Another Response to Ken Temple

Round Deux

Ken has come out with a response to my first response, which itself was a response to his original critique of my debate. Surprisingly, he’s come out with further criticisms from history that go beyond the text of scripture. But I’ll be happy to address those criticisms as well.

The first point that Ken brings is he doesn’t deny that Peter gave a revelation to the rest of the apostles. However, he seems to water the significance of the event down, he says,

No Protestant would disagree with that; although the disciples seemed to have grasped the truth earlier, back in Matthew 14:33 — They worshipped Jesus. They called Him the Son of God. They had some sense of who He was.

While the Apostles did worship him after a sign, they were moved purely by his miraculous sign (Matthew 16:4), not faith. Furthermore, they did not acknowledge him as both Christ (the messiah), and the Son of the living God. Only the latter. It was Peter, who provided the confession of faith, unmoved by a sign, but only by the revelation the Father had given him, professing simultaneously the Christhood, and divinity of our Lord.

Regarding the infallible and binding nature of the statement, Ken does not deny this. However, he raises two points.

- That is true, and no believing Protestant disagrees with that; but the only we we know about this historical event is because it was eventually written down. (by Matthew, around 50–60 AD) The same event in less words is in Mark and Luke.

- This reality has nothing to do with a future bishop of Rome, centuries later, or millennia later (1870 is almost 2 millennia later!) having the ability to speak or write a “living word” (oral tradition) (in the course of church history) and for the RC Church to take 200 or 300 or whatever years to later proclaim that some statement a Pope makes, that it is “ex cathedra”. ( “from the chair”, ie, “spoken from the chair of Peter”)

The issue with the first point is, while it is true we know of Peter’s proclamation via scripture, its nature remains infallible and binding regardless. If I found out that the Pope issued an infallible decree, but it was only posted through the Vatican website, the decree would still be binding on Catholics. Even if I would have only known about it through the Vatican website, the point remains it would not be the website that would make it infallible.

As to the second point, it is merely an assertion. If such a statement did not exist in scripture, a protestant would be well within their right to ask for a place in the Bible where Peter would have exercised anything close to an infallible and binding statement. The scripture seems to raise the weight of the claim in light of our expectations.

In response to the point that Peter is selected to provide this revelation, not the apostles, not the people, Ken writes,

Ok, but this is also not a problem for the Protestant position, since the issue is “who is Jesus?” and the answer that “Jesus is the Messiah (fulfillment of all the OT prophesies about the coming Messiah) and the Son of the Living God (and by implication all the issues of the Deity of Christ, eternal Sonship with the Father, implications for the doctrine of God and the Trinity, etc.) All the apostles and the true believers in Christ eventually come to believe in that truth

Yes, they are bound to believe in that truth, just like all the other truths, but that doesn’t change the fact Peter was given that revelation first, to which all others were subsequently bound. As to why it is a problem for the protestant position, it’s because it doesn’t privilege one person from any other in receiving a revelation from God the Father. There is no expectation why Peter rather than the apostles as a whole, or the people,

In fact, if Peter said, “but among those who are correct are the ones who say you are the Christ, the Son of the living God. For they have been given it from the Father”. It would emphasize both the proclamation of faith and all who have received it are the basis of the faith, not Peter.

that confession of faith, and that is the true foundation of the Church — who is Jesus? Yes, Jesus is making a word play on Cephas (Rock) (petros, with Petra, etc.) but the point is behind Peter is the doctrine of who Jesus is — Jesus is the rock, the foundation; and behind Jesus as the Son, is God the Father — God is my rock — all through the OT. Matthew is showing how firm the foundation is for the church build on Who Jesus is, not primarily who Peter is. Peter is the dominant and leader of the disciples, but we don’t see any kind of Papal thing in Acts or 1–2 Peter. Nor in the early centuries of church history.

Here Ken seems to ignore the relevant semantics of the passage and go on to assert it has nothing to do with Peter. Yes, the doctrine is true and important, but the question is whose position makes better sense of how it was revealed. Peter was the one who revealed it through the Father. It was not revealed through the people, through the apostles, but Peter.

While it is true that God is called the rock in the OT — 2 Samuel 22:2, being one of many — , as well as called the foundation in the New Testament (1 Corinthians 3:11), it does not follow that a metaphor or image may apply once.

Jesus personally calls Peter the rock in Aramaic elsewhere in scripture,

He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, “So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas” (which means Peter) — John 1:42

As the RSV-CE commentary — which, to be fair, is a Catholic one — explains,

From the word for rock in Aramaic and Greek, respectively [1]

The fact it would be a symbol so often associated with God himself attributed to Peter is a salient point to bring up, but I think of greater evidence for the Roman Catholic position. The fact that Jesus would delegate his power to Peter would be evidenced by this, similarly, Eliakim has been delegated the powers proper to the king in Isaiah 22.

Not to mention that whenever God changes a name in the Old Testament, there is some significance tied to it. When God changed Abram’s name to Abraham, it went from exalted father to father of many. This name change indicated he would go on to father the nation of Israel.

In response to my point regarding Luke 22:32 as Christ promising that Peter would not fall from his office, Ken writes,

How so? In the context of Matthew 16, Peter immediately starts spouting error and false doctrine and Jesus says to him, “Get thee behind Me Satan!” (Matthew 16:21–23)

When Jesus says “Get thee behind Me Satan!”, it is in response to Peter’s actions, not any teaching or doctrine. It’s not an exercise of his office.

Ken writes,

Peter struggled later and Jesus prophesied of his 3 times denial — But Jesus restored him in John 21:15–19. Luke 22:31–32 does not mean “that your faith may not faith at all temporarily”, rather it meant, “that your faith may not ultimately fail”

However, “fail” (ekleipó in the Greek) comes,

from the words ek and leipo; to omit, i.e. (by implication) cease (die) — fail [2]

It would seem if the faith failed at that point, then Peter's faith would cease or be omitted, even for the interim. After all, one either fails or they don’t, even if they eventually rectify the situation.

Regarding my response to the citation of Matthew 18 extending jurisdiction to the other apostles, Ken claims,

Yes it does! (diminish the claim) Not only the probably of the claim, but the claim itself! Yes it does diminish Vatican I’s claim, because the Vatican I’s claim is that Peter has exclusive authority, jurisdiction into all other areas and bishoprics (local churches in different areas) over the whole world

This is a straw man of Pastor Aeternus, the Ist Vatican Council reminds us,

This power of the Supreme Pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the Holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the Supreme and Universal Pastor; for St. Gregory the Great says: “My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honor, when it is denied to none of those to whom honor is due.” [3]

To be fair to Ken, even Catholics get this wrong, so I don’t blame him for misunderstanding. However, the point remains that the apostles could receive the aspect of binding would be a part of the immediate power of the episcopal jurisdiction.

Ken goes on to say,

There is nothing in the text about the city of Rome, exclusive authority over other church leaders, infallibility, or Peter’s successors

But this is because he had yet to set up an office in Rome. By all accounts in the Early Church, Rome was set up by the Apostle Peter. In 1 Peter 5:13, we read,

She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark

Babylon was used as a code for Rome and is most likely about the city. As the Anglican Biblical scholar, Charles John Ellicott explains,

That is at Babylon. — Three places have claimed to be understood under this name: (1) A little place called Babylon in Egypt, which has nothing to plead for itself except the unlikelihood of St. Peter ever being at the Oriental Babylon, coupled with the difficulty of supposing that the name is used quite figuratively. Perhaps, also, we should mention the traditional connection of St. Mark with Egypt. No one now, however, maintains this view. (2) The literal Babylon in the East. This has for itself the simple way in which St. Peter uses the word without any circumlocution. But it has ‘nothing else for it, to set against all the overwhelming arguments in favour of the third claimant; besides which we learn from Josephus of a great expulsion of Jews from the Oriental Babylon a few years before this date: these Jews might of course, however, have gathered there again, as they did at Rome, in spite of frequent expulsions. (3) It may be called the established interpretation that the place meant is Rome. We never hear of St. Peter being in the East, and the thing in itself is improbable, whereas nothing but Protestant prejudice can stand against the historical evidence that St. Peter sojourned and died at Rome. Whatever theological consequences may flow from it, it is as certain that St. Peter was at Rome as that St. John was at Ephesus. Everything in the Letter also points to such a state of things as was to be found at Rome about the date when we believe the Letter to have been written. It is objected that St. Peter would not gravely speak of Rome under a fanciful name when dating a letter; but the symbolism in the name is quite in keeping with the context. St. Peter has just personified the church of the place from which he writes, which seems quite as unprosaic a use of language as to call Rome “Babylon.” And it seems pretty clear that the name was quite intelligible to Jewish readers, for whom it was intended. The Apocalypse (Revelation 17:18) is not the only place where Rome is found spoken of under this title. One of the first of living Hebraists (who will not allow his name to be mentioned) told the present writer that no Hebrew of St. Peter’s day would have had need to think twice what city was meant when “Babylon” was mentioned. And on the mention of the name, all the prophecies of the vengeance to be taken on the city which had desolated the Holy Land would rush with consolation into the mind of the readers, and they would feel that St. Peter, though supporting St. Paul, was still in full sympathy with themselves. Finally, as M. Renan suggests, there were reasons of prudence for not speaking too plainly about the presence of a large Christian society in Rome. The police were still more vigilant now than when St. Paul wrote in guarded language about the Roman empire to the Thessalonians. (See Excursus on the Man of Sin, after 2 Thess.) It might provoke hostilities if the Epistle fell into the hands of a delator, with names and places too clearly given [4]

As to the city having authority, this is evidenced by the fact that Christ promised Peter that the gates of hell would no triumph against him. If only Peter was to reign, then his office would be vanquished by death, which itself is an outcome of Satan. Not to mention, Peter himself would be no better than Eliakim, something which would not make the New Testament better than the Old. Jerusalem and Caesarea Philippi were not where Jesus founded his Church, it was on a person. While the gates might cross over in these areas, Peter was given the promise. No other bishop in the history of the Church could ever claim the authority to annul a canon of a council utilizing his Petrine authority.

Jerusalem itself would have lost this significants. As even the evangelical scholar Earle E. Cairns notes,

After 135, with the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, the bishop of Jerusalem ceased to count as a rival of the Bishop of Rome [5]

It’s at this point that Ken begins with an avalanche of objections.

Paul rebuked Peter in Galatians 2. That was a big deal! This is why Irenaeus rebuked Victor (180–200 ?); why Tertullian mocked Calixtus (200 ?) (or whoever it was that he mockingly called “Pontifex Maximus”, why Cyprian, Firmillian and 85 other bishops all over rebuked Stephen and said, “no one sets himself up as “bishop of bishops” and “by tyrannical terror” = “lord it over the other areas” and interfere with other local churches, etc.

1. Paul objected to Peter’s actions, not his doctrine. Furthermore, the purpose of Paul’s point was that no one was above criticism, even someone with such great authority as the Pope.
2. Tertullian was a heretic, and I really have little respect for his opinion, let alone his polemics, to count him as an authority.
3. The rebuking of Pope St. Stephan I by St. Cyprian was uncalled for, and it was Stephan’s view that won out in the Latin Church. According to [E.W. Benson, Stephan “triumphed, and in him, the Church of Rome triumphed, as she deserved”[6]. St. Cyprian, while a Saint for his martyrdom, was not vindicated.

Furthermore, the disobedience of someone does not entail they don’t recognize your authority. The Lefebvrean schism is testimony to this.

Popes anathematized Pope Honorius of the 600s into the 900s AD — they knew at the time (600s to 900s AD) there was no such thing earlier in history as the 1870 claims, and so Ignaz Von Dollinger and lord John Acton’s response to the 1870 infallibility claim was right — those 2 were right to question it. Pius IX reportedly said, “I am the tradition!” when Von Dollinger said that the claims of Vatican I (1870) were not tradition. That doctrine was not there in history or the flowing of tradition through the centuries.

An apocryphal story is not really admissible, but this strikes me as awesome and I really hope Pius IX did say this.

As to the claim of Pope Honorius, he was not infallibly exercising his teaching. As noted by Joseph Hergenrother, in response to Dollinger,

the letters of Honorius were private letters and not synodical epistles [7]

As a private individual communicated to a patriarch, and not teaching to the whole Church, he was not exercising his infallible authority. As the Relatio to Pastor Aeternus reminds us,

For the Pope is only infallible when, exercising his function as teacher of all Christians and therefore representing the whole Church, he judges and defines what must be believed or rejected by all [8]

Ken then wishes that I clarify this point from my original post,

However, note that as individuals, the other apostles never can exercise that power, since it was promised to the whole, not just to them individually. To assume he did by dint of the fact they were a part of the college seems to be a fallacy of division. Whereas Peter himself was given the key and the power directly as an individual, and not merely as part of the twelve.

‘By dint’ means ‘as a result of something’. For example, “he was promoted by dint of being the manager’s son”. My point is that Peter does not get the power of binding and loosing as a result of being a part of the greater apostolic college. Rather, it is a result of being given the keys directly. Whereas the other apostles are never given the keys as individuals, but rather are only given one function of the keys, together, as a group. To assume the individuals could exercise that power because they were a part of the same collection is the fallacy of division. It would be like assuming because a plane could fly, an airplane engine could take off on its own.

Ken objects that,

the context and grammar of starting with the plural “said to them” (autois — plural) and “you”, both in Matthew 16:15 (But who do you (humeis Ὑμεῖς — plural) say that I am?”)

While true, Jesus opens the question to all, in the 17th passage he reveals that,

And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you [soi σοι — singular ], but my Father who is in heaven.

It was Peter alone that the Father chose to first reveal this truth to so that Jesus might elicit it when the Father could have revealed it to anyone.

Ken says,

even though later singling out Peter later, demonstrates that Peter is part of the twelve as a whole group.

But no one doubts Peter is a part of the Twelve, but it doesn’t mean therefore the rest receive those powers.

Ken writes,

No; the communion (fellowship and unity between churches in history) is in agreement with the doctrine that Peter spoke about Jesus, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the Living God”, not communion with him as person in Rome, centuries later, through a bishop, wearing a mitre hat, etc. The communion is the common faith of all Christians who are to go and proclaim the truth of the gospel — if you trust in Christ, you are forgiven; if you don’t, you are still in your sins and not forgiven.

Jesus gives no one else the power to forgive sins other than the apostles. Jesus tells them in John 20:23

If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained

The sins are forgiven by the apostles, if they refuse to do this, they are retained. Jesus does not say “If you refuse to preach to any their sins are forgiven, they are not forgiven; if preach that they are, their sins will be forgiven”.

Ken writes,

Peter is a foundation in the sense of being the first to preach the message in Acts 2 and being the first to break through the barriers with the Gentiles in Acts 10–11, providing the background of Acts 15.

There is nothing in Matthew 16 that tells us Peter’s role is limited to a preaching capacity. I agree that preaching is a part of it, but it’s not limited to it.

After that, Peter fades from the scene. There is no Papacy. If there was such a thing, he would have mentioned in his 2 letters and the content of those letters are negatives for the Roman Catholic understanding of the Papacy.

He literally writes a letter from Rome to the various Churches around Asia (twice). I don’t think he’s fading from the scene, and that’s probably something that’s expected from the Pope, especially when the Church in Rome faces such persecution. Unless there was some greater obligation from Peter, I don’t see a reason why another Apostle didn’t write them. While it is true they were all under some level of persecution, at the very least we know Paul had the advantage over Peter by being a Roman citizen, and none of the rest of the Apostles were in the very heart of the empire.

Furthermore, this ultimately boils down to an argument from silence. Are we supposed to think, along with liberal scholars, that that the virgin birth was an innovation because Paul never speaks of it?

Ken continues,

The rock behind Peter is Jesus Christ, the foundation under him and the apostles. Jesus is the rock behind Peter’s ministry. 1 Corinthians 10:4 — “The rock was Christ” and 1 Corinthians 3:11 — Christ is the foundation. All the apostles (plural, apostles and prophets) laid down the foundation on which the church is built, Jesus Christ being the cornerstone. (see Ephesians 2:19–20) We see this played out in the book of Acts and the first century.

The issue with this reading is that Jesus doesn’t say “I am the rock”. The phrasing doesn’t allow for this. Peter’s name, meaning “rock”, and being given the name, lends itself more naturally to him. Furthermore, the flow of the passages lends Peter as the subject for all three verses (Matt 16:17–19).

“Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.

And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.

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.

Furthermore, making Jesus the rock makes a mess of the analogy. Is Jesus the foundation, or the builder? Why doesn't Jesus simply say he is both, rather than mixing up the analogy by potentially confusing himself with another person?

While it is true Peter is the rock to the rock, being delegated that power, that doesn’t detract from Christ’s power any more than Eliakim denigrated the power of David when he was given the key (Isaiah 22).

Lastly, a metaphor can be applied in multiple different ways. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 3:10 that he is a builder, does that mean no one can build upon the Church other than Paul? While no one can lay another foundation, other than Christ, it does not mean Christ himself cannot lay one since he isn’t bound to the same restrictions.

Ken cites Cyprian who says,

“And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, “As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall be retained;” yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honor and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity.”

And that’s fair enough, I don’t deny there wasn’t a consensus among the Fathers on this issue. Doctrine does develop, and that’s a point that’s affirmed by the Catholic Church. However, a point of context, Cyrpian’s personal theology seems to have gone against the actual governance of the Church. In his letter to Saint Stephan, he writes,

Let letters be directed by you into the province and to the people abiding at Arles, by which, Marcian being excommunicated, another may be substituted in his place, and Christ’s flock, which even to this day is contemned as scattered and wounded by him, may be gathered together. Let it suffice that many of our brethren have departed in these late years in those parts without peace [9]

Cyprian seems to need Stephan to excommunicate Marcian, the bishop of Arles, so that another may take his place. But why the Church in Gaul would need the Bishop of Rome to do this is beyond me. Rome at this time seems to be exerting more power, and Cyprian has to write to make this happen.

However, just because Cyprian rejects the view of the First Vatican council, does not mean what Ken believes it does. Ken thinks

It is obvious that Cyprian understood that all the apostles had an equal power, honor, and authority. “The beginning proceeds from unity” means what I was trying to communicate by showing the beginning of the church in Acts chapter 2 — Peter gives the first (beginning) sermon, and in Acts 10–11 Peter begins formal outreach to the Gentiles, which James emphasizes in Acts 15:14

While he did believe they had equal power, Cyprian did not say Peter was the first because he preached to the Gentiles. He only affirmed the power among all the apostles, not all the believers. Even during the time of Cyprian and Firmilian, they still needed Stephan to exercise his power.

Ken goes from citing Cyprian’s rebellion, a point which I don’t really see undermining the Catholic position for the above reasons, to citing 2 Peter.

Peter says, he says he is about to die (1:14–15), and in 3:1, “this is the second letter I am writing to you” and that “by being diligent” (1:12–15) before he dies, he is leaving them with something written down. After Peter is dead, the churches he wrote to will be able to remember and stir up their sincere minds in the truth, because he wrote it down and then they can read it — so they will be able to call these things to mind. If there was any truth to the Papacy or Mono-episcopate, he would have written, “after I am dead, go to your bishop and get the truth from him.” Instead, Peter focuses and emphasizes the written word.

Peter focuses and emphasizes his own written word. Are we to understand Peter had the clairvoyance to foresee his words would be scripture? Or, that Peter knew the authority of his office. Given that there is nothing in the letter to indicate prophecy, the latter seems more likely. Contrary to what Ken thinks, this seems to help rather than hurt the Catholic claim.

Ken writes,

Fisher again: “Having the power is not sufficient to show one has the keys, since they were neither given the foundation of the Church nor the promise of the gates not triumphing against them.”

This cannot be since “the keys to the kingdom of heaven” means the instrument that will open the door for people to enter the kingdom of heaven = preaching the gospel and proclaiming forgiveness, which I why I quoted from Acts 13:38–39 and now, in this response, Acts 15:8–14 — all people can enter into the kingdom of heaven by repentance and faith in Christ (Mark 1:14–15 — “repent and believe”) — see further Romans 10:9–10; John 20:30–31; Acts 16:31; John 5:24; 3:16, Ephesians 2:8–9, etc.

I don’t see how he goes from the instruments that will open the door to enter the Kingdom of heaven = preaching the gospel and proclaiming forgiveness from the verses. Does Peter also have the power to prevent people from accessing heaven by binding the door? Do believers have the power to withhold access to belief and repentance? if not then the power of binding seems rather redundant.

Lastly, as we went over the apostles had the power to forgive sins, not all believers. This is affirmed by Cyril,

For He thought it meet that they who have once been endued with the Spirit of Him Who is God and Lord, should have power also to remit or retain the sins of whomsoever they would, the Holy Spirit That dwelt in them remitting or retaining them according to His Will, though the deed were done through human instrumentality.

They who have the Spirit of God remit or retain sins in two ways, as I think. For they invite to Baptism those to whom this sacrament is already due from the purity of their lives, and their tried adherence to the faith; and they hinder and exclude others who are not as yet worthy of the Divine grace. And in another sense, also, they remit and retain sins, by. rebuking erring children of the Church, and granting pardon to those who repent [10]

This is also affirmed by Saint Gregory the Great,

The power to forgive the sins, which the Lord gives to the apostles and their successors, is a great honor, but also a heavy responsibility. The preacher takes to task his confreres in the episcopate as to the manner of administering this sacrament [11]

Ken continues,

Peter was the beginning and unity of the faith of the early church and in several ways, it started with him, historically, being the main preacher in Acts 2, and the breakthrough of the gospel to the Gentiles, in Acts 10–11 and James mentions this in Acts 15, which I have already documented.

But this neglects the fact Peter was the leader of the Apostles. It’s not surprising he would be the first to preach among them. In the Gospels, among the Twelve, he is listed first. As David Armstrong explains,

Peter’s name occurs first in all lists of apostles (see Mt 10:2; Mk 3:16; Lk 6:14; Acts 1:13). Matthew even calls him “the first” (10:2). (Judas Iscariot is invariably mentioned last.) [12]

The Greek word for “the first” (prōtos) could mean either first in order of importance, or first in a chronological sense. Given that Matthew and Luke aren’t in the same order, it seems more likely that Peter is mentioned as first in the sense of importance.

Ken writes,

since Matthew 18 is the only other passage in the Gospel according to Matthew with the word “church” in it, and it follows along with the same “binding and loosing” language as Matthew 16, it demonstrates the authority is given to all the apostles there in Matthew 18, and so, by principle, later, to leaders of the local church to do church discipline

But he seems to be ignoring the issue. In Isaiah 22, without reference to the Key, Eliakim would still have the power to open and shut, but that would not be similar enough to the power granted to Peter, but would not be sufficient to show much if the key was not there.

But Ken points out there are other reasons to think the other apostles have the keys, including the fact that the powers of binding and loosing are there, as well as the fact the word “Church” is there. But it doesn’t follow that they received it from the keys directly (which again, isn’t in the text) or that it is an extension of Peter’s authority. Both seem equally possible. Furthermore, their power is more limited since, as stated earlier, it is given to them as a group, whereas Peter is still the only person we know that was given this power as a part of the group and as an individual.

Ken goes on,

which will mean to other elders / pastors / overseers (local churches) in history. (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5–7; Acts 20:17, 28; 1 Peter 5:1–4) Jesus has the keys of death and hades (Revelation 1:18) and the key to open and shut in Revelation 3:7. The NT develops Matthew 16 to Matthew 18 to Rev. 1:18 to 3:7.

But if Ken wishes to take this reading seriously, who gave Ken (or his pastor) this power? If he says by the faithful or by preaching the word, his own authority disagrees with him. Cyprian says that it must be delegated from the apostles,

These are they who of their own accord, without any divine arrangement, set themselves to preside among the daring strangers assembled, who appoint themselves prelates without any law of ordination, who assume to themselves the name of bishop, although no one gives them the episcopate; whom the Holy Spirit points out in the Psalms as sitting in the seat of pestilence, plagues, and spots of the faith, deceiving with serpent’s tongue, and artful in corrupting the truth, vomiting forth deadly poisons from pestilential tongues; whose speech does creep like a cancer, whose discourse forms a deadly poison in the heart and breast of every one [13].

Clearly, Cyprian holds that the bestowal of the episcopate is a divine arrangement, requiring a proper ordination. We’ll keep this in mind for later.

But going back to the various citations of the Key, yes, they are Christ’s in light of being both God and the successor of David, but he can delegate that power to others, and he does it first through Peter. But unlike the Apostles and the other bishops, he is the only one who spoke through the revelation of the Father, who was the only one who was promised that the gates of hell would not overcome him, and the only individual who was promised the power to bind and loose.

Ken writes (in response to me)

The “alone” of “by Faith Alone”, Sola Fide = apart from works, not by works, etc.

What part of “apart from the works of the law” (Acts 13:38–39; Galatians 2:16; Romans 3:28; 4:1–16) and “apart from works” (Ephesians 2:8–9) and “not because of righteous deeds which we have done” (Titus 3:5) do Roman Catholics not understand? Just because the word “alone” is not there does there means nothing, because “alone” in the “Sola Fide” terse slogan is the meaning of all the Scriptural data (see above) of “not by works”, “not by works of the law”, etc.

He never justified why dikaioó should be translated as ‘justified’ and not ‘freed’. But in response to the question “works of the law” and ‘apart from works’, concerns the works of the Jewish law. These have been superseded by the New Covenant, which no longer requires being a Jew and following the law, but faith to enter in through baptism. That’s why Titus 3:5 reads,

he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit

The reason why the Old Testament rites are defunct is that unlike the sacraments of the New Testament, they do not bestow grace.

For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. — John 1:17

As Saint Thomas Aquinas explains in his commentary on Galatians 5:4,

Then when he [Paul] says, You are made void of Christ, he proves what he said, namely, that they must not embrace the observances of the Law, because it involves a double injury: first, the loss of Christ; secondly, the loss of grace. Moreover, the first is the cause of the second, because you who are justified in the law are fallen from grace

He says therefore, You are made void of Christ. As if to say: Verily Christ will profit you nothing, because you are made void of Christ, i.e., of living in Christ. The second injury is the loss of grace. Hence he says: you are fallen from grace,, i.e., you who were full of the grace of Christ, “because of his fulness we have all received” (Jn 1:16); “The heart of a fool is like a broken vessel and no wisdom at all shall it hold” (Sir 22:17). You, I say, who are justified in the law, i.e., who believe that you are justified, are fallen — “Be mindful, therefore, from whence thou art fallen and do penance” (Rev 2:5). — from grace, namely, from possessing future happiness or even from the grace you once had.[14]

The law, being devoid of grace, profits nothing. However, there are plenty of verses to show sacraments of the NT provide grace, such as baptism. Baptism, which we can only access by faith. Mark 16:16, John 3:5, Titus 3:5, 1 Peter 3:21, etc.

Ken writes,

Water baptism is the result of true faith, and evidence that one truly entrusts himself to Christ. (This is clear in Justin Martyr’s writings) The apostle Paul indicates that baptism is not part of the gospel message in 1 Corinthians 1:13–17 — verse 17 “for Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel . . . “ It is important, and part of “making disciples”, but not part of the gospel proclamation. Rather it is a result of the gospel being accepted by the person.

Justin Martyr says no such thing. In fact, in the First Apology, he writes,

As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, Unless you be born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. [John 3:5] Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their mothers’ wombs, is manifest to all. And how those who have sinned and repent shall escape their sins…And for this [rite] we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed [15]

As to 1 Corinthians 1:13–17, the conversion is not baptism, no one will dispute that, but all that means is that Paul’s role was preaching, and not baptism. Also, even if Paul was not baptizing, he is still preaching baptism as part of the Gospel message. Peter himself preached baptism in Acts,

And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit — Acts 2:38

Ken then goes into a series of personal attacks, but these don’t entail that anything I said is false.

So, only the apostles had the authority to do evangelism? Is that why Roman Catholics are so weak in the practice of evangelism and missions in recent years? (especially since Vatican 2) We see modern Popes doing all sorts of “kum baya” type ecumenical meetings with Buddhists and Muslims, but we don’t hear them actually preaching the gospel message to them. It seems like a major emphasis of modern Roman Catholic apologetics is focused on winning Protestants to their church, rather than reaching unbelievers with the simple NT message of the gospel. The emphasis is “convert to the RC Church”; “come home to the Church”, rather than “repent and believe in Christ”.

I never claimed only the apostles had the power to evangelize, I claimed that only they had the power to forgive sins. In fact, it is because we have the power to witness that it would not make sense for Christ to say it was only to the Apostles who had that power.

Peter says to all the saints who are also priests in 1 Peter 2:4–10 that they are all “to proclaim the excellencies of Him who brought them out of darkness into His marvelous light”. (verse 9) All authority has been given to Christ after the resurrection (see Matthew 28:18), “therefore, go . . . make disciples of all nations . . . “ (verse 19) That commission and authority continues to today.

None of these verses claim that people’s sins are forgiven by dint of believing (not the full sense of trusting) the Gospel message.

Ken writes,

All of Scripture is from one unity — God Himself. So there is no need for Luke to mention Peter “as a rock”, etc. I repeat this section because chronologically, Acts 2, 10–11, and 15 are the historical events that show “the beginning of the unity” of Matthew 16. Mark 8 and Luke 9 are parallel with Matthew 16. (one historical event) There is no contradiction just because Luke does mention some of the details.

True, but scripture is written by various authors with their own writing styles, which is why we should expect some continuity between the authors when they press on in their work.

Ken continues,

It has nothing to do with Isaiah 22:22 in the sense of trying to show some kind of Papal authority or secession of bishops; rather the key is a Messianic key — the house of David, and Jesus has that in Revelation 1:18 and 3:7 — Jesus is the authority and ultimate rock and foundation. Peter and the apostles’ authority is secondarily derived from Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of the Living God.

The idea that the delegation of a Key of the king to a minister has nothing to do with another delegation of keys to an appointed leader seems like a stretch. I don’t deny Jesus has it (he needs the key to delegate it). But as it stands, Jesus delegates it to Peter, and Peter delegates some of that power to the others. But Peter is one link in the chain that cannot be reduced to the others.

Ken writes,

These 2 verses and the whole events of Acts 2, 10–11 and 15 demonstrate the future fulfillment of what Jesus meant by singling out Peter, and calling him “this rock” in Matthew 16:18, while connecting Peter’s faith to the content of the doctrine of his statement, which God the Father revealed to Peter’s heart and mind — “You are the Messiah, the Son of the Living God”. Jesus says to all the apostles, “I will build My church”; and we see the early church unified, at the beginning, in Jerusalem in the book of Acts. The unity of the believers is emphasized as the gospel goes out to Samaria (Acts 8) and the Gentiles in Acts 10–11 and 15.

Peter’s statement of faith was not called the rock, and any attempts to say the rock was something other than Peter ruins the flow of the passage, Peter is the one addressed, and he is the subject as shown throughout verses 17–19 in Matthew 16. It does not accord with his change of name. It does not accord with Luke’s documentation of the events.

Ken response to my point here,

The second issue is that if it was his confession of faith, then it seems to be in tension with the fact Peter wavered and denied Jesus three times.

Wrong; since it was a temporary thing, Peter was restored; Peter repented. (John 21; Acts 1–2 and beyond) Luke 22:31 means that his faith will not ultimately fail, like Judas. It has nothing to do with an infallibility to say right doctrine, passed on to successors, and only in Rome.

As I already wrote above, it does not accord with the Greek. The verse is still better explained in light of Peter’s office being granted protection.

Ken attempts to refute my point by also noting that,

I don’t see how your argumentation follows. All elders are also bishops /overseers — according to the New Testament.

The apostles appointed elders (plural) for each church. (Acts 14:23)

This is a non sequitur, appointing elders is literally the function of a bishop.

The office of elder is also an overseer — see Titus 1:5–7. (see also Philippians 1:1)

Titus 1:5-7 requires some explanation, but there is no conflation of office. Paul writes,

5 The reason I left you in Crete was that you might put in order what was left unfinished and appoint[a] elders in every town, as I directed you. 6 An elder must be blameless, faithful to his wife, a man whose children believe[b] and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. 7 Since an overseer manages God’s household, he must be blameless — not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain.

Verse 5 establishes that Paul is speaking Titus, a Bishop. He is directed to appoint Elders. Paul is speaking to the duties to the elders he is to appoint. Then Paul addresses Titus’ duties as bishop, overseeing the Church. I also don’t see how Philippians 1:1 demonstrates there is no Episcopate, rather than no presbyters.

Paul calls the elders (plural) of the church of Ephesus (Acts 20:17). and in verse 28 he says that the elders are also overseers (or “bishops”) (plural: episcopous / ἐπισκόπους )and shepherding (pastoring)

1 Peter 5:1–4 says that the elders are to shepherd the flock of God and that they are to do the work of overseeing.

Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, 2 shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; 3 nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock.

And? Even today diocese have multiple bishops, some of which are auxiliary bishops, and priests. Priests also are overseers in a sense, in that they participate with the bishops as their co-workers, and share in their ministry. For an image, in Numbers 11:16–30 Moses shares in his prophetic ministry with 72 elders. While the elders do act as prophets and prophecy (Numbers 11:25), they are not prophets proper. But only share in that with Moses delegating his power.

In the same way, the presbyters could be bishops and exercising oversight in a delegated sense, but not one proper to their own ministry. The image is not incidental. As David M. Gregson explains,

The probability that the Seventy were the first Christian presbyters is enhanced by the following consideration. The seventy elders appointed by Moses were selected from among the elders of the various tribes, and appointed to form a ruling council over all Israel. In Christ’s day, the supreme council for all Judaism was the Great Sanhedrin at Jerusalem. The number of those sitting on this council was seventy, over whom the high priest presided as nasî’. These seventy were called zeqenim, or in Greek, presbyteroi. The seventy elders of the Sanhedrin were regarded as the successors of the seventy appointed by Moses. They were “ordained” to their office by the laying on of hands with prayer, after the pattern of Joshua (Nb 27:18; Dt 34:9). Thus we have a significant example in the time of Christ of a ruling council of seventy, called “elders,” basing their number on the precedent of Moses’ ruling council of seventy.

Was the number of those commissioned by Christ in Luke 10 based on the same precedent? We would expect so, if we were to find the Seventy exercising a ruling function in the Church. In the gospel, we are told only that they went out to teach, but in Acts, while there is no direct reference to “the Seventy,” we do find a body of elders/presbyters functioning like a sanhedrin [16]

Ken goes on to attack the traditional idea of the priesthood,

One of the first mistakes of the early church in the 200s AD, is calling presbyters, “priests”, since all Christians are priests, according to 1 Peter 2:4–10; Revelation 1:6; 5:10. There is no NT special office of priest that offers sacrifices. The sacrifices that are still going on in the NT are praise and worship, spiritual sacrifices. (Hebrews 13:15)

While all Christians are priests, it does not preclude a ministerial priesthood with its own set of powers and functions. The Levites were a ministerial priesthood, and that fact was not taken away by the fact God said to the whole nations,

and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel.” — Exodus 19:6

Ken ends off by restating a point I already addressed,

No, Jesus’ prayer is not futile since He is talking about not ultimately failing; and being restored even after stumbling. Jesus is praying for Peter’s ultimate faith, which was made stronger through the trial of his sin, and Jesus’ prayer was accomplished by restoring Peter and also by Peter strengthening the other disciples’ faith.

As stated already, the Greek does not seem to permit this.

To Ken, I appreciate you taking the time to respond. If you read this all the way, feel free to contact me. My Twitter DM is open, I would love to discuss the prospect of you coming on my YT channel. The discussion on the apostolic origin of the episcopate seems like it would be a good topic.

Footnotes

[1] John 1:42 Commentary, RSVCE, Link.

[2] Strong’s Concordance, 1587. ekleipó, Link.

[3]Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, Chapter 3, paragraph 5, Link

[4] Charles John Ellicott, Commentary for English Readers, 1 Peter 5:13, Link

[5] Earle E. Cairns, Christianity Through the Centuries: A History of the Christian Church, page 114, Link

[6] Horace Mann. “Pope St. Stephen I.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 14. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912. 15 Mar. 2021. Link.

[7] Joseph Hergenröther, Anti-Janus, 89, Link

[8] Bishop Vincent Ferrer Gasser, Official Relatio of Pastor Aeternus, Paragraph 29, Link

[9] Cyprian, Epistle 66, Paragraph 3, Translated by Robert Ernest Wallis. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 5. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1886.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. <http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050666.htm>.

[10] Cyril, Commentary on John, chapter 20, Link

[11] Gregory the Great, Homily 26 on the Gospels, Link

[12] Dave Armstrong, The Pre-Eminence of St. Peter: 50 New Testament Proofs, Link

[13] Cyprian, On the Unity of the Church, Treatise 1, Link

[14] Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on Galatians, Chapter 5, Link

[15] Justin Martyr, The First Apology, Chapter 61, Translated by Marcus Dods and George Reith. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. <http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm>.

[16] David M. Gregson, The Origin of the Presbyterate in the New Testament, Link