| The Primacy of Peter: A Debate between Peter O'Neill and Bill Rutland |
|
This is a forum debate from Mr. O'Neill's Fisher's of Men message board.
Peter O'Neill: Evangelical Protestant
Bill Rutland: Roman Catholic
Propositon: The Bible does not teach the Roman Catholic doctrine that Peter and his siccessors are the rock upon which Christ built the Church and have devine authority to teach and rule.
Speeches:
Affirmative Denying
Peter O'Neill's Bill Rutland's
Opening Statement Opening Statement
Peter O'Neill's Bill Rutland's
First Rebuttal First Rebuttal
Peter O'Neill's Bill Rutland's
Second Rebuttal Second Rebuttal
Peter O'Neill's Bill Rutland's
Closing Statement Closing Statement
Peter O'Neills Opening Statement
Afferming Propositon: The Bible does not teach the Roman Catholic doctrine that Peter and his successors are the Rock upon which Christ built the Church and have devine authority to teach and rule.
OPENING REMARKS: Before I begin, I would just like to make it clear that my reference source for all proposals, comments, remarks, statements and answers will come solely from sacred scripture. Because there is no better source. And if you are Roman Catholic then you are obligated to believe that; according to the Catholic Catechism “there is no better doctrine.” - Catholic Catechism pg. 26, pgrph 127. Therefore I will go to the ultimate authority of all doctrine and dogma, and that is the Holy Bible.
This you will find is in concurrence with all of the early church fathers and Roman Catholic theologians over the ages. Let me read a few quotes from some of them: This is from Athanasius, and his Contra Gentiles apologetical thesis, chapter 1:1
“The Holy and Inspired Scriptures are sufficient of themselves for the preaching of the Truth. These (canonical books are the fountains of salvation, so that he who thirsts may be satisfied with the oracles contained in them: IN THESE ALONE the school of piety preaches the Gospel, let no man add or take away from them.” And surely Cyril of Jerusalem could not have been plainer: “In regard to the divine and holy mysteries of the faith, not the least part may be handed on without the Holy scriptures. Do not be led astray by winning words and clever arguments. Even from me, who tell you these things. Do not give ready belief unless you receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of the things I announce. the salvation in which we believe is not proved from clever reasoning, but from Holy Scriptures” (Catechetical Lectures 4:17).
So if you object to my reference sources, then you will also be at odds with true Christian doctrine and pure Roman Catholicism itself! In addition I will also provide external evidence that WILL confirm what the Bible states: A. Proof from archeology, B. Proof from history, C. Proof from the accuracy of prophecy, D. Proof from the unity of Scripture
Right from the onset we discover that the claims that Peter was the Rock the Church was built upon can’t be substantiated by scripture, and the historical processing and application of that
traditional legend also becomes problematic. . .
PROBLEMS WITH INTERPRETATION:
To conduct any credible Biblical exegesis of this scripture passage there must be two major components of examination involved in our study; survey and analysis. These are vital to any critical explanation. We must also have supporting scriptural evidence to back up our conclusion. Failure to put the words of Jesus in Matthew 16:18 into the proper context, and separating the singular verse from the whole group that makes up the chapter, opens it up to a private interpretation. That creates the temptation to interpolate rather than interpret, and creates the necessary ingredients for heresy.
The first and foremost problem that we encounter with Roman Catholic assessment of Matthew 16:18, is that it breaks the “cardinal rule” of interpretation (no pun intended) . It takes the verse out of context and isolates it. Without taking into account the preceding and following scripture verses, Matthew 16:18 takes on a meaning of its own. Chapter 16 of Matthew is all about Jesus, not Peter. To get a correct understanding of the passage, you must read the whole chapter to put it in context. Beginning at verse 13, we begin to get a better picture of what leads up to the now famous verse that states . . . “upon this rock.” First 13 begins by Jesus asking the question . . . “whom do men say I am?” And some of his disciples answer by saying “some say you are John the Baptist, some say you are Elijah, others say you are one of the prophets.” In verse 15 He asks again, “who do you say I am,” This lead into the confession of faith by Peter in verse 16, Thou are the Christ, the son of the living God. STOP RIGHT THERE!
IF WE CROSS REFERENCE ROMANS 10:9 WE DISCOVER THAT SAME CONFESSION, WHICH PRODUCES SALVATION. BACK TO MATTHEW 16:17 HOW DOES JESUS RESPOND TO THAT CONFESSION OF FAITH?
"Blessed are you Simon Bar Jonah, flesh and blood hasn’t revealed that to you but my Father in Heaven revealed it." Peter had a revelation from Heaven about the person of Christ. All throughout the New Test. we find that if we believe on the Son of God and confess Him, we shall be saved. John 3:16 states that “God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that whosoever should believe in Him should have eternal life. 1 John 4:15 states that , “whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the son of God, God dwells in Him, and he in God. This is a promise to every soul, not just St. Peter. Thus we have the basis of building the church, as we witness in the book of ACTS, Chapter 2:41-47. Every time someone made that same confession that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God they were saved. And this added to the church daily. In other words, the church was being built one soul at a time. Now these saved souls are called “living stones” 1 Peter 2:5 . . .we are “living stones” built up into a spiritual temple. Each one of us makes up the brick and the mortar of the mystical church of Jesus Christ. Not a physical temple, but a living congregation.
Therefore to summarize what took place with Peter’s confession and Jesus calling him a stone is nothing more than what Peter is saying in 1Peter 2:5. Once you make a confession that Jesus is the Son of God, you become a living stone, built together into the church. Just another brick in the wall, just as Peter was. But, Jesus was the cornerstone, in which the entire structure is built upon. And I will make that very clear as I go along. But here’s the kicker . . . Ephesians 2:20-22 says the church is “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.” It couldn’t be plainer! Though we are all stones being fit together to make one building, Jesus Christ is the cornerstone foundation in which the church is built upon. Not Peter! Remember Romans 3:16, 6:19, and 1 Corinthians 6:16.
THE 2ND PROBLEM WITH THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH'S INTERPRETATION OF MATTHEW 16 . . .
The etymology of the word rock and the surname Peter reflects a distinct difference. In Greek and in English there is a distinction between the surname Peter and the literal word rock. Peter is a proper name and rock refers to an innate object. Surnames have been given all throughout scripture, but they are always distinguished from their literal meaning . If someone said rock or “petra”, others would know they were talking about a hard lifeless clay-object. If someone said “Peter” or petro, they would automatically assume you were talking about a person. Therefore a definite distinction is made. The name John means "dove," but when John the Baptist saw the Holy Spirit descending on Jesus like a dove , he didn't say " I saw heaven opened and the Holy Spirit fall on HIm like a "John." In ancient languages proper names were distinguished from their literal references by using a different word or term. If you listen to" rock music, you understand that we are not listening to Peter music." If you "rock" a baby to sleep, you don't "Peter" a baby to sleep. Just common sense stuff. And ancient languages had this same distinguishing component.
Since Peter in Matthew 16:18 is referred to in the 2nd person (you ), but “this rock “ is in the third person, does it not seem clear that Peter is not the “rock” upon which the church would be built ? JESUS DID NOT SAY "you are Peter and upon "YOU" I will build my church HE SAID "upon this rock" I will build my church, making a distinction between subjects. "you are Peter" is in the 2nd person and "upon this rock" is in the 3rd person
ALSO, JESUS DID NOT SAY “You are Petros and on this Petros I will build my church.” Jesus said, “You are Petros(Peter), and upon this petra (rock), I will build my church.” It would seem that, in context, petra here refers to Peter’s confession of faith that Jesus is the Christ/. JESUS DID NOT SAY "you are Peter and upon "YOU" I will build my church HE SAID "upon this rock, differentiiating between Peter and the rock which the church would be built upon.
It is critical to note that the entire context of Matthew 16:13-20 is all about Jesus, not Peter. Indeed the key issue of discussion is Jesus’ identity. Jesus had just asked “who do people say that I am” and Peter responded that He was the Christ. The dissertation that follows is a result of Peter’s confession . Jesus exclaims, “Blessed are you Simon Bar Jona, for flesh and blood hasn’t revealed that but my Father in Heaven.”
THESE TWO PROBLEMS WITH THE RC INTERPRETATION ARE THE MOST VISABLE AND CONTESTED BETWEEN PROTESTANTS AND CATHOLICS, SO I WILL STOP THERE AND GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND:
Bill Rutland’s Opening Statement
Denying the Proposition: The Bible does not teach the Roman Catholic doctrine that Peter and his successors, are the Rock upon which Christ built the Church and have divine authority to teach and rule.
The Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are given by inspiration of God. Through the complete council of Holy Scripture we learn concerning the man Simon Peter that; 1) Christ’s Church was founded upon Peter, 2) Peter had a primacy among the Apostles and 3) the necessity of successors to his Apostolic office. Before we can address the Matthew 16:18 text mentioned by Mr. O’Neill in his opening statement we must first go to the Old Testament to establish a context from which it can be properly evaluated.
In Genesis 17:5-8 God establishes His covenant with Abram by changing his name to Abraham:
No longer will you be called Abram; your name will be Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations. I will make you very fruitful; I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you. I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you. The whole land of Canaan, where you are now an alien, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God.
Not only does God promise to make Abraham "fruitful", but He promises that from Abraham’s lineage will come "nations" and "Kings," that is, a dynasty. The covenant with Abraham is also everlasting in nature. God says to Abraham: "I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you." This everlasting covenant is then connected to a kingdom and will be perpetuated through the ages by a dynastic succession.
In 2 Samuel 7:11b-16 God reaffirms His covenant through the prophet Nathan to David:
The LORD declares to you that the LORD himself will establish a house for you: When your days are over and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom. He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men. But my love will never be taken away from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me; your throne will be established forever.
Here God tells David of "one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever." I think that Mr. O’Neill and I would have no trouble agreeing that this "one" Who is to come is Solomon. God promises David that Solomon will build God a house and God in turn will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. With in this promise lays the farther promise of One who would sit on the throne of David’s kingdom for ever. At Pentecost Peter tells the Jews that this promised One is Jesus Christ:
Brothers, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay. God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact. Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear. For David did not ascend to heaven, and yet he said, "The Lord said to my Lord: 'Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet. ' " Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ. (Acts 2:29-26)
Jesus is the fulfillment of the covenant made with Abraham and is now seated on the throne of David. Therefore the New Testament Kingdom is the fulfillment of the Old Testament kingdom. Not a different kingdom, as some dispensationalists allege, but the same kingdom that was promised to Abraham and that came through David. To try and make some artificial distinction between the kingdom of Christ and the kingdom of Israel is to insert a bias into the Scriptures which was never intended. In the New Testament Church the kingdom of Israel continues. The Apostle Paul makes this clear when he says to the Romans:
It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children. On the contrary, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring. (Romans 9:6-8)
It is from this mind set that we are to approach the Matthew 16 text cited by Mr. O’Neill. Before turning to Mr. O’Neill’s analysis of Matthew 16:18, we need to look at Matthew 16:19 which Mr. O’Neill does not address, but which is crucial to our understanding of the text. It states:
I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
Bible commentators throughout the ages have recognized in Jesus’ words a clear reference to Isaiah 22:22. Even the late conservative Evangelical scholar F.F. Bruce makes this connection when he wrights:
And what about the "Keys of the kingdom"? The keys of a royal or noble establishment were entrusted to the chief steward or majordomo; he carried them on his shoulder in earlier times, and there they served as a badge of authority entrusted to him. About 700 B.C. an oracle from God announced that this authority in the royal palace in Jerusalem was to be conferred on a man called Eliakim:...(Isaiah 22:22). So in the new community which Jesus was about to build, Peter would be, so to speak, chief steward. (The Hard Sayings of Jesus, F.F. Bruce; Intervarsity Press; Pages 143-144).
In Isaiah 22:15-23 we read:
In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. I will drive him like a peg into a firm place; he will be a seat of honor for the house of his father. All the glory of his family will hang on him: its offspring and offshoots--all its lesser vessels, from the bowls to all the jars. (Isaiah 22:15-24)
Here the evil Chief Steward to Hezekiah, King of Judah, Shebna is being deposed by God for encouraging an alliance with Egypt. The Godly Eliakim is put in his place. The office of chief steward was one of great authority and the one who held that office was second only to the king. In Matthew 16:19 Jesus echoes Isaiah’s words, "what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open."; yet He adds a very important element, "whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." Because Jesus’ kingdom now extends to heaven its self, Peters authority, unlike that of Eliakim, has as its validation, the authority of heaven, the throne of God. Therefore Jesus statement in Matthew 16:18, "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it." , cannot apply to some confession of Peter, but must apply to Peter himself.
As the Chief Steward in the kingdom of heaven holds an office. This office or position that has been bestowed on Peter is the foundation upon which Jesus will build His Church. If we take this kingdom aspect into account there is no way that we can interpret Jesus’ "this rock" in Matthew 16:18 to mean Peter’s confession. Offices are not bestowed on confessions but people, the Church is not built on confessions but confessors. Does this mean that Peter’s confession, "You are the Christ" is unimportant? Certainly not! Peter’s confession qualified him for the office that was bestowed on him. The office of the Chief Steward of God’s Church. But, to draw parallels between Peter’s confession and the confession that Paul speaks of in Romans 10:9 is to misunderstand the nature of Peter’s utterance. Jesus tells Peter , "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven." (Matthew 16:17). From this we see that Peter’s confession was prophetic in nature and not a confession unto salvation.
We see therefore that the Church is the kingdom of God established on the divine monarchy of Jesus Christ. Using the words of Isaiah 22 Jesus instated the office of Chief Steward and confers it on Simon Peter. It is on this office that the Church will be founded and because of the on going nature of the office successors are not only implied but made necessary.
First Rebuttal
PETRINE PRIMACY DEBATE - 1st Rebuttal
I know where you’re going by trying to use the Old Testament to attempt to build your case for the present day theocratic monarch of the papacy. And that would be fine if you were giving the historical background and prophetical prototypes of Christ to point to Christ and not to Peter. Because all of the examples you give foreshadow the Messiah and not the pope. Jesus Christ, Alpha and Omega, is the beginning and end all for all prophecies. You can’t take Christ out of them and supplant the pope. The Bible says that from Genesis to Revelation the scriptures are pointing towards and revealing the Christ, and no one else. From Moses on down we see examples of the prophetic-king office of Messiah. All scripture is fulfilled in Christ. Every prophecy pertains to Him. He remains a solo act!
Now, when this turns to the new testament, the church, who is the body and not the head, merely become members of that body. There is no special scriptural fulfillment by any individuals now, because Christ dwells in all. As 1 Corinthians 12-14 and Ephesians 4 clearly testifies that God gave several apostles to the body, each with equal status. Not just one.St. Paul said that he came behind in no gift. Ephesians 11:5 said that he was not inferior to any apostle. 1 Corinthians 3 &4 shows that there should be no distinction made between apostles-ministers. Galatians chapters 2&3 make it very clear that St. Paul was at least Peter’s equal, even rebuking St. Peter for his unchristian-like behavior. Therefore there is no New Testament example of Peter’s primacy, to the contrary there is vivid picture that he is just one of the twelve.
Trying to apply the Messianic message of the old testament to any other individual is trying to rob Christ of His uniqueness, and strips Him of His deity. No scripture is of private interpretation, neither does it apply to anyone but Jesus. The New Testament shows no prototype of a theocratic king, because that type of rule and government became defunct when Christ came. The law and the prophets pointed towards His coming and His alone. He came and fulfilled those prophecies.
Now, in the New Testament dispensation, we all become co-laborers together in the kingdom with Jesus as our head, working through the Holy Spirit. (READ EPHESIANS 2-4). All of the apostles and prophets are considered part of the foundation, with Jesus Christ as the cornerstone - Eph. 2:20. Further, Scripture affirms that the church is "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the capstone" (Eph. 2:20). Two things are clear from this: first, all the apostles, not just Peter, are the foundation of the church; second, the only one who was given a place of uniqueness or prominence was Christ, the cornerstone. Indeed, Peter himself referred to Christ as "the cornerstone" of the church (1 Pet. 2:7) and the rest of believers as "living stones" (v. 4) in the superstructure of the church. There is no indication that Peter was given a special place of prominence in the foundation of the church above the rest of the apostles and below Christ. He is one "stone" along with the other eleven apostles (Eph. 2:20). What the old testament scripture is doing is ascribing “kingship” to the coming Messiah, but is not describing individual ministerial duties. These attributes of government cannot be ascribed to any other but Christ. The kings of old that ruled over God’s people never transferred into the New Test.The “M.O.” that is portrayed in these prophetic scriptures is that of Christ and no other Therefore the point is moot. We’re talking “apples and oranges here.”
Though God is unchanging in nature and Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever, God's covenant with man did change. In Hebrews 8:7-9 plainly points out the difference and distinction between the old and new testament. But it clearly says that He found fault with the first covenant, and has now in this day brought about a better testament.
BILL SAID:
“Jesus is the fulfillment of the covenant made with Abraham and is now seated on the throne of David. Therefore the New Testament Kingdom is the fulfillment of the Old Testament kingdom. Not a different kingdom, as some dispensationalists allege, but the same kingdom that was promised to Abraham and that came through David. To try and make some artificial distinction between the kingdom of Christ and the kingdom of Israel is to insert a bias into the Scriptures which was never intended. In the New Testament Church the kingdom of Israel continues. The Apostle Paul makes this clear when he says to the Romans:”
RESPONSE:
Not a different kingdom Bill, but a different covenant, an everlasting covenant. The Bible says the old covenant is being replaced with the new. The Bible does make a distinction between the Gentile and the Jew. That their falling away was for our salvation. and that one day they would awaken to Christ. (READ ROMANS 11).
The prophecies of old are not up for grabs and open to private interpretation. They are all Messianic in nature and refer to the coming of Christ and Him alone. There is no such thing as a “Petrine prophecy.” Peter is purely insignificant in the scheme of things. Just as Jesus said to the Pharisees and the Scribes, that He could “raise up stones to be Abraham’s seed.” No one was dispensable, except Christ of course. All of the Law and the Prophets are summed up and culminated in Christ’s death, resurrection, and ascension.
The day of the maverick style prophet such as Moses, Elijah, and John the Baptist are over. In the new covenant no one is elevated to the position of singular ruler or king. First of all, it was not God’s desire to have a king to rule over His people, it was their choice. He said that what they were really doing in wanting a king was “rejecting Him” because He desire to rule over them with His Spirit. Remember, the body is not one member but many, acting collectively with the cooperating counsel of a group ministry. The early church prototype is a collegiate body of believers making corporate decisions, as a community. According to 1 Corinthians 12-14 and Ephesians 4:11-12 He gave various gifts and administrations to the body, all as co-laborers interacting with one another. HE DID NOT SET UP A DICTATORSHIP SUCH AS THE PAPACY! What is deliberately missing from the scriptural example of the early Christian church is the legalistic hierarchical structure with its Generals and subordinates. Consider Luke 22:24,25Jesus is asked who shall be the greatest among them. First of all, this would have been the perfect place for Jesus to elevate St. Peter in the eye of the disciples and tell them to serve him. But He does not. Jesus instructs the church not to set up the church government as the world does. He says if any man desire to be great in the kingdom of God, let him be a servant of all. No primacy given here to Peter whatsoever.
In using the Messianic prophecies of the old testament to point to the Papacy to justify its existence is laying a different foundation than what is laid in scripture. CONSIDER THIS: 1 Corinthians 3:11 “For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” NO OTHER FOUNDATION!!!! The church cannot be built upon the foundation of St. Peter. According to Ephesians 2:20 the church is built upon the foundations of the apostles and prophets, with Jesus being the chief cornerstone. So you see it is plain and obvious that St. Peter could not be the foundation.
The Old Testament and the New Testament are two distinctly different covenants. The Jew and the Gentile are distinctly different people. Under the old covenant the dispensation of grace was not bestowed upon the people of God yet. therefore those dying under the law went to a place called “Abraham’s Bosom” until the coming of Christ. And by His death and resurrection He led captivity captive and ascended into the highest. But it wasn’t until then, the way into the holiest wasn’t opened yet.
Therefore any alluding to the Old Testament scripture passages that refer to Christ to establish precedent for the “Papacy” is futile. Its apples and oranges! It's kind of a twisted version of "Replacement Theology" which has been proven time and again to be heresy. Let’s stick to Matthew 16, which is really the basic premise of the Roman Catholic church’s claim that Jesus established the “Papacy” with this scripture.
STICKING TO THE FACTS:
The Roman Catholic Church claims that Jesus said that He would build the church upon St.Peter and obviously that is just not true. It is obvious in Matthew 16:18 that Jesus is referring to a “rock” other than Peter. WHAT WAS JESUS SAYING TO PETER? HE WAS SAYING “BLESSED ARE YOU PETER BECAUSE YOU HEARD MY WORD AND CONFESSED IT. THEREFORE YOU ARE LIKE THE WISE MAN WHO BUILT HIS HOUSE UPON THE ROCK . . .
LUKE 6:47 - “Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will shew you to whom he is like:6:48 He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the
foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock.
Peter’s confession is made by every new believer who comes into the sheepfold. "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." 1 John 4:15 states that "Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God . . ." The Bible says that everyone that makes that confession shall be saved. This is the key to the kingdom which is given to all believers.Once we believe we are given entrance through the gate into the kingdom. As we witnessed in Acts 2 on the day of Pentecost as thousand confessed Jesus and were given entrance into the kingdom of God. The keys that Jesus gave Peter weren’t a scepter tolord over His people, they were merely an instrument to salvation. And the Bible says . . . “He added to the church daily.” Building these lively stones into a temple of the Lord.
The historical evidence is conspicuously missing to substantiate that Peter had primacy or supremacy among the apostles. As a matter of fact it is St. Paul who claims to have the calling of shepherding the gentile church. Paul in no uncertain terms makes the declaration that he is assigned to the church as their apostle(Romans 11:13), and that Peter is assigned to the Jewish convert. In Galatians 2:7 St. Paul emphatically states “But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter. This should be more than proof for reasonable men to realize that St. Peter was never elevated to the status of the vicar of Christ. But religion makes some unreasonable, thus we are here today.
1. Peter Was Not a Supreme Pontiff
A. Scripture gives no indication that Peter was supreme over all the other disciples. In fact, the four gospels indicate that no apostle held a supreme position in the New Testament times.
B. If Peter was supreme, why did the disciples continue to debate among themselves who would be considered the greatest? (Jesus would have made it clear to them. He didn’t!)
In Luke 22:24-30 deals with some of the disciples who desire to be the “greatest.” The very fact that such a discussion took place shows that no apostle had attained a supreme position during Jesus’ three-year ministry. Jesus treated each of the disciples with an equal level of respect and trust.
C. There is not a single epistle in the New Testament where we find any evidence of Peter being called a “pope,” nor is there any mention of a papacy. Instead, we find all the disciples working together on a seemingly equal level of authority.
D. It is noteworthy that the apostle Paul said that he was not inferior to any of the other apostles (2 Corinthians 12:11). Paul would not have said this had a papacy been in existence.
E. Furthermore, when the apostle Paul lists the authority structure in the early church in 1 Corinthians 12:28, there is no mention of a pope: “And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers.”
F. In the Book of Acts we find a detailed history of the early church, and there is not mention or even a hint of the existence of a papacy. Nor is there the slightest hint of Petrine supremacy. Instead, we find verses that indicate that Peter was not in a supreme position.
Bill Rutland’s
Reading Mr. O’Neill’s first rebuttal I can find some points of agreement. I agree that, "Jesus Christ, Alpha and Omega, is the beginning and end all for all prophecies." Yet, for Mr. O’Neill to contend that I "take Christ out of them and supplant the pope" is unwarranted. Mr. O’Neill cannot supply me with one instance where I have taken an Old Testament prophecy of Christ and have tried to make it pertain to the Pope; rather I can only conclude that he has misunderstood my argument.
We both agree that, "From Moses on down we see examples of the prophetic-king office of Messiah." and that is just my point. Jesus’ kingdom is the end fulfillment of the Davidic kingdom. As such there are certain parallels and this is what I was pointing out in my opening statement. In the kingdom of Christ, Peter has been given the position of the Chief Steward. Yet Mr. O’Neill ignores my whole argument and makes unsupported blanket statements.
Next Mr. O’Neill attempts to portray the Apostle Peter as just one among equals. He brings up the fact that Paul opposes Peter in Antioch because of his hypocrisy (Galatians 2:11-16). Yet no Pope, even Peter, is beyond reproach. Just because Paul reprimands Peter says nothing about Peter’s position as an Apostle and everything about Peter’s humanity. St. Catherine of Siena opposed the Pope telling him, "Be not a timorous child, but manly . . ." Are we to conclude from this that Catherine had equal authority to Pope Gregory XI? Popes have been wrong in the past and they will be wrong in the future. Christ assures us that no Pope will ever infallibly teach heretical doctrine (Mathew 16:18), but never does He say that no Pope will ever be hypocritical. The very fact that Paul opposes Peter shows that Peter himself understood that he was acting contrary to the Gospel of Christ!
Mr. O’Neill’s statement that, "Therefore there is no New Testament example of Peter’s primacy, to the contrary there is vivid picture that he is just one of the twelve," is simply to ignore the clear testimony of Scripture. In the New Testament the Apostle Peter is mentioned by name 195 times where as the other Apostles combined are only mentioned 130 times. The Apostle John runs a distant second with 48 references. In the Gospels we see:
1. Peter is given Christ’s flock as chief shepherd (John 21:17).
2. An angel was sent to Peter to announce the resurrection (Mark 16:17).
3. Risen Christ first appeared to Peter (Luke:24:34).
4. The Bible refers to "Peter and his companions" (Luke 9:32 ; Mark 16:7).
5. Peter spoke for the apostles in (Matt 18:21; Mk 8:29; Lk 8:45; Lk12:41; and John 6:69.)
6. When the Gospels list the names of the apostles Peter’s name is always listed first (Matthew 10:1-4 ; Mark 3:16-19 ; Luke 6:14-16 ). It is interesting to note that Judas is always listed LAST.
7. In Luke 22:31-32 it is for Peter and Peter alone that Jesus prays that, "your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren."
Moving on to the book of Acts we see:
1. Peter officiated the meeting which selected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26).
2. Peter led the apostles in preaching at Pentecost (Acts 2:14).
3. Peter was the first to receive converts (Acts 2:41).
4. Peter performed the first public miracle (Acts 3:1-12).
5. Peter publicly spoke on behalf of the Church before the Sanhedrin (Acts 4:8-12).
6. Peter was the first to inflict punishment: Ananias and Saphira (Acts 5:1-11).
7. Peter ex-communicated the first heretic, Simon Magus (Acts 8:21).
8. Peter received the revelation to admit Gentiles into the Church (Acts 10:44-46).
9. Peter led the first Church Council in Jerusalem (Acts 15:7).
10. Peter’s first dogmatic decision was binding on the entire Church (Acts 15:19).
The Apostle Paul tells us that, " Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles--only James, the Lord's brother." (Galatians 1:18-19)
I must ask Mr. O’Neill if he really believes that this is a, "vivid picture" that Peter is, "just one of the twelve,"?!
Mr. O’Neill writes:
Trying to apply the Messianic message of the old testament to any other individual is trying to rob Christ of His uniqueness, and strips Him of His deity. No scripture is of private interpretation, neither does it apply to anyone but Jesus. The New Testament shows no prototype of a theocratic king, because that type of rule and government became defunct when Christ came. The law and the prophets pointed towards His coming and His alone. He came and fulfilled those prophecies.
Again, I challenge Mr. O’Neill to show me ANY Old Testament Messianic prophecy that I have tried to make apply to anyone besides Jesus Christ. In Mr. O’Neill’s statement about the New Testament, "prototype of a theocratic king", I am not sure that I understand exactly what he means. Now if he is trying to say that Peter (pope) is not a New Testament king I would quite agree, as I have pointed out he is the Chief Steward. If he is trying to say that Jesus is not the New Testament King of the throne of David, then he contradicts the Bible as well as his own statement that, "From Moses on down we see examples of the prophetic-king office of Messiah." There is much more that I want to say on this subject, but I will have to return to it in my next rebuttal. Now, I would like to use the reminder of my space to address Mr. O’Neill’s assessment of Matthew 16:18.
Mr. O’Neill wants us to believe that Jesus’ "this rock" of Matthew 16:18 applies to Peter’s confession. Before I address the textual evidence as to why this cannot be correct, I must first point out that Mr. O’Neill’s argument is not internally consistent. If we take it that Jesus’ "this rock" is referring to Peter’s confession then we have Jesus saying that He will build His Church on a confession. Yet Mr. O’Neill also says in his Opening Statement, that, "Jesus Christ is the cornerstone foundation in which the church is built upon." Which is it? Is the Church built on Peter’s confession or on Jesus? Using Mr. O’Neill’s logic, if we say Jesus, then to be consistent we would also have to say that Jesus’ "this rock" applies to Himself. If we say that "this rock" applies to Peter’s confession, them we would have to say that Peter’s confession and not Jesus is the "cornerstone foundation" of the Church.
In his Opening Statement Mr. O’Neill also states, "Therefore to summarize what took place with Peter’s confession and Jesus calling him a stone is nothing more than what Peter is saying in 1Peter 2:5." Yet this is a false parallel. First off, Jesus is not calling Peter a stone, but a rock! When speaking of "stones," Peter in I Peter 2:5 uses the Greek lithos and not the Greek petra used for "rock" in Matthew 16:18. Because the Greek lithos is masculine in form, if Jesus had wanted to say what Mr. O’Neill tries to make Him say(that Simon is a stone), the verse would read, "And I tell you that you are Lithos,(stone) and on this petra (rock)I will build my church." But Jesus says, "And I tell you that you are Petros,(rock) and on this petra (rock)I will build my church."
In his Opening Statement Mr. O’Neill states:
The etymology of the word rock and the surname Peter reflects a distinct difference. In Greek and in English there is a distinction between the surname Peter and the literal word rock. Peter is a proper name and rock refers to an innate object.
Mr. O’Neill seems to completely miss the play on words that Jesus is using. Yes the word "rock" refers to an inanimate object in its primary sense. Yet it is to overstate the obvious to point out that Jesus is using the word "rock" in a metaphorical sense. The gender change of petra (feminine) to Petros (masculine) has no theological significance. The text is simply following good Greek grammar, because Simon, a man, cannot be given a feminine name. Furthermore the emphatic "this" (the Greek houtos) must refer to the nearest antecedent, which of course is Peter (Petros). To try and say that Jesus’ "this rock" somehow refers to Peters confession of verse 17, not only goes against the clear intent of the text, but also destroys the metaphor. The burden of proof is on Mr. O’Neill to explain to us why we should violate the rules of grammar in two languages and opt for an unnatural and strained interpretation of the text!
In conclusion I would like to touch on Mr. O’Neill’s view of I Peter 2:5. He states in his Opening Statement:
Once you make a confession that Jesus is the Son of God, you become a living stone, built together into the church. Just another brick in the wall, just as Peter was. But, Jesus was the cornerstone, in which the entire structure is built upon.
The argument is that Peter’s confession saved him and that it is this confession that makes all believers "living stones" in the temple of God. and that this is why Jesus calls Peter a "stone." Therefore it is the confession of Peter that is the rock upon which Christ builds His Church. But a close examination of I Peter shows that this interpretation cannot be correct, for Peter says that it is not a confession that saves the believer and makes him a living stone but Baptism:
It is better, if it is God's will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil. For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also--not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at God's right hand--with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him. (I Peter 3:17-22)
Therefore we see that any parallel to Peter’s confession of Christ and the "living stones" of I Peter 2:5 is a product of theological bias and not textual evidence.
2nd REBUTTAL:
PRIMACY OF PETER DEBATE
In defense of my statement “taking Christ out of them and supplanting the Pope” I must say it is indeed warranted, because that is where Mr. Rutland was going with his analogies. He was inferring, whether directly or indirectly that, the institution of the papacy drew a parallel with the Messianic prophecies, and that is just erroneous. Those prophetic scriptures of the old testament are reserved for Christ alone. Peter was the first to make a confession of faith, and that is the extent of it. But to infer that he was given a position of monarch/king because Jesus gave him the keys to the kingdom is a gross exaggeration of what was implied. The keys were nothing more than an instrument to preach the gospel, not a sceptre to rule the church. Every time a Christian witness the gospel of Jesus Christ to someone, they give them the keys to the kingdom. Jesus said in John 3 that everyone that is born again gains “entrance” into the kingdom of God. By our “confession of faith” we have salvation (Romans 10:10). 1 John 4:15 states that whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God has salvation. So you see, the key to salvation is our confession of faith. This opens the door of the kingdom of heaven to us. Jesus gave it to Peter and Peter passed it on. As we see in Acts 10, Peter giving the keys to the gentiles to enter the kingdom of God(he showed them how to be saved). This is how the church was built. One soul at a time, becoming “living stones” that is built into a spiritual house (1 Peter 2:9). As the book of Acts 2:47 vividly portrays, God adds to the church daily such as should be saved. In other words, each living stone being another brick in the holy habitation of God. Here it is in( fullness (Ephesians 2:18 - 22) “For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.”
So you see, there is nothing mysterious about Jesus’ statement to St. Peter in Matthew 16:18. This is the way He builds his church; soul after soul, living stone upon living stone. But . . . Always, always, always upon Jesus the cornerstone. The only true rock! Trying to read anything else into that would be out of context and would deliberately ignore all of supporting scriptural evidence that Jesus alone is the Rock of Ages, and that “confession of faith” is the prerequisite for salvation. If we were to believe that Peter was bestowed this singular place of kingship over the body of Christ, then we would have to exclude all of the other scriptures that say otherwise, and they are many:
1. First of all the scripture says that the church is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets; Jesus Christ being the cornerstone. (It doesn’t say that it is built upon one apostle)
2. 1 Corinthians 3:11 “For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” NO OTHER FOUNDATION!!!! The church cannot be built upon the foundation of St. Peter.
3.The Bible says that Jesus Christ is the head of the church and we are just the body, members in particular. But that body is not one member but many working collectively as co-laborers.
4. The manifestation of the gifts and offices of the Body of Christ are apostle, prophet, pastor, teacher, evangelist. There is no mention of a pope/king.
5.Luke 22:24-30 clearly shows that Jesus did not differentiate between Peter and the rest of the apostles. As a matter of fact it was the disciple John “whom Jesus loved” that sat at a place of prominence at the last supper, with his head on Jesus breast.
6. Jesus did not set up a legalistic hierarchy of the church. In Luke 22:24-30 HE FORBID IT!
7. Jesus did not say to Peter, upon “you” I will build my church. He said “upon this rock” referring to something other than Peter. It would be a strange way to communicate to follow with “this rock” in the same sentence as He is speaking directly to Peter in the 2nd person.
8. Pitting one misinterpreted scripture verse (Matthew 16:1 against the overwhelming opposing scriptural evidence is subversion.
9. Peter is brought before the council of brethren is Jerusalem (headed by James) and has to give an account of his actions to them (no commanding authority there). And St. Paul rebukes Peter to his face, openly before others, be cause of his unchristian like behavior (definitely no elevated status there) - Galatians 2:7-14). Imagine the scenario where a cardinal or a bishop rebukes the Pope in public. Yeah right! Up until the 17th century he would have been burned at the stake. In modern day Catholicism he would be excommunicated. First of all St. Peter should have been exhibiting leadership qualities. And just the fact the Paul rebukes him publicly shows that he had no primacy or supremacy over the rest of the apostles. Plus the fact, Paul would never have rebuked him if Peter was his elder and he was subordinate. We see this example when St. Paul is confronted by the high priest in Acts 23:1-5, Paul cites the scripture that says “thou shall not speak evil of the ruler of your people.”
10. The most obvious of any scripture to completely squash the premise that Jesus gave Peter sweeping powers over the church is the fact that Jesus gave St. Paul the commission of shepherding the Gentile church and commissioned St. Peter to minister to the Jews (Galatians 2:7-14). Bill what are you going to do with this scriptural passage.
The proof is in the pudding. All of the important doctrinal statements to the church are found in the epistles of St. Paul and not Peter. After chapter 15 of the book of Acts, Peter disappears from the scene. From then on, through chapter 28, it’s all Paul. There are only two epistles attributed to St. Peter, four to St. John, one to James and Judas.
And approximately 13 epistles of St. Paul. And not just any epistles, but theological masterpieces such as Romans and Hebrews. It’s Paul who gives the instruction on how to conduct the Lord’s Supper; on how to conduct the order of the church through the various gifts and administrations of the Spirit; on collections and offerings; on the duties of deacons and bishops; the treatise of faith; the dissolution of the old covenant and the supplanting of the new; the great “love chapter” of 1 Corinthians 13; about the catching away of the church; and all of the notable quotes and Christian phraseology that has been the recognizable benchmarks of faith over the centuries. It is St. Paul who tells us what the church is, and how it is to operate in the smallest of detail to the complexity of God’s mystery.
BILL RUTLAND SAID:
“Mr. O’Neill wants us to believe that Jesus’ "this rock" of Matthew 16:18 applies to Peter’s confession. Before I address the textual evidence as to why this cannot be correct, I must first point out that Mr. O’Neill’s argument is not internally consistent. If we take it that Jesus’ "this rock" is referring to Peter’s confession then we have Jesus saying that He will build His Church on a confession. Yet Mr. O’Neill also says in his Opening Statement, that, "Jesus Christ is the cornerstone foundation in which the church is built upon." Which is it? Is the Church built on Peter’s confession or on Jesus? Using Mr. O’Neill’s logic, if we say Jesus, then to be consistent we would also have to say that Jesus’ "this rock" applies to Himself. If we say that "this rock" applies to Peter’s confession, them we would have to say that Peter’s confession and not Jesus is the "cornerstone foundation" of the Church.”
RESPONSE:
Our confession of faith is salvation (Romans 10:10). Let’s look at Romans a little closer, beginning at 10:8 “But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is the word of faith which we preach. 10:9 That if shall confess with our mouth the Lord Jesus Christ. and shall; believe in our heart that God has raised Him from the dead, we shall be saved. 10:10 For with the heart man believes unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made into salvation.” Therefore by our faith we establish Jesus Christ, and by Jesus Christ we establish our faith. that is the true foundation. This is nothing more than what St. Peter did when he confessed that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the Living God. At that moment he became a living stone (1 Peter 2:5). This is consistent with the theme of the New Testament and covenant. As the scripture says (John 3:16) . . .”whosoever shall believe in Him shall be saved.” Therefore there is no contradiction in Jesus and our confession of faith being simultaneously the foundation in which the church is built upon, because once we confess the Lord Jesus Christ we have surrendered our lives and can say as St. Paul said, “It’s not I that lives, but Christ that lives within me.” That word of confession is the word of God, who is Jesus Christ. Jesus said in John 6 that His words were Spirit and life. Jesus also said “when two or three are gathered in my name, there I am in the midst.” If we are indeed the body of Christ (bone of His bone, flesh of His flesh) then indeed where His church is, there He is also. Just by the mere fact that we receive His Spirit when we make that confession of faith, which brings salvation. Any questions?
The Bible says by the hearing of faith comes the Spirit (Galatians 3:5). And of course that famous scripture “Faith comes by hearing the word of God” (Romans 10:17). Again, by faith we establish Christ in our lives and lay the foundation of salvation, and by Christ we establish faith.
HISTORICAL FACTS:
1.The apostles “sent” Peter and John to Samaria after they heard about God’s work (Acts 8:14).
2.Peter does not play a supreme role in the Jerusalem Council (see Acts 15:1-35), for he is portrayed as one among a number of apostles. Instead, James seems to be the person of dominance there (see verses 13-35).
3.Peter was not infallible. The apostle Paul, in the book of Galatians provides us with the fact that Peter showed an attitude of hypocrisy in his behavior (Galatians 2L11-14). Had Peter been considered a supreme pontiff during this time, that apostle Paul would have been way out of line in publicly correcting Peter like he did.
4. The idea of Peter ending up in Rome toward the end of his life is extremely problematic.
5. Irenaeus’s list of the 12 bishops of Rome does not establish Peter’s primacy. (Irenaeus lived from A.D. 130-200, and he certainly would have been aware of all the bishops who lived in the first century.) It would have been an incredible omission if indeed Peter had been a bishop in Rome.
6. Most scholars have noted that Peter ministered heavily among the Jews of his time (Gal. 2:7) . In view of this, it would have been strange for Peter to move to Rome, since that city was not a center of Judaism.
7. Paul in his Epistle to the Romans (written about A.D. 5 greets 26 people by name (see Romans 16:1-16). Peter is not one of them. It seems inconceivable that Paul would have failed to mention a greeting to Peter if Peter had indeed been headquartered in Rome since A.D. 42, as Roman Catholics claim.
8. While Paul was in prison in Rome, he wrote the book of Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians and Philemon. There is never any mention of a visit from Peter. If Peter had been headquartered in Rome, it would be unthinkable for Peter not to visit Paul. It would have been unthinkable for Paul would have mentioned Peter in one of his letters (if Peter were the supreme pontiff.)
s With Papal
MR. RUTLAND WROTE:
“The Apostle Paul tells us that, " Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles--only James, the Lord's brother." (Galatians 1:18-19)
I must ask Mr. O’Neill if he really believes that this is a, "vivid picture" that Peter is, "just one of the twelve,"?!
RESPONSE:
“There goes that chronic problem that most Catholics seem to have when interpreting scripture. PULLING THE VERSE OF SCRIPTURE OUT OF CONTEXT AND ISOLATING IT. The golden rule of interpretation is to read the previous and following verse to get a clear contextual application. Let’s go back to Galatians 1, but instead let’s begin at verse 15 to preface what he says in verse 18. He said that God separated Him as an apostle to preach to the heathen. Verse 16 clearly states that God Himself was going to reveal His Son in him and HE DID NOT confer with anyone for three years. But rather he learned the gospel from the mouth of God. And in chapter 2:6-7 he clearly shows that he is not impressed with anyone’s person. Because St. Paul is called to be an apostle by Jesus himself, without any council of the other apostles, neither Peter. But He hears from the mouth of God for three years in Arabia, and never acknowledges the primacy of Peter. As a matter of fact, could care less. And goes one step further, rebukes him to his face. So much for the heady and high-mindedness of the papacy. He clearly blows the whole concept away.
Second Rebuttal
Mr. O’Neill opens his Second Rebuttal with this statement:
In defense of my statement "taking Christ out of them and supplanting the Pope" I must say it is indeed warranted, because that is where Mr. Rutland was going with his analogies. He was inferring, whether directly or indirectly that, the institution of the papacy drew a parallel with the Messianic prophecies, and that is just erroneous. Those prophetic scriptures of the Old Testament are reserved for Christ alone. Peter was the first to make a confession of faith, and that is the extent of it. But to infer that he was given a position of monarch/king because Jesus gave him the keys to the kingdom is a gross exaggeration of what was implied. The keys were nothing more than an instrument to preach the gospel, not a scepter to rule the church.
First Mr. O’Neill claims to know where I am "going with [my] analogies." He then argues from his assumption, which is incorrect. As I plainly stated in my First Rebuttal Peter/pope is not a "monarch/king". Mr. O’Neill insists on putting these words into my mouth, and it is simply not a claim that I am making. Peter is the Chief Steward in the New Testament kingdom. I am not saying that Peter or the Pope in any way has equal authority to Christ or that they function as a substitute for Him. Peter is given the chief leadership role in the Church, an office that is to be filled by a successor.
Mr. O’Neill’s view of the Church as "living stones" with no visible head on earth is over simplistic as well as un-Biblical. No institution, including the Church can function without a visible head. This is the reason for the fracturing of Protestantism into the thousands of denominations that we see today. I am in agreement that Jesus Christ IS the head of the Church, this is without question. But if we take Mr. O’Neill’s view that there is no visible earthly head, then we have to ask, "How is the voice of Christ heard in His Church?" I am sure that Mr. O’Neill would answer, "through the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit." Yet who is to interpret the Scriptures and discern the voice of the Holy Spirit? If we answer that it is the individual believer, then we must ask who has the authority to mediate between believers when they disagree? This strikes at the very heart of the problem. Even Martin Luther in his own lifetime saw the Protestant church fracturing because there was no authoritative visible head. He wrote:
There are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads; this one will not admit Baptism; that one rejects the Sacrament of the altar; another places another world between the present one and the day of judgment; some teach that Jesus Christ is not God. There is not an individual, however clownish he may be, who does not claim to be inspired by the Holy Ghost, and who does not put forth as prophecies his ravings and dreams. (Patrick F. O'Hare , Facts about Luther; page 208).
This is no deficiency on God’s part, but a result of the sinfulness of man. When God led the Hebrews out of bondage in Egypt, He did so with an authoritative leader, there is no reason to believe that God’s New Testament people would not also have an authoritative visible leader. To assert, as many Protestants do, that because the Holy Spirit was given to all believers at Pentecost there is now no more need for a visible authoritative leader is to ignore the fact that humans are sinful and therefore deficient their discernment of the Spirit’s voice. That Jesus established Peter as His sub-shepherd is clearly seen in John 21:15-19:
When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?" "Yes, Lord," he said, "you know that I love you." Jesus said, "Feed my lambs."
Again Jesus said, "Simon son of John, do you truly love me?" He answered, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." Jesus said, "Take care of my sheep." The third time he said to him, "Simon son of John, do you love me?" Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, "Do you love me?" He said, "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you." Jesus said, "Feed my sheep. I tell you the truth, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go." Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, "Follow me!"
Peter had denied the Lord three times, therefore three times Jesus bestows on him the command to care for and feed His sheep. This is the direct fulfillment of Jesus prayer in Luke 22:31-32. It is Important here to notice Jesus’ shift from the plural pronoun to the singular:
"Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you [plural] as wheat. But I have prayed for you [singular], Simon, that your [singular] faith may not fail. And when you [singular] have turned back, strengthen your [singular] brothers."
Why does Jesus pray only for Peter when Satan has asked to "sift" all the Apostles? Because it is Peter who will lead the Church when Jesus has ascended back to heaven. It is on Peter, and Peter alone that divine shepherdhood is bestowed.
These verses directly follow the verses cited by Mr. O’Neill in which he asserts that Peter is portrayed as having no special preeminence. Mr. O’Neill writes:
Luke 22:24-30 clearly shows that Jesus did not differentiate between Peter and the rest of the apostles. As a matter of fact it was the disciple John "whom Jesus loved" that sat at a place of prominence at the last supper, with his head on Jesus breast.
The only way that we can make Jesus not differentiate between Peter and the other Apostles in this text is to stop as Mr. O’Neill does and ignore verse 31-32. Mr. O’Neill continues:
Jesus did not set up a legalistic hierarchy of the church. In Luke 22:24-30 HE FORBID IT!
Really? Is that what these verses say? Let’s see:
Also a dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. Jesus said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves. You are those who have stood by me in my trials. And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
Is there anywhere in this text where Jesus forbids a hierarchy? Jesus forbids the Apostles to be tyrants like the Gentile rulers. In fact, that the Apostles will rule is assumed in this text. Jesus also tells them that He is conferring [handing over} on them a kingdom. A kingdom is by its very definition a hierarchy.
Up to this point Mr. O’Neill has failed to adequately address any of my arguments let alone even come close to refuting them. For example in my First Rebuttal I show in detail why Jesus’ "this rock" cannot be applied to anything or anyone but Peter as the primary meaning of the text. I pointed out:
1. The gender change from petra to Petros is nothing more than the use of good Greek grammar.
2. Jesus’ (the Greek houtos) must refer to the nearest antecedent, which of course is Peter (Petros).
Mr. O’Neill fails to address these arguments instead saying, "Jesus did not say to Peter, upon "you" I will build my church. He said "upon this rock" referring to something other than Peter. It would be a strange way to communicate to follow with "this rock" in the same sentence as He is speaking directly to Peter in the 2nd person," which simply is a non-answer. Then he goes off into a long discourse about confession and salvation which is not what we are debating.
In answer to my demonstration from Scripture of the Primacy of Peter, Mr. O’Neill states:
There goes that chronic problem that most Catholics seem to have when interpreting scripture. PULLING THE VERSE OF SCRIPTURE OUT OF CONTEXT AND ISOLATING IT.
Yet I gave Mr. O’Neill no fewer than 26 references! Is this pulling a verse out of context? I would like to remind Mr. O’Neill that I’m not the one who has been "proof texting" through out this entire debate.
Mr. O’Neill’s seven so-called "historical facts" are mostly arguments from silence which are the weakest kind because that can not be proven or falsified on their own.
As for Mr. O’Neill’s argument that Peter was never in Rome, I must first point out that it is not necessary to place Peter in Rome to make him the first Pope. There most certainly was a time when the Church was headed in other places such as Jerusalem.
Mr. O’Neill writes:
Paul in his Epistle to the Romans (written about A.D. 5 greets 26 people by name (see Romans 16:1-16). Peter is not one of them. It seems inconceivable that Paul would have failed to mention a greeting to Peter if Peter had indeed been headquartered in Rome since A.D. 42, as Roman Catholics claim.
Please notice that Paul is writing to a specific house church, he says:
Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus. They risked their lives for me. Not only I but all the churches of the Gentiles are grateful to them. Greet also the church that meets at their house. Greet my dear friend Epenetus, who was the first convert to Christ in the province of Asia. (Romans 16:3-5)
There were many house churches in Rome, this was just one of them. The testimony of early Church documents and the recent discovery of Peter’s tomb under St. Peter’s Basilica, all point to the fact that Peter was in Rome. In 1 Peter 5:13, Peter himself says that he is writing from Rome:
She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you her greetings, and so does my son Mark.
It is well known that in the Early Church Babylon was a code word for Rome. Babylon is used for Rome six times in the book of Revelation and extra-biblical works like the Sibylline Oracles (5:159f), the Apocalypse of Baruch (2:1), and 4 Esdras (3:1) alos refer to Rome as Babylon. Eusebius Pamphilius, in The Chronicle, composed about A.D. 303, noted that "It is said that Peter's first epistle, in which he makes mention of Mark, was composed at Rome itself; and that he himself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon."
In conclusion, I would again ask Mr. O’Neill that before he brings up a lot of side arguments that he address my main argument from Matthew 16:18. He still has not shown me why my argument is wrong.
Peter O’Neill
PETER PRIMACY DEBATE
Proving Mr. Rutland’s argument inherently wrong is quite easy. The majority of his references to Peter’s Primacy come from presumed parallelism to Messianic prophecies of the Old Testament that have all been fulfilled in Christ. No singular ruler of the Church is evident anywhere in the new testament, on the contrary we see the opposite. All throughout the book of Acts we see the body of Christ acting as a community rather than a monarch governed theocracy that we see happening in Roman Catholicism. To reference Luke 22:24-30 regarding the hierarchal structure of the church, Jesus clearly stated that the authority of the church would not resemble the worldly hierarchy structure . It would be the opposite; i.e., the leaders would be become the servants. That is clearly not so in the Roman Catholic church. The curia (Roman Catholic hierarchy) of the Roman Catholic church is a very militant legalistic faction of the church that are responsible for the Inquisitions of old, which killed thousands of people through the centuries that opposed their doctrine. Of which John Paul 2 himself has apologized for in our day. This militant curia (Roman Catholic hierarchy) does not resemble, in the slightest, the humble portrayal of the King of kings and Lord of Lords upon His knees at the last supper washing the disciples feet. Rather we see the image of a militant Pope, sitting on his pompous throne throughout the ages, lavished with wealth and power, with his subjects bowing down kissing his ring and feet, wielding political might over the nations, conducting crusades that stampede through history, slaughtering thousands of Muslims and Jews; men, women and children. We see tyrants raging out of the Vatican, ordering the execution of thousands from the tenth century to the Reformation. No, the Roman Catholic church does not resemble the meek image of the Christ centered church of old, it resembles the vicious and tyrannical rule of the Roman Empire that preceded it, responsible for persecuting Christians. The Roman Catholic Curia is a perfect example of what Jesus Christ told us not to do in Luke 22:24-30. The Roman Catholic model of the church is totally opposite of what Jesus called the church to be. He called all believers to be co-laborers in the kingdom of God.
In the very first instance of governing and at the very first council, we see James presiding as the lead elder, though St. Peter is present. What we witness all throughout the book of Acts is a collegiate body of believers making corporate decisions. There is no such animal as a “Roman Curia” or the office of the pope who speaks infallibly and dictates doctrine. Rather we see an assortment of disciples, elders and apostles, struggling with issues of the past, and prayerful making decisions for the future. But the distinction here is they confer with one another, not in a legalistic tribunal, but as a council of brethren, preferring and deferring to one another.
If anyone speaks with dogmatic authority throughout the New Testament, it is St. Paul who is the author of just about every important doctrine in the church today. It is Paul that gives us the instruction of the Lord’s supper (1 Corinthians 11:24,25). It is St. Paul that so eloquently differentiates between works and grace, faith and the law. It is Paul who gives us a glimpse of the catching away of the church when Christ returns. It is Paul who utters all those memorable exclamations of faith, such as ; “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me; One bread, one body; We are one in the Spirit, we are one in the Lord; Every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord; The love of money is the root of all evil ; The ‘powers that be are ordained of God’ . . . For by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast; There is therefore no condemnation in Christ; Faith comes by hearing the word of God: God is able to do exceeding abundantly above all we ask;” It is he that writes the “love chapter” of 1 Corinthians 13 . . . “Love endures all things, hopes all things, believes all things.” And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is love.” It is St. Paul who says “rejoice in the Lord always, again I say rejoice”. It is St. Paul who writes the majority of the New Testament. After chapter 12 of the book of Acts you hear of St. Peter no more. And for the remaining 16 chapters, it’s all Paul. St. Peter himself directs the church to listen to Paul (2 Peter 3:15,16) and calls the writings of St. Paul scripture. It is Paul that gives us all the major doctrines of the church. In the epistle of Timothy he gives us instruction on the office of bishop. In the book of Titus he gives us the discipline of deacon. In 1 Corinthians chapter 7 he instructs the church about marriage and the unmarried, callings and vocations, widows and orphans, etc. In Chapter 12 he masterfully explains the dispensation of grace and the distribution of spiritual gifts, describing each one individually and how they operate. In chapter 14 he models church behavior and participation. Chapter 15, he explains the doctrine of original sin, the atonement for it, the resurrection and ascension, etc. In chapter 16 he explains collections and charitable donations. The 2nd epistle of Paul to the Corinthian church is a theological masterpiece. And of course, one of the greatest books ever written is the book of Hebrews, that gives us the chronological breakdown of the old and new covenant. It’s brilliant! All you need to do is examine present day church doctrine and you will find, it’s all Paul. So much for the Petrine Primacy.
The reason the majority of the New Testament epistles to the church are written by St. Paul and not St. Peter is St. Paul was commissioned to instruct the Gentile church, not Peter. Just consider Romans 11:13 where St. Paul states “. . . I am the apostle of the Gentiles. I magnify my office St. Paul clarifies this in Chapter 2 of Galatians verse 7, that the gospel to the Gentile church was COMMITTED TO HIM. And the gospel to the Jew was commissioned to St. Peter, end of argument.
JUST THE MERE THOUGHT OF PETER, A MERE FALLIBLE MORTAL, BEING THE FOUNDATION OF OUR FAITH AS A BODY OF BELIEVERS IS SO ABSURD THAT IT DOESN’T EVEN WARRANT ADDRESSING. IT DEFIES SCRIPTURAL LOGIC! BUT THE DECEPTION HAS ENCOMPASSED SO MANY AND PREVAILED FOR SO LONG, AND KNOWING THE DEVICES OF SATAN , I AM COMPELLED TO DO SO.
THE FOLLOWING WILL BE A SUMMATION OF WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY STATED.
SUMMARY
(Top Ten Reasons Why Peter Could Not Be The Rock Upon Which
The Church is Built, Neither The Head Of The Church)
1. First of all, the entire Old Testament refers to God as being the rock. The entire new Testament refers to Jesus(who is God) as the rock. Why would anyone think, or want to think, that Jesus Christ would build the kingdom of God on earth(the church) on the back of an impetuous fisherman; a fallible man. Upon someone that was not known for his consistency in exhibiting faithfulness and Christian-like behavior. In the book of Galatians, St. Paul had to rebuke him to his face and bring him to his senses because he was not acting in a righteous manner(Galatians 2:11-14). Do you really think that He built his church upon this one man? Knowing this would not make me feel secure as a Christian, because who knows down the road that the guy who is supposed to leading this organization wouldn't fail miserably again(not his faith). The bible says that the arm of flesh will fail you, but rather lean on the everlasting arms of God. It's such a stupid argument. The scripture teaches that God will never give us anything that we cannot bear, clearly the building of the kingdom of God on earth was too much of a burden for one man to endure. I could rehash the argument about the Peter, the rock, and the confession of faith, but I’d rather not.(REFER TO THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS). It's too painful to think that sincere men of faith are sucked into defending this ridiculous doctrine, when they know deep down inside that it's a false one ; not only false but goes against the fabric of Sacred Scripture. But in order to maintain their good standing with the Catholic faith, they're forced to swallow it hook, line and sinker.
2. Secondly, the scriptures clearly state that Jesus Christ is the head of the Church -
(Colossians 1:1 . We all are merely the body. He did not set up a monarchical form of government to rule the church. This would have been contrary to everything that the word of God says concerning the church; that indeed the church is not one but many members; a corporate structure that is governed by a collegiate council, a body of elders; where not one individual has the preeminence. Ridiculous! Jesus instructed us not to set up the church's government system like the world's, with chiefs and subordinates. He said that if you desire to be great in God's kingdom, become a servant of all (Luke 22:25). St. Peter himself exhorted the elders not to exercise Lordship over God's flock, but rather become examples to them. Tell that to John Paul 2 who lives in a 1400 room palace and is trustee of a wealth that is so vast that only God knows how much it is worth. John Paul 2, in direct contradiction to the word of God, sits on a throne in Rome, lording over God’s flock, and making big bucks doing it. If the popes were the successors of St. Peter, then why didn’t they act like him. Jesus told the Pharisees that if they were indeed the "seed of Abraham" they would do the deeds of Abraham. They do not do the deeds of St. Peter because they are not his successors. His apostolic gift was not transferable!
3. Thirdly, St. Peter was not the apostle assigned to the to the Gentile church (Galatians 2:7, St.. Paul was commissioned by God to build the Gentile church. St Peter was assigned to bringing the gospel to the Jews. (What is the Roman Catholic church going to do with
this scripture? I'm sure they wish it never existed). There's no argument! EXAMINE ROMANS 11:13 AND BE SATISFIED!
According to the Roman Catholic church, when the Pope speaks ex cathedera (from the chair) he is speaking infallibly. Therefore you would think that the doctrine of the early church would be full of the writings of St. Peter, but the truth is that there is only two epistles written by Peter. Now, all of the important doctrine of the church, such as the account of the Lord’s supper and the examination of conscience are written by St. Paul. Were his writings infallible also? But we know they are binding. As a matter of fact, all of the important doctrine and dogma comes from the writings of St. Paul, not St. Peter.
4. If St. Peter were the model for the succeeding popes to follow why was he married and the following popes forbidden to? Read the epistle of Titus, Chapter 1:6,7, it states that a Bishop may have a wife and children. Isn't the pope supposed to be the bishop of Rome, then why can't Roman Catholic bishops be married? Because it is another false doctrine concocted by this pseudo Christian belief system. Read 1 Timothy 4:1-3, it states that the Spirit expressly speaks that in the latter times men shall depart from the faith and give heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats. Sound familiar? Sounds like St. Paul was speaking directly to the Roman Catholic church, and he called these errors doctrines of demons. Who forbids its ministers to refrain from marriage and commands their people to abstain from meat? The Roman Catholic Church does! What is the doctrine that teaches that ministers are to refrain from marriage and that commands the people of God to abstain from meat? A doctrine of demons? therefore what does the Roman Catholic Church teach (help me out here)? Doctrines of demons! Once more! What does the Roman Catholic church teach? Doctrines of demons! Any questions?!
So we see Peter was married, and bishops had permission to marry. St Paul stated that he had the power to take a wife (1 Corinthians 9:5), and that it was better to marry than to burn
(1 Corinthians 7:7-9), and that every man had his own unique gift from God, and not every one of their callings were the same. The reason that there are so many priests being indited for pedophilia and sexual abuse is because they are burning in natural lust for women and trying to suppress the urges that just won't be suppressed. And they mask the symptoms and suppress them until they erupt somewhere else. God has given marriage to men and women as something pure and holy. The Roman Catholic church has tried to make it appear as something evil, manipulating its members by the "fear of God." The only reason the Roman Catholic church doesn't want its priests to marry is because of financial liability, in the event one of their priests or bishops get divorced. They don't want some "bimbo" suing them for enormous amounts of money. Funny thing is that they have paid out millions in the last five years to victims of sexual abuse. It doesn't work. Sex is a God given gift under the sanctity of marriage. And it is better to marry than to burn.
Apostolic succession is a foreign concept to Biblical Christianity. In the book of Acts we find the disciples trying to select an apostle to fill Judas’ place and they fail miserable. It is God who chooses Paul to be the 12th, and their selection is never heard of again. THE MYTH OF INFALLIBILITY IS EVIDENT THROUGHOUT HISTORY AS TIME AND TIME AGAIN WE SEE THE ERROR OF NUMEROUS POPES CONCERNING THE THINGS OF FAITH AND MORALS:
Problems With Catholic “Infallibility”
A. Paul says that if anything conflicts with Scripture, it is to be rejected (Galatians 1:
B. When Galileo postulated the theory that the sun, not the earth, was the center of the solar system, this rocked the pope. Galileo was promptly summoned by an Inquisition in 1632, was tried, and pronounced “vehemently suspected of heresy.” From that point forward, he was forced to repeat the seven penitential psalms once a week for three years, and was held under house arrest until his death in 1642.
C. Which pope was infallible between 1378 and 1417 when there were rival popes at Arignon and Rome? In fact there have been thirty-five antipopes in the history of the church. Which one was infallible? The Roman Catholic Church ignores this issue.
D. A further problem with infallibility is the fact that some of the Church’s popes have taught heresy. One example would be Pope Honorius I (A.D. 625-63 , who was soundly condemned by the Sixth General Council for teaching monothelite heresy (the teaching that there was only one will in Christ.)”
Joan Of Arc was condemned by the Roman Catholic Church and later canonized as a Saint.
What about Pope Adrian Vl (1522-3 who formally pronounced Pope Celestine 3 (1191- a heretic, declared that John XXll was only one in a long line of heretics.
Then there was liberius (352-66). Forced into exile because of a quarrel with the emperor, denounced Athanasius, who had led the fight against the Arian heresy. Liberius obliged the emperor and thereby sided with those who said that the Son was less than the Father, an opinion which the Church has consistently denounced as heresy of the worst sort.
(The preface to the "Liber Precum" also speaks of his yielding to heresy. St. Athanasius, writing apparently at the end of 357, says: "Liberius, having been exiled, gave in after two years, and, in fear of the death with which he was threatened, signed", i.e. the condemnation of Athanasius himself (Hist. Ar., xli); and again: "If he did not endure the tribulation to the end yet he remained in his exile for two years knowing the conspiracy against me." St. Hilary, writing at Constantinople in 360, addresses Constantius thus: "I know not whether it was with greater impiety that you exiled him than that you restored him"
Heretic popes came along quite regularly. Innocent 1 (401-17) and Gelasius 1 (492-6) proclaimed that babies went straight to hell (not purgatory) if they died, though baptized, before receiving communion. After all, if one takes John 6:53 literally- “Except ye eat of the flesh of the Son of man and drink of His blood, ye shall not have life within in you” as Catholicism teaches, then these popes were correct. that view was condemned as heresy by the Council of Trent.
During the last two years of his pontificate, Sixtus V (1585-90) rewrote the entire Latin Bible, adding phrases and sentences at whim, leaving out entire verses, changing the titles of the psalms and inventing his own system of chapters and verses. In a Papal Bull Aeternus Ille (an allegedly infallible declaration on faith and morals to the entire church, he declared “the fullness of Apostolical power” that this new “translation” of the Bible must be received and held as true, lawful, authentic, and unquestioned in all public and private discussions, readings, preachings and explanations.” Anyone who disobeyed would be excommunicated.
Of course when the Clergy saw that it was full of errors, and made obsolete the Council of Trents Latin bible, they were horrified, and after his death, went to work on it to correct the errors. In 1588 he issued from the Vatican Press an edition of the Septuagint revised according to a Vatican MS. His edition of the Vulgate, printed shortly before his death, was withdrawn from circulation on account of its many errors, corrected, and reissued in 1592 (see BELLARMINE, ROBERT FRANCIS ROMULUS, VENERABLE).
From the encyclopedia brittcanica: The statement on the pope's authority was approved only after long and heated debate both preceding and during the council. The decree states that the true successor of St. Peter has full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church; that he has the right of free communication with the pastors of the whole church and with their flocks; and that his primacy includes the supreme teaching power to which Jesus Christ added the prerogative of infallibility, whereby the pope is preserved free from error when he teaches definitively that a doctrine concerning faith or morals is to be believed by the whole church. The original schema had not included a statement of papal infallibility, but the majority of the council fathers, urged on by Pius IX, overrode vociferous opposition from those who argued that a formal definition was inopportune and gave their approval to the dogmatic definition.
Matthew 16:18 . . . Upon this Rock I will build my church
5.The apostolic gift was not transferable . . .
No one can take their spiritual gift and calling and transfer it to someone else. Man can't randomly select a candidate for apostleship through drawing lots or by the process of a democratic election. That calling and vocation comes from God alone, out of heaven. The very nature of the call is a heavenly one. Subordinate officers are ordained by the laying on of hands (i.e., deacons, bishops, evangelists, pastors, etc.). An apostle is specifically selected and ordained by God. No one can assimilate this process. The very name"apostle" means one that is selected and sent by God; a messenger. Its not open to a democratic vote. Who thinks this stuff up? These guys need to pull over and recharge the air between their ears. Read in the book of Acts(1:23-26) how the disciples tried to randomly select an apostle to fill in Judas Iscariots empty place. They drew lots and selected Matthias, and that's the last time you hear of him all throughout scripture and history itself. But in God’s good time He selects the candidate to fill the 12th apostleship, and that is none other than St. Paul who proceeds to write the bulk of the New Testament. So much for the plans of man.
6. The bulk of the New Testament Epistles are written by St. Paul and not St.Peter. And the reason for this is because St. Paul was the apostle commissioned to instruct and oversee the church, not Peter. Peter was assigned as an apostle to the Jew. The proof is in the pudding. What is being said by the Roman Catholic church and what the scriptures clearly teach are two different things. Peter was not assigned to the gentile church (Galatians 2:7, .
7. According to Roman Catholic doctrine, the pope, who is supposedly be the successor of St. Peter is called the Pontifex Maximus. This title was taken from the Roman emperors and meant "the high priest." Not just any high priest, but the high priest of the Roman Imperial Cult which would be equivalent to a satanic high priest of today. This mantle was passed down from Constantine, who convened and presided over the first ecumenical council, and soon the title became fixed to that office. The pope is not the high priest of the Christian church, Jesus Christ is
(Hebrews 7:17-2 . Over the centuries they began to call him "holy father," a name that is reserved for God alone. There is only one high priest over the house of God and that is Christ Jesus (Hebrews 10:21).
8. St. Peter is not the substitute for Jesus Christ. According to Roman Catholic doctrine the pope is the vicar of Christ, which means "in the place of Christ," or "instead of Christ." In other words, they believe that the pope is the substitute for God upon the earth. For example: He is called "holy father," a name which is reserved for God the Father alone. He calls himself "pontifex maximus" which interpreted means "high priest," and we know that here is only one high priest over the house of God. He calls himself the "supreme pontiff" which translated means "absolute power." And we know that there is only one "omnipotent one" and that is God alone (1 Timothy 6:15). And in a recent disclosure found in the auto-biography of John Paul 2 titled "Crossing the Threshold of Hope", chapter 1, page 3, 2nd paragraph, this audacious statement is made "The pope is considered the man on earth who represents the Son of God, who "takes the placE" of the Second Person of the omnipotent God of the Trinity.
9. The keys of the kingdom of heaven were given to St. Peter to give entrance to the Gentiles into the kingdom of God. He did this in the book of Acts chapter 10 where Peter is given a vision of unclean beasts and is told to eat. At first Peter is reluctant to eat and then he is told to kill and eat because God had cleansed these beast, and not to call what God had cleansed unclean. Thus signifying that the gentiles would be given permission to enter the sheepfold. This was the purpose of the keys given to Peter, to unlock the kingdom of God to the gentiles, and he fulfilled this duty. St. Paul then took over as overseer and maintainer of the gentile church. Nothing mysterious! Peter was in no way given supreme authority over the church by this act. God forbid. Jesus knew that this would be too much power for one person to have. Absolute power corrupts and proof of that is the notorious history of the Roman Catholic. The twisted interpretation of Matthew 16 by the Roman Catholic church is summed up in Jesus' response to Peter a few verses after He names Simon, Peter . . . (Matthew 16:23) Get thee behind me, satan: thou art an offense to me: for thou savourest the things that be of men and not of God
10. St. Peter clearly instructed the elders of the church not to lord over God's flock (1 Peter 5:1,2,3). That an elder should be an example to God's people. And not to do anything through coercion. The Roman Catholic church has an obvious history of coercing people to comply with its doctrine or face death. Any questions?
NOTE: Matthew 16:18 distinguishes between the proper name “Peter” and the rock upon which the church was going to be built. “You” and “this” make that quite evident. Jesus says “you are Peter” and “upon this rock” separating the subjects. He doesn’t say you are Peter and upon “you” I will build my church. He says “upon this rock” obviously referring to something other than Peter. If we were to take Matthew 16:18 litrally, without the benefit of metaphorical language then we would have to move down a few verses in that same chapter to verse 23 and apply the same standard of interpretation. In verse 23 Jesus says specifically to Peter . . .”Get thee behind me Satan: for thou art an offense to me . . . Imagine that? Is that the same Peter that he just said he was going to build His church upon. Is He going to build the church upon Satan? “This rock” that Jesus was referring to was evidently not Peter, could never be Peter, who was mortal flesh subject to temptations, and unstable. The “rock” could be none other than Christ Himself. It had to be Peter’s confession of faith that draws Jesus’ blessing, because when Peter confesses something other than truth, as he did in verse 23, Jesus calls him Satan. The same goes for everyone. If we confess that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, then we too will receive the blessing of Jesus and become a “living stone.” But if we speak lies to and about Jesus, God will call us Satan. The “rock” was the confession of faith that Jesus was the Son of God, nothing more. Not the person of Peter who shows that at any given time, he can also be a mouthpiece of the devil. Imagine that?
IN ANSWER TO MR. RUTLAND STATEMENT:
"Mr. O’Neill’s view of the Church as “living stones” with no visible head on earth is over simplistic as well as un-Biblical. No institution, including the Church can function without a visible head. This is the reason for the fracturing of Protestantism into the thousands of denominations that we see today. I am in agreement that Jesus Christ IS the head of the Church, this is without question. But if we take Mr. O’Neill’s view that there is no visible earthly head, then we have to ask, “How is the voice of Christ heard in His Church?” I am sure that Mr. O’Neill would answer, “through the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit.” Yet who is to interpret the Scriptures and discern the voice of the Holy Spirit? If we answer that it is the individual believer, then we must ask who has the authority to mediate between believers when they disagree? This strikes at the very heart of the problem. Even Martin Luther in his own lifetime saw the Protestant church fracturing because there was no authoritative visible head. He wrote:"
MR. RUTLAND'S QUOTE
Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads; this one will not admit Baptism; that one rejects the Sacrament of the altar; another places another world between the present one and the day of judgment; some teach that Jesus Christ is not God. There is not an individual, however clownish he may be, who does not claim to be inspired by the Holy Ghost, and who does not put forth as prophecies his ravings and dreams. (Patrick F. O'Hare , Facts about Luther; page 20 .
PETER O'NEILL'S RESPONSE
First of all, Martin Luther is not my source of Doctrine, the word of God is. I do not idolize a man as Catholics do the Pope. And my statement that Christ is the head of the curch comes from scipture, it is not my personal opinion. Jesus is a real presence in the church today, though not visable to many. He never-the-less governs through the Holy Spirit that directs the conscience of men. Consider 1 John 2:27 that states that it is the Spirit of God that will reveal doctrine to us. Catholics don't believe that therefore they can not have the benefit of it. Jesus says in the gospel of John chapters 14-17 that He will send us the Comforter, the Spirit of Truth which will teach us of all doctrine and reveal truth to us. I believe Jesus and His words. As we examine the book of Acts we see the church operating under the direction and guidance of the Holy Spirit, conducting the business of God, before any formal canonization of doctrine. St. Stephen was chosen to be a deacon, yet He winds up being one of the greatest preachers of all times, because of the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Jesus said when you are led to give your testimony before others, don't even meditate on what you will say, because the Holy Spirit will give you the words right at that moment. (Luke 21:14,15). And as for all of the different denominations, it is nothing more than the wonderful variety of the different administrations of the Spirit in operation, because the body of Christ is not one member, but many with various gifts. Yet, throughout the evangelical world there is great unity in the Spirit, as there is much cooperation and collaberation amongst churches. But the difference with this cooperation is that is is not coerced, as it is in the Roman Catholic church, where men are compelled to conform under strict penalties. There is no real unity in the Catholic church, there is a forced conformity. Big difference! The evangelical world expresses the diversity of the Holy Spirit where all the gifts are in operation. The Roman Catholic church exhibits a sinister totalitarian regime that stifles creativity, and breeds resentment. There is an enormous amount of dissension in the Roman Catholic ranks that is masked by a religious facade, but manifest itself in the secret lives of priests all over this country (you know what I mean).
God4us
(Peter O'Neill)
Bill Rutland’s Closing Statement
I was quite disappointed in the tone and content of Mr. O’Neill’s closing statement. I must respectfully remind him of the rules of this debate that we both agreed to. The last part of our agreement states:
*Note: it is customary for the Closing statement to be a summation of the argument in which no new material is presented.*
9. Each response will be no longer that 4 pages 12p single spaced.
Yet Mr. O’Neill’s closing statement is composed almost entirely of new material. We agreed to limit our responses to 4 pages 12p single spaced yet his closing statement is eleven pages. I also am going to take a little more space to properly respond.
Aside from these infractions, I am most disappointed at Mr. O’Neill’s incendiary rhetoric.
He implies that I am hypocritical in my support of the Catholic Church, and at one point even calls my argument, "stupid," he states:
It's too painful to think that sincere men of faith are sucked into defending this ridiculous doctrine, when they know deep down inside that it's a false one ; not only false but goes against the fabric of Sacred Scripture. But in order to maintain their good standing with the Catholic faith, they're forced to swallow it hook, line and sinker.
He portrays Catholic priests as burning with lust and as pedophiliacs:
The reason that there are so many priests being indited for pedophilia and sexual abuse is because they are burning in natural lust for women and trying to suppress the urges that just won't be suppressed. And they mask the symptoms and suppress them until they erupt somewhere else. God has given marriage to men and women as something pure and holy. The Roman Catholic church has tried to make it appear as something evil, manipulating its members by the "fear of God." The only reason the Roman Catholic church doesn't want its priests to marry is because of financial liability, in the event one of their priests or bishops get divorced. They don't want some "bimbo" suing them for enormous amounts of money. Funny thing is that they have paid out millions in the last five years to victims of sexual abuse. It doesn't work. Sex is a God given gift under the sanctity of marriage. And it is better to marry than to burn.
I do not have to remind Mr. O’Neill that sexual sin exists on both side of the religious fence. This is an indictment of the thousands of good and godly men who forgo family and career to minister to the Church of God.
Mr. O’Neill has brought up far too many new arguments for me to address in this limited space. It would have been better if he could have presented them earlier in the debate so that we could have some meaningful dialog. I will address some of the major arguments that are brought up.
Mr. O’Neill has repeatedly claimed that the Roman Catholic hierarchy is a direct violation of Luke 22:24-30. He states:
To reference Luke 22:24-30 regarding the hierarchal structure of the church, Jesus clearly stated that the authority of the church would not resemble the worldly hierarchy structure . It would be the opposite; i.e., the leaders would be become the servants. That is clearly not so in the Roman Catholic church. The curia (Roman Catholic hierarchy) of the Roman Catholic church is a very militant legalistic faction of the church that are responsible for the Inquisitions of old, which killed thousands of people through the centuries that opposed their doctrine. Of which John Paul 2 himself has apologized for in our day. This militant curia (Roman Catholic hierarchy) does not resemble, in the slightest, the humble portrayal of the King of kings and Lord of Lords upon His knees at the last supper washing the disciples feet. Rather we see the image of a militant Pope, sitting on his pompous throne throughout the ages, lavished with wealth and power, with his subjects bowing down kissing his ring and feet, wielding political might over the nations, conducting crusades that stampede through history, slaughtering thousands of Muslims and Jews; men, women and children. We see tyrants raging out of the Vatican, ordering the execution of thousands from the tenth century to the Reformation. No, the Roman Catholic church does not resemble the meek image of the Christ centered church of old, it resembles the vicious and tyrannical rule of the Roman Empire that preceded it, responsible for persecuting Christians.
I will be the first to admit that there have been some tyrannical and sinful Popes. Thank God they have been few. But all this argument proves is that at times the Pope has fallen short of Christ’s command.
Although I dealt with this text in my second rebuttal, it bears a reexamination:
Also a dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. Jesus said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves. You are those who have stood by me in my trials. And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Luke 22:24-30)
Notice Jesus does not say "There will be no rulers among you." He says, "the one who rules [will be] like the one who serves." This text does not prohibit authority in the Church. In Hebrews 13:17 we are reminded:
Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.
To have leaders that must be obeyed clearly implies a hierarchy. In Acts 6:2 the Apostles delegate their authority so that because, "It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables." St. Paul sets forth a hierarchy when addressing the Corinthians:
And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? But eagerly desire the greater gifts. (1 Corinthians 12:28-31)
In Matthew 18, Jesus tells His Apostles that the Church He is establishing will have authority to judge among believers:
If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that `every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. (Matthew 18:15-17)
Next Mr. O’Neill takes up the matter of the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15. He states:
In the very first instance of governing and at the very first council, we see James presiding as the lead elder, though St. Peter is present. What we witness all throughout the book of Acts is a collegiate body of believers making corporate decisions. There is no such animal as a "Roman Curia" or the office of the pope who speaks infallibly and dictates doctrine. Rather we see an assortment of disciples, elders and apostles, struggling with issues of the past, and prayerful making decisions for the future. But the distinction here is they confer with one another, not in a legalistic tribunal, but as a council of brethren, preferring and deferring to one another.
This is a misrepresentation of the text. Luke tells us that at Antioch Paul and Barnabas got into a dispute with the Judizers who said that a believer must first be circumcised. Acts 15:2 tells us:
So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question.
Please notice Paul’s submission to the authority of the Church. When they got to Jerusalem they brought the question to the council. Scripture tells us that, "After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them:" (Acts 15:7). In contrast to Mr. O’Neill’s statements, Peter is portrayed as the authority. Notice that after Peter speaks the matter is settled. Then James, the bishop of the Church at Jerusalem simply confirms what Peter has already declared.
Mr. O’Neill now tries to make the case that because Paul wrote the majority of the New Testament that he is the chief Apostle:
The reason the majority of the New Testament epistles to the church are written by St. Paul and not St. Peter is St. Paul was commissioned to instruct the Gentile church, not Peter. Just consider Romans 11:13 where St. Paul states ". . . I am the apostle of the Gentiles. I magnify my office St. Paul clarifies this in Chapter 2 of Galatians verse 7, that the gospel to the Gentile church was COMMITTED TO HIM. And the gospel to the Jew was commissioned to St. Peter, end of argument.
Yet is was Peter in Acts 10 that receives the vision from God and brings the first Gentile into the Church. It is on the authority of this vision that Peter makes his declaration in Acts 15 to the Jerusalem Council.
That Paul was a prolific writer I have no disagreements. That Paul had a special ministry to the Gentiles I also have no disagreement. But to say that this some how elevated Paul above Peter is clearly an unwarranted inference of the text.
Mr. O’Neill even goes so far as to say that the Apostles in Acts 1 were wrong when the selected Matthias and that God had to correct their mistake by choosing Paul:
Read in the book of Acts(1:23-26) how the disciples tried to randomly select an apostle to fill in Judas Iscariots empty place. They drew lots and selected Matthias, and that's the last time you hear of him all throughout scripture and history itself. But in God’s good time He selects the candidate to fill the 12th apostleship, and that is none other than St. Paul who proceeds to write the bulk of the New Testament. So much for the plans of man.
I just don’t see the Scriptural justification for this statement, it clearly is a product of Mr. O’Neill’s bias against the Catholic Church.
I would like to turn my attention to Mr. O’Neill’s , "Top Ten Reasons Why Peter Could Not Be The Rock Upon Which The Church is Built, Neither The Head Of The Church."
Mr. O’Neill writes:
1. First of all, the entire Old Testament refers to God as being the rock. The entire new Testament refers to Jesus(who is God) as the rock.
Not so. When the word "rock" is used in the old Testament it most often referrers to a literal rock. In its metaphorical it is most often applied to God but not always. "Rock" can also mean a firm foundation as in Numbers 24:21. It is used to refer to false gods in Deuteronomy 32:37. It is used as a truth that makes men "stumble" as in Isaiah 8:14. Then in Isaiah 51:1-2 the rock referrers to Abraham and Sarah. In Jeremiah 51:23 the rock refers to Babylon. Daniel 2:24 the rock is the Kingdom of God (i.e. the Church). In Zechariah 12:3 the rock is Jerusalem.
Moving to the New Testament metaphorical uses of "rock", we see that it stands for Jesus ‘ teachings in Matthew 7:24-27. As I have already shown it stands for Peter in Matthew 16:18. "Rock" is used for the hardness of men’s hearts in Luke 18:13. But if we take Mr. O’Neill’s statement at face value that "The entire New Testament refers to Jesus (who is God) as the rock," then the "this rock" of Matthew 16:18 must represent Jesus and not Peter’s confession as Mr. O’Neill has asserted.
Mr. O’Neill’s second argument:
2. Secondly, the scriptures clearly state that Jesus Christ is the head of the Church
I agree! Peter is the "sub-shepherd" as is clearly seen in John 21:16-19.
Argument three:
3. Thirdly, St. Peter was not the apostle assigned to the to the Gentile church (Galatians 2:7, St.. Paul was commissioned by God to build the Gentile church. St Peter was assigned to bringing the gospel to the Jews. (What is the Roman Catholic church going to do with
this scripture? I'm sure they wish it never existed). There's no argument! EXAMINE ROMANS 11:13 AND BE SATISFIED!
Again I agree, but what does this have to do with Peter’s primacy? As for Roman’s 11:13:
I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I make much of my ministry .
What does the Catholic Church do with this verse? We accept it. Just because Paul had a special ministry to the Gentiles do not mean that Peter is discounted. Remember it was by the authority of Peter that the Church was opened to the Gentiles.
Argument four:
4. If St. Peter were the model for the succeeding popes to follow why was he married and the following popes forbidden to? Read the epistle of Titus, Chapter 1:6,7, it states that a Bishop may have a wife and children. Isn't the pope supposed to be the bishop of Rome, then why can't Roman Catholic bishops be married? Because it is another false doctrine concocted by this pseudo Christian belief system.
Priests and Bishops in the Roman Catholic Church do not marry because they follow Jesus’ example. The Church also takes seriously Paul’s instruction:
Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. I say this as a concession, not as a command. I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that. Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. (1 Corinthians 7:1-9)
Any man considering the priesthood should consider very carefully if he can live an unmarried chaste life.
Argument five
5.The apostolic gift was not transferable . . .
No one can take their spiritual gift and calling and transfer it to someone else. Man can't randomly select a candidate for apostleship through drawing lots or by the process of a democratic election. That calling and vocation comes from God alone, out of heaven. The very nature of the call is a heavenly one. Subordinate officers are ordained by the laying on of hands (i.e., deacons, bishops, evangelists, pastors, etc.). An apostle is specifically selected and ordained by God. No one can assimilate this process.
The whole assumption behind this argument is that the Apostles made a mistake when they chose Matthias. As already stated, there is no Scriptural justification for this assumption. The very fact that the Apostles ordained by the laying on of hands, shows a transfer of spiritual authority.
Argument six
6. The bulk of the New Testament Epistles are written by St. Paul and not St.Peter. And the reason for this is because St. Paul was the apostle commissioned to instruct and oversee the church, not Peter. Peter was assigned as an apostle to the Jew. The proof is in the pudding. What is being said by the Roman Catholic church and what the scriptures clearly teach are two different things. Peter was not assigned to the gentile church (Galatians 2:7, .
I have already dealt with this subject above.
Argument seven
7. According to Roman Catholic doctrine, the pope, who is supposedly be the successor of St. Peter is called the Pontifex Maximus. This title was taken from the Roman emperors and meant "the high priest." Not just any high priest, but the high priest of the Roman Imperial Cult which would be equivalent to a satanic high priest of today. This mantle was passed down from Constantine, who convened and presided over the first ecumenical council, and soon the title became fixed to that office. The pope is not the high priest of the Christian church, Jesus Christ is
(Hebrews 7:17-2 . Over the centuries they began to call him "holy father," a name that is reserved for God alone. There is only one high priest over the house of God and that is Christ Jesus (Hebrews 10:21).
Again the facts are misrepresented. The old Roman Emperors exercised both civil and religious authority. This title was not passed down from Constantine but Theodosius. Emperor Theodosius, a Christian, recognized the religious authority of the Bishop of Rome and thus seeded religious authority over to him as Pontifex Maximus. Mr. O’Neill attempts to imply that Pope Siricius tolerated pagan titles and practices and that some how there is a connection to the Babylonian cults. This idea is bases on the discredited book "The Two Babylons" by Alexander Hislop. I agree that Jesus Christ is our High Priest. I have never argued otherwise.
Argument eight
8. St. Peter is not the substitute for Jesus Christ. According to Roman Catholic doctrine the pope is the vicar of Christ, which means "in the place of Christ," or "instead of Christ." In other words, they believe that the pope is the substitute for God upon the earth.
Again Mr. O’Neill sets up a straw-man to knock down. The Catholic Church has never claimed the Peter or and other Pope is a substitute Christ.
Argument nine
9. The keys of the kingdom of heaven were given to St. Peter to give entrance to the Gentiles into the kingdom of God. He did this in the book of Acts chapter 10 where Peter is given a vision of unclean beasts and is told to eat. At first Peter is reluctant to eat and then he is told to kill and eat because God had cleansed these beast, and not to call what God had cleansed unclean. Thus signifying that the gentiles would be given permission to enter the sheepfold. This was the purpose of the keys given to Peter, to unlock the kingdom of God to the gentiles, and he fulfilled this duty.
I have already sufficiently address the Keys. Mr. O’Neill’s view is nothing more than an assumption and has no Scriptural warrant.
Argument ten
10. St. Peter clearly instructed the elders of the church not to lord over God's flock (1 Peter 5:1,2,3). That an elder should be an example to God's people. And not to do anything through coercion. The Roman Catholic church has an obvious history of coercing people to comply with its doctrine or face death. Any questions?
It is interesting to note the Mr. O’Neill here admits Peter’s authority over, "the elders of the church." Although I disagree with his assessment of history, I have never tried to maintain that all Popes are perfect.
Mr. O’Neill opened his presentation by stating:
OPENING REMARKS: Before I begin, I would just like to make it clear that my reference source for all proposals, comments, remarks, statements and answers will come solely from sacred scripture. Because there is no better source. And if you are Roman Catholic then you are obligated to believe that; according to the Catholic Catechism "there is no better doctrine." - Catholic Catechism pg. 26, pgrph 127. Therefore I will go to the ultimate authority of all doctrine and dogma, and that is the Holy Bible. ....In addition I will also provide external evidence that WILL confirm what the Bible states: A. Proof from archeology, B. Proof from history, C. Proof from the accuracy of prophecy, D. Proof from the unity of Scripture.
Ignoring the fact that Mr. O’Neill tells us that he will draw "solely from sacred scripture," and then goes on to say that he will draw from History and archeology, we must ask is he has accomplished his mission. I must strongly assert that he has not! What Mr. O’Neill has given us as his "proof," is nothing more that isolated texts, generalizations assumptions and rhetoric.
I have demonstrated form the Scriptures that 1) Christ’s Church was founded upon Peter, 2) Peter had a primacy among the Apostles and 3) the necessity of successors to his Apostolic office. Therefore Mr. O’Neill’s argument falls!
In closing I would like to thank Mr. O’Neill for entering into this most important of topics.