, to see the meaning of Matt 16:18. A simple form of it exists here. (For the onlookers, a chiasm is a series of points made in one order, reaching a peak, then echoed in reverse order. The matching points on opposite sides of the chiasm explain each other.) Please note: a) Jesus is the Christ (v 16) b) blessed are you SIMON (v 17) c) this is revealed by the Father (v 17) b') Peter is petros (v 18) a') on this petra I will build my church

 

Note that 'petros' (b') matches 'Peter' (b). Likewise 'Christ' (a) matches 'petra' (a'). Therefore 'Christ' explains 'petra', just as 'Peter' explains 'petros'. The figurative contrast could not be more clear. The peak of the chiasm is the revelation by the Father. This places the Father centrally, and denies the centrality of Peter.

 

This makes little sense to me. Your conclusion is certainly not drawn from the text. Let's see the text again:

 

Matthew 16:17-19 - "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father in heaven. And I also say to YOU that YOU ARE PETER, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it. I will give YOU the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever YOU shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever YOU shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

 

How you can conclude that Peter was not the subject or central to this passage is nothing less than linguistic gymnastics.

 

Look at what Luther said:

 

"So we stand there and with open mouth stare heavenward and invent still other keys. Yet, Christ says very clearly in Matthew 16:19 that He will give the keys to Peter. He does not say He has two kinds of keys, but He gives to Peter the keys He Himself has and no others. It is as if He were saying: 'Why are you staring heavenward in search of the keys? Do you not understand I gave them to Peter? They are indeed the keys of heaven, but they are not found in heaven. I left them on earth. Don't look for them in heaven or anywhere else except in Peter's mouth where I have placed them. Peter's mouth is My mouth, and his tongue is My key case. His office is My office, his binding and loosing are My binding and loosing.'" (Martin Luther, The Keys, in Conrad Bergendoff, ed., trans. Earl Beyer and Conrad Bergedoff, Luther's Works, vol. 40, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1958, p 365-366)

 

No Catholic Pope could have said it better!!!

 

True, we should look to the apostles for the direct commands of the Holy Spirit. We do not look to men who have not been granted authority by God.

 

Oh yes? Well, we might be getting somewhere here because I think you are beginning to realize the importance of God granting men authority to interpret His Holy Word. If you do concede this, then what becomes of 'sola scriptura'?

 

It is obvious that we will not agree on the interpretation of Matt 16:18. You argue supremacy for Peter. If that is so, why, at the Jerusalem council, with Peter present, did JAMES pronounce the verdict (Acts 15:13ff?

 

It is ironic that you refer to a COUNCIL of the Church as the backdrop to your question. Have Satan's demons stopped attacking the Church so that the gates of hell need no longer challenge the Church after this first Council?

 

If you read the passage *carefully* you will see that James did not hand down a "pronouncement" on the issue. He merely re-affirmed Peter's decision.

 

Note the REACTION of the multitude after Peter's speech, "and the multitude kept silent" (Acts 15:12)? Robert A. Sungenis' Letter to Authors, Jan. 13, 1995 offers these insightful comments: "In Acts 15:12-13, Luke uses two forms of the Greek verb 'sigao' which means 'be silent.' Both are in the aorist tense and thus refer to an action in the past that was completed. The first usage in verse 12 refers to the silence caused in the assembly by the previous speaker, namely, Peter. The verse, literally translated, would read, 'And was silent all the multitude�' This past tense usage shows that the multitude was silent when Peter was speaking and remained so when Paul and Barnabas started speaking. The second use of 'sigao' is in verse 13 is an infinite aorist. It is preceded by an accusative preposition and the infamous Greek article which would be translated as: 'after they had become silent' or more colloquially, 'after they had finished speaking,' James began speaking. The passage gives us the normal events occurring when single individuals speak in turn to an assembly. According to the aorist usage of 'sigao' in verse 12, the initial silence occurs when Peter begins speaking in verse 7. That silence continues in verse 13 as Paul and Barnabas begin to speak, and continues further when James begins to speak in verse 14. According to the meaning of the second aorist, the silence is not cause by James. He is only the recipient of the silence occurring before him at the completion of the speech by Paul and Barnabas."

 

Hence, the decision was given by Peter. James simply re-affirmed it.

 

Your argument about Peter being able to overrule the other apostles presupposes conflict.

 

Of course there will be conflict in the Church. You need not look any further than *your* own denomination for that, never mind the whole HISTORY of Christianity, and Jesus' prediction of it in Matthew 16:18. What the Bible teaches and what the Church has always believed is that there is a final arbiter, a final judicial act to settle an issue in the Church and maintain unity.

 

Apostles were given a special outpouring of the Holy Spirit to guide them (Acts 2, 9), and thus were to be unanimous in the message. A dispute would occur with a drifting away from this guidance. The Jerusalem council (Acts 15) and Paul rebuking Peter are the only two examples I can think of immediately of such conflict, and in neither case was Peter pre-eminent. In fact, in one, he was the offender, rebuked by Paul (his inferior by RCC dogma) (Gal 2:11).

 

You have not read Galatians 2:11 with a critical eye, and I don't think my explanation of it will influence you so I'll pass. Suffice it to say, however, that any Catholic today could rebuke the Pope for not living up to the Gospel. You confuse *primacy* with *impeccability.

 

Your suggestion that I not say the Pope was lucky to be on the right side in doctrinal disputes is unnecessary. He wasn't on the right side in at least three: The Sabbath, the State of the Dead, and Mary.

 

If you want to talk about the Sabbath, we can. What kind of things do you think the Apostles were allowed to 'loose' what was previously bound. Give me specific examples.

 

Jesus Christ repeats and affirms ALL of the Ten commandments except one. Can you tell me which one he omits?

 

The RCC makes Mary out to be God (Don't throw the official line at me, it's a fraud. If you give someone the attributes of God, you have made them out to be God, whether you admit it or not. That, of course, is blasphemy. For detail, see http://www.Bibleonly.org/exp/rccfalse.htm). This puts the RCC in direct conflict with God's commands in Deuteronomy 13.

 

Please don't present a caricature of the Church's belief about Mary. It only spreads more confusion and error. And as for "the official line", well, yes, that is rather refreshing to have. Too bad you don't listen to the "official line" and instead believe in something that is exaggerated to a warped degree!

 

Now compare:

 

"If you give someone the attributes of God, you have made them out to be God, whether you admit it or not."

 

"I say, 'You are gods, sons of the most High, all of you; nevertheless, you shall die like men, and fall like any prince.'" (Psalm 82:6)

 

I'm not quite sure what you mean by a sovereign right. The apostles were empowered to teach the gospel, and they delegated that power to others as quickly as they could be taught so that the word would be spread quickly.

 

Rubbish. St. Paul says this to Timothy: "Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands…" ( 1 Tim 5:22)

 

This right terminated on the teaching of error, as several NT passages (1 John 2:19, etc) show.

 

The Apostles do not teach error. The Church cannot err because of Her divine founder. The Church is the "pillar and foundation of truth" (1 Tim 3:15), and the gates of hell will not prevail against her (Matt 16:18). 1 John 2:19 only speaks of people who could not bear the truth. They were pretenders for the Faith.

 

Yes, the RSV, NASB, and NIV are modern. But, as I illustrated, they follow the KJV pattern in their translations in many places where far better translations can be made. I can only speculate that these translations fit familiar molds or support favored doctrines better than the better translation would. The one I listed (1 Peter 1:20) was noted in the margin by the NASB translators themselves.

 

Well. I guess I'll have to wait for a translation that will correct the 'error'. I wonder why no scholar has picked up on that error yet. It appears to be pretty clear cut. Strange.

 

The RCC does not follow the model of communicating from God, because its dogmas are blasphemous. The idea of passing the apostolic appointment on looking at Acts 1:20 is a facile error. In it, the disciples (not yet anointed with the Holy Spirit) fulfilled prophecy by nominating two candidates to fill Judas' position. GOD CHOSE THE SUCCESSOR by the medium of lots, an honored method used many times in the OT to determine the Lord's will, by the Lord's command. The disciples did not make the choice (Acts 1:24).

 

Thank you for admitting to the biblical basis for Apostolic Succession: "God chose the SUCCESSOR." Of course, God chooses the successor or at least permits it, but it is THROUGH the Apostles.

 

Again. You are choosing to ignore what the text says:

 

"For it is written in the Book of Psalms: 'Let his encampment become desolate, and man no one dwell in it.' And 'May another take his office.' Therefore, it is necessary that one of the men who accompanied us the whole time the Lord Jesus came and went among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day on which he was taken up from us, become with us a witness to his resurrection. So they proposed two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also known as Justin, and Matthias. Then they prayed, 'You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen to take the place in this apostolic ministry from which Judas turned away to go to his own place.' Then they gave lots to them, and the lot fell to Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles" (Act 1:20-26).

 

Note the important phrase: 'May another take his office'. When the Apostle dies, HIS OFFICE DOES NOT. And what would be the point of appointing another Apostle to an OFFICE, if that OFFICE did not entail the rights of that office, namely, the employment of authority?

 

You bring up 2 Cor 11:4. " For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully." I find this astounding, since this is the crime committed daily by the RCC. You preach another Jesus

 

You mean there are "different Gospels"? If the Bible was so clear, how is that so? And more importantly how do I distinguish amongst competing claims? By the Bible? Good grief. The only objective, sensible, and historic way is to listen to the successors of the Apostles. That's it. That's all.

 

The point of the passages is that the 'true' gospel, as opposed to "Johnny Come Lately" versions is that it is APOSTOLIC in origin.

 

"For all these [heretics] are of much later date than are the bishops to whom the Apostles handed over the Churches; and this fact I pointed out most carefully in the third book. It is of necessity, then, that these aforementioned heretics, because they are blind to the truth, walk in various devious paths; and on this account the vestiges of their doctrine are scattered about without agreement or connection. The path of these, however, who belong to the Church, goes around the whole world; for it has the firm tradition of the Apostles, enabling us to see that the faith of all is one and the same" (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, A.D. 180, [5,20,1]).

 

a temperamental, vindictive Judge, who is so unapproachable that He requires the calming hand of Mary to prevent Him from striking down the sinner on a whim.

 

This is a lie. You will allow me, as a Catholic, to relate what the Catholic Church does, in fact, teach, won't you.

 

(For the onlooker, all you have to do to confirm my statement is to read Ineffabilis Deus or the works of Alphonsus de Liguori [praised by several recent Popes, including John Paul II] to see that I am understating the case.[links at http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch) You act to separate the sinner from his Savior by interposing

 

Mary (John 19:27), the Confessional (John 20:23), the intercession of saints (Colosians 1:24), Purgatory (Matthew 5:25-26), penance (Luke 15:4-7) and the like.

 

The Bible teaches us clearly that there is one UNIQUE God and one UNIQUE mediator (2 Tim 2:5).

 

Then why does St. Paul ask other believers to pray for him if they do not co-operate in Jesus' principal mediation? This is what the Church teaches.

 

It further shows us that He lived here so that he can fully sympathize with us and act fully in our favor, bringing us hope in our direst emergency (Heb 4:14-16). This allows us to come DIRECTLY to Jesus without any of the false obstacles the RCC places between the sinner and his loving Jesus. You also forget that verse 5 flatly denies Petrine supremacy. (Paul is the speaker.) "For I consider myself not in the least inferior to the most eminent apostles."

 

Really? Strange. I guess he must have changed his mind: "For I am the LEAST of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the Church of God" (1 Cor 15:9).

 

You suggest by way of Galatians 1:18 that I become acquainted with Peter. I suggest the same to you, since you insist on denying his direct testimony on the issue in front of us. I did not deny Augustine's belief in Papal supremacy, even though you took it that way. I was pointing out the curious contrast in his two positions. To say that 1 Peter 2 enhances Petrine supremacy is to deny all the OT prophecies about the Messiah being the rock.

 

Again, you choose to reject the notion that Jesus, the Apostles, and the Church (1 Tim 3:15) can be a 'rock', 'foundation', or 'pillar'.

 

It is particularly curious that you would hold this idea when Peter is quoting OT prophecies to show that Jesus is the rock!

 

Then why does the Old Testament refer to Abraham (you know, one of the guys who had his name changed too!!!!) this way:

 

"Hearken to me, you who pursue deliverance, you who seek the Lord; look to the ROCK from which you were hewn, and to the quarry from which you were digged. Look to ABRAHAM your father and to Sarah who bore you…" (Isaiah 51:1-2)

 

To suggest that to believe in the Trinity requires that one be Catholic is absurd in the extreme. The doctrine of the Trinity comes straight from scripture. In brief, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all persons. They are all God. There is only one God. The three persons are identical in nature. Put these together and you have the Trinity. It is fairly easy to demonstrate, although the texts are spread through scripture, which is probably why it took as long as it did to assemble the doctrine. They didn't have the luxury of computer searches like we do.

 

I agree with you that the Trinity is present in the Scriptures, but only the seeds of it. What I am saying is that it is not as *clear* as you think. I'll let you know when my debate with the Unitarian is over, and you can judge for yourself.

 

I can't claim the intimate familiarity with the early pioneers that you have, but I have read topical studies which surveyed their writings. Unanimity was not one of their traits. While they may have largely understood the core of the gospel in similar manners, when they dealt with more involved issues, they differed widely, as academics do today. They were mostly honestly wrestling with how to understand various issues. In some of these issues, they argued to the point of excommunication. The East/West split was over a preposition! (See Malachi Martin, 'The Decline and Fall of the Roman Church). Your vaunted unanimity is an illusion. Remember that they also introduced a gnostic syncretism. The body/soul duality is pure Platonism/Gnosticism. If you want to know what Paul taught, look at 1 Thess 4:13-17 and draw out the chiasm. Paul believed in 'soul sleep.'

 

Ted, I never claimed precise mathematical unanimity. In fact, the absence of it only favours the Catholic position even more so since it has with an authoritative teaching office to settle disputes. Protestants just keep reforming, reforming, and reforming instead of holding fast to the ORAL tradition of the Apostles (Cf. 2 Thes 2:15).

 

Well, this has been a bit disjointed, because of the wide ranging topics. Hopefully we have added more light than smoke.

 

Yes. I think our onlookers will be mostly well served by our discussion.

 

"The blessed Apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the Church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the Epistle to Timothy. To him succeeded Anencletus; and after him, in the third place from the Apostles, Clement was chosen from the episcopate. He had seen the blessed Apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that He still heard the echoes of the preaching of the Apostles, and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the Apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the Church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith…To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded; and Alexander succeeded Evaristus. Then, sixth after the Apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telesphorus, who also was gloriously martyred. Then Hyginus; after him, Pius; and after him, Anicetus. Soter succeeded Anicetus, and now, in the twelfth place after the Apostles, the lot of the episcopate has fallen to Eleutherus. In this order, and by the teaching of the Apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us." (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, A.D. 180, [3,3,3])

 

I must compliment you on the depth of your study in 2 1/2 years. It seems obvious that your studies have focused on the topic at hand. As for my bio, I am 46, an anesthesiologist, and Christ got my attention in 1993. In 1994, the Holy Spirit directed my study toward the prophecies of Daniel, and I have been focused on that topic since. I got into the OSUACC discussion page somewhat accidentally, and have visited from time to time, including a debate on sola scriptura last year.

 

Excellent. I pray that your study will enlighten you to all truth.

 

I have spent the last year and a half buried in Dan 9, and am preparing a paper on the translation of the word 'banah' ('to build') in 9:25. This has required that I pursue detailed studies in Hebrew and in Hebrew compositional techniques, such as the chiastic method I discussed. It is one of their favored ways to demonstrate an understanding of theological points. Leviticus is written in one large chiasm, with Lev 16 (the Day of Atonement) at the peak of the chiasm. The first half uses the imagery of blood, while the second uses holiness. The two halves explain each other. We will be revisiting the chiasm. It is essential to the understanding of many scriptural topics.

 

'So the fact that Jesus changes Peter's name from Simon to 'Kepha' (Cf. John 1:42), and does not do so with anyone else is significant in itself since it designates a function of leadership not given to the others.'

 

Nice try. Check Mark 3:17. Jesus names James and John, but no theological import can be found for this that I am aware of.

 

We've been over this before, Ted. There is no change in their names: only nick or surnames, and certainly not anything close than what happens to Peter. They are not referred to with these names again in Sacred Scripture. That cannot be said of Peter, of course.

 

Also, Jesus doesn't change Peter's name like He did with Abram and Jacob, He gives him another name. Notice Matt 16:17 where Jesus calls Peter 'Simon barJonah' (Simon, son of Jonah). Your interpretation is driven by the fact that the RCC needs to find support for its position, not by what the text itself says. Jesus says that Peter's name will be by interpretation 'a stone'. Note that this is 'petros', not 'petra' in the original.

 

Ted, I already explained to you why the Greek could not have translated Peter's name 'petra'. This is basic grammatical structure that I learned in high school French class. Sorry, Ted - that's just the way it is. Your problem is not with the RCC but with Greek. If you don't believe me, then believe this:

 

"Although it is true that petros and petra can mean 'stone' and 'rock' respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry. Moreover, the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses ('you are kepha' and 'on this kepha'), since the word was used both for a name and for a 'rock'. The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. The Greek makes a distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name." (Frank Gaebelein, The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke), 1984).

 

If Jesus planned to set up the equivalence of 'petros' and 'petra' in the Matt 16 discussion, He would have said 'by interpretation a petra'. He could have done that without violating any grammar. Then there could have been no serious discussion of contrast in Matt 16:18. Instead, the text specifically preserves the contrast. His intent is clear. Peter is to be a small stone, not the immovable boulder or bedrock upon which the church is founded. As such, he is a building block, yes a foundation stone just as the other apostles (plural), but he has no pre-eminence over the others. Once again, the original TEXT is inspired.

 

Here we go again with what Jesus *could have said*. O.K., Ted, you want to play that game. Here I can play that game too:

 

"If Jesus really wanted to make a distinction between the two words, he would have used the word 'lithos', a stone of any size." Are you satisfied with that explanation? No? Well then don't play the "Jesus could have said this" game then!

 

PROTESTANT scholars who agree with the 'lithos' view include: Gaebelein, Kaiser,Waltke, BOICE, and Tenney.

 

'Now, you may want to ignore or 'contextualize' away the clear biblical basis for believing that WHENEVER GOD CHANGES SOMEONE'S NAME in the Bible, the person's function or office changes as well. You have therefore two options to deny the biblical evidence for Peter's primacy in this case: you can resort to special pleading or you can claim an authority to interpret the Scriptures which I do not have. Which will it be? '

 

This is a false dichotomy. The issue is what the scriptures actually say, not what you would like them to say.

 

"As Peter means rock, the natural interpretation is that 'upon this rock' means 'upon thee'. No other explanation would probably be attempted…But there is a play upon words, understand as you may. It is an even more far-fetched and harsh play on words if we understand the rock to be Christ; and a very feeble and almost unmeaning play upon words if the rock is Peter's confession." (Broadas, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 1886).

 

'But you see, this assumes that all points of doctrine are so clear, so perscupicXXXX, and so unquestionable that there should be very little disagreement. '

 

I assume no such thing. Even within the RCC there is debate.

 

You may not assume such a thing, but you refuse to accept the *implication* of the disaster that is 'sola scriptura'. Yes, there is debate within the RCC, so what? If there wasn't, you would accuse us of being 'closed minded'. The POINT IS, not only is there debate, there IS RESOLUTION WITHOUT ENDLESS SCHISM (LIKE THE Bible TEACHES). Protestantism is the antithesis to the biblical Church on this point. You know, if you don't like what Pastor Bob's pet doctrine, well, by golly, you get along and setup the REAL New Testament Church with, of course, your *own angle*!!!! Lord have mercy.

 

By way of example, do you agree with Unam Sanctum that there is no salvation outside the RCC or with Vatican II which says that many 'separated brothers' will be saved? Both are 'infallible' teachings! Certainly there are difficult issues (2 Peter 3:16). However, the gospel is defined clearly by Paul in 1 Cor 15:1-4 and Titus 3:3-7. On that there can be no dispute. When we expand to the efficacy of the cross, the teaching is very clear that the cross takes away our sin and the penalty (a fact denied by the RCC) (Heb 9:12, 26; 8:12). When the discussion expands further, other issues become more difficult. (BTW, what is 'perscupic'?)

 

Yes. I do agree with Unam Sanctum and I also believe that Vatican II is consistent with it. I have a paper on it on my page if you want to read it. By the way, Vatican II did not say that 'many' separated brothers will be saved - only that it is POSSIBLE for Protestants to be saved. Whether that is many or few, no one knows.

 

'So you say Jesus spoke Aramaic. Good. Tell me how Jesus would have ACTUALLY said, 'You are Peter…' See my point? He called Peter 'Kephas' in John 1:42. And there is no translational conjugation required in Aramaic, BUT THERE NECESSARILY MUST BE IN Greek. Matthew had no choice in the matter if he was to follow the rules of Greek grammar.'

 

As I said, this is irrelevant, because Matthew had choices in how to report the event. However, given the evidence you brought forward in John 1:42, it is clear that there was a specific opportunity for Jesus to set up Matt 16:18 to say what you want it to say, but instead He set things up so that the petros/petra contrast is emphasized.

 

Ted, will you bend the knee to Jesus Christ's command to obey, or won't you. All Archaeological, philological, and historical evidence point to Jesus naming Peter as rock AS THE FIRST INSTANCE OF THE USE OF ROCK AS A MAN'S NAME. This is significant.

 

"Rock. This is not a name, but an appellation and a play on words. There is no evidence of Peter or Kephas as a name before Christian times. On building on a rock, or from a rock, cf. Isa li 1 ff,; Matt vii 24f. Peter as Rock will be the foundation of the future community (cf. I will build). Jesus, not quoting the OT, here uses Aramaic, not Hebrew, and so uses the only Aramaic word which would serve his purpose." (W.F. Albright and C.S. Mann, The Anchor Bible: Matthew, 1971).

 

On the canon, you may argue all you want, but the facts are as I presented them. Further I did not suggest that a single person would necessarily be able to identify all of the canon by himself. What I said was that the inherent nature of the 27 books of the NT was such that it could not be ignored by the whole body of Christianity, and the books themselves became recognized as canonical because that was part of their inherent nature, placed there by God by His inspiration.

 

Well, I see you have no response to the fact that his flies right in the face of early Church History. No surprise here because, as Newman put it, 'to go back in history is to cease to be Protestant'. The canon was not even close to being finalized even by Nicea (325 A.D.). There was lots of debate, and only until the HOLY SPIRIT guided the successors of the Apostles in all truth (Cf. John 14:26) did THEY decide the question. Come now Ted. Admit it. SOME HUMAN AGENCY WROTE THE Bible UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, AND SOME HUMAN AGENCY RECOGNIZED THEM AS INSPIRED UNDER THAT SAME GUIDANCE. *Someone or some group* must say that Revelation is 'in' and the Gospel of Thomas is 'out'. That's a pretty big decision, Ted. They better have been right when they did it.

 

'What good is an infallible (inerrant Bible) without an infallible medium for communicating it?'

 

This is the fundamental logical fallacy of the RCC's argument for the infallibility of the Pope. It is impossible to communicate perfectly using human language. Who will infallibly interpret your infallible interpreter? Etc etc. ad nauseum.

 

But do *you* see your faulty presupposition in this? The Catholic Church claims and is infallible. It needs no one to infallibly interpret her because she speaks no error as Jesus promised She would not. But I see where you are going with this in the following conclusion you must accept:

 

You cannot infallibly interpret because human language is not perfect.

 

Let the intelligent reader note what Ted's conclusion is: the truth cannot be known. If human language is not perfect, and the Bible was written in a human language, then the Bible is not perfect. Hence, the Bible is imperfect which means it has error in it.

 

But, Ted will say, the Bible is different because it was guarded by the Holy Spirit. Yes, that is true, but if the Bible can be guarded from error THERE IS NOTHING TO SAY that, at the very least, IN PRINCIPLE, a group of teachers cannot be given the same charism as well.

 

I only need one infallible source, the Word of God. If I rely on a man's word of interpretation instead of God's infallibly inspired Word, I am a fool, and that is what I would be doing if I relied on the Pope.

 

Good. That means I don't have to rely on *you* and *your* interpretation. I will go away with my Bible, and interpret the way I want - bugger the truth - and the TRUE AND OBJECTIVE GOSPEL which is to be held PUBLICLY BY ALL CHRISTIANS.

 

Instead, I allow the Word of God to speak to me, inspired by the Holy Spirit, so that I can understand God's message for me.

 

Ted, can you tell me where, in the *whole Bible* is the phrase *Word of God* used *exclusively* for holy writ?

 

And, if it is just between me and God, why does the Bible teach that we should submit to our leaders (Cf. Matthew 18:18, Acts 20:38, Hebrews 13:17)? What happens when you disagree with theses leaders, Ted? Do you 'opt out'? Can you give me biblical precedence for this. Look at what Jesus says: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice" (Matthew 23:2-3). Now, why would Jesus bind his followers to follow hypocrites? Answer: Jesus NEVER accepted rebellion. Instead God did the only possible thing: He promised that truth would always be taught even if the leaders were not impeccable.

 

It is your infallible interpreters who have declared that there is no salvation outside the RCC in Unam Sanctum, then reversed themselves in Vatican II.

 

Read my paper, Ted, and then we can speak intelligently about it. Let me know if you're interested.

 

There is an issue which has gone unstated here. You can demonstrate (with certain questions outstanding, such as when there were three concurrent Popes) a continuous (more or less) succession of bishops of Rome. This is chronological continuity. It is not apostolic succession. Apostolic succession declares that there is fundamental continuity of the essential apostolic nature of the occupants of the office. This I deny, because (among other things) the office has gone away from the gospel taught by the apostles and teaches another gospel, by which Paul would declare them anathema (1 Cor 16:22). No apostle would depart from the teachings of the Bible as Rome has done.

 

"…the office has gone away from the gospel taught by the apostles and teaches another gospel…"

 

ACCORDING TO WHOM? YOU?

 

BY WHOSE AUTHORITY DO YOU MAKE THIS JUDGEMENT?

 

AND WHY DO YOU HAVE THIS AUTHORITY AND I DO NOT?

 

Allow me to review your syllogism, since you make several errors which can be missed in a facile review.

 

There is no syllogism here.

 

Premise 1: The Bible alone is the sole source of divine revelation. (False: see Rom 1:20, Psalm 19:1-4, Acts 2:17 c.f. Joel 2:28-32), But we will allow this to stand for the purpose of continuing. Any future prophets must be tested by scripture.

 

Premise 2: Only those maxims that are explicitly taught in the Bible are binding on a Christian. (False: The Trinity is not explicitly taught. It is a 'good and necessary consequence' of explicit teaching, in the words of the Westminster Confession of Faith)

 

Premise 3: Jesus and the Apostles preached the infallible Gospel message. (True.)

 

Premise 4: Jesus and the Apostles were infallible in their teaching. (False: Jesus was infallible. The Jerusalem council [Acts 15] shows that the apostles were not infallible. So does Paul's rebuke of Peter.)

 

Premise 5: God's revealed truth can be known definitively at any point in time. (True, but we must separate intrinsic 'knowability' from actual knowledge. A host of factors may keep the truth from being known by any particular person at any particular point in time. However, the essentials of the gospel, i.e. the cross and its sufficiency, will not be beyond even the simplest examination.)

 

Premise 6: The New Testament demonstrates that the infallible Gospel message was preached by infallible teachers. (False: God used fallible teachers [Rom 7:15-20, etc.] to present the infallible message by means of inspiration in the process of writing scripture.) Conclusion: An infallible message must be given by an infallible messenger. (False: as demonstrated.)

 

In this posting, I was intending to revisit Ted's analysis above, but forgot to do so. As the reader can see, Ted's responses to the argument that I have presented have exposed his errors rather clearly:

 

According to Ted, "The term 'sola scriptura' can be defined as follows: 'The Bible and only the Bible is the rule of faith.'"

 

Premise 1: Ted has been consistently maintaining the position of 'sola scriptura' throughout this post, but here he denies it.}

 

Premise 2: Ted has implicitly acknowledge the role of Christian Oral Tradition - again a contradiction in 'sola scriptura.'

 

Premise 4: Ted's response is rather unbelievable. If the Apostles can be wrong in Acts 15, why can't they be wrong in other places in the Bible? Here Ted is questioning the inerrancy of Scripture itself!}

 

'WHERE the scripture which DOES IN FACT revoke the powers given to Peter via the keys?'

 

The issue is not the keys which Peter and all the apostles had, but the transmission of those keys to others. The grant is UNIQUE, and not continuing.

 

Ted. Please. I've already showed you that the keys were passed down throughout *CENTURIES* in the Jewish Tradition. If you want to change the rubrics of this, then go ahead, but if you do, please don't say you are biblical in doing this.

 

Even if there was no biblical precedent for this, the argument would *STILL* favour the Catholic position for the simple reason of the inherent transferability of keys. If I give my friend the keys to my house, and told him that I would be unlikely to return in his life time. Would you think it would be rash of my friend to pass on those keys when he dies? What will happen to my house if he doesn't pass on those keys, Ted? Will it be immune from the robbers? Will it extinguish the fires ITSELF? Of course not. A steward with authority is required. So it is with the house of God.

 

There is an example of revocation. Judas was one who received the keys, and they were obviously revoked, as evidenced by the need to replace him.

 

Wow. Where is the Scripture for that? I hope you are not relying on Matthew 16:18 for that, Ted, because if you are, then I will repeat my earlier question: was the Greek pronoun in Matthew 16:18 singular or plural?

 

(With regard to Matt 16:18) 'Jesus SINGLES out Peter in particular to the exclusion of the twelve.'

 

Again, untrue. Peter piped up, and Jesus responded. Peter initiated the exchange, not Jesus. Peter's volubility led to Jesus' opportunity to expose the contrast between petros and petra set up by the hermeneutical (see the Greek) statement in John 1:42.

 

Who "initiated the exchange", Ted? Listen to what Jesus said:

 

"Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father in heaven…"

 

To what other Apostle did the Father reveal *anything*?

 

'…the chiasm…makes little sense to me. Your conclusion is certainly not drawn from the text.'

 

The chiasm is an intrinsic part of the text, frequently used by Jewish authors to amplify their points. The entire book of Hebrews is written in a chiastic structure, where Hebrews 9 is the peak. This central point is the most important, and is focused by the chiasm.

 

Well, Ted, if the chiasm leads you to believe that the Father is the focus of the passage, then that methodology is very poor indeed, or your application of it in this instance is rather ineffective.

 

In Hebrews, the peak is the fact that Jesus' sacrifice on the cross is 'once for all time'. This flatly denies the possibility of the Mass being true.

 

"From the rising of the sun , even to its setting, my name is great among the nations; and everywhere they bring sacrifice to my name and a pure offering…" - Malachi 1:11…

 

The mass is not ANOTHER sacrifice. It is the SAME sacrifice, re-presented differently. The sacrifice is for *all time* - that's what the mass effects - it MAKES present the same event on calvary. At mass, time and distance are no longer exist in a mystical sense: the event is suspended in time. Calvary is an historical event so it is in the past, but God has somehow suspended that event and allowed it to be represented - in a real but different way - today for us so that all of be at Calvary - only the manner of presentation is different. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the mass is a representation of the same sacrifice on calvary and its fruit is applied to the faithful today (CCC, 1366-1367)

 

Transubstantiation (the wafer [host] becoming the body and blood of Christ [affirmed by the Council of Trent]) is absolutely contrary to this, since the Mass is repetitive, and such sacrifices are worthless. Jesus' sacrifice is once for all time (Heb 9:26) not repetitive (Heb 9:26).

 

Come forth, ye saints of the Holy Church, and impress God's truth on this mislead believer:

 

Pre-Nicene Fathers

 

St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch (107 A.D.) - St. Ignatius, refuting the teachings of the Docetists who denied the humanity of Christ and ascribed to Him a phantom body, wrote "They [the Docetists] keep away from the Eucharist and from the prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Redeemer Jesus Christ, who suffered for our sin, and whom the Father in His goodness raised from the dead." (Smyrn. 7,1) and "Be ye resolved, to celebrate one Eucharist only; for there is only one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and only one chalice for unification with His blood." (Philad. 4) - [FCD p.376]. He also called the Eucharist 'the bread of angels, bread from heaven, medicine of immortality' (Ad. Eph. 20, 2:SCh 10, 76).

 

St. Justin, Apologist (165 A.D.) "We receive this not as ordinary bread and ordinary drink; but as our Redeemer, Jesus Christ, was incarnated by the Word of God, and assumed flesh and blood for the sake of our salvation, so, as we have been taught, the food over which thanksgiving has been made by the prayer of the Word which came from Him (by which (food) our blood and flesh are nourished by transmutation) is both flesh and blood of that same incarnate Jesus." (First Apologia 65-67).

 

St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (202 A.D.) attests that "the bread over which thanksgiving is pronounced is the body of the Lord and the chalice of His blood." (Adv. Haer. IV 18:4) and "How can they [the Gnostics] feel assured that bread over which thanksgiving has been made is the body of their Lord, and the chalice of His blood, if they do not declare Him the Son of the world's Creator?" (Adv. Haer. IV 18:5).

 

Tertullian, Apologist (220 A.D.) expresses his faith in the real presence in these realistic words: "The flesh is refreshed with the body and blood of Christ so that the soul also may be nourished by God. (De carnis resurr. 8). Of those Christians who make idols, he says: "The Jews laid hands on Christ once only, these violate His body daily. Such hands should be cut off." (De idololatria, 7) The parallelism with the crime of the crucifixion demands that the body of Christ, against whom such Christians sin in the reception of the Eucharist, be conceived as the real presence.

 

St. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage (258 A.D.) comments on those who receive communion sacrilegiously, teaching, "they do violence to His Blood and body and they sin more now with hand and mouth against the Lord than they did when they denied Him." (De lapsis, 16)

 

Post Nicene Fathers & Luther

 

Among the post-Nicene Fathers, the outstanding witnesses for the Church belief in the Real Presence are St. Cyril of Jerusalem (362 A.D.) (4th and 5th mystag. Cat.), St. John Chrysostom (386 A.D.), St. Cyril of Alexandria (431 A.D.) and St. John of Damascus (726 A.D.) (De fide orth. IV 13). Among the Latin Fathers, St. Hilary of Poitiers (355 A.D.) (De Trin. VIII 14) and St. Ambrose (374 A.D.) (De sacr. IV 4-7; De Myst. 8 et seq.), and St. Augustine (370 A.D.) (Sermo 227, Enarr. In Ps. 33 Sermo 1:10).

 

St. Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem - "As a life-giving sacrament we possess the sacred Flesh of Christ and His Precious Blood under the appearance of bread and wine. What seems to be bread is not bread, but Christ's body; what seems to be wine is not wine, but Christ's Blood."

 

St. Augustine admirably summed up this doctrine that moves us to an ever more complete participation in our Redeemer's sacrifice which we celebrate in the Eucharist: "This wholly redeemed city, the assembly and society of the saints, is offered to God as a universal sacrifice by the High Priest who, in the form of a slave, went so far as to offer Himself for us in His Passion, to make us the Body of so great a head… Such is the sacrifice of Christians: 'we who are many are one Body in Christ.' The Church continues to reproduce this sacrifice in the sacrament of the altar so well-known to believers wherein it is evident to them that in what she offers she herself is offered." (St. Augustine, De civ. Dei, 10, 6: PL 41, 283; Cf. Romans 12:5)

 

St. Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church (1261 A.D.), whilst examining the questions of the Blessed Sacrament in his Summa Theologica, was far from suggesting a blind belief when he proposes and solves over 280 possible difficulties which might occur to the human mind on the Real Presence.

 

Information about the early Eucharistic beliefs of the early church can also be found in secular sources. In his Annals, the first century Roman Historian Tacitus (50 A.D.) makes mention of the Christian faith. He states that the death of Christ at the hands of Pontius Pilate 'checked the abominable superstition for a while', noting that belief in Christ broke out in Rome itself, 'the great reservoir and collecting ground of every kind of filth and depravity.' As historian Donald Dudley notes, 'the depravity and filth specifically associated with early Christianity were charges of cannibalism, infanticide, and incest brought against it by a misunderstanding of the nature of Eucharist.' Both the apologist Tertullian and Minuncius Felix corroborate Dudley's assertion, since both give considerable attention in their second century writings to the charge of cannibalism being levelled against the Church.

 

Even Martin Luther held that on the altar are real bread and real wine…and that in them are the "real flesh and real blood of Christ". Although he rejected 'transubstantiation', the act in which the bread and wine are completely turned into the flesh and blood of Christ, He did believe in the real presence.

 

'If you read the passage *carefully* you will see that James did not hand down a 'pronouncement' on the issue. He merely re-affirmed Peter's decision.'

 

Let us look *carefully* at James' statement in Acts 15:19 and see if it supports your claim. I will readily admit that James is in agreement with Peter's position. But notice the language…' 19 'Therefore it is my judgment…' James is in no way re-affirming Peter's decision. No one had made any decisions public as official doctrine, but the discussants were presenting opinions. James is the only person rendering a decision. He is acting as President of the Council. And note the language of the dispatch. It does not say 'in accordance with the decision of the chief apostle, Peter, etc'. A letter was sent 'from the apostles and brethren'(plural) (v 23). (The silence of the council 'caused by Peter') Rather than quote the whole passage, I will merely note that the author properly points out that there was noisy dispute until recognized leaders (plural) began to speak. Peter, never shy, jumps in first. The audience continues in respectful silence through all the apostles who spoke until the judgment is pronounced. To declare that the silence of respect offered to ALL THE APOSTLES grants some special status to Peter is to go far beyond the content of the passage. It is an interpretation driven by the need to support a point, not an interpretation developed from an understanding of what the passage actually says.

 

Remember this, Ted? "Certainly there is discussion in scholarly circles about a hypothetical 'Q' document which is supposed to be source material for the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke. Its existence cannot be proven, and even if it existed, the original of the gospel was written in Greek. (See F. F. Bruce, 'The Canon of Scripture'.) Notice who you cite - F.F Bruce. So now, let him speak to you again:

 

"During the audience which followed Peter's appeal, Barnabas and Paul (who are named naturally in this order in a Jerusalem setting) added further evidence which could only support Peter's argument. But Barnabas and Paul spoke as witnesses, not as consultants or as participants in the debate, and in Jerusalem their words could carry NOTHING LIKE THE WEIGHT THAT PETER'S DID." (F.F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, 1988).

 

'What the Bible teaches and what the Church has always believed is that there is a final arbiter, a final judicial act to settle an issue in the Church and maintain unity.'

 

True in part, but not completely. The arbiter is the gospel, the Word of God given in the Bible, not a judge. You cannot teach another gospel (1 Cor 16:22) or go after other Gods (Deut 13) and still be within the parameters of the Word. The RCC violates both proscriptions, and is therefore NOT within the Word. The parameters of the Word are defined by the Word, not any interpreter.

 

Yes. I agree that the Word of God defines the parameters of the Word of God. Good. Now please show me in the Bible where the Word of God is ONLY the Bible?

 

An additional point must be made here. 2 Tim 3:15 makes it clear that the Hebrew Bible (our OT) is enough for salvation. Nothing in the NT is required! In other words, by the very fact that Matt 16:18 is in an unnecessary (although very useful) part of the canon, we may with total confidence state that belief in the RCC as the true church of God (assuming that such were true) is utterly without import to our salvation. The RCC cannot be important, because all necessary doctrines were expounded in scripture before an RCC was even imagined. The NT is a commentary on the OT, and contains NO NEW DOCTRINES NECESSARY FOR SALVATION. By way of example, it is commonly assumed that salvation by faith (Rom 1:17) is a new doctrine first appearing in the NT. In fact, Paul was quoting from the OT (Hab 2:4). Other NT doctrines are not quite so obvious, but they all have their roots in the OT.

 

Trinity. The Deity of the Messiah. The Existence of Hell. Original Sin. Water Baptism. Just to name a few. Sorry, Ted. Go ask any 'orthodox Protestant Christian' if he believes what you just said.

 

'What kind of things do you think the Apostles were allowed to 'loose' what was previously bound. Give me specific examples.'

 

I'll take the bait on this one. The ceremonial laws were no longer binding, and that is what the Jerusalem council addressed in part. Thus, the apostles 'loosed' that bond. However, we should note that that was prophetically addressed in the OT. The end of the feasts is specifically noted in Dan 9:27, and you will note that Paul addresses Jesus as the antitype fulfilling the types of them. Circumcision was the sign of the old covenant, and no longer binding under the new covenant.

 

Works of the Law are properly understood to include circumcision, dietary, and sabbath ordinances, and the other rules included in the mitzvot, 613 religious ritual, ceremonial, and some moral laws of conduct according to which Jews were commanded to live. Can the Church 'loose or bind' DOCTRINES, eternal truths like the Trinity or the divinity of Christ, etc.? No. But it CAN AND HAS THE AUTHORITY to loose and bind the wheres, whens, and hows of DISCIPLINES such as dietary laws, clerical celibacy, etc. And this includes, Ted, WHEN we observe the Sabbath.

 

'Jesus Christ repeats and affirms ALL of the Ten commandments except one. Can you tell me which one he omits?'

 

Nice try. I suspect that you would have said the Sabbath. However, He taught more about the Sabbath than any other, so it is clear that He intended it to stay in force. His inspiration of Paul confirms this. 1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. 2 Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise;) 3 That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth. Eph 6:1-3

 

My turn. Remember the Jews who criticized the Apostles for not observing the Sabbath as they should? "For the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath" (Matt 12:1-8). "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath" (Mark 2:27). And Jesus REBUKES AGAIN AND AGAIN a too severe interpretation of the Sabbath: Luke 13:10-16, 14:1-5; John 5:9-18, 7:22)

 

Paul is quoting from the Septuagint of Ex 20:12, the fifth commandment (fourth in RCC counting). There are several keys in this passage. First, he notes that the commandment is in a list (v2). Second, it occupies a specific position in the list (v3). Third, the list is in force. (v1). This list exists in only two places: Ex 20 and Deut 5. It is the Ten Commandments. A 'good and necessary consequence' of Paul's statement is that ALL of the ten are in force. In other words, the Sabbath is still in force. It never changed. There is a host of evidence to confirm this.

 

Of course observing the Sabbath is still a commandment of God, but that's not the question. The question is WHEN to do it? Have you ever considered the HISTORICAL circumstances that led to Christians accepting Sunday as the new day of worship?

 

'Please don't present a caricature of the Church's belief about Mary.'

 

Don't call it a caricature until you check your facts. Only God is to be prayed to or bowed down to. You bow down to Mary, and prayer to her is strongly promoted.

 

Maybe YOU should check YOUR facts about what you think "bowed down to" means:

 

"At once Moses went on out to meet his father-in-law, and he proceeded to prostrate himself and to kiss him; and they each one began asking how the other was getting along. After that they went into the tent." (Exodus 18:7)

 

The word translated "to prostrate himself" is "proskuneo." So was Moses father-in-law God? Of course not.

 

1 Chronicles 29:20 reads: "And David went on to say to all the congregation: "Bless, now, YHWHW you God." And all the congregation proceeded to bless Jehovah the God of their forefathers and bow low and prostrate themselves to Jehovah and to the king."

 

Was King David God? No.

 

"So David rose up afterward and went out from the cave and called out after Saul, saying: "My lord the king!" At this Saul looked behind him, and David proceeded to bow low with his face to the earth and prostrate himself." (1 Samuel 24:8)

 

So was Saul God? No.

 

Want some more? Just let me know.

 

That is idolatry. You have made her out to be a God. 'Hyperdulia' is a semantic game to try to avoid this truth. When you check the Vulgate (the only official source for RCC Bibles) you will find that 'latria' and 'dulia' are used interchangeably, and describe the worship and service due only to God.

 

Sorry. Ted. You don't know what you are talking about.

 

'I say, 'You are gods, sons of the most High, all of you; nevertheless, you shall die like men, and fall like any prince.'' (Psalm 82:6)'

 

Nice quote, but misses the point. The accusation is against false gods. A true god cannot die.

 

Is it now? Hmmmmmm…..Let's see if it is indeed against false gods:

 

"Jesus answered them, 'Is it not written in your law, "I said, you are gods?" If he called them gods to whom the word of God came (and scripture cannot be broken), do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming…?'" (John 10:34-36)

 

The apostles were empowered to teach the gospel, and they delegated that power to others as quickly as they could be taught so that the word would be spread quickly.

 

'Rubbish. St. Paul says this to Timothy: 'Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands…' ( 1 Tim 5:22)'

 

There is a large difference between haste and efficiency.

 

Exactly.

 

'The Church cannot err because of Her divine founder.'

 

To quote, Rubbish. The RCC has no divine founder, because it was not founded by God. The apostolic churches had the truth, and rapidly drifted away from it. Now the RCC teaches a false gospel and other gods, and as such is not Christian.

 

Well then, if the Churches drifted away from the truth then Jesus is a liar because he promised that HIS ONE AND ONLY CHURCH would never err.

 

I have received my electronic copy of the Ante-Nicene fathers. After checking all statements regarding Peter in the writings of Clement, Mathetes, Polycarp, Ignatius, Barnabas, Papias, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus (I'll get through the others soon.) I can find not a single statement that Peter was the pre-eminent apostle. Ignatius, in his Epistle to the Romans, writes in such a way that he would find the concept totally foreign. Irenaeus (Against Heresies, Ch12) equates the status of Peter and Paul. In other words, the concept of Roman apostolic succession is totally absent from the writings of these church pioneers. If they never heard of it, it must be a later INVENTION, not a delegation by Christ.

 

Here, Ted, let me shorten your research a bit:

 

Argument: Bishops are the legitimate successors to the Apostles.

 

1."Indeed, when you submit to the bishop as you would to Jesus Christ, it is clear to me that you are living in the manner not in the manner of men but as Jesus Christ, who died for us, that through faith in His death you might escape dying. It is necessary, therefore, - and such is your practice, - that you do nothing without the bishop, and that you be subject also to the presbytery, as to the Apostles of Jesus Christ our hope…" (St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Traillians, A.D. 110, [2,1]).

 

2."And to the Church of the Corinthians has continued in the correct doctrine to the time of Primus, who has become Bishop of Corinth, and with whom I conversed at length on my way to Rome, when I spent some days with the Corinthians, during which time we were mutually refreshed in the correct doctrine. When I had come to Rome, I made a succession up to Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And after Anicetus, Soter succeeded,; and after him Eleutherus. In each succession and in each city there is a continuance of that which is proclaimed by the Law, the Prophets, and the Lord" (St. Hegesippus, Memoirs, A.D. 180, [4,22,1].

 

3."And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times: men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, A.D. 180, [3,3,1]).

 

4."Polycarp, however, was instructed not only by the Apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, by the Apostles in Asia. I saw him in my early youth; for he tarried a long time, and when quite old he departed this life in a glorious and most noble martyrdom. He always taught those things which he had learned from the Apostles, and which the Church had handed down, and which are true" (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, A.D. 180, [3,3,4]).

 

5."It is necessary to obey those who are the presbyters in the Church, those who as we have shown, have succession from the Apostles; those who have received, with the succession of the episcopate, the sure charism of truth according to the good pleasure of the Father. But the rest, who have no part in the primitive succession and assemble wheresoever they will, must be held in suspicion." (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, A.D. 180, [4,26,2]).

 

6."For all these [heretics] are of much later date than are the bishops to whom the Apostles handed over the Churches; and this fact I pointed out most carefully in the third book. It is of necessity, then, that these aforementioned heretics, because they are blind to the truth, walk in various devious paths; and on this account the vestiges of their doctrine are scattered about without agreement or connection. The path of these, however, who belong to the Church, goes around the whole world; for it has the firm tradition of the Apostles, enabling us to see that the faith of all is one and the same" (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, A.D. 180, [5,20,1]).

 

7."Moreover, if there be any [heresies] bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, so that they might seem to have been handed down by the Apostles because they were from the time of the Apostles, we can say to them: let them show the origins of their Churches, let them unroll the order of their bishops, running down in succession from the beginning, so that their first bishop shall have for author and predecessor some of one of the Apostles or of the apostolic men who continued steadfast with the Apostles. For this is the way in which the apostolic Churches transmit their lists: like the Church of the Smyrnaeans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; like the Church of the Romans where Clement was ordained by Peter. In just the same way the other Churches display those whom they have as sprouts from the apostolic seed, having been established in the episcopate by the Apostles" (Tertullian, The Demurrer Against the Heretics, A.D. 200, [32,1]).

 

8."In short, if it is evident that that is the truer which is earlier, if that is the earlier which is from the very beginning, if that is from the beginning which was authored by the Apostles, then it will likewise be evident that that has been handed down by the Apostles, which has been held sacrosant in the Churches of the Apostles…We have, too, the Churches founded by John. And even if Marcion rejects his Apocalypse, still, the order of their bishops, when reckoned up, will depend upon John as their author. The excellence of other Churches is recognized in like manner. I say, therefore, that in these Churches - and not only these Churches - and not only in those founded by Apostles but in the Churches throughout the world which are united with them in their fellowship of the sacrament - the Gospel of Luke, which we defend with all our strength, has stood from the beginning of its publication. That of Marcion, however, is unknown to most; and there are none who know it who do not condemn it. It has, of course, its churches also, but they are its own, as late as they are spurious. And should you want to know their origin, you will more easily find them apostate than apostolic, with Marcion, of course, their founder, or someone of Marcion's swarm. Even wasps make honey-combs, and the Marcionites make churches. The same authority of the apostolic Churches will defend the other Gospels, which we possess through them and because of their using them. I mean the Gospels of John and Matthew, while that issued by Mark may be affirmed to be Peter's, whose interpreter Mark was. And the digest by Luke men are accustomed to ascribe to Paul" (Tertullian, Against Marcion, A.D. 207, [4,5,1]).

 

9."After the death of the tyrant, the [Apostle John] came back again to Ephesus from the Island of Patmos; and, upon being invited, he went even to the neighbouring cities of the pagans, here to appoint bishops, there to set in order whole Churches, and there to ordain to the clerical state such as were designated by the Spirit" (St. Clement of Alexandria, Who is the rich man that is saved?, 190 A.D. [42,2]).

 

10."Our Lord, whose commands we ought to fear and observe, says in the Gospel, by way of assigning the Episcopal dignity and settling the plan of His Church…From that time the ordination of bishops and the plan of the Church flows on through the changes of the times and successions; for the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers…" (St. Cyprian of Carthage, Letter without heading, of Cyprian to the Lapsed, A.D. 250, [33,27,1]).

 

11."Therefore, the power of forgiving sins was given to the Apostles and to the Churches which these men, sent by Christ, established; and to the bishops who succeeded them by being ordained in their place" (Firmilian of Caesarea, Letter to Cyprian, A.D. 268, [602]).

 

Lots of Petrine references too . I only offer one, for brevity sake:

 

"They alone have remained outside [the Church] who, were they within, would have to be ejected…There [in John 6:68-69] speaks Peter, upon whom the Church would be built, teaching in the name of the Church and showing that even if a stubborn and proud multitude withdraws because it does not wish to obey, yet the Church does not withdraw from Christ. The people joined to the priest, the flock clinging to their shepherd in the Church. You ought to know, then, that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishops, and if someone is not with the bishop, he is not in the Church. They vainly flatter themselves who creep up, not having peace with the priest of God, believing that they are secretly in communion with certain individuals. The Church, which is one and Catholic is not split or divided, but is indeed united and joined by the cement of priests who adhere to one another." (St. Cyprian of Cathage, Letters 66(67):8, [254 A.D.])

 

'Note the important phrase: 'May another take his office'. When the Apostle dies, HIS OFFICE DOES NOT. And what would be the point of appointing another Apostle to an OFFICE, if that OFFICE did not entail the rights of that office, namely, the employment of authority? '

 

My goodness. You fail to read your OT references. Psalm 109 is a Messianic psalm, where we begin (vv1-5) with the petitioner (Messiah) crying out for help against his persecutors (plural), then (vv6-19) a focus on his singular accuser (Judas) is seen, then (vv20-31) the cry returns to his (plural) accusers. This refers to a singular event, not a pattern of succession forever.

 

Ted. Do you have *any* knowledge of what the Old Testament teaches in regards to an office?

 

Consider Joseph's office: An interesting comparison can be made between Joseph, one of the Patriarchs and a son of Jacob in the Old Testament, and Peter, the Apostle in the New Testament. Each was a member of a preferred community of twelve men who were favourable to God - Joseph as a Patriarch in the Old Israel (Cf. Exodus 1:1-5) and Peter as an Apostle of the Lord. Both also had leadership positions in their communities. A striking parallel can also be drawn from Genesis 49:24 - "His bow rested upon the strong, and the bands of his arms were loosed, by the hands of the mighty one of Jacob: thence he came forth a pastor, the stone of Israel." When comparing this passage with Matthew 16:18-19, it cannot be denied that the passages are remarkably similar. Peter is allowed to 'loosen', being given the authority from 'the mighty one of Jacob', Jesus. Furthermore, he is the pastor of the New Israel, being given the authority to 'loose and bind', and he is the 'stone' on which Christ builds His Church. Finally, Peter's distinguished position among his brothers is most forcefully prophesized later in the same chapter of Genesis: "The blessings of your father have surpassed the blessings of my ancestors up to the utmost bound of the everlasting hills; May they be on the head of Joseph, and on the crown of the head of the one distinguished among his brothers." (Genesis 49:26, Cf. Deuteronomy 33:16)

 

If it did, why did not a prophet have an immediate successor? After all, the office is essentially the same.

 

No. Not necessarily. A prophet does not necessarily hold an office or 'seat' in the Sanhedrin (Moses' seat - Matthew 23:2). Did John the Baptist hold a seat on the Sanhedrin?

 

The only such succession in the OT is Elijah/Elisha. The apostolic office expires on the death of the apostle. There is no evidence of any apostle choosing a successor who would be more than a bishop.

 

But that's just it. Read Acts 20:28, and tell me if you have the right to exempt yourself from their authority over you. Then read Hebrews 13:17.

 

'The point of the passages is that the 'true' gospel, as opposed to 'Johnny Come Lately' versions is that it is APOSTOLIC in origin'

 

Again, untrue. The true gospel is divine in origin, preached by the apostles. As I noted above, it is not necessary to have any NT at all. It certainly is helpful, but not essential. In fact, the Pentateuch contains the essential gospel and prophecies. The rest just fills out the picture to make our understanding better.

 

If the NT is not necessary. What is? Your preaching?

 

Scripture could not be more clear.

 

1. There is no such thing as apostolic succession.

 

2. The RCC teaches a false gospel.

 

3. The RCC teaches worship of false gods. Therefore: the RCC is not Christian.

 

#1 is historically disproven.

 

#2 is a circular argument, and by definition, presupposes that the Speaker has the 'true gospel' - except that there is no objective way of knowing it.

 

#3 is false.

 

Therefore, Ted, your conclusion is wrong. And, you have no authority to say *what* a Christian should believe in the first place, so why do you make such a statement?

 

---

Session 2

 

There comes a time when the amount of verbiage exceeds the capacity of the listeners. I am therefore attempting to restate the essence of the dispute between those of us who believe that the Bible is within the purview of the reader to consider and understand, and the Roman Catholic Church, which asserts an exclusive right to interpret it.

 

But of course. This is a very logical approach to the Bible.

 

If everyone (or more than one) has the 'right' to interpret the Bible, then who has the 'right' to correct a faulty understanding? In fact, how can a Lutheran 'correct' a Baptist on baptismal regeneration? How can a Calvinist 'correct' a Methodist on the unnecessity of works for salvation. How can a 'Trinitarian' 'correct' a Unitarian (like a Jehovah's Witness) on the Trinity? By the ONLY instrument (the Bible) that they all claim to support their positions? That belief is a blue print for doctrinal and moral anarchy. Imagine if everyone had the ultimate 'right' to interpret the Constitution of the United States of America. What would happen? Why don't you try it and see what happens? What you would see is what you have today in Protestantism, and American Protestantism, in particular, thousands of sects trying to rediscover 'biblical Christianity' with their own little pet doctrines. You see, in the great tradition of American reductionism, nothing is true or everything is true, you can believe what you want, when you want, how you want, and don't worry about the singularity of the truth. If you don't like a denomination, start your own or vote your pastor out. Let the reader understand that Protestantism is simply rebellion against God. It is Anarchy incarnate. It is not concerned with unity of the Body because it just keeps mutating and breaking off: hacked off limbs and branches. Is this what St. Paul meant when he talked about the Body of Christ or Jesus when He talked about the vine and branches? NO! It is not.

 

I now challenge the reader here and now to examine the Bible with a critical eye on just what kind of Church the Bible talks about.

 

I will begin with a summary of the position of the 'Apologist', who sets forward the RCC position. If I err in the summary, I stand ready to be corrected. It will serve no good to misrepresent the position. Once having completed this task, I will attempt to briefly show the error of the RCC position. I believe that without this condensation, no one will bother to read our exchange. Unfortunately, even in this organized form, the post is long.

 

The RCC position, as presented by the Apologist.

 

1. Jesus changed Simon's name to 'Kepha' (John 1:42). This name change indicates the establishment of an office for the person whose name is changed. This office is a continuing office, and does not terminate with the death of the individual (Acts 1:16-26) (See also Abram and Jacob) The name given to James and John (Mark 3:17) is considered to be a nickname only, and has no theological significance.

 

Agreed.

 

2. When Jesus said 'thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church' (Matt 16:18), this indicated that Peter is the rock, and the church is to be built on Peter. The reason that Peter is 'petros' and the rock is 'petra' is that the rules of Greek grammar do not allow 'petros' to be used in both places.

 

Agreed.

 

3. Peter was exclusively granted the 'keys of the kingdom of heaven' (Matt 16:19). These keys give him power to bind and loose anything on earth. These symbols of authority are passed to Peter's successors because the office does not expire unless explicitly revoked, and the grantor (Jesus) has not returned and requires a representative on earth to carry out His will.

 

Not exactly. The power is not to bind 'anything' but only those things related to faith and morals. Secondly, God does not 'require' a representative to do anything. He simply chose to do it, just like he chose to redeem mankind by becoming a man.

 

4. Peter was envisioned in various OT prophecies, such as Gen 49:24 and Is 22:22.

 

Agreed.

 

5. The pre-eminence of Peter is apparent in NT scripture, such as the Jerusalem council (Acts 15).

 

And over 50 more NT passages, many of which are extremely strong, and which, unfortunately, you have probably not even considered.

 

6. The pre-eminence of Peter is clear in the writings of the early church fathers.

 

Agreed.

 

7. Peter founded the church in Rome, and was its first Bishop, passing his apostolic authority on in what has been an unbroken chain of succession.

 

Peter and Paul founded the Church in Rome. Peter became the first bishop - as Christian witness clearly attests to.

 

8. This apostolic authority includes the right to command obedience to the doctrinal dictates of the Pope, who, along with the councils of the church, constitute the 'Extraordinary Magisterium'. No interpretation of scripture is valid other than that issued by the Extraordinary Magisterium. This may be rephrased to say that no person has the right to independently interpret the scripture.

 

As scripture also commands and shows. To deny this is to accept *de facto* doctrinal anarchy (see Acts 15).

 

9. The RCC faithfully guards the apostolic traditions entrusted to it and never changes them or its teachings (Ineffabilis Deus).

 

False. At least partially. If you mean 'change' to be 'development' like the Trinity, this is false. But if you mean 'change' to be a contradiction, this is true.

 

Response to the Apologist's position.

 

I will begin with #8. The Apologist has been vigorously pursuing exegetical exercises in this discussion. He has explored the meaning of various passages of scripture, using his own words which have not been reviewed by the officials of his church. BY DEFINITION THIS IS PRIVATE INTERPRETATION.

 

Yes, Ted you are quite right here. The exegetical exercises in which I have engaged are shared by prominent Catholics AND Protestants and the Church Herself. Some of them are my own comments; others are not. So what? There is nothing wrong with offering your own reasons for accepting a doctrine. The point is that you believe in that DOCTRINE. Admittedly, some reasons are better than others, but this hardly detracts from my position. Here, let me demonstrate for you. The Church has infallibly defined that Mary was Assumed into heaven by the power of God (an event, by the way, which all of the elect will enjoy at the final judgement). As a Catholic I am bound to believe that. Period. Now the REASONS for my belief, although important, are not principally necessary. God did not say: "Go and come up good reasons YOURSELF before you believe." No. When you are in the middle ages and you can't read or write, are uneducated, and have no Bible because the printing press hasn't been invented yet - you do what Jesus commanded - you obey the Church. You don't go off and play Lone Ranger because you think you know more than a divine institution who has 2000 years of Christian tradition behind it. Ted, do you know what the sin of Korah is? St. Jude alluded to the Old Testament event in Jude 1:11. Look it up, and then you will see what God really thinks of your rebellion.

 

Whether it agrees with RCC dogma is open to question, because we all have to interpret what he has to say.

 

This is a rather lame argument. It really reduces to language not being able to convey meaning AT ALL - that we cannot understand what someone says, or seek clarification if there is something ambiguous. Of course, that is the wonderful thing about a living Tradition - you can always ask for clarification - and get it. The Bible, on the other hand, cannot do this - that's why you have thousands of sects - each giving you the 'true (wink, wink) gospel'.

 

Ted, if you want to know whether my position is in line with Catholic understanding, why don't you talk to other Catholics, read the Fathers, the Council definitions, or compare it to the Catechism? Is that not enough for you? You had no problem understanding that I accept Unam Sanctum. I guess you could grasp that. Really, Ted, sophism does not become you.

 

Therefore, by participating in this discussion, the Apologist is contradicting himself. His exercise of private interpretation contradicts his own assertion that he does not have the right to a private interpretation. If he is to continue, and to remain faithful to his church, he MUST present ONLY copies of discussion of the topics which have already been approved by the RCC. He must also be exceedingly careful to make certain that enough of these discussions are presented so as to avoid any questions of context, because any loss of context will render the presentation private interpretation.

 

As explained above, this argument is nonsense. I am giving you very good biblical, historical, and logical reasons for something I believe in. The reasons themselves are not infallible, nor are they required to be held publicly by all Christians. So, I am allowed to engage in 'private interpretation' of the REASONS for a doctrine, but not the doctrine ITSELF. That is why, Ted, St. Augustine was *allowed* to have a private interpretation of Matthew 16:18, yet he was still bound to accept the Church's belief about Petrine primacy, REGARDLESS of the rationale involved. Lots of people come to the truths of the Catholic Church, and they come with as many reasons as there are stars in heaven.

 

It is curious that the Apologist employs sola scriptura to deny sola scriptura. This leaves him with a problem. If he uses scriptural arguments to deny sola scriptura, he is by definition using the methods of sola scriptura, thereby confirming sola scriptura. If he avoids scriptural arguments, then he is without a basis for disputing sola scriptura.

 

What are you talking about? We both agree that the Bible is inspired so I can appeal to the biblical text as an argument for my position. This does not necessarily mean that I believe that the Bible *alone* is the Word of God. I am simply appealing to a source we SHARE IN COMMON. I MAY USE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENTS TO DEFEND MY POSITION WITHOUT CONCEDING SOLA SCRIPTURA, much like I may draw on philosophy to defend Theism without rejecting science!!!!!!

 

It is YOU and the Deformers who say that the Bible alone is the sole rule of faith. Yet there is *no biblical text* which supports this - so, by definition, your position falls.

 

The only alternative is to assert the primacy of the Pope a priori. In this position, the Apologist would declare that the Pope is correct. We may properly ask, 'On what basis do we know this?' To which the only possible reply is, 'Because he says he is correct.'

 

Excellent, Ted. You've come along way, baby! Now, what I want you to do is go to your local Seventh Day Adventist Church, stand right in front of the congregation, get everyone's attention - especially the Pastor, and yell out, in a nice loud voice, THE SAME QUESTION YOU JUST ASKED ME: 'On what basis do we know [this] that you are correct?' Or better yet, do it in each of the other 28,000 'Bible only' churches.

 

The fact that this claim is the circular 'I am correct because I say I am correct' denies the possibility of proof. Therefore, the only logically consistent position for the Apologist is to declare that he believes the Pope on the basis of a faith which is not subject to any test.

 

Sorry Ted. Your straw men are starting to fall down quickly. I don't assert the primacy of the Pope "a priori" at all. I don't say 'hey Ted you better believe the Pope because he says he is correct'. If I did, I would believing in the latest prize of the deformation. Have you ever asked yourself, 'why do I believe Pastor Bob's views instead of Pastor Rick's views?' A Protestant pastor has no more claim, by definition, on 'the true Gospel' than a Muslim simply because he cannot speak with AUTHORITY or DEFINITIVELY on anything. I don't follow the new heretic fool on the block, strumming the 'true biblical gospel', because he claims something he cannot even hope to substantiate - namely giving me the 'true' Gospel. That's why I am Catholic because there is a indisputable biblical, historical, and logical basis for believing in Papal primacy. Why must you believe in it? Well, logically you must accept anarchy if you don't accept his claim. Historically, you must deny the early Church and go with the Mormon line of a 'complete Apostasy' if you deny his claim. Biblically, you must reject sola scriptura because I have just made a *biblical* case for the papacy. Now, you may reject the interpretation of it, but that is another question altogether.

 

An extension of this is to consider the Apologist's arguments on points of doctrine. We have shown how he violates his own statement that he has no right to a private interpretation. Let us assume that his independent statements are asserted to not be private interpretation, but are in fact consistent with Papal declarations.

 

Good to see you have left those Sophists, Ted, and are back in the real world.

 

The question arises. 'How can we know that this assertion is true?' Our options are familiar. We can either accept his assertion ON BLIND FAITH, or we can test his assertion by comparing his teaching with the Pope's teaching. This requires that we interpret the Pope's teaching to understand it. In other words, we must use sola scriptura (actually sola Roma, a specific variant) to verify whether the Apologist is consistent with the Pope.

 

O.K. Ted. You want to set up straw men and divert the topic. Go ahead. It only serves to show how really weak your position is. I challenge the reader NOW to go back to my previous posts and see where I used the alleged "The Pope said so" argument to establish Petrine privilege. I never did such a thing, nor would I ever offer such a stupid argument.

 

We may now consider the Pope. He claims to hold dear the traditions handed down by the apostles, and to have never changed anything (Ineffabilis Deus, etc.). How can we know that this is true? Just as with the Apologist, we must either accept the statement ON BLIND FAITH, or we must cross-check the Pope with scripture, using the method of sola scriptura.

 

Here Ted. Let me help you out. Go to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, or better yet, get a copy of Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic dogma. Read the DEFINED articles of Faith, then go back and show me where the Church contradicted herself. I am not asking you to accept anything on blind faith, or engage in circular argumentation. I want you to do intelligent research into the matter. Take any defined article of faith and show me another that contradicts it. Go ahead. Do it. I suggest to you, that I'll be waiting for a long time JUST LIKE I asked you to provide me with a quote from the early Church Fathers (before the fifth century) who did not believe Peter was the Rock, JUST LIKE I asked you to provide me with ONE example of God-approved rebellion, JUST LIKE I have asked you many other things, which YOU HAVE NOT NOR COULD NOT refute.

 

The conclusions we may properly reach at this point are: a) The attempt to defeat sola scriptura logically requires the use of sola scriptura, and is therefore self-defeating.

 

Rubbish. I can use the Bible to refute 'sola scriptura' WITHOUT conceding it. Your American Constitution does not claim to be the sole legal instrument in the country, and I can appeal to it to refute that belief.

 

b) The attempt to defeat sola scriptura by profession of faith denies the possibility of verification, and therefore denies the security of the gospel.

 

Of course. But I never asked you to reject sola scriptura by a profession of faith in the first place. I am going to call your card right now, Ted, so the readers can see just what is going on here. Please provide everyone with the ACTUAL argument I allegedly gave which "attempt[ed] to defeat sola scriptura by profession of faith."

 

c) We must therefore use sola scriptura to examine the truth or falsity of any doctrine, since without it, no certainty may be had regarding the doctrine.

 

If there was ever a circular argument - here it is kiddies.

 

d) Since the RCC denies sola scriptura, the RCC is a false church.

 

A conclusion based on irrelevant and manufactured premises.

 

Let us now examine the scriptural issues briefly.

 

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 2 Tim 3:16 KJV 15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 2 Tim 2:15 KJV

 

These words are addressed to Timothy, who is NOT an apostle, but a lesser church leader recruited by an apostle. He is not in Peter's line of succession, and therefore cannot be the infallible interpreter envisioned by the RCC. Paul is telling a fallible church member that the scriptures are useful to him to learn about righteousness, WITHOUT an infallible interpreter.

 

Ted, Ted, Ted <sigh>. No. That is not what St. Paul is saying. He is saying that the scriptures are *useful*, which the Catholic Church has *always taught*. What you DO NOT see is St. Paul saying that they are *sufficient* in understanding the entire deposit of revelation. It is *you* who try and wrestle Timothy away from the Church - the SAME Church St. Paul proclaimed TO THE SAME TIMOTHY was the *pillar and foundation of truth* (Cf. 1 Timothy 3:15). It is the same Church through which "the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known.." (Ephesians 3:10), and the same Church against which the gates of hell will not prevail (Cf. Matthew 16:18). Which Protestant Church fits this description? Answer - none.

 

To summarize, something may be useful but not be:

 

i) sufficient ii) even necessary!

 

In the case of sufficiency, one can say that a hammer is useful in building a house, but it is certainly not sufficient.

 

In the case of necessity, St. Paul could very well say that , given the focus on ORAL tradition in the early years of Christianity, it is not at all implausible to believe that St. Paul is trying to encourage Christians to hold to the Scriptures - even though they already have oral tradition. In other words, scripture is useful, but not necessary.

 

He goes further by commanding this fallible church member to study because it will lead him to become a good servant of God. Now let us see what Paul commands other fallible church members to do. 19 Do not quench the Spirit; 20 do not despise prophetic utterances. 21 But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; 22 abstain from every form of evil. 1 Thess 5:19-22 NASB

 

Notice the word 'examine' in verse 21. The Greek is 'dikimazo' which means to 'test, examine, prove, or scrutinize'. There is only one way to do this, and that is to compare with a known standard.

 

Of course, we are to examine 'everything carefully and to hold fast to that which is good'. A good Christian does that everyday of his life. And what is his 'standard' - well what does the Bible say we are to do? "So, then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by WORD OF MOUTH or by letter" (2 Thess 2:15).

 

Over 1,500 times in the apostolic writings we find this standard employed, and it is the OT which is quoted. As Jesus said of the OT, 'the scripture cannot be broken' (John 10:35). Therefore, we, as fallible church members, are commanded to study the scriptures to learn from them the truth.

 

I agree with this, of course. The rubber hits the road, however, when you want to play "Heretic Harold", and come up with your own interpretation APART from the Church Jesus established. Truth is not a democracy, Ted. The New Testament Church is hierarchical in structure with definitive and authoritative offices. No Protestant Church can hope to claim this while remaining consistent with its traditional ecclesiology.

 

Now, Ted. I want you to follow this very closely. You say that we are to follow the "standard employed" in the Bible. Above you mentioned that Jesus quoted the OT scriptures, and this you say, or at least imply, "proves" sola scriptura. Now that is rather a bizarre statement since it only proves that Jesus [and the Apostles, for that matter] used the OT to get their message across to the Jews. It says absolutely nothing about the *sufficiency* of Scriptures of communicating divine revelation. I have already disposed of this weak attempt above. But what I wish to briefly explore here is your own criteria of "following the standard in the Bible." Earlier, you referred to 2 Timothy, and so I ask you to turn to that same book, chapter 3, verse 8. Ted, can you tell me which OT Scripture refers to Jannes and Jambres? (Hint: don't look too long.)

 

We agree not to accept any teaching blindly from anyone, but to test and prove the teaching for ourselves sola scriptura.

 

BEFORE THE GREAT DEFORMATION, NO WHERE IN THE WHOLE HISTORY OF JUDEO-CHRISTIAN HISTORY HAS THE FALSE AND PERNICIOUS DOCTRINE OF SOLA SCRIPTURA *EVER* BEEN TAUGHT WITH ANY KIND OF SUBSTANTIVE INFLUENCE.

 

Much more could be said, but the case is made. Sola scriptura is the command of God, issued by His apostle. Since the RCC denies this command, the RCC is not the church of God.

 

Well. No doubt much more could be said, but we should be concerned with Christian truth, not a 16th century heresy which St. Paul warned against: "I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but you be united in the SAME mind and SAME judgment" (1 Cor 1:10).

 

#1&2. We agree that Jesus gave Simon the name Cephas. But allow us to read John 1:42

 

42And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone. KJV

 

The KJV gets this verse best, because the word translated 'by interpretation' is 'hermeene�etai', the word from which we get the word 'hermeneutics', or the study of interpretation of scripture. Other translations say 'translated', which is less accurate. The word for 'srone' is 'petros', or a SMALL stone. We should note that in this text there is no need for John to us any particular word to describe Peter, if grammar is the driving force. He can use the generic 'lithos', which can be used with an adjective to describe any stone of any size, or he could use 'petra', which refers to a massive stone. He could also have used the definite article and said 'the stone'. The qualifying phrase allows any verbal approach at all. Instead, the word which interpretively describes Peter is a SMALL stone, specifically chosen by our inspired writer.

 

Again, let the reader observe the same fallacies employed in Ted's earlier posts. Ted refuses to relinquish them:

 

i) The "Jesus could have said" line; ii) The refusal to follow simple Greek grammar in translating the feminine word rock for a masculine name; iii) The refusal to acknowledge that IN JOHN 1:42, John uses the ARAMAIC 'CEPHAS' where there is no translational 'problem'.

 

"Our Lord's reference to Simon as Peter (Petros) in Matthew 16:18 has suffered partisan interpretation. Some interpreters with reformational and revisionist agendas have made much of the differences in Greek between the words Peter (Petros, masculine) and 'this rock' ('tautei tei petra', demonstrative + definite article + feminine form, which is the usual gender of petra). They see petra as referring to the confession of the messiahship of Jesus, or the corporate faith of Jesus' followers, rather than to the person of Peter. When using both the masculine and feminine forms of the word, however, Matthew is not trying to distance Peter, Petros, from 'this rock' petra. Rather, the evangelist changes the genders simply because Simon, a male is given a masculine form of the feminine noun for his new name. Furthermore, the whole passage contains semitic structures. In Aramaic the word for both Peter's name and the rock would be identical , 'Kepha…..kepha'. Finally, the force of the context calls for a direct identification between Peter (Petros) and the rock (petra). The case for petrine hegemony among the apostles must be seriously considered and not summarily dismissed by sectarian eisegisis. (James B. Shelton, Associate Professor in Theology, Oral Roberts University, Letter to Authors, Oct. 21, 1994.)

 

The next point to note is that Jesus, unlike the examples of Abram and Jacob, does not necessarily rename Simon. In John 1:42, Jesus speaks to Simon as 'Simon the son of Jona'. The Hebrew would be 'Simon barJona'. In Matt 16:17, Jesus again addresses Peter as 'Simon barJona'. Therefore, the assertion that Simon's name was changed is suspect. In the chapter immediately following, we find Jesus saying 'What do you think, Simon?' (Matt 17:25). Numerous other examples show that the name 'Cephas' was in addition to 'Simon', not in place of it.

 

Ted. Ask yourself this question: WHY did Jesus change Peter's name? Because he thought it wasn't "catchy" enough? Why does God do *anything* UNLESS there is a SIGNIFICANT reason for it. Yes, Jesus does refer to Peter as Simon because Jesus is still principally the Rock. However, AFTER Jesus ascended into heaven and the Holy Spirit descended on the Church, signifying Her birth, HOW MANY TIMES IS PETER REFERRED TO AS "SIMON" only or even Simon at all? Very few if any. The name of Peter occurs NO LESS THAN 195 times in the New Testament, whereas the rest of the Apostles COMBINED are mentioned 130 times. St. John is the next closest with only 29 references.

 

What you must understand, Ted, is that the Simon's name whether he retained it or not is irrelevant to what he became known as and what HIS OFFICE signifies: THE ROCK OF JESUS' CHURCH.

 

We should also note the language of Mark.

 

16 And He appointed the twelve: Simon to whom He gave the name Peter (lit. 'petros'), 17 and James, the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James to them He gave the name Boanerges, which means, 'Sons of Thunder'; Mark 3:16-17 There is no distinction between the naming of James and John as opposed to Peter.

 

Sure there is. Lots of evidence for it. Was God ever referred to as a 'Son of Thunder'. No. Changing someone's name CAN be significant if those names are used again. Have you ever heard James and John referred to this name anywhere else in the NT? No. Was 'Son of Thunder' ever used for an Old Testament figure? No. Does 'Sons of Thunder' signify a title of pre-eminence over Peter? Of course not. But it may indicate his preference for these three Apostles. While Jesus' preference for Peter has been made abundantly clear, Jesus even had 'favourites' after Peter, namely, James and John (Cf. Matthew 17:1-4, Mark 5:37, Mark 13:3, Mark 14:32-33, Luke 22:8, Galatians 2:9).

 

Look at Mark 14:33-37. Jesus chose the three Apostles from among the twelve (Cf. Mark 14:33) to accompany Him deeper into the garden. When Jesus returns from his prayers, He comes and finds all three Apostles sleeping. BUT WHO DOES HE ADMONISH FOR SLEEPING? "And he came and found them sleeping, and he said to Peter, 'Simon, are you asleep? Could you not watch one hour?'" (Mark 14:37). What does this signify to you, Ted? Responsibility, perhaps?

 

Next we examine the 'perpetual office' claim. Abraham became the father of the Jews. His name change did not indicate an office which was passed on. The same may be said of Jacob. His name was given because he wrestled with God. This did not indicate an office, and was not passed on. Therefore, the perpetual office claim for Peter has no foundation in scripture. The 'absentee landlord' premise for perpetual office will be dealt with under #3 below (the keys).

 

Of course a name change does not necessarily constitute a claim for a perpetual office. Here we go again, Ted! Show me where I link the name change to succession!?!?!?! I never did such a thing. I pointed to the name change as proof of the office, and the KEYS, among other biblical texts, to succession.

 

The replacement of Judas by Matthias (Acts 1) is a one-time action, where the new apostle was chosen by God, not by the apostles. It stands as fulfilment of a Messianic OT prophecy (Psalm 109). The prophecy specifically tells of a single event.

 

So, let me get this straight. You ask if Apostolic succession is biblical. I point to Matthias' election, and you say this is a one-time event! Is succession BIBLICAL or NOT Ted? Is the Sanhedrin BIBLICAL or not Ted - and did Jesus command obedience to it or NOT? How many times does it have to happen for you to believe it? The point, Ted, is that it is the BIBLICAL MODEL for the leadership of the Church. IT IS YOU WHO JETISON THAT MODEL FOR PROTESTANTISM'S ANARCHY. You have no justification for doing so.

 

It contains within it no evidence of a right for an apostle to appoint an apostle to succeed him. As such, the record of both the NT and early church pioneers is that the apostles appointed bishops, not apostles. There was a succession of bishops only.

 

And what allegiance do you owe do the successor of an Apostle, Ted? How are you going to extricate yourself from the multitude of references which bind you to the leaders of the Church? Does that binding disappear when the original Apostles do? Do you tell BISHOP Timothy or Titus that you are a "Bible-only Christian"?

 

Returning to the claimed 'petros/petra' equivalence, we will assume for the sake of argument that 'petros' was chosen for a specific reason by the Holy Spirit in inspiring John and Matthew. The name actually given was 'Cephas' (Kepha), an Aramaic name. John, in the inspired record notes that the interpretation of 'Cephas' is a 'small stone'. Then Matthew records in Matt 16:18 'thou art petros and upon this petra I will build my church.' The Greek grammar is suggested to require the gender distinction between petros and petra. Why should this be used at all?

 

Ted. You will have to ask God. But I think it's not too much to ask to follow the grammar of the language that YOU are relying on, is it? Do you say, "I follow the Greek (not the Aramaic), but I obtusely refuse to acknowledge the most remedial of grammatical principles of Greek because that would lead me to an unacceptable admission of the papacy?"

 

A favorite tool of the Jewish writer is the pun. When Jesus is called a 'Nazarene' (Matt 2:23), this is a pun on both 'nezer' ('branch', see Is 4:2) and 'nezir' ('one set apart', see Gen 49:26), used to show how Jesus satisfies OT prophecies of the Messiah. Similarly, Matt 16:18 uses a pun, this time to illustrate a contrast between Jesus and Peter. Had there been an intent to show equivalence, John 1:42 would not have interpreted Cephas as a small pebble, and the pun would have been meaningless. This is confirmed by the chiasm of the passage noted earlier.

 

a. Jesus is the Messiah (v. 16)

 

b. Simon barJona is blessed (v. 17)

 

c. revelation by the Father (v. 17)

 

b'. Simon is 'petros' (pebble) (v. 18)

 

a'. on this 'petra' will I build my church (v. 18)

 

The peak of the chiasm is the prophetic revelation by the Father. This defines the key message of the chiasm. Its elements are the humanity of Peter, and the foundation of the church, which is Christ. Peter receives a blessing, and will be a foundation stone (Eph 2:20), but will not be THE foundation stone (Eph 2:20, 1 Cor 3:10-12, 1 Peter 2).

 

Your technique is tenaciously SELECTIVE. See how you laughably and *arbitrarily* choose 'the Father' as the peak when the whole passage's focus is clearly of Jesus declaration of Peter's role in the Church. But, if you insist on using the technique, I will oblige you:

 

a. He said to them, 'But who do you say that I am?'

 

b. Simon Peter replied, 'You are the Christ, the Son of God.'

 

c. Blessed are you, Simon Barjona,

 

d. Flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father in heaven.

 

e. And I also say to you that you are Peter,

 

f. Upon this rock I will build My church;

 

g. The gates of Hades shall not overpower it.

 

h. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven

 

i. whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

 

Now according to your methodology (and the hopeless arbitrariness of it), my 'peak' is 'e.' - "And I also say to you that you are Peter."

 

Item #3, the exclusivity of Peter's possession of the keys. We have dealt with this before at length. The key issue is whether the granting of keys is to Peter or to the twelve.

 

I guess there must be another problem with ALL translations again. So let's go to the Greek: "Soi" is the SINGULAR dative form of "you" in the Greek, and the verb forms of bind and loose are in the singular form also. This is, however, more than plainly obvious from the context. I really am wondering if you are even interested in the truth because this objection suggests otherwise.

 

We have noted before that the keys carry with them the power of binding and loosing, while acting in the name of the sovereign. Thus, the keys are the SYMBOL of the power. We note that the actual power is granted in Matt 16:18. The language here is not sufficiently clear, lacking visual clues

 

What do you want for a "visual clue", Ted? A picture of keys in the Bible? I can think of nothing more visual than a set of keys.

 

to show whether the grant is exclusively to Peter or to the twelve. However, in Mat 18:18, the identical power, in identical language, is explicitly granted to the twelve, denying the possibility of the Matt 16 grant being exclusive.

 

Where are the other Apostles given the keys, Ted?

 

The translation of shall be bound/shall be loosed generally is taken in English to mean a binding/loosing on earth which causes a binding/loosing in heaven. This is power of man over God. The Greek should properly be translated in the future perfect tense shall have been bound/shall have been loosed, implying that the apostles will understand the wishes of heaven and convey those to earth.

 

This is now the third time that I am making this point: what difference does it make whether the decision is made in heaven before, during or after Peter's decision? The point is that it is *THROUGH* him and the other Apostles that we know what heaven has 'bound' and what heaven has 'loosed'.

 

As for the idea that the keys would be passed on in the absence of the sovereign, we should consider that the sovereign has never been absent.

 

19 'Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I AM WITH YOU ALWAYS, even to the end of the age.' Matt 28:19-20

 

This is NOT the question, Ted. The question is one of INSTRUMENTALITY. Of course, Jesus has not left us, but how does that translate into every Christian having the authority to teach as you suggest? The question is HOW the Holy Spirit teaches - and what the Bible says is that it is through the Apostles [and their legitimate successors with Peter's successor]. You hold to Apostolic authority over the heretics of their days who preached DIFFERENT gospels, don't you? Well, then, how does this square with your implication above?

 

By the way, it is amusing that you cite Matthew 28:19-20 since that command was given to the APOSTLES. Does that mean that you or I cannot teach as well? No, of course not. BUT IT DOES MEAN THAT WE SHOULD REMAIN OBEDIENT TO THE LEADERS OF THE CHURCH WHEN WE DO TEACH - AS THE Bible TEACHES OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

 

Jesus is with us by way of His vicar, the Holy Spirit.

 

16 'And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, THAT HE MAY BE WITH YOU FOREVER; 17 that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not behold Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you, and will be in you. 18 'I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. 19 'After a little while the world will behold Me no more; but you will behold Me; because I live, you shall live also. 20 'In that day you shall know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you. John 14:16-20.

 

Again. I am not challenging your view in principle - but in its APPLICATION - which I maintain is biblically deficient.

 

Item #4, Peter in prophecy. The first (in canon order) prophecy cited is Gen 49:24. 24 But his bow remained firm, And his arms were agile, From the hands of the Mighty One of Jacob From there is the Shepherd, the Stone of Israel,

 

The Apologist suggests that 'the Stone of Israel' refers to Peter, and is the first prophecy of him. But this is denied by the text. Notice that the 'Stone of Israel' is also the 'Shepherd'. 11 'I am the good shepherd; John 10:11 Jesus is the shepherd, and therefore, Jesus is the Stone of Gen 49:24.

 

OT - Israel- Jacob - Twelve Tribes - Twelve Heads of those tribes- One Pre-eminent tribesman

 

NT - Church - Jesus -All Nations - The Twelve Apostles - Peter

 

Sorry, Ted, this is pretty compelling.

 

You talk of the shepherd. You mention Jesus, the Good Shepherd. Very Good. Now, turn to John 21:15-17. Who is the appointed shepherd who is instructed to feed the lambs and the sheep?

 

Next we revisit Is 22. This is a bit more involved, but no less clear. The Apologist suggests that Eliakim, who will receive the keys, is Peter. We will look at this in a bit more depth, since the interpretation I am presenting differs from many commentaries.

 

Oh really. If the passage is 'involved, but no less clear' then why does your interpretation differ from many commentaries? Come now, Ted, perhaps it is not as clear as you may think in the Protestant view.

 

15 Thus says the Lord GOD of hosts, 'Come, go to this steward, To Shebna, who is in charge of the royal household, 16 'What right do you have here, And whom do you have here, That you have hewn a tomb for yourself here, You who hew a tomb on the height, You who carve a resting place for yourself in the rock? 17 'Behold, the LORD is about to hurl you headlong, O man. And He is about to grasp you firmly, 18 And roll you tightly like a ball, To be cast into a vast country; There you will die, And there your splendid chariots will be, You shame of your master's house. ' 19 'And I will depose you from your office, And I will pull you down from your station. 20 'Then it will come about in that day, That I will summon My servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah 21 And I will clothe him with your tunic, And tie your sash securely about him, I will entrust him with your authority, And he will become a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. 22 'Then I will set the key of the house of David on his shoulder, When he opens no one will shut, When he shuts no one will open. 23 'And I will drive him like a peg in a firm place, And he will become a throne of glory to his father's house. 24 'So they will hang on him all the glory of his father's house, offspring and issue, all the least of vessels, from bowls to all the jars. 25 'In that day,' declares the LORD of hosts, 'the peg driven in a firm place will give way; it will even break off and fall, and the load hanging on it will be cut off, for the LORD has spoken.' Is 22:15-25

 

We should note that Isaiah is using a contemporary situation as a mold for a future set of events. This prophecy begins with condemnation of the unfaithful steward of the royal household. The royal household is the House of David (the spiritual royal house, Amos 9:11, c.f. Acts 15:16), and the stewards (Shebna) are the Jews (Luke 1:54). They are condemned because of disloyalty to God. Notice verse 18. Shebna (the Jews) will be 'cast into a vast country'. What better description of the Diaspora can be given?

 

So far so good.

 

Eliakim ('God will establish' in Hebrew) will replace the unfaithful Jews. We may identify Eliakim from his attributes and actions. First, he is described as the Servant of Yahweh in v. 20. Peter is never identified by this name, but Christ is repeatedly (see Is 53, Matt 12:18, Luke 1:69, Acts 3:13[note Peter speaking]).

 

Is that the best you can do, Ted? "Praise Our God, all you his SERVANTS, who fear him, small and great." (Revelations 19:5).

 

Eliakim will be a 'father' to the House of David. This parental status is claimed by Jesus (Matt 23:37, Luke 13:34) in the image of a mother hen. Peter is never pictured in scripture as a parent to the church.

 

Well, that all depends on if you believe in Petrine primacy, doesn't it? If you accept that view, then it can hardly be denied considering "Father Abraham" (Cf. Luke 16:24) or St. Paul (Cf. 1 Cor 4:15). If St. Paul can be referred to as a "father" because of his Apostolic Authority, I think the same can be said of St. Peter - right?

 

Next we find that Eliakim will be a throne of glory to his father's house (the temple). Again, this can never be applied to Peter, but it does figuratively to Jesus as the Savior (Psalm 89:14, Matt 19:28).

 

Verse 22 shows how all of the identity of the Jews, including the authority they had as God's people will move to Jesus (as the incarnate savior). This is the event prophesied in Dan 9, where the Jews fail their probation at the end of the 70 weeks.

 

Verses 23-25 describe the temple utensils 'laid on him'. During the temple services, these sacred vessels were used by the priests when they carried out the sacrifices. The sins of the penitent were transferred to the temple, represented specifically by the bowls and jars. Figuratively, this paints the picture of the sins of the Jews being transferred to Jesus. He is the 'peg in a secure place'. But due to the rejection of the Savior by the Jews, Jesus is 'broken off'. This is a violent act, reflected by the violence of Dan 9:26 where the Messiah will be 'cut off'. The verb used there 'karath', describes the violent judicial end of Jesus on the cross. The Jews put all their hopes on the coming Messiah, but did not accept Him when He came. This is seen when the temple utensils fall (v. 25). Then the load (the hopes of the Jews, hung on hopes of a false Messiah) will be violently 'cut off'.

 

O.K. Ted. Let's go over this one more time.

 

Let me tell you what the passage really means. First we start with respecting the CONTEXT of the passage and not inventing our own. We know who Eliakim was and what his office is in the house of the King. We see clearly the obvious parallel between Matthew's formula of 'binding and loosing' and the passage in Isaiah of 'opening and shutting'. We also see the Lord giving both STEWARDS the key. Now, NONE of these circumstances apply to Jesus since He is the SOURCE and FOUNDATION of the office, the rabbinical formula, and the keys. Admitting to this, we can make an intelligent exegesis into v.23-25.

 

In verse 23, the indirect allusion to Peter as the rock in the New Testament cannot be missed. The Lord 'fastens' like peg in a 'sure place' just as Peter is the unmovable rock against which the gates of hell will not prevail. Eliakim 'becomes a throne of glory'. Now a person usually does not BECOME a throne of glory, but an OFFICE does. It is the office that becomes a throne of glory, in the Person of Eliakim and then later in Peter.

 

In verse 24, the 'family' is the Church of God which 'hangs' or rests on the Rock which Jesus built His Church. And as for the vessels, bowls and jars, I'm so glad you brought that up: "And Eleazar the son of Aaron the priest shall have CHARGE of the oil for the light, the fragrant incense, the continual cereal offering, and the anointing oil, with the oversight of all tabernacle and all that is in it, of the sanctuary and its vessels." (Numbers 4:16) Now, the vessels are now under WHOSE charge, Ted?

 

None of the descriptions here can apply to Peter. He cannot become a throne of glory to the Father, but Jesus can.

 

Hmmm. First of all, if Peter cannot become a throne of 'glory', then why does St. Paul describe the justified in Christ as 'glorified' in Romans 8:30? Second of all, when is Jesus ever referred to as a 'throne of glory'? He never is. He is described SITTING ON HIS throne, but not described AS 'A THRONE OF GLORY'. Do you know why, Ted? Because Isaiah says, 'he WILL BE a throne of glory'; meaning, Eliakim's OFFICE, represented by the throne, will be a throne of glory.

 

Peter cannot carry the load of sin (v.24), but Jesus can. Only the incarnate Jesus can fill the role of Eliakim.

 

Of course, Peter cannot carry the load of sin. But verse 24 does not say that either. It says, "So they will hang on him all the glory of his father's house, offspring and issue, all the least of vessels, from bowls to all the jars." Your whole argument rests on your imposition on the text, using the vessels to "paint the picture of the sins of the Jews being transferred to Jesus." There is no apparent reason why you should make this deduction in THIS passage since it is hardly supported by the context.

 

We should also note that the regent, who receives the keys, is the second in command of the kingdom. This position is also described as being seated at the right hand of the king. This is the position of Jesus after the ascension, described many times (Psalm 110:1, Matt 22:44: 26:64, Mark 12:36; 14:62; 16:19, Luke 20:42; 22:69, Heb 1:3).

 

Yes, perhaps. But the regent is also the PALACE ADMINISTRATOR or THE STEWARD of the House - you know the 'day to day stuff'. To whom do you think this best applies? The KING of the House which is Jesus, or His chief Steward, who is Peter? Seems pretty clear to me.

 

Finally, we should note that Jesus says that HE is the holder of the Key of David (Rev 3:7)

 

Yes. Ted. Now, TO WHOM DOES HE GIVE THOSE KEYS?

 

Far more can be said, but the idea that Peter is envisioned in Is 22 is nonsense.

 

Ted, let me show you the parallels again:

 

The Kings: King Hezekiah v. King Jesus The Houses: The House of the King v. The Church The Palace Administrator, who RECEIVES the keys: Eliakim v. Peter

 

Jesus did not 'receive' the keys since He is the BEGINNING. Instead, he passes them on to Peter. The keys were passed down in the history of the Jewish people. Tell me, why is it so hard to accept the truth? You make the rather foolish claim that this is "nonsense", when it makes *perfect sense* - even to the Deformers:

 

"And what about the 'keys of the kingdom'? The keys of a royal or noble establishment were entrusted to the chief steward or majordomo; he carried them on his shoulder in earlier times, and there they served as a badge of the authority entrusted to him. About 700 B.C. an oracle from God announced that this authority in the royal palace in Jerusalem was to be conferred on a man called Eliakim…(Isaiah 22:22). So in the new community which Jesus speaks was about to build, Peter would be, so to speak, chief steward." (F.F. Bruce, The Hard Sayings of Jesus, 1983).

 

"Some commentators have viewed this passage as referring to Christ, but improperly; for the Prophet draws a comparison between two men, Shebna and Eliakim. Shebna shall be deprived of his office, and Eliakim shall succeed him. What has this is to do with Christ? For Eliakim was not a type of Christ, and the Prophet does not here describe any hidden mystery, but borrows a comparison from the ordinary practice of men, as if the keys were delivered to one who has been appointed to be steward, as has already been said. For the same reason, Christ calls the office of teaching the word (Matt. 17:19) 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven;' so that it is idle and foolish to spend much time endeavouring to find a hidden reason, when the matter is plain, and needs no ingenuity" (John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah).

 

In Isaiah 22:22, Eliakim is given the key of the house of David and fills the role of palace administrator for King Hezekiah. In Isaiah 36:3, he is designated literally as the person 'over the house' (Hebrew: 'al habayith'). The house refers to the residence of the king, otherwise known as the king's palace…As specified in Isaiah 22:22 the palace administrator was a very prestigious and responsible position since what he 'opens no one can shut, and what he closes no one can open.' Isaiah 22:22 also gives an indication as to the origin of this office by the phrasing, 'the House of David.' We would assume from such language that the position of palace administrator would have been a perpetual office beginning with David. This is almost the case. The first recording of the office of palace administrator is in 1 Kings 4:6 in which Ahishar is given title as Eliakim, namely, the person 'over the house'. It would appear that Ahishar would have had the same prerogatives of 'opening' and 'shutting' that Eliakim had. This office actually began under the reign of King Solomon, the king after David. Other specific mentionings of this office are found in 1 Kings 16:9 (Azra under King Elah) and 1 King 18:3 (Obadiah under King Ahab)…Unlike the Old Testament kings, however, Jesus remains the only king of the Church. Before he left, Jesus designated a 'palace administrator' or 'chief of staff' to rule the affairs of his house, the Church. His name was Peter. Significantly, Peter is given the keys to bind and loose even as Eliakim was given the key to open and shut. [Ted, pay close attention: it makes more proximate sense that Eliakim is a foreshadowing of Peter since both were GIVEN the authority to loose and bind.] Peter's successors, even as Ahishar had successors stretching throughout the history of Israel, would assume the same ruling prerogatives throughout the duration of the Church. [To suggest, Ted, that Jesus Christ would allow an inherently transferable symbol to end with Peter is INCONCEIVABLE and ABSURD.] All of these New Testament 'palace administrators i.e. popes, would be under one King, that is, Jesus." (Robert Sungenis, "The Palace Administrator", Letter to authors, 1994).

 

#5, the pre-eminence of Peter in the NT: As we have pointed out before, Peter NEVER claims pre-eminence. He doesn't do it in his epistles, or in his actions recorded in Acts. In fact, in 1 Peter 5:1-3, he refers to himself as a 'fellow elder', not as someone in higher authority.

 

Yes. It refers to himself as a fellow elder. So what? Does that prove that he was not pre-eminent? Of course not. You are appealing to sufficiency yet again, Ted. Perhaps he was abiding by Our Lord's command to not 'lord his authority' over fellow believers. Here, let me show you how the currentPope addresses his encyclicals:

 

"Venerable Brethren in the Episcopate, health and apostolic blessing! (The Splendour of Truth, 1993)

 

Does this statement disprove the Pope's pre-eminence? No. Is he the head of the Church on earth? Yes.

 

In Acts 15, a dispute over circumcision is discussed among the apostles and elders. There was noisy discussion, but when an apostle began speaking, out of respect, everyone became silent. The first to speak was Peter. Others followed, and the crowd remained silent. Finally, James, acting as president of the council (v 19) states 'it is MY judgment'.

 

Ted. Listen carefully. It is rather tendacious of you to challenge the translation and the meaning of Catholic proof texts such as Matthew 16:18, but are rather unconcerned to do the same when you rely on your own proof texts. Have you ever wondered whether your understanding is correct?

 

"The Greek phrase 'ego krino' (it is my judgement) in Acts 15:19…should not be absolutized to represent a dogmatic or unilateral proclamation on James' part. The Greek word 'krino' has an extensive semantic range, including such strong determinations as God's judgement on various entities (Cf. Rom 2:16,3:6, 2 Tim 4:1), but at the other extreme it refers merely to one's opinion on a subject without positive proof or absolute fact (Cf. Rom 14:5, 1 Cor 7:37). In the passage in question, James' use of the phrase is closer to the opinion side of the Semantic range. The emphatic 'ego' shows that James is prefacing his remarks as an indication to his own feelings on the issue." (Robert A. Sungenis, Letters to Authors, Mar. 16, 1995, 2)

 

I have other more comprehensive analysis of this by other scholars if you are serious about learning about the issues involved.

 

The RCC claim that Peter was the pre-eminent apostle or president of the council simply is absent from the text. Also, as we have noted previously, Paul denies Peter's pre-eminence (2 Cor 11:5). If Paul's statement is true, then the RCC claim is false. If the RCC claim is true, then the Bible is false.

 

Ted. I ALREADY answered your objection of 2 Cor 11:5: "For I consider myself not in the least inferior to the most eminent apostles." WITH "For I am the LEAST of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the Church of God" (1 Cor 15:9).

 

You simply do not or choose not to submit to the true and real meaning of the Bible.

 

#6, The pre-eminence of Peter is clear in early church writing. The Apologist has supplied us with numerous quotes. Not one indicates that Peter considered himself to be in any way superior to any other apostle. While there is a great deal of concern in the quotes that the churches trace their history to the apostles as a way of showing that they received the authentic gospel, the idea of Peter's pre-eminence as a received fact is utterly absent. Thus, the Apologist has yet to demonstrate his premise, and I sincerely doubt that he can.

 

O.K. Ted. I propose you do only an elementary study of the early Christian witness in this regard. If, after you have done so, you are still of the opinion that there is no evidence of such a belief in Petrine primacy, I will be happy to provide the references. LET THE READER MARK THIS CHALLENGE.

 

We must be clear about one thing here. There is a vast difference between ecclesiastical succession and apostolic succession. Ecclesiastical succession demonstrates a succession of bishops, who originally received the gospel message and who have carefully guarded the received truth. Apostolic succession refers to a succession of apostles, who all have the direct connection with the Almighty that the original apostles had, and are able to directly communicate the will of God as directly received truth, rather than as reiteration of previously received truth. This brings us to:

 

Ted. You are very much mistaken here. The Catholic position IS what you had identified in the first part of your statement: . "Ecclesiastical succession demonstrates a succession of bishops, who originally received the gospel message and who have carefully guarded the received truth." You call it "Ecclesiastical Succession". Catholics call it "Apostolic Succession", but it is the SAME definition you have given here . I sincerely hope you are not teaching your students that we believe the bishops "have the direct connection with the Almighty that the original apostles had, and are able to directly communicate the will of God as directly received truth, rather than as reiteration of previously received truth." The Catholic Church has NEVER taught this.

 

The Church claims INFALLBILITY for the bishops united with the Pope - it does NOT claim INSPIRATION for the bishops. Infallibility is a 'negative' charism; meaning, it preserves, protects, and guards the ALREADY received Apostolic TRADITION - written or oral. When matters of faith or new moral questions come forth that were not explicitly faced by the Apostles, the Holy Spirit will guide these legitimate successors so that they will not err (Cf. Acts 15). That is a far cry from actual inspiration which is a 'positive' charism, isn't it? In fact, it's really the least we can ask from God: that, at the very least, the Church will be preserved from teaching error. Honestly, I think, apart from being biblical and historical, it is quite a *reasonable* provision for Jesus to make in Matthew and John's gospels.

 

#7 Peter founded the church of Rome, was its first Bishop, and passed his apostolate on in an unbroken chain to our current Pope. The historical record is unclear. It is possible that Peter founded the church in Rome, but that cannot be proven from the record.

 

Yes, it can. I seriously doubt, given your insufficient knowledge of Church History or even the latest archaeological evidence discovered in Rome, that you are even *remotely* competent to make *any* statement on the matter.

 

Assuming it to be true, Peter's bishopric is questionable for two reasons. First, it was not the practice of apostles to remain in one location as bishops. They taught converts and selected bishops, then moved on to new missions.

 

I hardly think moving around nullifies one's ecclesiastical office as bishop. Oh, Ted, please - you're killing me - go read some church history.

 

If the Bible never implies that St. Peter was in Rome, then how do you explain St. Peter's words as recorded in first letter: "The church that is in Babylon: elected together with you, saluteth you: and so doth my son Mark" (1 Peter 5:13). Commentary after commentary all point to Babylon as being the code name for Rome. In the language of the time, Rome became the centre for pagan religions and hence became the new Babylon. This is sufficiently corroborated after reading Revelation 17.

 

Second, in Romans 1:11, Paul says 'I long to see you in order that I may impart some spiritual gift to you, that you may be established'. This is the desire of an apostle to a church which is in need of spiritual assistance. The church in Rome, if Peter had been in residence (as required by the theory), would be well supplied with all spiritual gifts and instruction. There would be no need for it to be 'established' (enhanced, made greater), since it would have already been the greatest of churches.

 

But you see, it only requires the most elementary of examinations to consider that St. Paul wrote to the Church in Rome BEFORE Peter arrived there. St. Paul wrote to the Church in Rome between 56 and 58 A.D. St. Peter could have arrived after this date.

 

2 Timothy 4:9-16 is even more damning to the idea that Rome was the seat of Peter. Paul had been imprisoned in Rome, where he wrote his epistle to Timothy. Paul is soon to be executed. Beginning at verse 9, he asks Timothy to come soon. In verse 10 he lists friends who had been with him, but had gone on to various missions. By now, only Luke is with him (verse 11). Finally Paul notes that 'At my first defense no one supported me, but all deserted me'. Absolutely no one had stuck around when Paul was first brought before the Emperor. The implications of this are fatal to the Catholic assertion. At no time during Paul's imprisonment has Peter been seen. If Peter were the Bishop of Rome, it would have been criminal for him not to visit Paul in prison. Yet, 'no one' was around. This includes Peter! There can be no mistaking the fact that, even if Peter did found the church in Rome, he was absent at the time of Paul's imprisonment, and therefore was not acting as the bishop of that church. His failure to act as bishop denies the possibility of being the first of an unbroken line of succession. There cannot be a succession if there is no first occupant of a position.

 

Assuming that Peter was in Rome when Paul was, does the mere fact that Peter did not visit Paul "deny the possibility of [Peter] being the first of an unbroken line of succession."? Hardly. By that reasoning, what is your opinion of Jesus Christ who did not visit John the Baptist when he was in prison?

 

We have dealt with #8, so the final issue is #9, the guarding of the original message. Since these issues are large, perhaps we can deal with them in individual threads. I believe that this sufficiently lays out the falsehood of the RCC position. If the Apologist wishes to answer, he may do so. I do not anticipate responding further, since we will be restating previously stated positions. I believe my exposition to be sufficiently thorough to deny any claim he might make. Of course, logically he can make no reasoned claim at all, since to make such a claim is to deny his position.

 

Well. Since you like democracy in religion, Ted, we'll let our readers decide who has put forward the more compelling case.

 

The readers are now sufficiently supplied with information to reach a judgment. Of course, by allowing them to consider the evidence, the Apologist has confirmed my position. He has used sola scriptura as his method. I wish him well, and pray that the voice of the Holy Spirit has not been stilled by his devotion to false doctrines.

 

As I have already explained, I don't need to concede the Bible alone heresy in order to accept that the Written tradition of God is as binding on me as the Oral tradition. What you must admit, Ted, is that you would not HAVE the Bible or know what books belong IN IT, if it wasn't for the Catholic Church. Even arch-heretic Luther admitted as much.

 

Ted, I beg you to continue the research you have embarked on. It is only a matter of time until you come to the fullness of truth. The question will be: Do you have the courage to submit to it?

 

---

Session 3

 

It is time to distill this debate into a few key points. Both of us have presented exegesis which we believe to be accurate. Both of us believe that the other is in error. You eventually rely on the appeal to authority as your ultimate argument.

 

Appeal to authority? Well, if you mean PROTESTANT "authority". Of course. I tried to accommodate your Protestant sensibilities in doing so. But alas, that is the nature of the Protestant beast - each Protestant reserves the right to unilaterally decide what the Bible means - independently of the Church since each Protestant ALONE is the final arbiter of what the Bible means. I also used biblical texts, the early Church Fathers - who of course were Catholic - and elementary logic. I am rather perplexed at your comment since it is plainly inaccurate.

 

As we have shown earlier, this is self-contradictory. You have pointed out various authors who agree with his position. In the interest of space, I have avoided such lengthy quotes. Clearly, we could throw disputing authors as arrows, and reach no conclusion.

 

Yes, that is true. It is rather hopeless. But that is what we are reduced to when we resort to a democratic style view of objective truth. Everybody's opinion is as good as everyone else's. So, though it pains me much, I descended to this realm of opinion since it is, by definition, what you accept.

 

The real question is one of church authority. What does it mean? I do not propose to explore all aspects of this issue, for I have not studied it sufficiently. What I can do is explore some of what it is NOT. Our first point is that the apostles established many churches, and appointed bishops who were to carefully guard the truth delivered to them.

 

Quite true. But the REAL question is: did they have the right to teach INDEPENDENTLY of ONE ANOTHER? NO!!!! That is not what the Bible shows!!!! Now, Ted, you say that the Apostles appointed bishops. Well, where are your bishops? If the Apostles appointed bishops, what does this tell you of the issue of succession?

 

This is essentially a librarian function. While he was a teaching librarian, the bishop was not to in any way alter the received message.

 

A 'librarian'? I think not. When the gates of hell are flung wide open and Lucifer's legions are unleashed against the Church of Christ and pound on Her doors like a battering ram or attempt to slither through the back door, a librarian will stop them.

 

As long as he kept to this standard, he had the message of the author, hence the 'authority'. We should note that the apostles prophesied about failures (2 Thess 2:3, 1 John 2:19) in this office. Because of the passion for preservation of the received word, we find that the epistles were rapidly copied and distributed.

 

Remember Saul and how he tried to kill David? "Then Abishai said to David, 'Today God has delivered your enemy into your hand; now therefore, please let me strike him with the spear to the ground with one stroke, and I will not strike him the second time.' But David said to Abishai, 'Do not destroy him, for who can stretch out his hand against the Lord's anointed and be without guilt?...The Lord forbid that I should stretch out my hand against the Lord's anointed..." (1 Samuel 26:8-11). Saul was not worthy to be King, but even David didn't touch his authority to lead because he was God's anointed.

 

So, Ted, for the third time, GIVE ME ONE EXAMPLE OF GOD APPROVED REBELLION.

 

Similarly, any oral tradition which added to the epistles would have been committed to writing very quickly.

 

Why would oral tradition have been committed to writing? Who says that it MUST have been so? Christianity was, effectively and practically, an ORAL religion for the first fifteen hundred years before the invention of the printing press and increase in literacy. You have big problems here, Ted.

 

"But I urge you, brethren, bear with this word of exhortation, for I have WRITTEN TO YOU BRIEFLY." (Hebrews 13:22).

 

"Having many things to write to you, I DO NOT WANT TO DO SO WITH PAPER AND INK, BUT I HOPE TO COME TO YOU AND SPEAK FACE TO FACE, that your joy may be made full" (2 John 1:12).

 

"I had many things to write to you, but I AM NOT WILLING TO WRITE THEM TO YOU WITH PEN AND INK; BUT I HOPE TO SEE YOU SHORTLY, AND WE SHALL SPEAK FACE TO FACE." (3 John 1:13)

 

Indeed, the tone of the NT letters suggest that they were never meant to be a complete and exhaustive discourse on the Christian Faith, but rather written to address a particular controversy in a particular church. For instance, St. Paul's letters to the Roman and Galatians deals a lot with Gentile circumcision. The books of the NT were produced and called forth by special circumstances that arose, and were therefore written to meet particular demands and emergencies. Indeed, if we were to take this idea of the Bible, and the NT in particular, as the sole source of revelation, we would think that God had a big problem with circumcision given the amount of time St. Paul addresses the issue, but that is hardly an issue in today's Christian Church, is it?

 

And what about the Gospels? So long as the Apostles were still living, the necessity for written records of the words and actions of Christ were not so necessary. However, as time passed and they would soon be gone, it was necessary to have some correct, authoritative, and reliable account by those who had known him personally or known the Apostles personally. THIS WAS NECESSARY SINCE THERE WERE MANY SPURIOUS GOSPELS BEING SPREAD ABROAD which were written to discredit Christianity and destroy it. This situation may have been hinted at by St. Luke, "since MANY have undertaken to compile a narrative of the events that have been fulfilled among US…" (Luke 1:1). Who are the 'many', and who are the 'us'? In the time of the Apostles, it was the CHURCH which was the dispenser of the Gospel truth, why do you believe that arrangement has changed today?

 

So far, I have seen no evidence of such. There are many pseudepigrapha, but the churches (plural) rightly discarded them as being apocryphal.

 

Let the reader observe. How does Ted KNOW that they 'rightly' discarded them as apocryphal? Why could they not have made a mistake in choosing or discarding a book? What guarantee does Ted have that they made the right decision?

 

On what basis does he make this judgement? If Ted is honest, he will answer either the Catholic Church or himself.

 

AGAIN, I invite Ted to accept my challenge of identifying an inspired work over a pseudepigrapha one. Let's see 1) how well Ted knows his Bible 2) how the Holy Spirit works to allow each reader to identify an inspired work.

 

Just to explore one issue of preservation and accurate transmission, we should look at the Marian dogmas. The bulk of these dogmas, which all good Catholics are obligated to believe, were published after the eighteenth century.

 

The following are the dates that these dogmas were DEFINED, not the date that they were first taught:

 

Mother of God: Ephesus, 431 Perpetual Virginity: Lateran Synod, 649 Immaculate Conception: Pius IX, 1854 Assumption: Pius XII, 1950

 

Why should there be a millennium of delay in telling the faithful of these truths? Could it be that there is no truth to the claim that they were apostolic in origin? The perpetual virginity dogma is illustrative.

 

Ted, do you know what you are talking about? Take any number of your central, fundamental beliefs of Christianity. Go back in history and show me where they were present *immediately* and *uniformly* after the Apostles died. Good Luck.

 

As for the Blessed Mother's perpetual virginity, try reading Epiphanius (374 A.D.), Didymus, the Blind (381 A.D.), Jerome (383 A.D.), and Augustine (391 A.D.). Shall I go on? All of these Fathers were also defending the Trinity against the Arians at the same time. If you reject these Fathers as being 'too late', then I will be happy to show you a list of doctrines that you believe in as a Christian which are even later 'inventions'. What you must do Ted is adopt the word 'development' into your vocabulary. Until you do this, you are accepting silly Protestant objections, and are left whistling in the wind.

 

And, of course, you will well appreciate this Father's views:

 

"Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the EVER-VIRGIN Mary." (Athanasius, Discourses Against the Arians 2:70, 358 A.D.)

 

Tell me, Ted, if Athanasius was right about the Trinity, why should he be wrong about Mary? Or better yet, if he can be wrong about Mary and right about the Trinity, why not vice versa?

 

And consider this: there was a GREAT AND LOUD COMOTION OVER THE ISSUE OF THE TRINITY which lasted over a century. YET WE HEAR NAY A WORD OF DETRACTION FROM ANY OF THE EARLY CHRISTIAN WITNESS ON MARY'S PERPETUAL VIRGINITY. NOT A PEEP.

 

And lest we forget the great heresiarchs of the deformation: Luther, Calvin, and Zwinglii - why did they ALSO believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary? Because it was a 'papal invention' not found in Scripture? Good grief!

 

It does not exist in scripture. RCC apologists stretch scriptures to allow it, but that is the best they can do.

 

Ted, you don't have a clue as to the issues involved in this question. If you want we can discuss the biblical passages surrounding the issue, but Protestant objections have been blown out of the water time and time again. The fact of the matter is: the Bible is INCONCLUSIVE on Mary's perpetual virginity- although the Catholic case is the more persuasive one.

 

Next, we search for the dogma in official pronouncements of the church. When we look at concilliar and papal pronouncements, the first hint of the idea appears in the fifth century.

 

"The first hint of it?" Get thee to a library.

 

It took some time for the doctrine to gel and become accepted.

 

Excellent Ted, substitute "fourth century" in the above, and you have explained the historical development of the Trinity. : )

 

In other words, it is a modern invention compared to true apostolic doctrines. The other Marian dogmas are similar. There is no hint of Marian assumption, intercession, or sinlessness in the early writings. These are also MODERN INVENTIONS seen most prominently in the works such as those of Montfort and Liguori, and adopted later by the entire church. In fact, while perpetual virginity or bodily assumption have no impact on the gospel, the idea of immaculate conception and Marian intercession do violence to the Biblical doctrine of the gospel. Therefore the RCC HAS NOT acted as a true guardian of the truth. (We can discuss the Marian dogmas in a separate thread.) This denies any authority for the RCC.

 

Ted, the sad fact here is that you accept doctrinal development on doctrines you accept i.e. the Trinity, the two natures in Christ, two wills in Christ, etc., but you reject those doctrinal developments which are less agreeable to your theological pallet. As for the other Marian dogmas, well, why should I believe you have done *any* intelligent research into the matter when you have demonstrated quite the contrary on the virginity question?

 

Second, we need to examine the Biblical application of authority. You mention 1 Cor 1:10.

 

10 Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree, and there be no divisions among you, but you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment.

 

You suggest that this text requires SUBSERVIENCE to the church, regardless of one's own opinion. This is simply false.

 

Well, then, how do you reconcile these passages:

 

"Obey your leaders, and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account." (Hebrews 13:17).

 

"And if he refuses to listen to the them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as the Gentile and a tax-gatherer." (Matthew 18:18)

 

Would you like me to provide more passages which clearly refute your claim?

 

Notice the definition of the word Paul uses for 'judgment'.

 

1106 gnome {gno'-may} AV - judgment 3, mind 2, purpose + 1096 1, advice 1, will 1, agree + 4160 + 3391 1; 9 1) the faculty of knowledge, mind, reason 2) that which is thought or known, one's mind 2a) view, judgment, opinion 2b) mind concerning what ought to be done 2b1) by one's self: resolve purpose, intention 2b2) by others: judgment, advice 2b3) decree

 

I have included the entire Strong's definition (Logos Bible Software, ver. 1.6), so that no argument may be made about selective use of definitions. In the context of Paul's statement the unity of judgment REQUIRES independent investigation and confirmation. That is, the church members are required to come together by confirmation of the message.

 

Ted, you have missed the point. The point in the passage is that the Christian Church is to be UNITED in doctrine. Protestantism REJECTS unity as is evidenced by its division, rejects the New Testament hierarchical model for the Church, rejects the authority of the successors of the Apostles, rejects that the Church is the 'pillar and foundation of the truth' (1 Tim 3:15), and therefore rejects Jesus' command that 'all may be one' (Cf. John 17:22).

 

You cannot go off into your own little corner, Ted, and believe in a 'private' Jesus that you have created in your own mind - and neither can anyone else - for that matter. Jesus is a public figure whose religion is necessarily a public affair, and as a public affair, it is NOT subject to private interpretation but public interpretation i.e. in and through the church.

 

This requires the comparison with a known standard. We already saw that this is the COMMAND issued by Paul in 1 Thess 5:21.

 

Ted, dear brother in Christ, listen to me. Where does 1 Thess 5:21 even hint at the standard being the 'Bible alone'. The standard of Christian truth is APOSTOLIC TRADITION, but even this passage does not address this. It is more in line with one's Christian conscience if read in context.

 

Now let us look at that most famous text, Acts 17:11.

 

11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so.

 

Our first note should be that the word 'for' is supplied, since it is not in the Greek. However, every English translation I have available (8) includes 'for' or an equivalent expression which indicates causation. This is because the Greek syntax requires that the second clause be explanatory of the first. We may see that Luke is recording that those who listened to Paul in Berea were more noble than those is Thessalonica BECAUSE 1. they received the message gladly, AND 2. they checked out everything Paul told them by studying the OT.

 

The RCC will try to parse this out to make #2 a separate statement. This would make the Berean experience one of total quiescent acceptance. This is eisegesis, and to be condemned, since it reads into the text something which is not there. The Greek links the two parts of the clause. BOTH are commended, not just one. In other words, the people of Berea are commended for telling Paul that they are 'Bible-only' Christians!

 

OK Ted. Now that you have given the Protestant view of it, let me offer you the truth on the matter. Protestants have ridden this horse far too long - it's time to for the Lone Ranger to find a new horse.

 

Now follow me closely so you can understand what the Bible is really teaching.

 

Question: What is St. Paul doing in this passage? Answer: Among other things, he is COMPARING the attitudes of the Bereans to those of the Thessalonians.

 

Question: Do we know what the attitudes of the Thessalonians were? Answer: Yes - in Acts 17:1-9

 

Question: What did St. Paul do in Thessalonica? Answer: "And Paul went in, as was his custom, and for three weeks he argued with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and rise from the dead…"(Acts 17: 2-3)

 

Question: Did these Jews in Thessalonica (who ALSO believed in Scripture) accept the Gospel? Answer: No. They did not. (Cf. Acts 17:5-9)

 

Question: Why did they reject the message? Answer: Because it was not in accord with the Scriptures (according to their interpretation of it).

 

Question: Ignoring for the moment the historical fact of oral tradition in the Jewish religion, who would be more likely described as 'scripture only' adherents - the Bereans or the Thessalonians? Answer: The Thessalonians would be since they, LIKE the Bereans 'searched the Scriptures', BUT UNLIKE the Bereans did NOT accept the NEW AND PUBLIC AND ORAL revelation of St. Paul.

 

Question: Did they have compelling reasons for rejecting the Gospel? Answer: In some respects, yes they most certainly did. The Roman Empire of the time was replete with heresies, sects, and cults proclaiming a wide variety of new teachings so the Jews had every right to be skeptical. Furthermore, the Jews maintained that the Messiah could not be crucified because Scripture says, 'cursed is the man who hangs on a tree.'

 

Question: Why could not the Bereans believe in 'sola scriptura'? Answer: For the simple reason that St. Paul's revelation to them was NEW AND ORAL revelation. The Bereans were accepting the ORAL word of God as St. Paul spoke it to them, and to which St. Paul clearly alludes (2 Thess 2:15).

 

11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so.

 

Notice that they were receiving the word with eagerness BEFORE OR DURING THE SAME TIME they were examining the Scriptures to confirm the message of Paul. In other words, they were 'seeing' the Scriptures through the eyes of the Apostle.

 

Question: Were the Bereans commended primarily for 'searching the Scriptures'? Answer: No. They were commended NOT for searching the Scriptures, which the Thessalonians also did, but because they were 'noble-minded' as opposed to being 'jealous' as the Hellenistic Jews of Thessalonica.

 

Well, Ted. So much for the Bereans believing in 'sola scriptura'. I'm glad you brought it up since it proves rather than disproves the Catholic position beautifully.

 

'BEFORE THE GREAT DEFORMATION, NO WHERE IN THE WHOLE HISTORY OF JUDEAO-CHRISTIAN HISTORY HAS THE FALSE AND PERNICIOUS DOCTRINE OF SOLA SCRIPTURA *EVER* BEEN TAUGHT WITH ANY KIND OF SUBSTANTIVE INFLUENCE.'

 

This is indeed a curious assertion. As we have noted, sola scriptura is an underlying anchor in Paul's teaching, even though the term is not present.

 

Nowhere in the whole biblical text is sola scriptura taught - including St. Paul's writings. It is the antithesis to Jewish and Christian Tradition before the heresy was born in the fifteenth century and exploded like a weed in the sixteenth century. Protestantism is a demonic deception. It breaks apart the body of Christ through division and divorce.

 

You amusingly remark that the Catholic position on the Bible is self-refuting. Of course, that is a rather extraordinary thing to say since it is totally without foundation. If you want to know what IS self-refuting, read what Dr. Art Sippo, a leading Catholic Apologist, has to say about the inherent sustainability of 'sola scriptura':

 

"The term "sola scriptura" can be defined as follows: "The Bible and only the Bible is the rule of faith." But the words "only the Bible" can be translated into Latin as "sola scriptura". Substituting this into the above definition we have: "The Bible and 'sola scriptura' is the rule of faith." This shows that "sola scriptura" logically refutes itself because this principle must be assumed to be true IN ADDITION TO the Bible. As such, "sola scriptura" refutes what it purports to claim.

 

This is an application of Kurt Godel's Second Incompleteness Theorem from metamathematical analysis. Self-referential statements (such as the Liar Paradox of Epimenides or using the Bible to prove the Bible to be the sole rule of faith independent of any external referent) are notorious for making statements which are logically unprovable within the formal system that makes the claim. It is only by assuming a transcendental position outside the system under scrutiny that such contentions can be proven true or false.

 

In the case of "sola scriptura," the necessity of assuming the transcendental position in and of itself refutes the principle under question."

 

- Art Sippo, Omnes semper - ad Jesum, per Mariam, cum Petro.

 

There is a perfect parallel available in the doctrine of the Trinity. Nowhere is the Trinity explicitly stated in scripture. However, as we noted earlier, it is a good and necessary consequence of clear scriptural teaching. It waited until Athanasius formally stated the doctrine for it to achieve explicit normative status. This does not mean that the Trinity was not true until Athanasius stated it. It simply means that the TERM had not become normative.

 

Ted. Will you do me a favour? Will you read my debate with the Unitarian on this issue? Boy oh boy are you going to be surprised! You'll see just how 'clear' scripture is on this issue. The conclusion that I have come to is this: while the biblical text does not *prove* the Trinity, it does not deny it either. So you need a teaching Church to…..well….you know the rest of the drill.

 

The same is true of sola scriptura. This Latin term was coined by the Reformers when they challenged the un-Biblical teachings of the RCC. It is implicit in the entire Bible. Everything is to be measured by the standard received from God. This standard absolutely excludes anything which changes anything already given by God. We can amplify, but not change. Deut 13 makes it clear that only the gospel already given is to be taught. Paul repeats this (Gal 1:8-9).

 

Amplify and not change? Don't make me laugh. That is the PRINCIPLE of Protestantism - break off and 'discover' 'lost' or 'concealed' doctrines. It's just like the 'Energizer Bunny'- it keeps reforming and reforming and reforming…..Shall I list the *multitude* of issues that divide Protestants? Good lord. I'll be up the whole night. If sola scriptura is 'implicit' in the entire Bible, then so are the prophesies of Joseph Smith.

 

'IT DOES MEAN THAT WE SHOULD REMAIN OBEDIENT TO THE LEADERS OF THE CHURCH WHEN WE TEACH - AS THE Bible TEACHES OVER AND OVER AGAIN.' (A)

 

We could not be more in agreement on the words, but you have redefined the church away from what the Bible teaches, so that we are in total disagreement as to the interpretation of the statement.

 

Remember this statement you made earlier?

 

"You suggest that this text requires SUBSERVIENCE to the church, regardless of one's own opinion. This is simply false."(B)

 

Well, which is it, Ted? (A) [which you have agreed with here] or (B) which you stated earlier?

 

I don't know about you, but the New Testament Church that I know about is:

 

VISIBLE AUTHORITATIVE APOSTOLIC HIERARCHICAL INFALLIBLE

 

Do you belong to such a Church?

 

This, once again, proves the folly of an 'infallible' interpreter. Who will interpret the interpreter? The proper answer is to go to the Bible, which contains the words all accept as inspired by God. These words are clearly infallible.

 

Who will interpret the interpreter? Well, who will interpret Jesus' teachings as he uttered them? But you will say, "you can't derive an infallible result (the Church's infallibility) from an argument based on fallible premises (Jesus establishing an authoritative church)." Well, can you derive an infallible result from an argument based on INFALLIBLE premises? Of course not - there is no such thing as an infallible premise *a priori* unless God revealed it. Your whole objection necessitates God *directly* revealing to you an infallible truth - anything less is a fallible premise, which you reject. Hence, BY YOUR OWN CRITERIA, unless God has *directly revealed* the composition of the inspired Word of God to you, you can't rely on anybody or anything else for an infallible truth. So my question to you is: are you hiding something from us O Prophet?

 

But, you assert, that these words are not understandable, and the RCC quotes 2 Peter 3:16

 

16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

 

You state that you are unable to understand them. Does that mean you are untaught or unstable? I believe that I can understand them. They may not be easy, but I follow Paul's COMMAND to prove it for myself. (1 Thess 5:21)

 

Ted. Listen to what I am telling you. I am not saying that the Bible is totally useless in conveying truth. I admit this. BUT what I reject is that ALL Christian doctrine is so *clear*, so PERSPICUOS, that it does not require a teacher or a teaching office for doctrinal and moral unity. I think you understand this. I think that you understand that the Bible teaches this. I think you will admit, deep down, that the Protestant anarchy attests to this necessity.

 

We can see that the church does not have the power to command.

 

Of course it has the power to command if you mean in doctrinal and even in disciplinary matters. St. Paul was very jealous of his Apostolic Authority and excommunicated obstinate heretics. And let us not forget St. Paul's letter to BISHOP TIMOTHY where he says to Timothy:

 

"COMMAND AND TEACH THESE THINGS." (1 Timothy 4:11)

 

If this is not a command, I don't know what is.

 

It does have the power to preserve the truth, and this is the essence of its authority: maintenance of the words of the author.

 

Exactly. Thank you for presenting the Catholic Church's role so succinctly and accurately. Now where does that statement stand in Protestantism?

 

It does not have the power to substitute its own words for God's, and the RCC does exactly that. It does not have the power to create new doctrine, and the RCC does exactly that. In fact, what the RCC calls for is uniformity by way of conformity, not unity of studied opinion, which is what Paul calls for.

 

Yes. That is the difference between Catholic and Protestants: Apostolic tradition vs. "studied opinion".

 

Now for a couple of miscellaneous issues.

 

The use of non-scriptural sources is replete in scripture and proves nothing other than the writers used common knowledge or other available factual records to flesh out core truths or histories. Jesus did this repeatedly with His parables.

 

But you've ignored what 'sola scriptura' teaches. Sola scripture teaches that it alone is the infallible guide to faith and morals. So we should not see passages which refer to authorities OUTSIDE of the received WRITTEN tradition as binding on Christians. Yet, that is what we clearly see in Scripture time and time again. We see CHRIST HIMSELF BINDING HIS BELIEVERS TO A TRADITION THAT WAS NO WHERE IN THE OLD TESTAMENT WRITINGS - the Seat of Moses in Matthew 23:2. Soooooooo….the implication is IF the Christ or the Apostles can draw on oral unwritten traditions as binding on believers, then why do you refuse this principle?

 

But I know what you will say: "But the fact that it IS written in Scripture (the Seat of Moses) means that sola scriptura is preserved." And I respond: That still does not detract from the PRINCIPLE established in Scripture which is to bind people to something which was not previously written down, and which conceivably the successors to the Apostles COULD do.

 

The usage of the names of Jannes and Jambres adds nothing but color to the passage, and implies nothing about tradition, contrary to the RCC assertion.

 

No. Ted. You are trivializing the passage and ignoring a DIVINE REVELATION which is NO WHERE in the Old Testament. So if Jesus or the Apostles can use an oral tradition of the Old Testament that was not PREVIOUSLY written down, why do you refuse to acknowledge the parallel in the New Testament Church - that, yes, in fact, the successors of those Apostles can draw on the oral tradition of the NEW Testament Church?

 

In your exposition of Isaiah 22, you state that Jesus cannot be the steward who receives the keys. Unfortunately for your position, this is simply untrue. Notice these passages where Jesus is treated as just that steward. (John 5:22, Mark 16:19, Luke 22:69, Acts 2:33, etc.) The 'right hand of power' is the position in the royal court of the person who held the keys. There are a large number of such references.

 

Let the reader turn to the references that Ted has provided, and understand that those DO NOT treat Jesus as a steward but rather place him at the 'right hand of the power'. Now, I have NEVER maintained that Peter holds the keys independently of Christ. But what MATTHEW 16:18 says is inescapable: JESUS GIVES PETER THE KEYS AS A DELEGATORY ACT. I really don't see how you are going to solve that problem. It is rather insurmountable. Sorry, Ted - you are 'bound' to the text. Wishing it away or contorting it miserably does your obedience to the Bible no service.

 

You argue that the early Christian witness will be that Peter is the foundation of the Church. I have already done quite a bit of that survey. I have not found a single reference where one of the early fathers suggested that it was RECEIVED FACT that Peter was the rock. There are a number of exegetical exercises which reach that conclusion, but the mere fact that it had to be done through exegesis denies your assertion. It would have been absolutely necessary for the fact of Petrine supremacy to be made clear to Peter's successors. No evidence of that exists. As I said before, there is exegetical disagreement. This flatly contradicts the RCC claim.

 

And so the rebellion against Matthew 16:18 and the Church of Jesus Christ continues…

 

What is it going to take for it to be a "RECEIVED FACT"? Let me guess: what Ted believes to be a fact, of course. Never-mind the early Church witness. Actually, Ted, do you know that OF ALL THE DOCTRINES THAT ***YOU*** ACCEPT, THE AUTHORITY AND ECCLESIOLOGY OF THE CHURCH AND THE PETRINE OFFICE WAS FAR MORE DEVELOPED THAN ***ANY*** OF THE DOCTRINES YOU ACCEPT TODAY.

 

I am just wondering though, Ted, you imply that it was not a received fact. WHAT EVIDENCE DO YOU HAVE TO SUGGEST THAT IT WAS OTHERWISE IN THE FIRST FOUR HUNDRED YEARS? This is the fourth time I have asked you this question.

 

But lest I should leave your rather remarkable allegation alone and leave our readers in darkness, I shall accommodate you with only small number of references:

 

"I now inquire into your opinion, to see whence you usurp this right for the Church. Do you presume, because the Lord said to Peter, 'On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.' (Matthew 16:18-19a) or 'whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven.' (Matthew 16:19b) that the power of binding and loosing has thereby been handed on to you, that is to every church akin to Peter? What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter?" (Tertullian, On Modesty 21:9-10, 200 A.D.)

 

"Peter, the Rock of the faith, whom Christ our Lord called blessed, the teacher of the Church, the first disciple, he who has the keys of the kingdom." (Hippolytus, Exfabrico…n.9, 225 A.D.)

 

"Peter likewise, on whom the Church was founded by the good pleasure of the Lord, lays it down in his epistle…" (Origen, De Bono Patient, p.484, 230 A.D.)

 

"The Lord says to Peter: 'I say to you,' He says, 'that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven.' (Matthew 16:18-19) And again He says to him after His resurrection: 'Feed my sheep.' (John 21:17) On him He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, and He established by His own authority a source and intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is give to Peter, where by it is made clear that there is but one Church and one Chair. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can still be confident that he is in the Church?" (Cyprian, On the unity of the Catholic Church, 4, 246 A.D.)

 

"That powerful and great one of the Apostles, who, on account of his excellence, was the leader of all the rest." (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. Lib ii. C. 14, 325 A.D.)

 

There's lots more, Ted, just say the word, and you shall have them.

 

With regard to the chiasm, you simply should not try to argue the point until you understand it. Your attempt to create one demonstrates your ignorance of the method. Allow me to re-instruct you on the technique. Jewish writers very commonly used the chiasm (named for the Greek letter Chi, our modern X), to teach. (A chiasm is normally drawn out with progressive indents which do not show in this discussion, so I will use dashes to show it graphically.) They would speak of various points building up to a peak (This is where western writers would stop). Then they would speak of the same points in reverse order down to the first point. The peak is only talked about once. The chiasm I illustrated was from Matthew 16.

 

a. Jesus is the Messiah (v. 16) – b. Simon barJona is blessed (v. 17) – c. revelation by the Father (v. 17) – b'. Simon is 'petros' (pebble) (v. 18) a'. on this 'petra' will I build my church (v. 18)

 

Notice the a, b, c, b', a' sequence. This technique is an extension of the technique of parallelism also commonly used. Because a' amplifies a, Jesus is the rock. Allow us to examine another passage which shows both to illustrate more fully.

 

13 But we do not want you to be uninformed, brethren, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve, as do the rest who have no hope. 14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus. 15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, and remain until the coming of the Lord, shall not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and thus we shall always be with the Lord. 1 Thess 4:13-17

 

Verses 13 and 14 are parallel. Paul is talking about 'those who are asleep' in both. We may note that this cannot be ordinary sleep, since no one grieves about someone who is asleep. This parallel reference now introduces a chiasm. a. we who are alive will not precede (v15) – b. those who have fallen asleep (v15) – c. the Second Coming (v16) – b'. dead in Christ shall rise first(v16) a'. then the living rise to meet the Lord in the air.(v17)

 

This method of exposition is so pervasive in Jewish thought that close study will regularly show it. In this case, we have the unmistakable statement by Paul that death is a sleep. b' explains b. a' explains a. This particular passage can also be explained without the chiasm, but the answer is the same. Paul taught that death is soul sleep. This denies the doctrines of Purgatory, Limbo, and indulgences for the dead. Once again, the RCC teaches false doctrines, and has lost the true faith. The origin of a church is unimportant if it loses the gospel. The RCC has not been a faithful guardian of the truth. It has actively subverted it. Only by going back to the sure word of truth contained in the Bible do we have any hope.

 

Well, Ted. As I explained in my previous posts, the technique that you use may be well founded. I have no problem with that - except to say that I reject it being NECESSARY to use it *everytime*. My second objection is simply that the technique is HOPELESSLY ARBITRARY depending on where you begin the chiasm, where you separate the individual verses, and where YOU determine the peak. I could pick apart each of these areas in your analysis of Matthew 16:17-18, but what's the point? Finally, let the objective reader, who has any interest in the truth of the matter, read the passage to see very clearly that the Father is not the focus of the passage, but rather Jesus and Peter.

 

Let the reader also carefully note what I am about to expose. Ted has been operating on the basis of 'the Bible only'. In proposing this methodology in biblical interpretation i.e. the 'chiasm', Ted must choose one of the following two options:

 

1) The method is necessary in determining the truth of biblical passages. BUT IF THAT IS THE CASE, then Ted's whole belief in the Bible ALONE in determining an infallible message has just crumbled. Why? Because it is NOW: the Bible AND the chiasm. It has become the Bible AND the application of a systematic methodology which SMACKS IN DIAMETRICAL OPPOSITION TO 'Sola scriptura'. If you are a Protestant, ask yourself if you have even heard of this methodology and whether you think it is necessary to learning the truth of a passage? If it is, what has just become of 'sola scriptura'?

 

2) If the methodology is NOT necessary, then what apparent reason should I have for using it on this passage, or for that matter the way Ted has set it up?

 

- John Pacheco (aka TheApologist)

 

P.S. Here is something else you might want to consider regarding Caesara Philippi: "The city was originally name Paneas, the city of Pan, the god of springs and shepherds of ancient Greece, who was worshipped here in the first centuries a.d. The cult of Pan seems to have flourished on the rock escarpment above the town. . . . [It was] the northernmost point visited by Jesus and his disciples" (Rivka Gonen, Biblical Holy Places [Herzlia, Israel, 1994], 46).

 

It is significant that Jesus took the disciples out of the Jewish populated areas around Jerusalem and Judea to the site of the pagan god Pan to appoint Peter as the Rock. 'Bar' means son. 'Jonah' means 'dove.' Combined, the surname of Simon means having the revelation of the Holy Spirit. . . . 'Bar-Jonah' means son of the Holy Spirit.

 

This is not a name, but an appellation and a play on words. There is no evidence of Peter or Kephas as a name before Christian times. . . . Peter as Rock will be the foundation of the future community. Jesus, not quoting the Old Testament, here uses Aramaic, not Hebrew, and so uses the only Aramaic word which would serve his purpose. In view of the background of vs. 19, one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as meaning the faith, or the Messianic confession, of Peter. To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence. The interest in Peter's failures and vacillations does not detract from this pre-eminence; rather, it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure his behaviour would have been of far less consequence (cp. Gal 2:11 ff.). (W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann, Matthew [Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., 1971], 195).

 

---

Session 4

 

John, it good to have a name to attach to the 'handle'.

 

I thought it might be more appropriate. I have dropped my nick.

 

It is clear that we will not resolve this issue, because each of us will continue to present his own side, and the other will cry 'Foul'! We will only solve it by dealing with specific doctrinal issues. If the RCC has faithfully preserved the doctrines of the Bible, then it will be shown to be a true church. On the other hand, if it is shown that the RCC has abrogated true doctrines, then it is apostate. Each doctrine should be dealt with in its own thread.

 

That said, I will deal with a few points. First however, it is important to understand the nature of deception. If I present you with a patently false concept, you will reject it out of hand. On the other hand, if it is presented with enough truth to look good, the lies in it may go unnoticed. I propose that you have been led to believe a lie. (2 Thess 2:7-12) I do not propose this as a slur, but simply as an observation which I pray will lead you to reconsider the anchor of your position.

 

I propose that you have been deceived as well. You have been led astray by 1) general ignorance 2) poor research 3) faulty logic 4) the original Protestant deformers, many of whose beliefs you have abandoned 5) old, stupid, outrageous and downright funny allegations against the Catholic Church - which you have not even attempted to substantiate 6) the Father of lies and rebellion - Lucifer himself.

 

In essence, you propose a teaching of authority which says: 'I have the message from God, believe it or else. You have no right to verify this message. I show you a few texts which prove that you cannot understand it.' But how am I to know that you are true? What about Marcion? What about Joseph Smith, Charles Taze Russell or Mary Baker Eddy? How do I determine to reject them and accept you?

 

THAT IS AN EXCELLENT QUESTION TED. (Let's throw White and Hubbard in there as well - we don't want to be exclusive after all.) Let us do a little analysis.

 

If a Church can trace the beliefs of the early Christian writers, then it must at least have some basis of truth in it, correct? The more it can trace its beliefs to what the early Christians believed, the more likely it is to be the Church that Jesus established.

 

So let the reader mark this challenge, and let us see if Ted has the courage to accept it:

 

TED I CHALLENGE YOU HERE AND NOW TO PICK 4 OF THOSE BELIEFS THAT ARE MORE CENTRAL TO YOUR CHURCH THAN TO OTHER CHRISTIAN CHURCHES AND I WILL DO THE SAME FOR THE RCC. I could pick, for instance, 1) Purgatory 2) Mary 3) Baptismal regeneration 4) the Eucharist. Well, Ted, it's time to 'put up or shut up'. Do you accept the challenge that will lead you into the Catholic Church or not?

 

Your position cannot be verified UNLESS I have a secure standard against which to compare it. I teach about religions in my church and on my page. There is only one way to know how to select a church, and that is to compare it to the Bible!

 

Yes. That is what the JWs, Baptists, Oneness Pentecostals, and a host of other Prot sects say as well. What kind of 'standard' allows for such wide variance of belief? WHY SHOULD I BELIEVE IN YOUR GOSPEL OVER a Baptist's? I asked one of the more prominent Baptist Apologists the same question, and SURPISE!!!!, I got no answer. Maybe the 'standard' is INSUFFICIENT.

 

Yes, the initial step is one of faith, but it is not faith separated from reality, it is faith supported by reality. The empty tomb is REAL. Once I accept the sacrifice of Jesus for my sins, I study to learn more. Just who is He? What does He require of me?

 

He requires your obedience to His Gospel. The problem is, dear friend, is that there are thousands of Gospels out there. You must find out an objective mechanism of determining which of the competing claimants is the 'true' Bible Church. This is reality, Ted. Don't run away from it - face it. If you do, you might just come face-to-face with the truth.

 

The argument from authority, which is your anchor, implies that BOTH: I cannot understand the Bible, AND, I can understand the Bible. This is self-contradictory.

 

False. Go back and read my posts. Here, Ted, let me provide you with the last one so your memory may be refreshed:

 

"Ted. Listen to what I am telling you. I am not saying that the Bible is totally useless in conveying truth. I admit this. BUT what I reject is that ALL Christian doctrine is so *clear*, so PERSPICUOS, that it does not require a teacher or a teaching office for doctrinal and moral unity…"

 

You propose that my sola scriptura position is self-contradictory, and use the following quote to support it. ''The term 'sola scriptura' can be defined as follows: 'The Bible and only the Bible is the rule of faith.' But the words 'only the Bible' can be translated into Latin as 'sola scriptura'. Substituting this into the above definition we have: 'The Bible and 'sola scriptura' is the rule of faith.' This shows that 'sola scriptura' logically refutes itself because this principle must be assumed to be true IN ADDITION TO the Bible. As such, 'sola scriptura' refutes what it purports to claim.'

 

It is entertaining to see such efforts. The ability to take a verbal structure and make it say something it does not say must be fun for you. Unfortunately, it is an example of a lie covered with a partial truth. When you redefine the doctrine as 'the Bible AND sola scriptura', you have said something the doctrine DOES NOT SAY. What sola scriptura says is that the Bible alone is the sole infallible revelation of the doctrines of salvation. It does not say the 'Bible and sola scriptura'. You would make them out to be two separate objects, when the expression 'Bible and Bible alone' is an emphatic construction, not a conjunction. Just like the Trinity, the doctrine springs from the Bible, not from outside it.

 

Ted. You did not understand Dr. Sippo's point. The point is that self-referential statements which derive from circular arguments are untenable. The reason why the heresy can be defined as such is BECAUSE there is no such teaching in the Bible, soooooo it must rely on some party OUTSIDE of the Bible - propagating 'Bible alone' theology - for its authentication.

 

Misdefinitions such as this are classic lies put forward to twist truth from its roots. Jehovah's Witnesses misdefine the Trinity one way, and Mormons another to achieve similar results.

 

Funny how the JWs are a 'Bible only' organization too…..hmmmm….strange.

 

Let us properly define the doctrine. Sola scriptura states that the Bible alone is the infallible revealed word of God containing all the doctrines necessary for salvation. As a corollary, the doctrines needed are either explicit or present as a 'good and necessary consequence' of explicit statements. This does not mean that ALL doctrines will be totally clear. Paul even tells us explicitly that this is not the case. (1 Cor 13:9-12) For example, it is not necessary to understand the seventy weeks of Daniel 9 in order to be saved. God gave that to us as additional help, not as essential core material. Let us examine at least some of the core doctrines.

 

1. Man has sinned and needs redemption. (Rom 3:23; 6:23, etc.) 2. Jesus is the infinite (i.e. God) holy and perfect sacrifice for our sin. (Heb 9:24-26, Rom 5:11 etc.) 3. Belief in Jesus entails contrition, confession, and conversion. (Matt 4:17, 1 John 1:9, Rom 12:2, etc.) 4. Conversion means that we, with the help of the Holy Spirit, will live according to Jesus commands. (John 14:15, etc.)

 

On brief examination, I do not think that there are any other truly essential doctrines. Certainly, there will be time spent in discovering just what the commands of God are. However, the core is very clear in scripture, and should we take the time to explore the commands, we would discover that they are the two great commandments (Mark 12:28-31 c.f. Deut 6:4-5, Lev 19:18) and the Ten Commandments. Notice: 12 And now, Israel, what doth the LORD thy God require of thee, but to fear the LORD thy God, to walk in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the LORD thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul, 13 To keep the commandments of the LORD, and his statutes, which I command thee this day for thy good? Deut 10:12-13

 

Thank you for demonstrating the folly of Protestantism so well! You opine, "I do not think that there are any other truly essential doctrines." Strange…I wonder if all other Protestants share the same beliefs or if they are complete? You have no more authority to define what is 'essential' than your Lutheran brother down the road, who, by the way, would be aghast that you forgot infant baptism in your 'list of essentials'. THAT, dear Ted, is the JOB OF THE CHURCH- you know 'binding and loosing'.

 

And I must say that I got a kick out of this one: "As a corollary, the doctrines needed are either explicit or present as a 'good and necessary consequence' of explicit statements." Now, ***Whom***, prey-tell, has the job of fleshing out these 'good and necessary consequences of explicit statements'?

 

This is about as explicit as can be. God lays out the conditions for salvation in one sentence, which anyone can understand. So much for needing an infallible interpreter. God is not so dull that He cannot make his commandments clear to all of us.

 

How many times do I have to say it? 28,000 sects with an average of 5 new ones every week. I am afraid that is the difference between the ORDERED, HIERARCHICAL, STRUCTURED, and APOSTOLIC Church of the Catholic faith and the TOWER OF BABEL, otherwise known today a Protestantism.

 

'So, Ted, for the third time, GIVE ME ONE EXAMPLE OF GOD APPROVED REBELLION.' This again, is a lie clothed as truth. You imply that I approve of rebellion. I do not. What I have repeatedly said is that we are to verify the teachings of our leaders against the infallible standard of the Bible. The apostles repeatedly noted that there would be a 'falling away' in which the leaders of various churches would lead the rebellion. (2 Thess 2:4, Acts 20:29, etc.) This is what we are to be on our guard for.

 

Answer the question, Ted. GIVE ME ONE EXAMPLE OF GOD APPROVED REBELLION.

 

Sure, we have to be careful about individual bishops. But how do you jump from there to rebelling from communion with Peter?

 

You say 'Why would oral tradition have been committed to writing? Who says that it MUST have been so? Christianity was, effectively and practically, an ORAL religion for the first fifteen hundred years before the invention of the printing press and increase in literacy. You have big problems here, Ted.' Again this is a lie covered by a partial truth. The truth is that the printing press wasn't invented until the sixteenth century. But the lie is that Christianity was an oral tradition up till then.

 

Ted, up until then, the primary means of transmitting the gospel was ORALLY. Shall I take you to a library? It proves my point splendidly. God is not limited to His written word when He has to speak to the illiterate or the impoverished for 1500 years!!!!

 

Bibles were in virtually every abbey, monastery and cathedral, but their use was forbidden by the church.

 

Ah….yes. Here it is folks! The inevitable 'the Catholic Church tried to keep the Bible from the laity.' I am wondering if, given your present disposition, and, either your complete recklessness in regurgitating this garbage or your utter contempt for the historical record, whether it is worth continuing….This is unfortunate.

 

Also, the services were conducted in Latin, which most people did not know, so that they were further kept from the truth. Christianity was actively subverted by these means. Had the clergy been allowed to read in their native language the word of God to their parishioners, there would have been no issue of oral tradition to debate.

 

O.K. Ted, I was going to let this go for charity's sake, but there is only so much I can take. I am sorry to embarrass you like this, but truth must be known. Here is an excerpt from Fr. Henry Graham' Where We Got the Bible , on the topics in question:

 

"But how, it may be added, could the people who were unable to read (and they were admittedly a large number) become acquainted with the Bible? The answer is simple. They were taught by monk and priest, both in church and school, through sermon and instruction. They were taught by sacred plays or dramas, which represented visibly to them the principal facts of sacred history….They were taught through paintings and statuary and frescoes in the churches, which portrayed before their eyes the doctrines of the Faith and the truths of Scripture: and hence it is that in Catholic countries the walls of churches and monasteries and convents, and even cemeteries, are covered with pictures representing Scriptural scenes. 'Painting is the book of the ignorant.' Stained glass windows may be mentioned in the same category; and so may popular hymns, and poetry, and simple devotional books for the poor, all of which along with the ceremonies and functions of the Church, served to imprint on people's memories and understandings the great events in God's dealings with His creature since the beginning of the world. We must remember, too that, for those who could not afford to purchase a Bible or a copy of the Gospels, the Sacred Volume was often chained to a stone in some public place about the church for everyone to study; and wealthy person in their wills were known to leave money enough to provide for such a thing. The simple truth is that the Catholic Church adopted every means at her disposal in these old days to bring a knowledge of God's Word to those who could not read, as well as to those who could. Bibles were not printed because there was no printing press; but whose fault was that?…The Catholic Church, then, had to do the best she could in the circumstances; and I submit She did all that any organization on earth could possibly have done for the spread of Scripture knowledgeable among her children. Vast numbers could not read; I admit it; the Church was not to blame for that…"

 

"Bible in Latin. Admitting for the moment that the Bible was in Latin during the Middle Ages, what follows? That nobody but priests could read it? Nonsense. There were two classes of people then: those who could read ,and those who could not read. Now, those who did read could read Latin, and, therefore, were perfectly content with the Scriptures in Latin. Those who could not read Latin could not read at all. I ask, therefore, what earthly need was there of a translation of the Bible from Latin into the language of the common multitude?…The whole mistake in people's minds arises, of course, from the supposition they make that Latin was then a dead language, whereas it was really a living one in every sense of the term, being read and spoken and written universally in Europe, and consequently understood by everyone who could read at all…In any case, this much none can help admitting - that at least the Church turned the Scriptures from Hebrew and Greek (which were the original languages) into Latin, which was the living language of the world, for the benefit of her children. She might still have kept the Bible a dark, unknown, mysterious document by leaving it in Hebrew and Greek. She did the very opposite. Does this seem as if she was anxious to keep her people in ignorance?"

 

Re-learn, Recant, and Repent, Ted.

 

It was the reformers who, at the risk of their own lives, brought the truth to the people.

 

Sure, Ted, whatever you say. The Bible was known, read, and distributed by the Catholic Church in the common language of the people in most countries from the seventh to the fourteenth centuries. YOU WOULD NOT EVEN HAVE A Bible TODAY HAD THE CATHOLIC CHURCH DECIDED TO DESTORY IT.

 

'Ted, the sad fact here is that you accept doctrinal development on doctrines you accept i.e. the Trinity, the two natures in Christ, two wills in Christ, etc., but you reject those doctrinal developments which are less agreeable to your theological pallet.' Once again, there is a lie here, covered with a modicum of truth. The truth is that I reject certain RCC dogmas. The lie is that I reject doctrinal developments based on preference aside from the word of God. Let us compare the Marian and Trinitarian issues.

 

Since you are not addressing my point, I suspect you are not interested in understanding the implication of your own position.

 

On the Trinity, the OT prophesied that the Messiah would be God (Job 19:23-27, Psalm 110, Is 9:1-7, etc). (By the way, if anyone wishes to see what Jesus taught on the Emmaus road or what Paul taught in Thessalonica, get 'The Messiah in the Old Testament', by Walter Kaiser. Even Catholics will find nothing objectionable in it.) Jesus claimed to be God. The apostles taught that Jesus was God. Jesus emphasized that there is only one God (Mark 12:28-31). Thus, the essential part of the Trinity was EXPLICIT from ancient times. Athanasius put finishing touches on it, but did not add anything not already in scripture or essential for salvation. We need to understand that Jesus IS God, not that there are three persons in the Godhead. If Jesus is not God, then the cross is insufficient.

 

Until you have read the Unitarian position, your opinion on the matter is rather limited. Have you ever considered their arguments from Scripture? Or heard their appeals to the Fathers? It's not a clear as you think.

 

By way of contrast, the Marian dogmas are quite different. Perpetual virginity, as I noted before, is irrelevant to salvation. But the Immaculate Conception (Mary being conceived without stain of original sin) is flatly contradictory to scripture. Paul explicitly states that (no exceptions) all have sinned (Rom 3:23) and that all have the stain of original sin (Rom 5:12). This includes Mary. ONLY Jesus (Heb 4:15, 1 John 3:5, etc.) lived without sin. We can readily see that I reject doctrinal developments which contradict the Bible.

 

Here is an excerpt from my piece on the book of Romans, which I spent close to 9 months studying. Watch how your objection on St. Paul's statement that "all" have sinned is based on superficiality only:

 

"As a concluding entreaty (Cf. Romans 3:9-18), St. Paul then charges that all are under the universal bondage to sin - both Jew and Greek (Cf. Romans 3:9). Since he has, to this point, been trying to dispel the notion that Jews are justified because of the Law while the Gentiles are not (Cf. Romans 2:25-27), St. Paul cites Scripture to point out to the Jews that their ancestry does not guarantee them salvation. The passages that St. Paul cites refer to the following Old Testament passages (citings from New American Bible):

 

Romans Reference St. Paul's Citations St. Paul's Passage understood in context Romans 3:10-12 -> Psalm 14:1-3, 53:2-4 Psalm 14:4-7 Romans 3:13-> Psalm 5:10, 140:4 Psalm 5:11-13 Romans 3:14: -> Psalm 10:7 Psalm 10:12-11:3 Romans 3:15-17 -> Proverbs 1:16, Isaiah 59:7-8 Proverbs 1:8-15 Romans 3:18 -> Psalm 36:2 Psalm 37 Protestants use St. Paul's Scriptural citings to put forward the following argument: Since 'no one is just' and 'not one does good' (Cf. Romans 3:11-12), and only those who observe the Law and do good are just (Cf. Romans 2:10,13), then the Law is not a possibility for justification. Therefore, only faith understood in the Protestant sense is the grounds for our justification (Cf. Romans 3:28). This belief was first by espoused by Luther. "Therefore, familiarize yourself with the idea that it is one thing to do what the law enjoins and quite another to fulfill the law. All that a man does or ever can do of his own free will and strength is to perform the works required by the law. Nevertheless, all such works are vain and useless as long as we dislike the law and feel it a constraint. That is Paul's meaning in Chapter 3 when he says, 'Through the works of the law shall no man be justified before God.' (Romans 3:20) It is obvious - is it not? - that the sophisticators wrangling in the schools are misleading when they teach us to prepare ourselves for grace by our works. How can anyone use works to prepare himself to be good when he never does a good work without a certain reluctance or unwillingness in his heart? How is it possible for God to take pleasure in works that spring from reluctant and hostile hearts? To fulfill the law, we must meet its requirements gladly and lovingly; live virtuous and upright lives without constraint of the law, and as if neither the law nor its penalties existed. But this joy, this unconstrained love, is put into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, as St. Paul says in Chapter 5. But the Holy Spirit is given only in, with, and through faith in Jesus Christ, as Paul said in his opening paragraph. Similarly, faith itself comes only through the word of God, the gospel. This gospel proclaims Christ as the Son of God; that He was man; that He died and rose again for our sakes, as Paul says in Chapters 3,4 and 10. We reach the conclusion that faith alone justifies us and fulfils the law; and this because faith is the spirit gained by the merits of Christ. The spirit, in turn, gives us the happiness and freedom at which the law aims, and this shows that works really proceed from faith." 1

 

The words 'no' or 'none' which St. Paul uses can have two meanings in grammatical usage: a comprehensive or universal meaning. The universal usage would suggest a complete coverage of the object; whereas, a comprehensive meaning would suggest a wide range of coverage but not necessarily a complete one. For instance, one friend says to another, 'Why didn't you come to the high school dance, everyone was there!?!' Would the friend who did not attend automatically assume that 100% (except himself) of the student population attended the dance, or rather that the great majority of the student body attended the dance? At the very least, the comprehensive approach is a possibility. This possibility turns into probability and then into certainty when one considers the compelling evidence for this approach

 

First, the comprehensive meaning of the words 'no' and 'none' in Romans 3:10-18 is drawn out implicitly when one realizes that St. Paul is placing the Jew and the Gentile under the power of sin in the preceding verse. Hence, when St. Paul speaks of 'none doing good', he does not mean that no single person can do good, but rather neither Israel nor the Gentile nations as a whole are righteous.

 

Secondly, the Protestant view of 'no one is just' or 'no one does good' does not apply to every individual as the passages cited above clearly show. For instance, Psalm 14:4-7 says, "Will all these evildoers never learn, they who eat up my people just as they eat bread? They have not called upon the Lord; then they shall be in great fear, for God is with the just generation." N And Psalm 5:11-13 says, "Punish them O God; let them fall by their own devices; For their many sins, cast them out because they have rebelled against you. But let all who take refuge in you be glad and exult forever. Protect them, that you may be the joy of those who love you name. For you, O lord, bless the just man; you surround him with the shield of your good will." N The Psalmist is not saying that all people are evil, but rather showing the timeless battle between good and evil, between the just and the enemies of God. The overwhelming sense of the Psalms which St. Paul quotes shows the contrast between the majority in Israel who are wicked and the minority (Cf. Isaiah 10:22-23) who are just. From these passages, it is evident that the Psalmist is defining the wicked with evil deeds and the just with good ones (Cf. Psalm 37:21).

 

… St. Paul uses 'all' and 'many' interchangeably which would not indicate that he necessarily intended a strict, literal interpretation of the word. For instance, St. Paul taught that "for if by the transgression of one, many died… So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men" (Romans 5:15-18). If 'many' does not mean 'all', then it is possible that there are some people who do not die. Yet, no one would admit this, and certainly no Christian would accept this interpretation. Therefore, it is possible for St. Paul to use words like 'many' or 'all' as a figure of speech.

 

Finally, if we are to accept the Reformed view of 'all' in the strict sense, then there can be absolutely no exceptions. Once an exception is made, the Reformed view of the word 'all' must also be relaxed in order to include these exceptions. Any exception breaks the rule that 'all have sinned' and 'no one does good'. Firstly, Jesus Christ must be excluded since He is without sin, and for that matter, so are mentally disabled people who may not be responsible for their actions. But even these exceptions, however, are not as forceful as one particular exception which completely exposes the gaping whole in the Fundamentalist doctrine of justification, namely, children who have yet to attain the age of reason. The Fundamentalist says that we all need to 'accept Jesus ' in order to be saved because 'no one is righteous and no one does good'. The Fundamentalist, however, will not condemn an infant who has not sinned, and therefore, exempts children before the age of reason from St. Paul's teaching. But to provide this exemption and therefore interpret Romans 3:10-19 in this way only reveals yet another exception to the general rule, and therefore, the Fundamentalist necessarily admits to the weakness of the 'universal or exceptionless approach' of St. Paul's words.

 

What is St. Paul's point in this chapter when he points to 'no one being just'? Recall in the first eight verses of the chapter, St. Paul has defended the fidelity of God and His promises to Israel. Now, St. Paul is trying to demonstrate the infidelity of the Jews as a nation - reminding them of their past sins and transgressions as recalled in the writings of the Prophets of the Old Covenant. St. Paul's main point is stated just prior to his recollection of these passages: "What then? Are we better than they? Not at all…" (Romans 3:9)? He is about to show (in the Old Testament passages) how unfaithful and wicked Israel has been, and therefore has no advantage over the Gentiles on the question of justification: both the Jewish and Gentile peoples are under the domination of sin (Cf. Romans 3:9).

 

We can agree on some things. 'The point in the passage is that the Christian Church is to be UNITED in doctrine…. You cannot go off into your own little corner, Ted, and believe in a 'private' Jesus that you have created in your own mind - and neither can anyone else - for that matter.' We can happily agree on these points, but again, they contain the seed of a lie, covered by truth. I make no attempt to create a different Jesus than that revealed in the Bible. The RCC, on the other hand does exactly that. It promotes a view of Jesus as a temperamental vindictive judge ready to strike down the sinner. Mary's motherly influence is required to prevent Him from wreaking havoc. This is totally contrary to the view of Jesus who gave himself (1 Tim 2:6) up to the cross (Phil 2:8) and never ceases to have our interests in mind (Heb 7:25). We can come to Him directly anytime because He has been through the same trouble we have and understands us (Heb 4:14-16). This bears no resemblance to the RCC Jesus.

 

Ted. You believe in a false caricature of the gentle and kind Jesus that the Catholic Church has taught me - the merciful God who is always willing to embrace me when I fall. I accept your testimony about what your Church teaches you about Jesus, why is it so difficult for you to afford me the same courtesy? It does you no good for YOU to tell ME what the Catholic Church teaches. Don't do that. Who knows more about Catholic teaching and theology - you or me?

 

Let us look again at Acts 17, since you seem to think it supports the RCC position. We first notice how Paul presents the truth. 2 And according to Paul's custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them FROM THE SCRIPTURES, 3 explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, 'This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you is the Christ.'

 

You say that 'St. Paul's revelation to them was NEW AND ORAL revelation.' Again, this is a lie covered with some truth. The Greek says that Paul 'opened and placed evidence' before those in Thessalonica. This is not oral tradition. This is reading from the OT, then explaining the historical facts of Christ's life and death which fulfilled the prophecies of the OT. It is exactly what Jesus did on the road to Emmaus. Certainly, there is an element of oral tradition, in that Paul is orally reporting facts not yet in print.

 

Exactly. Thank you for the admission.

 

But the key is that those facts are the fulfillment of prophecy known to be true by already being part of the canon.

 

Oh really? Tell me which canon you are talking about. This should be amusing.

 

The point is that THE MAJORITY OF THE JEWS DID NOT CONSIDER THIS TO BE PART OF THEIR WRITTEN TRADITION- or oral for that matter.

 

When Paul comes to Berea, we see:

 

10 And the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea; and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so.

 

Notice that the method of presentation has already been noted in Thessalonica, so it is not repeated in the Berean account. But Paul did not simply say, 'I have the truth, accept it or else.' He showed it from the scriptures, and the Bereans were glad to hear it, since they had a hope of the true Messiah, and Paul filled that hope with truth. The bad people who drove Paul out of Thessalonica were like the Pharisees, looking for deliverance from the Romans, and unwilling to see the truth of scripture. There is no condemnation of individual research and study to confirm, there is commendation! The bad people DID NOT STUDY. They simply rebelled against anything that upset their apple carts.

 

Ted, it was *you* who pointed to the Berean account as PROOF of 'sola scriptura'. I just showed you TWO groups of people who believed in their scriptures. One group accepted it BECAUSE they were 'noble-minded'; the other group did not - even after listening to Paul after THREE WEEKS OF SCRIPTURE STUDY!!!!!!!!!! What does this show? Well, it shows that the Bereans accepted the THEN ORAL testimony of Paul WHO WAS NOT PART OF THEIR SCRIPTURES. HE WAS AN ORAL INSTRUMENT WITH AN INFALLIBLE CHARISM FOR CONVEYING THE GOSPEL. Arguing from or consulting Scripture, in any case, hardly proves sola scriptura.

 

As a final note, I see several quotes from early church fathers. All of these are the result of exegetical conclusions, not received revelation from Peter or other apostles. Again, this is a lie with the ring of truth when you say that these authors believed that the Roman church was founded on Peter and that that was received fact. For our readers, I will provide the entire chapter by Tertullian from which you quote a passage. We should note that he believes in Peter as the rock of Matt 16:18, but flatly denies the idea of Apostolic Succession presented by the RCC.

 

Ted, I don't know what part of the passage you have provided below 'rejects Apostolic succession'. But just so you don't go away thinking that Tertullian rejected Apostolic Succession, read this other letter from him VERY CAREFULLY:

 

"Moreover, if there be any [heresies] bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, so that they might seem to have been handed down by the Apostles because they were from the time of the Apostles, we can say to them: let them show the origins of their Churches, let them unroll the order of their bishops, running down in succession from the beginning, so that their first bishop shall have for author and predecessor some of one of the Apostles or of the apostolic men who continued steadfast with the Apostles. For this is the way in which the apostolic Churches transmit their lists: like the Church of the Smyrnaeans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; like the Church of the Romans where Clement was ordained by Peter. In just the same way the other Churches display those whom they have as sprouts from the apostolic seed, having been established in the episcopate by the Apostles" (Tertullian, The Demurrer Against the Heretics, A.D. 200, [32,1]).

 

Time to come into the light, Ted. Jesus is waiting for you to come ALL the way to Him.

 

If you wish to make your case, show that there was consistent statement that 'Peter has told us that he was the rock' or 'apostle (so and so) tells us that Peter was the rock.' Such a statement (or ones of similar content) would be declarations of a received fact, not the results of exegetical exploration. Exegetical exploration denies that it is received fact.

 

Very well, then, Ted. If you reject exegetical exploration and rely only on 'received fact' (whatever that means), SHOW ME IN THE Bible WHERE JESUS OR THE APOSTLES SAY THAT JESUS IS GOD ********WITHOUT******* USING EXEGESIS TO DEFEND IT. This should be rather amusing to read. But lest I leave without attempting to give you some historical backdrop. Polycarp was the bishop of Smyrna, and he was the direct pupil of St. John, the Apostle. St. Irenaeus, in turn, was the pupil of Polycarp. Read this very carefully:

 

"Polycarp, however, was instructed not only by the Apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, but the Apostles in Asia. I saw him in my early youth; for he tarried a long time, and when quite old he departed this life in a glorious martyrdom. He always taught those things which he had learned from the Apostles, and which the Church had handed down, and which are true." (3,3,4)

 

"Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say, ] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that EVERY CHURCH SHOULD AGREE WITH THIS CHURCH, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere." (3,3,2)

 

- St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 180 A.D.

 

"For our readers, …the entire chapter by Tertullian from which you quote a passage."

 

Forthwith: Tertullian, in 'On Modesty' CHAPTER 21

 

OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DISCIPLINE AND POWER, AND OF THE POWER OF THE KEYS

 

If the apostles understood these (figurative meanings of the Law) better, of course they were more careful (with regard to them than even apostolic men). But I will descend even to this point of contest now, making a separation between the doctrine of apostles and their power. Discipline governs a man, power sets a seal upon him; apart from the fact that power is the Spirit, but the Spirit is God. What, moreover, used (the Spirit) to teach? That there must be no communicating with the works of darkness. Observe what He bids. Who, moreover, was able to forgive sins? This is His alone prerogative: for 'who remitteth sins but God alone?' and, of course, (who but He can remit) mortal sins, such as have been committed against Himself, and against His temple? For, as far as you are concerned, such as are chargeable with offense against you personally, you are commanded, in the person of Peter, to forgive even seventy times sevenfold. And so, if it were agreed that even the blessed apostles had granted any such indulgence (to any crime) the pardon of which (comes) from God, not from man, it would be competent (for them) to have done so, not in the exercise of discipline, but of power. For they both raised the dead, which God alone (can do), and restored the debilitated to their integrity, which none but Christ (can do); nay, they inflicted plagues too, which Christ would not do. For it did not beseem Him to be severe who had come to suffer. Smitten were both Ananias and Elymas - Ananias with death, Elymas with blindness - in order that by this very fact it might be proved that Christ had had the power of doing even such (miracles). So, too, had the prophets (of old) granted to the repentant the pardon of murder, and therewith of adultery, inasmuch as they gave, at the same time, manifest proofs of severity Exhibit therefore even now to me, apostolic sir, prophetic evidences, that I may recognize your divine virtue, and vindicate to yourself the power of remitting such sins! If, however, you have had the functions of discipline alone allotted you, and (the duty) of presiding not imperially, but ministerially; who or how great are you, that you should grant indulgence, who, by exhibiting neither the prophetic nor the apostolic character, lack that virtue whose property it is to indulge?

 

'But,' you say, 'the Church has the power of forgiving sins.' This I acknowledge and adjudge more (than you; I) who have the Paraclete Himself in the persons of the new prophets, saying, 'The Church has the power to forgive sins; but I will not do it, lest they commit others withal.' 'What if a pseudo-prophetic spirit has made that declaration?' Nay, but it would have been more the part of a subverter on the one hand to commend himself on the score of clemency, and on the other to influence all others to sin. Or if, again, (the pseudo-prophetic spirit) has been eager to affect this (sentiment) in accordance with 'the Spirit of truth,' it follows that 'the Spirit of truth' has indeed the power of indulgently granting pardon to fornicators, but wills not to do it if it involve evil to the majority.

 

I now inquire into your opinion, (to see) FROM WHAT SOURCE YOU USURP THIS RIGHT TO 'THE CHURCH.'

 

If, because the Lord has said to Peter, 'Upon this rock will I build My Church,' 'to thee have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdom;' or, 'Whatsoever thou shalt have bound or loosed in earth, shall be bound or loosed in the heavens,' you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter, what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring (as that intention did) this (gift) personally upon Peter? 'ON THEE,' HE SAYS, 'WILL I BUILD MY CHURCH; 'AND,' I WILL GIVE TO THEE THE KEYS,' NOT TO THE CHURCH; and, 'Whatsoever thou shalt have loosed or bound,' not what they shall have loosed or bound. For so withal the result teaches. In (Peter) himself the Church was reared; that is, through (Peter) himself; (Peter) himself essayed the key; you see what (key): 'Men of Israel, let what I say sink into your ears: Jesus the Nazarene, a man destined by God for you,' and so forth. (Peter) himself, therefore, was the first to unbar, in Christ's baptism, the entrance to the heavenly kingdom, in which (kingdom) are 'loosed' the sins that were beforetime 'bound;' and those which have not been 'loosed' are 'bound,' in accordance with true salvation; and Ananias he 'bound' with the bond of death, and the weak in his feet he 'absolved' from his defect of health. Moreover, in that dispute about the observance or non-observance of the Law, Peter was the first of all to be endued with the Spirit, and, after making preface touching the calling of the nations, to say, 'And now why are ye tempting the Lord, concerning the imposition upon the brethren of a yoke which neither we nor our fathers were able to support? But however, through the grace of Jesus we believe that we shall be saved in the same way as they.' This sentence both 'loosed' those parts of the law which were abandoned, and 'bound' those which were reserved. Hence the power of loosing and of binding committed to Peter had nothing to do with the capital sins of believers; and if the Lord had given him a precept that he must grant pardon to a brother sinning against him even 'seventy times sevenfold,' of course He would have commanded him to 'bind' - that is, to 'retain' - nothing subsequently, unless perchance such (sins) as one may have committed against the Lord, not against a brother. For the forgiveness of (sins) committed in the case of a man is a prejudgment against the remission of sins against God.

 

What, now, (has this to do) with the Church, and your (church), indeed, Psychic? For, in accordance with the person of Peter, it is to spiritual men that this power will correspondently appertain, either to an apostle or else to a prophet. For the very Church itself is, properly and principally, the Spirit Himself, in whom is the Trinity of the One Divinity - Father, Son. and Holy Spirit. (The Spirit) combines that Church which the Lord has made to consist in 'three.' AND THUS, FROM THAT TIME FORWARD, EVERY NUMBER (OF PERSONS) WHO MAY HAVE COMBINED TOGETHER INTO THIS FAITH IS ACCOUNTED 'A CHURCH,' FROM THE AUTHOR AND CONSECRATOR (OF THE CHURCH). And accordingly 'the Church,' it is true, will forgive sins: but (it will be)g the Church of the Spirit, by means of a spiritual man; NOT THE CHURCH WHICH CONSISTS OF A NUMBER OF BISHOPS. FOR THE RIGHT AND ARBITRAMENT IS THE LORD'S, NOT THE SERVANT'S; GOD'S HIMSELF, NOT THE PRIEST'S.

 

It is time to cut this short. Your deliberate misunderstanding of Romans cannot stand the light of careful inspection. While Paul makes a number of references in Romans 3, he is referring to individuals, not political states in the passage in question. It is impossible to be honest and read Rom 3:19-24 as anything other than a reference to every single person.

 

No. Ted. It is very possible to do so WHEN you READ the OLD TESTAMENT PASSAGES HE QUOTES. His teachings were never meant to encompass the Blessed Mother. Exempting her, just like exempting her son, babies, and the mentally ill is not a contradiction in St. Paul's meaning of the passage. He is trying to show the Jews that EVEN they are under the bondage of sin. When you are trying to include whole nations, you don't go on listing a whole list of exceptions EVEN when they do, in fact, exist.

 

And if you think St. Paul does was not intending a class assessment when he wrote these words, I invite you to re-read the first three chapters of Romans TO SEE CLEARLY that St. Paul is trying to tell the Jews that they are no better than the Gentiles.

 

19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, that every mouth may be closed, and ALL THE WORLD MAY BECOME ACCOUNTABLE to God; 20 because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin. 21 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; This is reinforced by Rom 14:12 12 So then EACH ONE OF US SHALL GIVE ACCOUNT OF HIMSELF to God.

 

There is no escaping the conclusion that EVERY HUMAN BEING has sinned, INCLUDING MARY. (We should note her own admission of this in Luke 1:47.) This admits of no exceptions. Your sophistry about the mentally incompetent and minor children is a worthless distraction, because God does not give us guidance about them. The scriptures are SILENT, and we must allow God to have the answer for them. He is wise and just, and His solution will be wise and just.

 

A 'worthless distraction'? I think not. Is it 'all' or isn't it, Ted? You can't have it both ways. You are simply substituting *your* exceptions and disposing of another which is less agreeable to your Prot sensibilities. St. Paul's teachings are clear, considering:

 

i) the context of his statements IN LIGHT OF the Old Testament passages he quotes; ii) the addressees of his teaching; iii) the previous two chapters and the subsequent ones

 

And as for Luke 1:47, you ASSUME one method of salvation for all: that of subsequent application. You ignore that someone may be saved by *preservation* of the foreseen merits of Christ.

 

Oh yes, I make the exception for Jesus, because that exception is explicit in scripture.

 

Oh yes, do you know the explicit references of Mary's sinlessness in Scripture? Did you even know it existed? No? How surprising!

 

But Paul's epistle is not addressed to Jesus, but to all mortal men, and his language admits no exception in that arena. It is only your need to find an answer where none exists that promotes what the Catholic Encyclopedia admits is 'centuries of speculation' to invent a false answer (see article on Limbo).

 

But you see. This is exactly the kind of disastrous effects of sola scriptura: ignoring TO WHOM the LETTER WAS ADDRESSED ****PRIMARILY**** and WHAT St. Paul was addressing IN THE CONTEXT OF THE HISTORICAL EVENTS OF THE TIME.

 

I will say one more time, I DO NOT SUPPORT REBELLION. Neither does Paul, but please note the advice he gives Timothy about CHURCH LEADERS WHO REBEL. 17 Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching. 18 For the Scripture says, 'You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing,' and 'The labourer is worthy of his wages.' 19 Do not receive an accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses. 20 Those who continue in sin, rebuke in the presence of all, so that the rest also may be fearful of sinning. 1 Tim 5:17-20

 

Paul is not alone in his concern. 3 Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. 4 For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. Jude 3-4

 

Thanks for the references, Ted, but where is the USURPATION of authority to teach in those? THERE IS NO SUCH EVIDENCE. But I am glad you do not approve of rebellion. So the question is: why are you still protesting against the Church of God?

 

We will not resolve this by throwing around accusations. To say that I misrepresent RCC teaching is to ignore your own official teachings. If you were unaware of the references I alluded to, I suggest you read Montfort, 'The Glories of Mary', recommended by at least six Popes, including John-Paul II; and the various encyclicals defining dogmas of Mary such as Ineffabilis Deus. I have not in any way misrepresented the teachings, and if you do not understand them the way that I do, then we have demonstrated to all reading these exchanges that the RCC's 'infallible teaching office' does not exist, since we read the same 'infallible' pronouncements differently.

 

I am not unaware of Montfort's writings. I have read one of his works, and I recommend him and his writings highly. The statements you have made and I accused you of misrepresenting, however, still stand.

 

You seem unable to consider the fact that the concept of Apostolic Succession as you and the RCC promote it was foreign to the ante-Nicene fathers. They fervently protested against any attempt to change the gospel brought forward by the apostles, but did not even conceive of the possibility that the apostolic office might be passed down. The absolute absence of the statement 'I have received the office of Peter', or any other even vaguely conveying that idea in the writings of the early bishops of Rome (Clement, Linus, etc.) confirms that they did not consider such an office to be heritable.

 

This is sad. I have provided you with not a few references from the early Church Father, most recently Tertullian and Irenaeus. Let the reader go back to my previous post and see for themselves if the Fathers taught Apostolic succession or not. WHAT A SAD AND PATHETIC JOKE, TED!!!! DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY PROMINENT CATHOLIC APOLOGISTS TODAY, WHO WERE FORMER PROTESTANTS, CONVERTED ON THE STRENGTH OF THIS ISSUE ALONE?!!!!?????

 

As for the apostles, let us examine their writings to see what authority they express. Matthew, Mark and John wrote eyewitness accounts of the life of Christ. They make declarative statements about the deity of Christ such as John 1:14 14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. This is an eyewitness account, not an exegetical exercise. John goes further in 1John 1 1 What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we beheld and our hands handled, concerning the Word of Life – 2 and the life was manifested, and we have seen and bear witness and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us – 3 what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also,…

 

Let us see what Luke says in Luke 1: 1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, 2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word have handed them down to us, 3 it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; 4 so that you might know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

 

Paul says the same sort of thing: 12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. Gal 1:12

 

Peter says: 12 Therefore, I shall always be ready to remind you of these things, even though you already know them, and have been established in the truth which is present with you. 13 And I consider it right, as long as I am in this earthly dwelling, to stir you up by way of reminder, 14 knowing that the laying aside of my earthly dwelling is imminent, as also our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me. 2 Peter 1:12-14

 

Just to fill out the picture, remember the explicit references to the Holy Spirit as the source of various teachings in Acts 21:11, 1 Cor 12:3, 1 Tim 4:1, and Heb 3:7. We should also note that in Revelation, we find Jesus referring to the Holy Spirit speaking to the 'CHURCHES' in Rev 2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, & 22.

 

I know the passages, Ted. I have used many of them against the Unitarian. I think they are persuasive, but not necessarily *conclusive*. I used to think the Trinity and Jesus' divinity was pretty clear too from the biblical text, but that is not entirely true. I bring up a lot of the argument you make, but he has some pretty good rebuttals. In any case, you don't know their arguments so again, your opinion, is limited.

 

I will readily admit that the apostles (over 1,500 times) used the OT as support for their preaching. It was a known standard. But not once do they do it in an exegetical manner (searching out the meaning). It is always in a form where the meaning is presented didactically, without any hint of scholarly endeavour. It is always of the form 'Here is the truth', not, 'We find this to be correct because…' They never use a text as a proof text to clinch an argument, but always as an illustration to fill out a received truth. This is the essence of apostolic authority. They had the direct connection with God to be able to say with authority what the truth was.

 

And Ted, what I am telling you, is that there are many ORAL TRADITIONS that are as equally binding on you and which the Apostles and Jesus THEMSELVES used, but for which you reject because of your preconceived sixteenth century belief in the Bible alone.

 

If the RCC is truly the church of the apostles, it should be able to demonstrate that its teachings conform to those of the apostles. If it does not, then we have two or three witnesses to bring to rebuke the RCC in the presence of all.

 

If you are honest, Ted, you will change what you have said above to, "it should be able to demonstrate that its teachings conform to "MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE SCRIPTURES ALONE."

 

I would suggest that there are several fertile areas for doctrinal discussion. They should be discussed in individual threads. We have beaten apostolic succession to death. It is time to look at the fruits, good or bad, of its supposed institution. I propose:

1. The Sabbath
2. The sufficiency of the cross (indulgences & penance)
3. The Eucharist (the Mass)
4. The state of the dead.

 

Others could be tackled, but for now, that should be enough. I also suggest that we only tackle one at a time, since I do not have time to keep all ongoing at once. Also, due to time constraints, expect only one new installment a week. I may be quicker, but cannot guarantee it.

 

Ted, if I thought engaging you in these topics would influence you, I would do it. But given your rejection of the historical record on the question of Apostolic Succession and other related issues, I am afraid that I must decline your offer.

 

I wish you the best of luck and the Lord's blessing on you and your family. One day, perhaps, if not in this life then in the next, we will both be able to say together… "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty" (Rev. 4:8)

 

Godspeed. The Lord is not finished with you yet……

 

I thank you for your benediction. God isn't finished with either one of us.

 

We should all remember that salvation is to know the Father (John 17:3). The only way to the Father is through the Son (John 14:6). Thus, we must daily ask ourselves if we are in love with the true Jesus, the Jesus of the Bible. If we are, our calling is an election sure (2 Peter 1:10).

 

If we believe in a Jesus other than the true Jesus of the Bible, he cannot save us, because such a Jesus does not exist. We will then die in our sins (2 John 7-11).

 

20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, 21 Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is well pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. (Heb 13:20-21)