The Papacy

This is a copy of email correspondance with a pseudo-genius buddy of mine

Blue is another Prot
Red is the RC
Black is Derrick

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

My view of Acts 15 is similar to what you describe except that (1) there is no pope because there is no such office described in the Bible,

This objection is no more valid than saying that Jesus did not institute any sacraments because no theology of sacraments is described in the Bible.

This part of the debate focused on Acts 15, so let's look at it.

Acts 15 doesn't accord at all with RC epistemological and judicial views. From the text, what we find is this:

(1) Peter did not call the Jerusalem Council, there were no delegates in his stead (he was there), and he did not "issue instructions [authoritative or otherwise] to the Council" beforehand. (I'm quoting a previous email of yours.)

(2) Peter did not concur, ratify, or give any kind of authoritative imprimatur to the decrees of the council. In fact, Peter is not mentioned in any sense either before (leading up to) or after (issuing forth from) the council. But to go even further, there is not the slightest hint or mention of anything resembling an office of Pope.

(3) Peter did not "speak authoritatively" in the sense that RC epistemology would require. RC apologists try to get some mileage by claiming that after everyone else had had their say, Peter made some authoritative claims that then settled the matter (i.e., v. 7: after much dispute, Peter took the floor). But there are numerous, fatal problems with this. First, Peter made an argument with a point. He did not make some sort of ipse dixit proclamation. He pointed out facts and then drew a conclusion from them. Anyone could have said what he said. There was no special authority associated with what he said. Second, Peter's statements did not "settle the matter." Even if he were the last to speak, this would not at all prove that he had some special, papal authority. But as a matter of fact, he wasn't even the last to speak. Paul, Barnabas, and James all spoke after him. Third, the _only_ recorded imperative statement comes from James, not Peter (v.13 - "Men and brethren, listen [akousate] to me"). And James' imperative comes last. Thus, if there is any case at all to be made in favor of a single, authoritative leader (and it would be a very weak one), it would be with respect to James, not Peter.

(4) At the beginning, when the issue could not be resolved at the local level, it was brought for resolution to the "apostles and elders" (v.2). (This whole thing demonstrates bottom-up covenantalism/confederation, not Rome-like, top-down bureaucracy.) There was no Pope included in this group. At the end, the decrees of the council were written at the request of James (vv. 19, 20) and in the name of "the apostles and elders and brethren" (v. 23 cf. v. 22). Again, no Pope and no papal authority/oversight/decree/imprimatur.

Thus, Acts 15 really does fly in the face of Rome's view of authority. There was no Pope or papal authority at all; those in authority were described as "apostles and elders;" Peter had no special authority or position, and he made no authoritative decrees and gave no instructions; the only recorded "command" was issued by James; and the whole thing was a bottom-up, confederate-type affair.

Christ instituted the office when he handed Peter the keys of the kingdom, using words nearly identical to the ones the Lord gave to Isaiah when he placed Eliakim in the office of the king's steward, Shebna. Indeed Isaiah 22 constitutes a very good prophetic description of the office. If you prefer, you may translate "Rock" as "Pope." God changes people's names to indicate their significance in His plan of salvation. Abram becomes Abraham because God makes him the father (foundation) of God's chosen people. Jacob becomes Israel, the father of the twelve tribes. Simon becomes Peter (literally Rock) because he is the foundation on which Christ will build his Church. (Which is not to deny that, in another sense, Christ is the foundation or cornerstone or head as various verses attest. The metaphor is used in different ways to illustrate different relationships. In this case, Christ is the builder and He will build upon Peter to lead the Church
He founds. In this sense, Peter and his successors are the "Vicars of Christ".) Until Christ renamed Simon, no known historical figure is named Peter. It is a name with meaning. Only God is called Rock in the OT. That Christ intends this as an office is evident by the context of Jesus giving Peter the keys to the kingdom--the context being Isaiah 22 where Eliakim, as prime minister, is given the keys of the kingdom in order to act on behalf of and with the authority of the king. This is a continuing office, passed on to a successor, not a temporary one.

"In that day I will call my servant Eli'akim the son of Hilki'ah, and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open." Isaiah 22:20-22, RSV.

Notice that Jesus directly parallels Is 22:22 when he speaks to Peter in Matt 16:19.

"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Matthew 16:19, RSV.

This is no coincidence.

It is true that the papal office is not described in glorious detail by Christ. However, neither is the canon of the Bible described by Christ, yet we both accept the authority of Scripture. As far as we know, Jesus did not write one word of Scripture. He did not command His disciples to write Scripture. Yet we recognize the authority of Scripture, including the New Testament, written years and decades after Christ's death, even though He never commanded that it be written! We accept it because the early Church recognized it is the inspired Word of God, just as they recognized Peter and his successors as the vicars or spokesmen for Christ's Church. This historical witness bolsters Scripture that shows Christ's intent (John 1:422, Luke 22:32, Matt 16:17-19, and John 21:15-17).

These are Rome's famous big-gun arguments for the papacy. I'll address Matt. 16 first.

There are two major problems with modern Rome's use of Matt. 16:16-19. The first major problem is that Rome's use creates an internal contradiction with her broader epistemology. This is because the Church fathers have, for the most part, seen "this rock" as either Peter's faithful confession or as Christ Himself. I put the problem this way in a previous email to the group.

An interesting tangent: Towards the end of this article, Webster mentions one of his papers in which he surveys how a number of Church fathers interpreted Matt. 16:18. It is fairly long but worth the read, as it helps show that a number of fathers did not interpret Matt. 16:18 in the "pro-papal" way that the modern RCC interprets it. (Webster has a much fuller, more comprehensive survey of Patristic interpretations of Matt. 16:18 than the one he mentions at the end of this article. It can be found on his site at www.christiantruth.com/fathersmt16.html.)

I know of two Roman Catholics who have surveyed the Patristics on this question (Launoy in 1731 and Crehan in 1951), and both surveys (along with Webster's) show that a majority of the Fathers held interpretations of Matt. 16:18 that do not mesh with the claims of the RCC (some held that "this rock" was Peter's confession, some held that the rock was Christ, etc.). Add to this information the bold claims of Trent:

"Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, [Trent] decrees that no one, relying on his own skill, shall, -- in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, -- wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church, -- whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures, -- hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never intended to be at any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established." (Council of Trent, Fourth Session, Decree Concerning the Edition, and the Use, of the Sacred Books)

On what is perhaps the most important single biblical verse as far as RC epistemology is concerned, more than half of the Fathers (those with petulant spirits?) have "wrested the Scriptures to their own senses" in opposition to the "holy mother Church" and, apparently, against the "unanimous consent" of themselves. So much for the Tradition of the Fathers.

Thus, the claims of Rome with regard to Matt. 16:16-19, far from supporting RC epistemology, actually exposes one of its serious problems.

The second major problem with your use of the passage is that it does not, in fact, say what you want it to say. It does not say that on Peter alone will the Church be built. It does not say that Peter will have a special place in the Church's foundation that the other apostles don't have. And when we go to the rest of Scripture in order to get "the rest of the story," we find no pro-papal position. Apart from the places where Christ alone is mentioned as the rock, we have:

Eph. 2:19, 20 - Christ is the chief cornerstone, and the apostles are taken as a group. No special mention of Peter.

Rev. 21:14 - There are "twelve foundations," the twelve apostles. No special mention of Peter.

Thus, even if one were to grant that Peter is "the rock" in Matt. 16, this would not at all lead to Rome. When other relevant passages are considered, the Peter-as-rock view is perfectly consistent with the idea that all of the apostles provide the rock-foundation, and that Peter is
given no special place in this metaphor. In Matt. 16, Peter blurted out the answer (as was his usual, impulsive custom). Thus, he received the answer at that time. But the full story shows that all of the apostles have the same position of rock-foundation. (Notice that just a few verses later, Peter blurted out another statement. "Never, Lord. This shall never happen to you." (v. 22). At that point, instead of being the rock, Peter was acting more like Satan (v. 23). Funny how Rome doesn't make a big deal out of this moniker.)

More importantly from an authoritative and judicial standpoint however, it does not say that the keys are not given to the other apostles. It does not say that the keys are given to Peter in a way different from the other apostles. In fact, the keys are not given to anyone in Matt.16. Notice that give (didomi) is in the future tense. "I will give you the keys." The fulfillment of the "will give" occurs in Matt. 18:18 using the exact same language about binding and loosening (except for the pronoun change). That is to say, the keys refer to the judicial authority of binding and loosening which the Church has. And in 18:18, the "you" (humeis) is plural (see also Matt. 18:1). When the keys were actually given, they were given to all of the apostles without singling
out Peter. This authority is reiterated in John 20:21-23, and again, it is given to all of the apostles as a group without individual distinction. See v. 19 (the disciples) and v. 21 (humeis - plural, used 2 times). Matt. 16 promises the keys, but when we actually see them given, they are given to the apostles collectively (in good counciliar fashion) without elevating any one of them.

(See also Rev. 21:12 - there are 12 gates (entrances/exits) into the city of God, with the 12 apostles signifying the 12 New Testament "tribes of Israel." There is not one gate only, or one gate which is more prominent than the rest as would be required for a papal metaphor to work consistently.)

Moreover, against the RC interpretation of Matt. 16:18, 19, one can refer to Luke 22:24-30. This dispute among the apostles about which of them was the greatest makes no sense if Jesus had, not long before, pronounced Peter the head of the apostles. Let us suppose, however, that the other apostles simply misunderstood. Peter would have simply appealed to Jesus to clear up the matter. But Jesus, at the perfect time to clear up this hypothetical misunderstanding, did nothing of the sort. The answer that Jesus gave reveals no Petrine supremacy and no misunderstanding by the other apostles regarding their allegiance to Peter. Instead, all were equally rebuked for their self-serving attitudes. Finally, Jesus tells them (humeis - plural) that He is giving them the kingdom. They all received the kingdom equally; Peter was not singled out at all.

Thus, Rome's use of Matt. 16 is a complete failure. The keys of the kingdom were given to the Church as a covenant body. There is nothing even remotely approaching a papacy here.

I'll review one more famous RC proof text. In John 21:15-17, Peter is told to "feed My sheep." Rome claims that Peter is here constituted the Universal Pastor of the Church.

First, notice that no title along the lines of "Universal Pastor" or "Supreme Shepherd" is given to Peter. Notice as well that this passage says nothing about Peter's authority in relation to the authority of any other church official. This is quite significant. Going further however, no judicial office is either created or discussed in this passage beyond the general reference to shepherding duties. We simply have a command to Peter consistent with general pastoral duties. And Peter was clearly not the only one who had this pastoral duty.

Acts 20:28 - Paul said that the elders of Ephesus were to shepherd (poimaino) the church

Eph. 4:11 - Some church officers are given as pastors (poimen)

I Pet. 5:1-2 - Peter, as a "fellow elder," exhorts the other elders to "shepherd [poimaino] the flock of God." This is after all what an "overseer" (v.3), i.e., a bishop, does.

Thus, the details of the text don't help Rome at all. The only detail in the text is not unique to Peter. (Indeed, Paul's activities and epistle writings in and to numerous parts of the early Christian Church show him doing exactly what Peter was commanded to do. Maybe we should
call Paul the Universal pastor!) But it gets worse. As to the overall thrust of the passage, Rome claims that this text is elevative in nature. Peter is said to be elevated to the status of Universal Bishop. But this misses the fundamental point and context of the passage. It is not elevative at all. Rather, it is restorative in nature. As numerous Church fathers have recognized, Christ's three-fold questioning of Peter was meant to restore him after his three-fold denial of Christ. No
other apostle received such a three-fold questioning because no other apostle denied the Lord three times. They may have run like chickens, but they did not make a three-fold, public proclamation denying Christ. Thus, this was only addressed to Peter. Thus, there is no papacy here either.

Rome's use of Luke 22:32 is also quite erroneous, and this can be demonstrated if necessary.

Now let's turn to "the rest of the story."

(1) What's in a name? Rome has various titles for the Bishop of Rome which reflect his supposed authority. Let's look at some important ones.

a) Prince of the Apostles - There is no such title in Scripture.

b) Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church - There is no such title in Scripture.

c) Holy Father - This is a scriptural title. Unfortunately for Rome however, this title is not given to Peter but only to God the Father (John 17:11 - pater agie).

d) Supreme Shepherd - Peter is never given this title in Scripture. Church officers are, in an imitative sense, shepherds (Acts 20:28; Eph.4:11; I Pet. 5:2), while in an ultimate sense, Christ is the Shepherd (John 10:1-16; I Pet. 2:25). As far as the "supreme" goes, it is Christ, not Peter, who is the "Great Shepherd" (Heb. 13:20) and the "Chief Shepherd" (I Pet. 5:4).

e) Vicar of Christ - Peter was an apostle, a "sent out" one. He was also a "fellow elder." He was never called Christ's substitute. The real Vicar (from the Latin 'vicarious' meaning substitute) of Christ is the Holy Spirit (John 14:15-18; 16:5-7).

Thus, Peter had none of the authoritative names that Rome gives to the Pope. Moreover, notice that in Scripture, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit alone bear the titles that Rome gives to the Pope! Nominally at least, the Pope appears to be the earthly manifestation of the Trinity (the source of unity and diversity)! No, I don't think Rome actually believes this, but the misapplication of authoritative titles is a rather telling problem.

(2) Neither in Acts nor in the epistles, which describe the earliest moments of the Church, do we see anything resembling a papacy. When ministerial roles are discussed, nothing approaching a papacy is mentioned (e.g., I Cor. 12:28; Eph. 4:11, 12). The silence is actually quite deafening. Furthermore, the pastoral epistles are the ones that explicitly discuss Church structure. Yet nothing is mentioned which even vaguely resembles the papacy. Indeed, there is also nothing
resembling cardinals, the Curia, or arch-bishops. The entire RC judicial structure is nonexistent in the very writings that describe the various Church offices and their duties/roles.

(3) Paul wrote to Rome in the mid to late 50s, and there is no hint of a papacy there. Furthermore, we can note a few interesting specifics.

a) Paul was ready to preach the gospel to Rome (1:15). He then went on to do just that through chapter 11. This would make no sense if anything resembling a papacy existed there. No one needs to preach the gospel to the papal see.

b) Paul warned Rome that just as God removed Jerusalem's lampstand, so He could do the same to Rome if she became haughty (11:11-24). If Rome was a branch on the true Church, then this makes sense. But if Rome were The Church as she claims today, this makes no sense.

c) Paul exhorts "everyone who is among you" not to be arrogant (12:3). Imagine someone doing that publicly to the Pope today.

d) Paul wrote to Rome in part to give her ethical commands (12; 13; 14; 15) instead of the other way around as would be consist with RC epistemology.

In sum, Paul's letter to Rome is incompatible with modern Rome's government. And this line of inquiry could be extended. The epistle of Clement knows nothing of a papacy. Ditto with regard to Ignatius' epistle to Rome. Finally, Cyprian's and Firmilian's (along with the North African bishops in general) doctrinal and ethical rebukes of Stephen (bishop of Rome) in the mid 3rd century also display a popeless era. And then there's the role that the forged Pseudo-Isidorian
Decretals played in growing and cementing Rome's power in the latter part of the first millennium. The picture of history, from the 1st century on, is not kind to Rome.

(4) In Peter's epistles, which epistles Rome should consider to be the first and second papal encyclicals, Peter did not see himself as a Pope nor did he arrogate to himself authority which is different from the authority that the other apostles had. Additionally, the only titles that Peter gave himself are apostle (I Pet. 1:1; II Pet. 1:1) and fellow elder (I Pet. 5:1).

(5) Acts 8:14 - Peter was "sent out" by the other apostles. This makes no sense at all if he were a "Pope." It is the Pope who authoritatively sends people out as his representatives, not the other way around.

(6) Gal. 2:7, 8 - Paul sets himself on equal authority with Peter, though with different spheres of activity. Moreover, the phrase "as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter," along with Paul's claim on the uncircumcised, is highly misleading if Peter had in fact been the "Universal Bishop" in charge of the entire Church.

(7) Gal. 2:11-14 - Paul publicly rebuked Peter ("I said to Peter before all..."). He then wrote about His rebuke in a public letter!! This would have been an outrage if Peter had been a Pope. One could only imagine this occurring today. If someone did this to the Pope today (actually, some time during the late Medieval period would be even harder to imagine, if that were possible), he would end up as a sub-deacon somewhere in the rainforest of Brazil or perhaps serving Mass to penguins in Antarctica. The difference is quite obvious. Peter was no Pope. (And notice that it doesn't help to argue that while Peter may have sinned, he did not teach error. My use of this passage is sociological in nature, not epistemological. Regardless of the sin/error distinction, no one could or would do to a Pope what Paul did to Peter.)

(8) Acts 15 - Already discussed. This collective, counciliar application of Church authority is thoroughly popeless. Thus, to wrap this up, Rome's biblical claims with respect to the papacy
hold no water. There is simply nothing that even remotely resembles a papacy in Scripture.

there is no evidence that Peter held a position any different from any other apostle,

The gospels are replete with indications that the apostolic church recognized Peter's preeminent position: he is always listed first when the apostles are named; he is mentioned by name in the NT more often than all the other apostles, combined (only Jesus is mentioned more often); he is the first to enter Christ's tomb--in spite of John's arriving first (John 20:4-6); he is the perennial spokesman (too many citations to list here); Scripture often simply refers to "Peter and the disciples" (e.g., Luke 9:32, Mark 16:7, Acts 2:37). A subtle example: the Church was known in early patristic writings as the "barque (i.e., boat) of Peter" based on the passage in which Jesus
teaches from Peter's boat (Luke 5:3). Peter's primacy is certainly evident in the NT.

I have already addressed Rome's real arguments for the papacy above. These are "throw away" arguments. They don't demonstrate anything approaching a papacy; they aren't even relevant to the judicial and epistemological issues at hand. At best, these references demonstrate
sociological prominence. But this is no big deal. Protestants point this stuff out all the time. At worse, they don't prove anything (e.g., number of times his name is mentioned: why not ask who wrote the most Scripture?; first to enter the tomb: why not ask which disciple it was whom Jesus loved?). As problematic as Rome's claims regarding Matt. 16 are, at least that passage is relevant to the judicial and epistemological issues at hand.

What's "conservative"

You know that’s an interesting question to think about. I guess what we consider "conservative" and "non-conservative" is basically determined by the worldview lens we approach it with. So with regards to the pot topic, here's how I would respond:

If you come at "conservatism" from a classical greek philosophical worldview (pagan gnosticism), then you could say that smoking pot is too much physical pleasure for our own good, thus "impure," and thus immoral. In contrast (surprising to most) it's very difficult to prohibit marijuana use from a Biblical worldview. This is due to the fact that another intoxicant (alcohol) is commended in the Bible for liturgical, recreational, and medicinal purposes, therefore, we know that mild intoxication cannot be immoral. (Just FYI, I don’t use or advocate the use of marijuana due to work requirements, current social sensibilities, and the sensitivities of my familiy and church.)

The only rule regarding intoxication is that we are prohibited from drunkeness (which is the alteration of our consciousness). So here's the kicker: if abused, alcohol has the ability to alter your consciousness substantially; marijuana really cant, no matter how much you use. Therefore, we cannot place a prohibition where the Bible has left us free, lest we be guilty of Pharisaism (adding man-made laws to the Bible). How many people beat their wives on after smoking marijuana? But the worst you will do after getting high is OD on M&M's and fall asleep on the couch. Now that’s REAL conservatism.