The Keys of St. Peter
The following dialogue occurred over a number of weeks on a Seventh Day Adventist discussion board with a gentleman named ‘Ted’. The dialogue focuses on Papal primacy and other related issues. Ted’s comments comments are in red. Pacheco's comments are in blue. Since this was originally intended to be a short informal dialogue, I copied some references from Jesus, Peter, and the Keys without attribution. Therefore, readers are cautioned that some of my words may be directly taken from that book. I have tried to insert the reference where found, but it is possible that I have ommitted them in one or two places.
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.’¼The 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 ½ 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 multitude¼’ 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