SRR #87 The Diving Board, Ep 1 - The Conversion of Ray Ryland, Part 1

I do a podcast. I'm not interested in your podcast.

Justification by Faith Alone and Polemical Apologetics

The anathema of God was for those who denied justification by faith alone. When that is at stake, we need to be on the battlefield, exposing the air and combating the air.

We are unabashedly, unashamedly Clarkian. And so the next few statements that I'm going to make, I'm probably going to step on all of the Vantillian toes at the same time. And this is what we do at Simple Riff around the radio, you know.

We are polemical and polarizing Jesus style.

I would first say that to characterize what we do as bashing is itself bashing. It's not hate. It's history. It's not bashing. It's the Bible. Jesus said, Woe to you when men speak well of you, for their fathers used to treat the false prophets in the same way.

As opposed to blessed are you when you have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness.

It is on. We're taking the gloves off. It's time to battle.

The Diving Board and the Case Against Roman Catholic Conversion Stories

Hello there. This is Timothy F. Kaufman coming to you on Simple Riff Armando radio. Today we are starting a new podcast called The Diving Board. It is in parallel with our series on eschatology called The Danielic Imperative.

Our new series, The Diving Board, is an analysis of the conversion testimonies of people who have become Roman Catholic. This is something I've wanted to do for a while. It is an important series because of how effective the conversion testimonies can be.

Many intelligent people fall for the arguments put forth by Roman Catholic converts. And each time I read one, I am shocked at the lack of scholarship and integrity in the arguments that are repeated by those who convert.

I have read so many of these conversion testimonies and they all come down to one thing. An argument that Roman Catholicism is the only religion with a legitimate claim to apostolicity. To prove it, the Roman Catholic convert attempts to establish a continuity between the Roman Catholicism of the late 4th century with the Catholicism of the first three centuries.

I use that term deliberately. The early church considered itself Catholic or universal, but it did not consider itself Roman Catholic. In fact, that is one of the first arguments that is made to prove continuity.

That the early church called itself Catholic. For example, the Roman Catholic apologist will often try to make the case that in the early church, a traveling Christian would enter a town and instead of asking where any particular denomination meets to worship, he would instead ask where the Catholic church meets to worship.

See? There was only one denomination in the early church and it was Catholic. Therefore, everyone needs to convert to Roman Catholicism, Mother Church. Well, it is a funny argument with a tremendous invalid logical leap at the end of it and we will kick off this series by addressing it.

In the first few centuries of Christianity, a traveling Christian would enter a town and instead of asking where the Roman Catholic church meets to worship, he would ask where the Catholic church meets to worship.

The early church was not Roman Catholic and nobody would have known what you were talking about if you were to ask where you could find the Roman Catholic church. Unless, of course, you were actually in the city of Rome.

If you were in Alexandria, you would ask for the Alexandrian Catholic church. If you were in Antioch, you would ask for the Antiochian Catholic church. And if you were in Smyrna, you would ask for the Smyrnaean Catholic church.

It was not until the latter part of the 4th century that the idea of a centrally located religion based in Rome became a part of the vernacular. Lacking evidence for a Roman Catholic church any earlier than that, Roman Catholic apologists pretty much invent the continuity that would be necessary to prove the apostolicity of the Roman religion.

And that's what we're going to address today in the first podcast of our series. And in fact, we will address it in pretty much every episode because the presumption of apostolic continuity is the centerpiece of the Roman argument.

Ray Ryland, Cardinal Newman, and the Deep in History Conference

What we're going to cover in this episode is a speech given by Father Ray Ryland who converted from the Episcopalian church to Roman Catholicism. The video we are covering today is entitled, And it comes to us from a 2004 conference by the Coming Home Network, a ministry founded by former Protestants who have crossed over to Rome, believing that it is the true church.

Yes, we know that we are 14 years behind in our assessment of the conference and frankly, we've been a little bit busy. But the arguments never get old, so we don't need to have a fresh conference in order to interact with the silly arguments they make.

The conference was called, based on a statement that Cardinal Newman once made about his own journey from Anglicanism to Roman Catholicism. He is arguably one of the most famous converts to Roman Catholicism because of his high position prior to and after converting.

He was an Anglican priest until his conversion to Roman Catholicism in 1845. He was ultimately appointed to the Pope's College of Cardinals and wrote prolifically as an apologist for Roman Catholicism.

His famous saying was,. And it comes from his introduction to what is arguably his most famous work on the development of Christian doctrine. He wrote,. Whatever history teaches, whatever it omits, whatever it exaggerates or extenuates, whatever it says and unsays, at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism.

If ever there were a safe truth, it is this, to be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant. That statement was the inspiration for the Deep in History conference sponsored by the Coming Home Network.

The meaning is that if Protestant will simply be honest in the face of history, the rest will take care of itself. And that is what Father Ray Ryland claimed to do, be honest in the face of history. Father Ray Ryland's talk, Papal Authority and the Early Church, is available at the Coming Home Network webpage and we encourage our subscribers to watch or listen to the whole thing.

It is very revealing. And to the unequipped Protestant, it can come across as very convincing. But it is not at all compelling because of how fundamentally dishonest with history Ray Ryland must be in order to make a case for the historicity of his church and papal authority.

In fact, I'll just come out and say it. He's playing in the kiddie pool and has not ventured into the deep end at all. His whole talk is 40 minutes, but we are only going to interact with a few of his claims as they regard papal authority in the first three centuries of the church.

And we will just say at the outset that they are very shallow arguments indeed. The truth is, to be deep in history is to cease to be Roman Catholic. And that is why Roman Catholicism cannot venture too deeply into history without losing its footing.

There is a lot of posturing and hand-waving with claims to antiquity, but in the end, the honest Roman Catholic apologist knows very well that he cannot find Roman Catholicism in the early church. Even Cardinal Newman in his famous essay acknowledged this.

Even while claiming that to be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant, Newman also confessed that he could find Roman Catholicism no earlier than the fourth century. And to find it earlier than that, he had to fill in a lot of missing history and acknowledge that his starting assumption was the presumption of apostolic continuity, which, as it turns out, is an easily falsifiable assumption.

We will return to that presumption of apostolic continuity repeatedly in this series, but for now, let's dive into the deep end of the history pool so that we may offer a critique of Ray Ryland's conversion.

Clement of Rome and the Early Church's Letters

Let's just start with Ryland's appeal to the early church's deference to papal authority. His first reference is to a letter of Clement, the Bishop of Rome, to the church at Corinth. This is a letter that is dated toward the end of the first century.

The church at Corinth had experienced a division and rebellion in the ranks, and the elders of Corinth wrote to Clement to ask for advice. Clement wrote back to Corinth, and this is taken by Ryland to mean that the church at Corinth deferred to Rome's authority in a matter of church discipline.

I will let Ryland comment on the letter, and then we will provide some additional commentary. Ryland's comments on Clement are abbreviated because an earlier speaker had covered the matter in some detail, but we will want to interact specifically with Ryland's points.

Now, Ray Ryland.

Let's take a few samplings of the exercise of papal authority, just a few samplings from the early centuries. Dr. Marchner took us through one of those samplings, the letter of Clement in 96 A .D. to the church at Corinth.

Heal the schism. He mentioned the fact that they could have appealed to the patriarch of Jerusalem, they could have appealed to the patriarch of Alexandria. They also could have appealed to the Apostle John himself, who was still alive, according to you see, according to Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian, he was still alive then, and he was much closer geographically to Corinth than was Rome.

They could have had an apostle, the beloved apostle, settle their problems. To whom did they appeal? They appealed to the successor, Peter. Let me read to you what he wrote to them, a section of what he wrote to them.

When Clement wrote to them, he said, you therefore, he's talking to the insurgents, he says, you therefore, the prime movers of the schism, submit to the presbyters, and bending the knees of your hearts, accept correction and change your minds.

And he called on them to be obedient to what we have written through the Holy Spirit. You see how the clear implication there? Then he spoke of Jesus Christ, and St. Clement said to the insurgents, but should any disobey what has been said to him by Christ through us, get that?

Christ through us, let them understand they will entangle themselves in transgression and no small danger. Very clearly perceives himself as speaking with the authority of Christ.

Why Early Christian Correspondence Does Not Prove Roman Primacy

Now, there are several rather bold assumptions made by Ryland, and we'll have to spend some time on each one. First, he makes an argument that Corinth was geographically closer to Jerusalem and Alexandria, and could have appealed to them, or to the apostle John, who was supposedly still living in Ephesus at the time.

But instead, the Corinthians appealed to Rome. Now, keep that in mind. Ryland said that they could have appealed to the apostle John, but did not. And this is presented by Ryland as evidence of a widespread deference to the successor of Peter in Rome.

We are highlighting this because it will be important when we get to the next section, and we will come back to it. But before we go much farther, there's a piece of history with which every Christian ought to be familiar, because Roman Catholicism would actually prefer that you be ignorant of it.

The piece of history with which we must all be familiar is that the early churches wrote letters to each other all the time. Yes, a lot of letters. And they wrote to each other in a spirit of collegiality and of brotherly admonition and correction, asking for and giving advice and accepting correction.

Everybody did this. In fact, just prior to the Council of Nicaea, Alexander of Alexandria, who was the first to depose Arius, the namesake of the Arian controversy, addressed a letter to the whole church throughout the world, saying how important it is for everyone to write to each other, all the time, about what they are doing.

Here is his opening line, now quoting from Alexander of Alexandria, the deposition of Arius. Greeting in paragraph 1. To our beloved and most reverend fellow ministers of the Catholic Church in every place, Alexander sends greetings in the Lord.

Since the body of the Catholic Church is one, and it is commanded in Holy Scripture that we should keep the bond of unanimity and peace, it follows that we should write and signify to one another the things which are done by each of us, that whether one member suffer or rejoice, we may all either suffer or rejoice with one another.

Now let me just observe that Alexander did not say, since the body of the Catholic Church is one, it follows that we should get all of our advice and correction from a single source in Rome. No, that did not even cross his mind and was a concept completely foreign to the early church.

What was common was to write opinions and reports on issues they were facing and let other bishops comment on them and provide guidance or insight or feedback. That is how the early church lived and practiced the faith as the church grew and spread across the known world.

The letters went in many different directions from and to many different congregations, but Ryland has highlighted a single instance and wants you to conclude in your mind that the standard practice of the day was for churches to write to Rome for advice.

Now there are a couple points I will make here. First, I would like to give you a sampling of how often these kinds of letters were exchanged. Yes, it is true Corinth wrote to the Church of Rome and Clement wrote back to the church at Corinth and asked the Corinthians to write back and let him know how they were progressing.

That's from Clement to the Corinthians, paragraph 65. Ignatius, the bishop of Antioch, at the time wrote letters to Ephesus, Magnesia, Rome, Philadelphia, and Smyrna and asked them to write letters back to him, as indicated by Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrnaeans, chapter 11, and to elect delegates who could journey to the church at Antioch to send greetings from their churches.

That's from Ignatius of Antioch to Polycarp, chapter 7. The church at Philippi wrote to Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, to ask his advice, and Polycarp of Smyrna wrote back to Philippi saying, These things, brethren, I write to you concerning righteousness, not because I take anything upon myself, but because you have invited me to do so.

That's Polycarp to Philippi, chapter 3. In the letter to Polycarp, the church at Philippi requested that their letter to him be duplicated and forwarded to Antioch and further requested that copies of Ignatius' letters be sent to Philippi.

And Ignatius wrote to Polycarp requesting that the letter from Philippi be forwarded to him. Polycarp agreed to all of these requests. As indicated in his letter to Philippi, chapter 13. And when Polycarp died, the church at Smyrna wrote to Philomelium saying, To the church of God which dwells at Philomelium, and to all the parishes of the Holy Catholic Church in every place, mercy and peace and love from God the Father be multiplied.

That's a quotation recorded for us by Eusebius, Church History, book 4, chapter 15. And the church at Smyrna further requested that the letter be copied and sent to other churches that were even more remote.

That's from the Martyrdom of Polycarp, chapter 20. Take any one of these letters in isolation, subject it to a clinical analysis intent on a preferred outcome, and one can prove the primacy of any Episcopal seat in the early church.

But such a skewed analysis requires that we ignore the plain ecclesiological expressions in those very letters. When read in context, the emergent ecclesiology of the early church does not have them deriving their authority from a chief shepherd presiding in Rome over all apostolic congregations.

Rather, there was a mutual collegiality among them, none of them presuming to be in charge of the other, Christ alone being the chief shepherd. And this brings me to my second point. It is important to know about all the epistles that were exchanged between the early congregations because sometimes another bishop would write to Rome to encourage their erring presbyters and rebuke them for creating a schism.

And then the bishop of Rome would write back to that bishop thanking him for correcting his erring flock. Ray Ryland does not mention those letters. What he does is isolate the letters in which a bishop of one church asks the bishop of Rome for advice and the letters in which the bishop of Rome gives advice and asks you to conclude a position of primacy in Rome.

It is a common deception in which the Roman apologist relies on your ignorance of history and lets you conclude invalidly that you are deep in history when you are in fact still at the shallow end of the history pool.

The fact that Ryland has done so here will become apparent as we proceed today. But for now, let me give an example of when a congregation in Rome sought the counsel of others when it was in the exact same situation that Corinth faced.

Ryland does not mention these because if he were to read into these what he has read into the correspondence between Rome and Corinth, he would have to conclude that Rome deferred to Carthage and Carthage was the chief episcopal seat of the early church.

Consider this example. In the 3rd century, there was a disagreement in the Roman congregation and a competing bishop had been ordained and there erupted a schism in the early church at Rome. Cyprian of Carthage wrote to the erring presbyters and rebuked them demanding that they believe and acquiesce in his letters.

Now citing from Cyprian of Carthage's Epistle to the Roman Schismatics, Epistle 43 Believe I entreat you and acquiesce in these my letters, wherein I both right and with simplicity and fidelity consult for you and for your doings and for your praise.

For it weighs me down and saddens me and the intolerable grief of a smitten, almost prostrate spirit seizes me when I find that you there, contrary to ecclesiastical order, contrary to evangelical law, contrary to the unity of the Catholic institution, had consented that another bishop should be made.

That is what is neither right nor allowable to be done. That another church should be set up, that Christ's members should be torn asunder, that the one mind and body of the Lord's flock should be lacerated by a divided emulation.

Now, based on Cyprian's rebuke, the erring presbyters returned to the rightfully elected bishop in Rome, whereupon the Roman bishop wrote to Cyprian to notify him of the return of the schismatics, that's Epistle 45 of Cyprian, and the schismatics wrote to Cyprian to notify him of their repentance and return to the unity of the church, that's Epistle 49.

Remember what Ryland said about the letter of Clement to Corinth? Just think about that as you hear the bishop of Carthage intervening in a similar schism in the Roman church. If I were to read these letters the way Ray Ryland read the letter of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, I would have to say that the bishop of Carthage was the head of the church because Cyprian had to write to the schismatics command that they believe and submit based on his letter, and both the bishop of Rome and the schismatics wrote separately to Cyprian to let him know the outcome and to thank him for it.

In isolation, that sure sounds like the bishop of Carthage pretty much ran the ancient church, but we ought not read these letters in isolation. But I can say that Ray Ryland read the letter of Clement to the Corinth in isolation in order to make it look like the bishop of Rome ruled the early church.

In another letter, the Roman congregation wrote to Pope Cyprian thanking him for his rigorous discipline that he had administered. Now reading from the letter of the presbyters and deacons abiding at Rome to Cyprian.

Epistle 29, paragraph 1. The presbyters and deacons abiding at Rome to Pope Cyprian. Greeting! When, beloved brother, we carefully read your letter which you sent by Fortunatus, the subdeacon, we were smitten with a double sorrow and disordered with a twofold grief that there was not any rest given to you in such necessities of the persecution and that the unreasonable petulance of the lapsed brethren was declared to be carried even to a dangerous boldness of expression.

But although those things which we have spoken of severely afflicted us and our spirit, yet your rigor and the severity that you have used according to the proper discipline moderates the so heavy load of our grief and that you rightly restrain the wickedness of some and, by your exhortation to repentance, show the legitimate way of salvation.

And again in Epistle 30, paragraph 1, they confess their crimes and degeneracy to Cyprian. And what is most telling, this occurred during a time when the Roman congregation quote, had no bishop appointed as yet because the previous bishop had been martyred.

And though many of the surrounding churches had recommended that they appoint a bishop, they deferred instead to Cyprian's advice that they call a church council to settle other more pressing matters first, that is, to determine what should be done with the Christians who had denied Christ during the persecution but still wanted to get back into the church after the persecution had passed.

They were called the lapsed. And it was a rather controversial matter in the church at the time. Here's what the Roman congregation said to Cyprian about the fact that there was no bishop currently appointed in Rome and there would not be one until after they had time to call a council to deal with the lapsed.

Now citing from a letter from the congregation at Rome to Cyprian, Epistle 30, paragraph 5. Since the departure of Bishop Fabian, of most notable memory, we have had no bishop appointed as yet on account of the difficulties of affairs and times who can arrange all things of this kind and who can take account of those who are lapsed with authority and wisdom.

However, what you also have yourself declared in so important a matter is satisfactory to us that the peace of the church must first be maintained then that an assembly for council be gathered together with bishops, presbyters, deacons, and confessors as well as a laity who stand fast we should deal with the case of the lapsed.

Again, Epistle 30, paragraph 5. Once those matters were settled they could return to the less important matter of having a bishop in Rome according to paragraph 8 of the same letter. And here is the closing sentence of the letter from the Roman congregation to Cyprian of Carthage.

We bid you, most blessed and glorious Pope, ever-heartily farewell in the Lord and have us in memory. That's Epistle 30, paragraph 8. The Roman congregation was not worried about appointing a new bishop because they had Cyprian of Carthage to guide them.

Just think about the significance of that letter to Cyprian. In Roman Catholicism, there are few things more important than electing a new bishop of Rome. But the congregation in Rome did not think it was that important and agreed with Cyprian that the peace of the church must first be maintained by calling a council to deal with the lapsed and that they could choose a bishop at a later, more convenient time.

If Ryland were to look at those exchanges between Rome and Carthage in the same way that he looked at the exchanges between Rome and Corinth he would have to conclude that the early church thought Carthage, not Rome, was the chief Episcopal seat of the church and that Cyprian was its pope.

Our point is simply that the congregations all wrote to each other, and we need to understand that as we look at each letter individually. It was not unusual for bishops in the various cities to send letters to one another seeking counsel and advice on various issues and also letting the various churches know what position they had taken on various issues that had come up.

Ryland found one letter that seemed to support his assumption, and he did not go any deeper into history than that. Okay, so let's move on to his next point. He read a section of Clement's letter and took it to mean that Clement believed the Holy Spirit was speaking through him to the church at Corinth and he had read another section and took it to mean that Clement believed he was speaking with the authority of Christ.

Let me play the clip on the Holy Spirit returning now to Ryland's argument.

When Clement wrote to them he said you therefore he's talking to the insurgents he says you therefore, the prime movers of the schism submit to the presbyters and bending the knees of your hearts accept correction and change your minds and he called on them to be obedient to what we have written through the Holy Spirit.

See? You see the clear implication there?

Okay, now here is the paragraph immediately preceding the one Ryland was quoting just so you have the context. Now citing Clement to the Corinthians, paragraph 56. Let us then also pray for those who have fallen into any sin that meekness and humility may be given to them so that they may submit not unto us, but to the will of God.

For in this way they shall secure a fruitful and perfect remembrance from us, with sympathy for them both in our prayers to God and our mention of them to the saints. Let us receive correction, beloved on account of which no one should feel displeased.

Those exhortations by which we admonish one another are both good and highly profitable for they tend to unite us to the will of God. For thus says the Holy Word.

Clement then.

Proceeds from that point to cite scripture after scripture after scripture about the Lord's chastening unto repentance. Clement is not asking them to submit to him, but to the scriptures and then goes on to cite a lot of scriptures about accepting correction from the Lord.

From that point Clement continues in the next paragraph the one Ryland cited in isolation and notice that Clement has simply continued in his line of thought by citing Proverbs 1, 22 -33 in which the Holy Spirit is mentioned.

Here is what Clement wrote, imploring the rebellious presbyters to submit now citing from chapter 57 of the same letter. You therefore, who laid the foundations of this sedition, submit yourselves to the presbyters, and receive correction so as to repent bending the knees of your hearts.

Learn to be subject, laying aside the proud and arrogant self-confidence of your tongue, for it is better for you that you should occupy a humble but honorable place in the flock of Christ than that, being highly exalted, you should be cast out from the hope of his people for thus speaks all virtuous wisdom.

Quote.

Behold, I will bring forth to you the words of my spirit, and I will teach you my speech since I called and you did not hear, I held forth my words, and you regarded not but said it not my counsels and yielded not in my reproofs therefore I too will laugh at your destruction, etc. etc.

Again, notice that Clement quoted a passage of Scripture in which the Holy Spirit teaches humility and wisdom and repentance, but Clement does not say he is speaking on behalf of the Holy Spirit. In fact, the context shows that Clement believed that they should bend the knee not to him but rather to the spirit-inspired Word of God, a point he makes explicitly in the preceding paragraph that was not cited by Ryland.

So where does Ryland actually get the idea that Clement thinks that the words written by him were from the Holy Spirit? Well, that's an interesting story by itself. Let me give you a couple translations.

This is from James A. Kleist's 1949 translation of chapter 63 verse 2 of Clement's letter, which reads,. You certainly will give us the keenest pleasure if you prove obedient to what we have written through the Holy Spirit and extirpate the lawless passion of your jealousy in accordance with the pleas we have made in this letter for peace and concord.

And another rendering, this from J. B. Lightfoot's 1890 translation rendering similarly as if the things written by Clement were the words of the Holy Spirit. Ye will give us great joy and gladness if ye render obedience unto the things written by us through the Holy Spirit and root out the unrighteous anger of your jealousy according to the entreaty which we have made for peace and concord in this letter.

Now, I will just say that Kleist was a Jesuit and Lightfoot was an Anglican who conceded early primacy to the Bishop of Rome, and both of them saw Clement's words here as evidence that the Bishop of Rome, as early as the first century, recognized that he was not merely a bishop of a church in a single city.

Both translators attach the phrase, through the Holy Spirit, to the things written by us, to make Clement appear to claim that his own letter is inspired by the Holy Spirit. But two other Protestant translators render it differently, and attach the phrase, through the Holy Spirit, to the repentance that Clement seeks from the Corinthians.

This is from Charles Houle's 1885 translation, and he renders it, For joy and rejoicing will ye afford us if, becoming obedient to the things that have been written by us, you put an end by the suggestion of the Holy Spirit to the unlawful wrath of your discord, according to the supplication we have made, concerning peace and unity in this epistle.

And now reading from John Keith's 1896 translation, which renders it, Joy and gladness will ye afford us, if ye become obedient to the words written by us, and through the Holy Spirit root out the lawless wrath of your jealousy, according to the intercession which we have made for peace and unity in this letter.

Our first observation is that Houle's and Keith's translations appear more consistent with Clement's letter, since Clement, throughout, has invoked the Holy Spirit's movement in the believer toward an attitude of repentance.

See, for example, paragraphs 7, 8, 13, 16, 56, and 57. But there is something more that we need to consider in Clement's letter, and it comes to us from chapter 45, verse 2, in which Clement implores the Corinthians to investigate the scriptures, which are the true sayings of the Holy Spirit.

Clement, in his original Greek, actually uses the plural Greek definite article to describe the scriptures as the truths of the Holy Spirit. The Greek is tas alethis, which are the truths, which you can see in Jacques Meunier's series on the Greek Fathers, volume 1, column 300.

The scriptures, which are the truths of the Holy Spirit. The earliest Latin translation, which we find in column 299 of the same volume, reads Spiritus Sancti vera oracula, the Holy Spirit's true sayings.

What is interesting is that Houle and Keith render it in their faithful English translations the way the original Greek and earliest Latin translations rendered it. Here is Houle's 1885 translation. Look diligently into the scriptures, which are the true sayings of the Holy.

Spirit. And.

Keith's 1896 translation, look carefully into the scriptures, which are the true utterances of the Holy.

Spirit.

The Latin and the Greek are simple, straightforward, and terse. They are definite in assigning to the scriptures the exclusivity of being true utterances of the Holy Spirit. But Kleist and Lightfoot both changed the sense to eliminate from Clement the view that the scriptures alone are the true sayings of the Holy Spirit.

Kleist's 1949 translation says, you have looked deep into the sacred writings, which tell the truth and proceed from the Holy Spirit. And Lightfoot's 1890 translation renders it, you have searched the scriptures, which are true, which were given through the Holy Ghost.

Notice that they both eliminate the exclusivity that is present in Clement's original. The scriptures are the truths of the Holy Spirit. Kleist says that the scriptures tell the truth and come from the Spirit, and Lightfoot says they are true and were given by the Spirit, but Clement says they are the truths of the Holy Spirit.

And that is why we are so skeptical of Ryland's conclusions on that point. If Clement believed that the scriptures are the truths of the Holy Spirit, or the true sayings of the Holy Spirit, would he really then tell the Corinthians that his own letter was written through the Holy Spirit?

To do so would be for Clement to elevate his own letter to the level of inspired scriptures, because it would have him saying that his own letter is also a true utterance of the Holy Spirit, and thus, Scripture.

Ryland's reliance on such a questionable translation to arrive at early papal primacy essentially makes Clement's letter internally inconsistent, which is why we cannot accept his rendering. Clement cannot simultaneously hold that the scriptures are the true utterances of the Holy Spirit, and also that his own letter is also a true utterance of the Holy Spirit, without making his own letter inspired scriptures, something that Clement never would have done.

Popes have taught that their own infallible sayings are as authoritative as scriptures, but not even the Pope at Rome has said his encyclicals.

Are scriptures.

Clement was not claiming that his own writings were utterances of the Holy Spirit, and he certainly wasn't saying that the Holy Spirit had written the letter to the Corinthians through the Bishop of Rome.

Clement's Use of Scripture, Not Papal Authority

Okay, so here's the next clip in which Clement is alleged, in the next paragraphs, to be speaking with the authority of Christ. Again, here is Ryland.

Okay,.

Let's look at Clement's actual words. His actual words were, if, however, any shall disobey the word spoken by him through us, not by Christ through us, let him know that they will involve themselves in transgression and serious error.

Okay, who is the him to whom Clement is referring? If Ryland had simply read and quoted the letter in context, he and his listeners would have seen that Clement was speaking not of Christ, but of the Father, who had been speaking in the first person in Proverbs 1 .23, which Clement had just quoted.

And thus, Clement had not been claiming to speak with the authority of Christ, but with the authority of the Scriptures, an authority with which every Christian is equipped to speak, and an authority with which the bishops of the other church constantly address themselves.

Here are the actual words of Clement's letter, now citing paragraphs 58 and 59. He who in loneliness of mind, with instant gentleness, and without repentance, has observed the ordinances and appointments given by God, that is, the Father.

The same shall obtain a place and name in the number of those who are being saved through Jesus Christ, through whom is glory to him, God the Father, forever and ever. Amen. If, however, any shall disobey the word spoken by him, God the Father, through us, let him know that they will involve themselves in transgression and serious danger.

Again, Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, paragraphs 58 and 59, including the section that Ryland cited out of context. Obviously, Clement had been referring to the Father, not to Christ, when he said, If, however, any shall disobey the word spoken by him.

And his point was that the presbyters in Corinth should submit not to Rome, but to the Scriptures. Now just consider the intellectual poverty of Ryland's argument based on these words of Clement. Not only did Clement's letter not say the words spoken by Christ through us, but also the person to whom Clement was referring was the Father himself, not the Son.

If we were to apply Ryland's reasoning to the actual words of Clement, Ryland would have to conclude that Clement was not claiming to speak with the authority of Christ, but with the authority of the Father.

In reality, all Clement had done was quote the Father, saying in Proverbs 1 .22 that I will pour my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you. In that section of Proverbs, the reader is cautioned to fear the Lord and not despise his reproof.

Clement, the bishop of Rome, was simply saying that we ought to listen to what God says to us in the Scriptures. It was no claim to papal authority. Okay, let's move on to Ryland's next argument from history.