![\"PeterKeys2\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2017\/09\/PeterKeys2.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
Christ Handing the Keys to St. Peter<\/em>\u00a0(c. 1482) by\u00a0Pietro Perugino (1448-1523)<\/span>\u00a0[public domain \/\u00a0Wikimedia Commons<\/a>]<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n \u00a0(9-30-03)<\/p>\n * * * * *<\/p>\n<\/div>\n TABLE OF CONTENTS<\/b><\/p>\n<\/div>\n Dave has conceded, in his response to me, that some of his wording in his original article went too\u00a0far. He\u2019s changed the wording. That\u2019s a step in the right direction. But it\u2019s not enough.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Here is what I stated (for the record):<\/p>\n . . . Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong says that the evidence \u201cis quite strong, and is inescapably compelling by virtue of its cumulative weight\u201d.\u00a0<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n I think it\u00a0is<\/i>\u00a0very strong, certainly stronger than the biblical cases for\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/i>\u00a0and the canon of the New Testament (which are nonexistent). \u201cInescapingly compelling\u201d is probably too grandiose a claim (few things are\u00a0that\u00a0<\/i>evident), and I will change that language (but not all that much) in the original tract.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The First Vatican Council refers to the universal jurisdiction of Peter as a\u00a0clear\u00a0<\/i>doctrine of scripture that has\u00a0always<\/i>\u00a0been held by the Christian church. The same Roman Catholic council claims that the bishops of Rome were always perceived as having universal jurisdiction as the exclusive successors of Peter. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that\u00a0all<\/i>\u00a0Christians of the\u00a0first\u00a0<\/i>century viewed the Roman church as their\u00a0only<\/i>\u00a0basis and foundation. Dave is therefore\u00a0contradicting the teachings of his denomination when he suggests that the papacy could be \u201cin\u00a0kernel form\u201d and \u201cnot explicit\u201d in the New Testament.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Not at all. This is a classic example of Jason not comprehending my previous argument about development and the papacy, which I set forth in my previous exchanges on development with Jason.\u00a0I also refuted a very similar argument (twice now) from the anti-Catholic Protestant apologist William Webster, who makes many of the same historical arguments that Jason offers:<\/p>\n \u201cRefutation of William Webster\u2019s Fundamental Misunderstanding\u00a0of Development of Doctrine\u201d<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n \u201cRefutation of Protestant Polemicist William Webster\u2019s Critique of Catholic Tradition and Newmanian Development of Doctrine\u201d<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n My reply here would be no different from that in the above papers, so I refer the reader to them. I don\u2019t like taking up more space on my website for things that are already on it elsewhere. It would also be nice if Jason would give a citation to what particular section of the\u00a0Catechism<\/i>\u00a0he refers to, so I can sensibly respond to his charge. But I can assure the reader (as a Catholic apologist who specializes in development of doctrine and Cardinal Newman\u2019s particular classic exposition of it) that Jason has only a very dim understanding of development of doctrine and how a Catholic views it. This has been demonstrated throughout our many dialogues.<\/p>\n Dave claims, in his reply to me, that the papacy developed in a way comparable to the development of Trinitarian doctrine and the canon of scripture. He writes:\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Does Jason really think it\u2019s reasonable to expect me to explain to him why passages\u00a0like 1 John 5:7 and Isaiah 9:6 and Zechariah 12:10 don\u2019t logically lead to\u00a0Chalcedonian trinitarianism and the Two Natures of Christ?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I never made the argument Dave is responding to. I never argued that 1 John 5:7, Isaiah 9:6, and\u00a0Zechariah 12:10 teach every aspect of Trinitarian doctrine Dave has mentioned.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s a rhetorical argument from analogy. I didn\u2019t\u00a0claim<\/i>\u00a0that Jason made the argument (it\u2019s not\u00a0required<\/i>\u00a0that he did in this form of argumentation). I was trying to show that all doctrines develop in similar fashion: as the Trinity developed from (oftentimes) kernels in the New Testament, so does the papacy also develop. Nor does the fact that there is much more indication of the Trinity in the NT than the papacy affect the validity of the parallel being made, because it is one of the\u00a0principle of development\u00a0<\/i>from kernel to full-grown plant, not one concerning the\u00a0various degrees of evidences<\/i>\u00a0for different doctrines (which is a given).<\/p>\n The canon of the biblical books also developed and there is not a\u00a0shred\u00a0<\/i>of evidence in the Bible itself for an authoritative list of books which were to be regarded as the Bible; not one\u00a0iota<\/i>. But that doesn\u2019t bother Jason at all. He accepts the canon even though such acceptance presupposes the binding authority of men\u2019s ecclesiastical councils: an authority every Protestant ostensibly denies as a fundamental principle and matter of their own Rule of Faith (sola Scriptura<\/i>).<\/p>\n The Protestant can\u2019t appeal to Scripture itself as corroboration of the determination of the canon, so he must fall back strictly on Church authority. This is an internal contradiction and incoherence. And Jason applies an \u201cepistemological double standard,\u201d so to speak, since he is only concerned with knocking down and minimizing distinctively Catholic doctrines, no matter how similar in principle and nature the biblical evidence for them is to the biblical evidence for those doctrines which Protestants and Catholics hold in common.<\/p>\n What a passage like Isaiah 9:6 teaches us is that Christ is God and man. Other passages refer to the Holy Spirit as God (Acts 5:3-4), refer to all three Persons existing at the same time (Matthew 3:16-17), and refer to Jesus being made like us (Hebrews 2:17), learning (Luke 2:52), being tempted as we are (Hebrews 4:15), not knowing the future (Mark 13:32), having two wills (Luke 22:42), etc. Some disputes arose in the post-apostolic centuries regarding the\u00a0implications\u00a0<\/i>of Jesus\u2019 manhood, for example, but no Christian today is dependent on those later disputes in order to know the truth.<\/span><\/p>\n They certainly\u00a0are<\/i>, and\u00a0were<\/i>, just as they were dependent upon councils to know for sure what books belonged in the Bible. The a-historical game that many Protestants play simply won\u2019t fly here. It\u2019s easy to look back in retrospect and pretend that all these things were clear in the Bible, so that councils were not necessary. But the historical fact remains that there were many disagreements and disputes, and they had to be\u00a0settled<\/i>. Councils and popes did that, not the Bible on its own.<\/p>\n How can a book settle a dispute about its\u00a0own\u00a0<\/i>interpretation? That would be like saying that the\u00a0US Constitution\u00a0<\/i>can settle all disputes about what it allows and disallows legally, simply by being self-evidently clear in all respects. Why, then, have constitutional jurisprudence at all? The same applies to the Bible. The Two Natures of Jesus is only very minimally alluded to in the New Testament. And that was the point of my statement above. The sort of trinitarian proofs we often see in Scripture, compared to the subtleties and complexities of Chalcedonian trinitarianism and Christology, are scarcely any different in essence and kind from Matthew 16 and the other indications of the papacy as compared to the fully-developed 1870 definition of papal infallibility. That was my analogy, and it has not been overcome.<\/p>\n If scripture teaches concepts such as monotheism (Isaiah 43:10), the deity of the three Persons (John 1:1, Acts 5:3-4), and the co-existence of the three Persons (Matthew 3:16-17), those doctrines have logical implications.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n I have no disagreement with any of the strictly\u00a0biblical<\/i>\u00a0analysis of trinitarian development above. Jason is correct. Where he goes wrong is in denying the crucial, necessary role of councils and in asserting that there is a fundamental difference in principle between trinitarian and papal development. This he has not shown.<\/p>\n If later church councils accurately describe those implications, then Christians should accept the teachings of those councils. If the councils don\u2019t accurately describe the implications of those Biblical doctrines, then Christians should reject what the councils have taught.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n But of course this is a circular argument. It\u2019s the old Protestant saw of \u201cjust going back to the Bible to get the truth\u201d and judging councils accordingly. That breaks down as soon as two Protestants disagree what the Bible teaches. So (in the end) all that occurs is a transference of authority from some ancient council to two warring Protestants (say, Luther vs. Calvin, or Zwingli vs. Menno Simons). The whole thing begs the question by assuming it is all so clear in the Bible, when in fact the Bible is only clear to the extent that various Protestant factions\u00a0agree<\/i>on any one of its teachings. Since they\u00a0don\u2019t<\/i>\u00a0agree, then the question of authority returns right back to where we started.<\/p>\n Catholics, on the other hand, contend that ecumenical Church councils carry a binding authority, and are infallible by virtue of the protection of the Holy Spirit. That is a consistent position (whether one believes it or not). The Protestant position is inconsistent because it claims a \u201cperspicuous\u201d Bible, which cannot be demonstrated in real life. It purports to deny binding authority of mere men and ecclesiastical institutions, yet turns around and expects people to believe (and \u2014 in the final analysis \u2014 put their\u00a0trust\u00a0<\/i>in) the non-infallible competing Protestant \u201cauthorities\u201d even though they claim no infallibility for themselves. One accepts Luther or Calvin or Zwingli or any of the rest simply because they are more \u201cbiblical\u201d and some sort of self-anointed supreme authority in their own arbitrary domain. So it never ends. It is an endless circle of division and inability to arrive at truth with the epistemological certainty of faith.<\/p>\n <\/p> Again, this simply assumes what it is trying to prove, and is no argument. I gave these arguments at great length. Jason chose to substantially ignore them, pretend they don\u2019t exist (even if he disagrees with them) and then proclaim triumphantly (but falsely) that nothing in the Bible suggests an authoritative leader of the Church, and that no development subsequently can be deduced from earlier biblical kernels. It\u00a0is<\/i>\u00a0true that the primacy of the Roman bishop is not a biblical concept, strictly-speaking. It is a logical deduction based on actual history.<\/p>\n Peter was the first leader of the Church. He died as the bishop in Rome (where Paul also died). That is why Roman primacy began: because Peter\u2019s successor was the bishop in the location where he ended up and died. But this is no more impermissible than a strictly historical process of determining the canon, which is itself utterly absent from the Bible. If one is to ditch all history, then the canon goes with it, and that can\u2019t happen, because the Protestant needs to know what the Bible\u00a0is<\/i>\u00a0in order to have his principle of\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/i>. It\u2019s inescapable.<\/p>\n Under what circumstances would Trinitarian doctrine be comparable to the doctrine of the papacy? Let\u2019s say, for the sake of argument, that passages like Matthew 28:19 and Acts 5:3-4 didn\u2019t exist. Let\u2019s say that there were no such passages referring to the deity of the Holy Spirit. And let\u2019s say that I argued that we should believe in the deity of the Holy Spirit because of evidence similar to what Dave has cited to argue for the papacy. What if I was to argue for the deity of the Holy Spirit by counting how many times the Holy Spirit is mentioned in the Bible? What if I was to argue that the Holy Spirit is God by pointing out that the Holy Spirit is given the title of Helper? Would such arguments\u00a0logically\u00a0<\/i>lead to the doctrine of the deity of the Holy Spirit? No. They wouldn\u2019t lead to that conclusion individually\u00a0or\u00a0<\/i>cumulatively. When Dave counts how many times Peter\u2019s name is mentioned in the New Testament or refers to Peter being given a name that means \u201crock\u201d, such arguments don\u2019t logically lead to the conclusion that Peter and the bishops of Rome have papal authority.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Jason shows again that he is not interacting with the answers I have already given to these charges. One tires of this sort of \u201cmethod.\u201d It certainly isn\u2019t dialogue when someone uses the following procedure:<\/p>\n 1) ignore the other person\u2019s argument which replied to yours. Dave asks that we consider the cumulative weight of his list of Biblical proofs. But you can\u2019t\u00a0produce a good argument by stringing together 50 bad arguments.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n This begs the question. Jason\u2019s task was to overcome each of my 50 proofs for Petrine primacy by force of argument. That is how (and only how) he proves they are \u201cbad.\u201d Jason is now in the habit of making summary statements rather than arguments.<\/p>\n There isn\u2019t a single proof Dave has cited that logically leads to a papacy by itself.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n That\u2019s simply not true. The \u201crock\u201d passage and \u201ckeys of the kingdom,\u201d when properly and thoroughly exegeted (as they have been, by many Protestant scholars, as I documented), lead straightforwardly to the conclusion of an authoritative leader of the Church: from the Bible alone. But Jason refuses to interact with any of that part of my argument. Perhaps he never read these portions of my paper at all?<\/p>\n But Isaiah 43:10\u00a0does\u00a0<\/i>lead to monotheism by itself. John 1:1\u00a0does<\/i>\u00a0lead to the deity of Christ. Hebrews 2:17\u00a0does<\/i>\u00a0lead to the manhood of Christ. Etc.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n This is true. They certainly\u00a0do<\/i>. In fact, they don\u2019t even\u00a0lead\u00a0<\/i>to those things. They state them outright. I only disagree that there are no such verses for the papacy. The things which have no biblical support whatever are the canon of the Bible and\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/i>. I\u2019ve yet to see how 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (the classic\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/i>\u00a0so-called \u201cprooftext\u201d) leads logically to\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/i>. If Jason is so concerned about logical reduction and inevitabilities, he can start in these two places.<\/p>\n . . . If any teaching of a post-apostolic council isn\u2019t a logical conclusion to what Jesus and the apostles taught, then Christians can and should reject what that council taught.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n That gets back to the radical logical circularity described above: who decides what the apostles taught? And on what grounds of authority?<\/p>\n We accept the Trinitarian conclusions of post-apostolic councils because Biblical teaching leads to those conclusions,\u00a0not\u00a0<\/i>because of some alleged Divine inspiration or infallibility of those councils. Trinitarian doctrine is the logical conclusion to Biblical teaching. But nothing in the teachings of Jesus and the apostles logically leads to the doctrine of the papacy.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Oh, so when Zwingli said that the Eucharist was purely symbolic and Luther replied that it was the bread and body of Christ alongside the bread and the wine, how does the individual decide which one was correct in his teaching, since neither was infallible? When Calvin said that baptism doesn\u2019t regenerate, whereas Luther said that it did, and then the Anabaptists opposed them both by saying that infants shouldn\u2019t be baptized, who are we to believe?<\/p>\n We are told, of course, that each person figures this out from the Bible (like the Bereans). And thus we are back to circularity and arbitrariness. If the choice boils down to the individual with his Bible vs. ancient councils filled with learned and holy bishops (people like St. Augustine and St. Athanasius), I would much rather believe in faith that the latter possessed the charism of infallibility than I would believe that Joe Q. Protestant carried such infallibility (given the endless contradictions in the various Protestant theologies).<\/p>\n Here\u2019s the reasoning evangelicals follow with regard to Trinitarian doctrine:\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n 1. Jesus and the apostles taught that X is true of the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, and\/or God in general.\u00a0<\/span> For example, Jesus and the apostles taught that Jesus became a man. Being a man involves a\u00a0<\/span>number of things. We therefore reach some conclusions about Jesus as a result of His manhood,\u00a0<\/span>whether something as insignificant as Jesus having fingernails or something as significant as Jesus having a human nature. \u00a0<\/span>Dave\u2019s reasoning with regard to the papacy is:\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n 1. Jesus and the apostles taught that X is true of Peter.\u00a0<\/span> For example, Jesus and the apostles taught that Peter was given a name that means \u201crock\u201d. But\u00a0<\/span>here\u2019s where Dave\u2019s comparison to Trinitarian doctrine fails. Being given the name \u201crock\u201d does not logically lead to the conclusion that a person has universal jurisdiction in the Christian church.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cRock\u201d has significance once one understands the exegetical import of the argument. But that is precisely what Jason refuses to do. He would much rather engage in the sport and fun of caricaturing the argument and gutting it of its most important element, presenting it anew as if his gutted version were my own, and then dismissing the straw man of his own making. The exegetical argument hinges on whether the \u201cRock\u201d is Peter or merely his faith. If the former, then it has the utmost significance, for Jesus proceeds to say that \u201cupon this Rock I will build My Church.\u201d Thus, the logic would work as follows:<\/p>\n 1. Peter is the Rock. This is straightforward; it is easily understood. If I may be allowed a little \u201canalogical license,\u201d I submit that a comparison to well-known athletes might make this more clear:<\/p>\n 1. Babe Ruth was the Rock of the New York Yankees in the 1920s. Lou Gehrig was certainly an important member of that team as well, but he wasn\u2019t the leader as long as Babe Ruth was there. He was for a few years after Ruth departed; then Joe Dimaggio was after Gehrig caught his fatal disease and died, and Mickey Mantle followed Dimaggio, and Reggie Jackson was the leader in the 70s, etc. (a sort of \u201cteam leader succession\u201d akin to apostolic or papal succession). Or, to come up to recent times (and switching over to basketball):<\/p>\n 1. Michael Jordan was the Rock of the Chicago Bulls in the 1990s. Scottie Pippen was certainly an important member of that team as well, but he wasn\u2019t the leader as long as Michael Jordan was there. Etc.<\/p>\n Many prominent Protestant scholars and exegetes have agreed that Peter is the Rock in Matthew 16:18, including\u00a0Henry Alford<\/b>, (Anglican:\u00a0The New Testament for English Readers<\/i>, vol. 1, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker, 1983, 119),\u00a0John Broadus\u00a0<\/b>(Reformed Baptist:\u00a0Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew<\/i>, Valley Forge, Pennsylvania: Judson Press, 1886, 355-356),\u00a0C. F. Keil<\/b>,\u00a0Gerhard Kittel\u00a0<\/b>(Lutheran:\u00a0Theological Dictionary of the New Testament<\/i>, vol. VI, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1968, 98-99),\u00a0Oscar Cullmann<\/b>\u00a0(Lutheran:\u00a0Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr<\/i>, 2nd rev. ed., 1962),\u00a0William F. Albright<\/b>,\u00a0Robert McAfee Brown<\/b>, and more recently, highly-respected evangelical commentators\u00a0R.T. France<\/b>, and\u00a0D.A. Carson<\/b>, who both surprisingly assert that only Protestant overreaction to Catholic Petrine and papal claims have brought about the denial that Peter himself is the Rock.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n That\u2019s nine so far. I went on to document other Protestants who held this view:<\/p>\n 10)\u00a0New Bible Dictionary<\/i>\u00a0(editor: J. D. Douglas). If Peter was the Rock, as all these eminent scholars believe, then the argument is a straightforward logical one leading to the conclusion that Peter led the Church, because Jesus built His Church upon Peter. If there was a leader of the Church in the\u00a0beginning<\/i>, it stands to reason that there would\u00a0continue<\/i>\u00a0to be one, just as there was a first President when the laws of the United States were established at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. Why have one President and then cease to have one thereafter and let the executive branch of government exist without a leader (or eliminate that branch altogether and stick with Congress \u2014 heaven forbid!!!!!)?<\/p>\n Catholics are, therefore, simply applying common sense: if this is how Jesus set up the government of His Church in the beginning, then it ought to continue in like fashion, in perpetuity. Apostolic succession is a biblical notion. If bishops are succeeded by other bishops, and the Bible proves this, then the chief bishop is also succeeded by other chief bishops (later called\u00a0popes<\/i>). Thus the entire argument (far from being\u00a0nonexistent<\/i>, as Jason would have us believe) is sustained and established from the Bible alone. All my other 47 proofs in my original list of 50 are supplementary; icing on the cake. The doctrine is proven from the first three proofs in and of themselves.<\/p>\n So how does Jason decide to reply to the 50 evidences? He largely ignores the first three very strong and explicitly biblical evidences (backed up by massive Protestant scholarly corroboration) and concentrates on the 47 much-lesser proofs; ridicules them and then makes out that I am claiming something for them far more than I ever intended to (as painstakingly clarified in my last response to him on this issue). This will not do.<\/p>\n Likewise, being given the keys of the kingdom of Heaven doesn\u2019t logically lead to the conclusion\u00a0that a person has papal authority,\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n It does, when one does the exegesis and extensive cross-referencing (which I have done using almost all Protestant scholarly sources) that Jason refuses to do. Why should he continually ignore the very heart and \u201cmeat\u201d of my arguments?<\/p>\n and the keys aren\u2019t unique to Peter anyway.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Peter is the only individual who is given these keys by Jesus. That\u2019s the very\u00a0point<\/i>, and then \u2014 if we are serious Bible students \u2014 we look and see what it\u00a0means<\/i>\u00a0by comparing Scripture with Scripture. There is an Old Testament background to this which is very fascinating and enlightening. But if Jason doesn\u2019t read the extensive exegetical arguments I provided in my first paper or reads them but then promptly forgets and ignores them, the discussion can hardly proceed.<\/p>\n Dave can\u2019t cite any teaching of Jesus and the apostles that logically leads to papal authority for Peter, much less for Roman bishops.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n More of the same dazed noncomprehension (or utter unawareness) of my arguments . . .<\/p>\n This is why I told Dave, in my first discussion with him two years ago, that we ought to distinguish between possibilities on the one hand and probabilities and necessities on the other hand. Drawing papal conclusions from the name \u201crock\u201d or possession of the keys of the kingdom of Heaven is neither probable nor necessary.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Indeed we ought to. And we also ought to distinguish between answers on the one hand and non-responses and evasions on the other hand.<\/p>\n Dave\u2019s comparison to Trinitarian doctrine also fails at step three of the argument described above. Peter having papal authority is\u00a0not\u00a0<\/i>consistent with all that Jesus and the apostles taught. The New Testament repeatedly uses images of\u00a0equality<\/i>\u00a0to refer to the apostles: twelve thrones (Matthew 19:28), foundation stones of the church (Ephesians 2:20), the first rank in the church (1 Corinthians 12:28), twelve foundation stones of the New Jerusalem (Revelation 21:14), etc. Paul\u2019s use of the word \u201creputed\u201d in Galatians 2:9 suggests that he considered it inappropriate to single out some of the apostles in the context of authority.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n All apostles have great authority (as do their successors, the bishops), but Peter and his successors, the popes had more, and were preeminent, for the reasons I have given in past papers.<\/p>\n The apostles had equal authority, which is why Paul repeatedly cites his\u00a0equality<\/i>\u00a0with the others. He came to Jerusalem for the right hand of fellowship (Galatians 2:9), for coordination, not subordination (Galatians 2:6). That Peter would be grouped with two other people, and would be named\u00a0second\u00a0<\/i>among them in this context (Galatians 2:9), makes it highly unlikely that he was viewed as the ruler of all Christians on earth.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n In a recent paper on\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/i>, I dealt with this authority issue. The biblical picture is not quite how Jason presents it:<\/p>\n We find ecclesiastical authority in Matthew 18:17, where \u201cthe church\u201d is to settle issues of conflict between believers. Above all, we see Church authority in the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:6-30), where we see Peter and James speaking with authority. This Council makes an authoritative pronouncement (citing the Holy Spirit \u2014 15:28) which was binding on all Christians:<\/p>\n . . . abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity. (15:29)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In the next chapter, shortly thereafter we read that Paul, Timothy, and Silas were traveling around \u201cthrough the cities.\u201d Note how Scripture describes what they were proclaiming:<\/p>\n . . . they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem. . . . Even the apostle Paul was no lone ranger. He did what he was told to do by the Jerusalem Council. As I wrote in my biblical treatise on the Church (where many additional biblical indications of Church authority can be found):<\/p>\n In his very conversion experience, Jesus informed Paul that he would be told what to do (Acts 9:6; cf. 9:17). He went to see St. Peter in Jerusalem for fifteen days in order to be confirmed in his calling (Galatians 1:18), and fourteen years later was commissioned by Peter, James, and John (Galatians 2:1-2,9). He was also sent out by the Church at Antioch (Acts 13:1-4), which was in contact with the Church at Jerusalem (Acts 11:19-27). Later on, Paul reported back to Antioch (Acts 14:26-28).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n Dave is correct when he says that Peter is named \u201crock\u201d, that Peter was given the keys of the\u00a0kingdom, etc. But his argument fails when you get to steps two and three in the argument I\u2019ve\u00a0described above. The papacy is\u00a0not<\/i>\u00a0in the same category as Trinitarian doctrine.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n More of the same weak rhetoric . . . already answered above.<\/p>\n Dave\u2019s comparison to the canon of scripture is likewise erroneous. I discuss this issue in a reply to\u00a0Dave elsewhere at this web site (http:\/\/members.aol.com\/jasonte3\/devdef4.htm). To go from the\u00a0unique authority of the apostles to the unique authority of apostolic documents isn\u2019t the same as\u00a0going from Matthew 16 to the concept of Roman bishops having universal jurisdiction.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Sure it is the same; there is no essential difference. Both aspects develop and both require human ecclesiastical judgments. There is no biblical evidence whatsoever for the list of biblical books, but there is plenty for the papacy. So I contend that the argument for the canon (from a Protestant perspective) is far weaker (by their own \u201cbiblical\u201d criteria) than our argument for the papacy, which is supported by strong and various exegetical arguments.<\/p>\n Concepts such as the canonicity of Paul\u2019s writings and God\u2019s sovereignty over the canon are logical conclusions to what Jesus and the apostles taught.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Concepts such as the papacy and Peter\u2019s headship over the Church are logical conclusions flowing from what Jesus and the apostles taught.<\/p>\n The idea that Peter and the bishops of Rome are to rule all Christians on earth throughout church history is\u00a0not\u00a0<\/i>a logical conclusion to what was taught by Jesus and the apostles.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Jason needs to overcome the exegetical arguments. He hasn\u2019t even\u00a0attempted<\/i>\u00a0this, let alone\u00a0accomplished\u00a0<\/i>it.<\/p>\n <\/p> Were there disputes about ecclesiology and the papacy during the early centuries of Christianity? Yes. But Catholics don\u2019t claim that\u00a0all aspects\u00a0<\/b>of ecclesiology and the papacy were\u00a0always<\/i>\u00a0held by the Christian church: only that the\u00a0essential\u00a0<\/i>aspects (some only in kernel form originally) were passed down in the apostolic deposit and that they continued to be developed throughout history. Some Christians disagreed with them, just as some who\u00a0claimed\u00a0<\/i>to be Christians have disagreed with the Trinity through the centuries. That doesn\u2019t make the thing itself less true.<\/p>\n The claims the Catholic Church makes about the papacy are different than the claims evangelicals make about the Trinity and the canon.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Not in the\u00a0developmental\u00a0<\/i>aspects with which I am concerned in these discussions.<\/p>\n Dave said that some evangelicals\u00a0do\u00a0<\/i>make claims about Trinitarian doctrine and the canon always being held by the Christian church. Then those evangelicals should be corrected.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n If they do so, the correct understanding is that they were held in broad or kernel form, precisely as we claim about all our doctrines. If they claim that the understanding was explicit and fully-developed from the start, that simply can\u2019t be sustained from the historical data or the Bible itself (as an encapsulation of the apostles\u2019 teaching).<\/p>\n But how is Dave going to correct the false claims the First Vatican Council made about the papacy?\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Easily. I already have explained how this charge is ludicrous and non-factual, in my two replies to William Webster, referenced above, and in past installments of this \u201cdiscussion\u201d with Jason. No false or a-historical claims were made. We\u2019re not the ones trying to whitewash or ignore history. We welcome it. It bolsters our case every time.<\/p>\n Dave says that Matthew 16 contains \u201cthe most\u00a0explicit<\/i>\u00a0biblical evidences for the papacy, and far\u00a0away the\u00a0best<\/i>\u201c. By Dave\u2019s admission, the best Biblical evidence for the papacy is a passage that\u00a0mentions neither successors nor Roman bishops.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n It doesn\u2019t\u00a0have<\/i>\u00a0to, as explained above. Succession is taught elsewhere, and the primacy of Rome was due to the martyrdom of Peter and Paul there, and the fact that this was God\u2019s Providence, since Rome was the center of the empire. It was now to be the primary See of the Christian Church. All the Catholic has to do from the Bible itself is show that a definite leadership of the Church was taught there. If it was, then all Christians are bound to that structure throughout time.<\/p>\n Not only does the passage not mention successors or Roman bishops, but everything said of Peter in the passage is said of other people elsewhere.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n This is simply untrue, and rather spectacularly so:<\/p>\n 1) Jesus said to no one else that He would \u201cbuild\u201d His \u201cChurch\u201d upon them. Jason can easily disprove any of the above by producing biblical proof (best wishes to him). It is true that Jesus gave the other apostles the power to bind and loose, but that poses no problem whatever for the Catholic position. Peter\u2019s uniqueness in that regard was that Jesus said that to him as an\u00a0individual<\/i>, not as part of a\u00a0collective<\/i>. This is usually significant in the Hebraic, biblical outlook and worldview. Be that as it may, the three things above were unique to Peter.<\/p>\n <\/p> They didn\u2019t understand why He was about to die, either. They never believed that Jesus would or did rise from the dead until they saw the evidence with their own eyes (even though He had plainly told them what was to happen). So what? What does that prove? It has nothing to do with biblical exegesis today. The disciples weren\u2019t even filled with the Spirit until the Day of Pentecost after Jesus died. So this is absolutely irrelevant.<\/p>\n The earliest interpreters of Matthew 16 (Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, etc.) not only didn\u2019t advocate the papal interpretation, but even contradicted it.<\/span><\/p>\n Again, so what? We don\u2019t believe that individual fathers are infallible. The Catholic historical case for the papacy doesn\u2019t rest on the interpretation of Matthew 16, but rather, on how Peter was regarded when he was alive, and how his successors in Rome were regarded (and the real authority they exercised in point of fact). Not everyone \u201cgot\u201d it. But that is never the case, so it is no issue at all. No one \u201cgot\u201d all the books of the New Testament, either, till St. Athanasius first listed all of them in the year 367. That doesn\u2019t give Jason pause; why should differing interpretations of Matthew 16 do so? Norman Geisler says that no one taught imputed justification between the time of Paul and Luther. Virtually no Father can be found who will deny the Real Presence in the Eucharist, or that baptism regenerates.<\/p>\n Does anyone believe that Jason and Protestants in general lose any sleep over\u00a0those\u00a0<\/i>demonstrable\u00a0facts<\/i>\u00a0(one stated by a prominent Protestant apologist), or the inconvenient difficulty that\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/i>\u00a0(one of the pillars of the so-called \u201cReformation\u201d and the Protestant Rule of Faith and principle of authority) cannot\u00a0in the least\u00a0<\/i>be proven from Scripture? They do not, but when it comes to anything distinctively Catholic, all of a sudden, double standards must appear from nowhere, and we are held to a different, inconsistent standard.<\/p>\n Origen wrote that all Christians are a rock as Peter is in Matthew 16, and he said that all Christians possess the keys of the kingdom of Heaven.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Jesus did not say the latter. I rather prefer Jesus to Origen (assuming Jason is correct in his summary or Origen\u2019s views). Are we to believe that Origen is the supreme exegete of all time; not to be contradicted? He has to make his arguments from some solid scriptural data, hermeneutics, and exegesis, just like everyone else. Catholicism doesn\u2019t require such a silly scenario, and Protestantism certainly doesn\u2019t. If Catholicism\u00a0required<\/i>\u00a0this (absolute unanimous consent of all the Fathers on every single biblical interpretation), Jason might have a point in his favor. But since it does not, he only looks silly, presenting a\u00a0non sequitur<\/i>.<\/p>\n Cyprian said that all bishops are successors of Peter, and that Peter\u2019s primacy consists not of authority, but of his being symbolic of Christian unity.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n He was wrong, too, when he said that. So what?<\/p>\n It logically follows, then, that what Dave Armstrong describes as \u201cfar away the best\u201d Biblical evidence for the papacy:\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n * doesn\u2019t mention successors<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n That isn\u2019t required, for my exegetical and ecclesiological argument and the Catholic one to succeed, as explained.<\/p>\n * doesn\u2019t mention Roman bishops<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n That isn\u2019t required, either.<\/p>\n * says nothing about Peter that isn\u2019t also said of other people<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n That\u2019s untrue, as shown, on at least three counts.<\/p>\n * was understood in a non-papal way by the people who first heard it (Luke 22:24)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n That\u2019s irrelevant, since they also didn\u2019t yet understand the Resurrection and Jesus\u2019 substitutionary atonement on the cross. By Jason\u2019s \u201creasoning,\u201d then, it would be an \u201cargument\u201d against\u00a0those<\/i>\u00a0things also, that the disciples did not first\u00a0understand<\/i>\u00a0them. Therefore, the objection collapses.<\/p>\n * was understood in a non-papal way by the earliest post-apostolic interpreters (Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, etc.)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n There is plenty of evidence of widespread patristic interpretation which would be more along the lines of arguments that Catholics give now. It is beyond our purview to revisit all that. It\u2019s presented in books such as Steve Ray\u2019s\u00a0Upon This Rock\u00a0<\/i>(San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999, pp. 111-243), and\u00a0Jesus, Peter, & the Keys<\/i>\u00a0(Santa Barbra, California: Queenship Pub. Co., 1996), by Scott Butler et al, which gives 66 pages of citations from the Fathers specifically on the question of \u201cRock\u201d and \u201cKeys of the Kingdom.\u201d As I listed in an earlier paper, all the following Fathers thought that Peter was the Rock (as can be documented in the above books and elsewhere):<\/p>\n Tertullian An interpretation of one passage that takes a long time to develop (even following Jason\u2019s jaded presentation, which is not at all proven) is no more alarming than an interpretation of the Two Natures of Jesus, that required over 400 years (the year 451) to fully develop; and even after\u00a0that<\/i>, major Christological heresies such as monothelitism (the view that Jesus had only one will) flourished for another two centuries or so. This is merely a double standard. The Catholic Church doesn\u2019t require what Jason\u00a0thinks\u00a0<\/i>it requires in this regard. His argument here is a straw man. It may look impressive on the surface, but is shown to be groundless when properly scrutinized. Even the three Fathers he lists as contradicting our view agree with it elsewhere. It is not inconceivable that one could hold to a double meaning (as St. Augustine often did): viz., that \u201cRock\u201d referred to Peter\u00a0and<\/i>\u00a0his faith. None of this poses any difficulty at all for the Catholic.<\/p>\n
\n2) state your own argument again.
\n3) pretend that the first person never replied to your argument, and claim \u201cvictory.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n2. X logically leads to Y.\u00a0<\/span>
\n3. Therefore, Y is true of the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, and\/or God in general in a way that\u2019s consistent with everything else Jesus and the apostles taught.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n2. X logically leads to Y.\u00a0<\/span>
\n3. Therefore, Y is true of Peter in a way that\u2019s consistent with everything else Jesus and the apostles taught.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n2. Jesus builds His Church upon the Rock, which is Peter.
\n3. Therefore Peter is the earthly head of the Church.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n2. The owner of the Yankees built his team upon that Rock.
\n3. Therefore, Babe Ruth was the leader or \u201chead\u201d of the Yankees; the team captain.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n2. The owner of the Bulls built his team upon that Rock.
\n3. Therefore, Michael Jordan was the leader or \u201chead\u201d of the Bulls; the team captain.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n11)\u00a0Encyclopaedia Britannica<\/i>, 1985 edition, \u201cPeter,\u201d Micropedia, vol. 9, 330-333. D. W. O\u2019Connor, the author of the article, is himself a Protestant.
\n12)\u00a0New Bible Commentary<\/i>, (D. Guthrie, & J. A. Motyer, editors).
\n13)\u00a0Peter in the New Testament<\/i>, Raymond E Brown, Karl P. Donfried and John Reumann, editors, . . . a common statement by a panel of eleven Catholic and Lutheran scholars.
\n14) Greek scholar Marvin Vincent.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n(Acts 16:4)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n2) Jesus re-named no one else Rock.
\n3) Jesus gave no one else the \u201ckeys of the kingdom of heaven.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\nHippolytus
\nOrigen
\nCyprian
\nFirmilian
\nAphraates the Persian
\nEphraim the Syrian
\nHilary of Poitiers
\nZeno of Africa
\nGregory of Nazianzen
\nGregory of Nyssa
\nBasil the Great
\nDidymus the Blind
\nEpiphanius
\nAmbrose
\nJohn Chrysostom
\nJerome
\nAugustine
\nCyril of Alexandria
\nPeter Chrysologus
\nProclus of Constantinople
\nSecundinus (disciple and assistant of St. Patrick)
\nTheodoret
\nCouncil of Chalcedon
\n(all of the above are prior to 451 A.D.)<\/p>\n