Conclusion of the Papacy Debate

I was just looking through the debate with Mitch Pacwa on the subject of the papacy for another video blog that I'm working on.

You'll see it a little bit later. And I recorded the closing statement because I thought that's what somebody was responding to and then found out that wasn't what they were responding to.

And I looked at it and said, you know, that's a pretty decent summary of why it's so important for us to study this particular issue.

And so I thought I'd just throw this up here for you and let's take a look at it. It's from back at a point in time in my life when

I should have already shaved my head but I hadn't. Sort of one of those things, just time has to convince you of doing the right thing.

But I think it's a good summary of the debate that we had. And of course we make this debate available on DVD, mp3 download, things like that.

I'd encourage you to take a look at it. Here's the closing statement from the papacy debate, I believe it was 1998 or so, on Long Island between myself and Mitch Pacwa.

I would like to begin by thanking all of you who have worked so hard to make this available to everyone here tonight.

Thank you for being here. A special thanks to to Chris Arnzen and Mike Rotolo for all the work that they do.

I think it's a wonderful opportunity to address these issues and I hope that you have been blessed by being here this evening.

I also wish to thank Mitch Pacwa for traveling all the way out here and for engaging in this debate.

I have a tremendous respect for him in in that point and we obviously disagree very, very deeply.

But I'm thankful that I think we succeeded in what I said we wanted to do and that was we've debated the issues tonight, not who

Mitch Pacwa is or who I am. And I think that's very important. Gregory Natsianz and Gregory wrote this.

Having gone through the whole set of sacred offices to Passover intervening events, he is entrusted with the presidency over the people, which is the same as saying the rule of the whole world.

And I cannot say whether he received the priesthood as the reward of his virtue or to be the source and life of the church.

For she fainting through thirst of the truth was like Ishmael to be refreshed or like Elijah to be revived when the earth and the drought was cooled in the stream and from her exhaustion to be brought back to life.

Those are high words of praise. And I believe if they had been spoken of a bishop of Rome, a

Roman Catholic apologist would cite them as evidence of the papacy because he talks about having the presidency and the rule over the whole world.

But Gregory Natsianz didn't say that about the Pope. He said that about Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria.

Why is it then that a Roman Catholic, when hearing this type of language used of the

Bishop of Rome, automatically assumes that it means that that person believed that the Bishop of Rome has the sole and prime jurisdiction over the whole church?

Why, when we see all these issues in the New Testament, is it that individuals can say, well, but that's just an argument for silence.

And yes, when the pastoral epistles are written, yes, they talk all about how the church is to be formed and offices in the church, but the issue of the papacy just didn't come up.

It was assumed. Why is that? It's because of what

I said last year. There are two positions in this debate. I believe in sola scriptura, that the scripture is the sole and fallible rule of faith of the church.

The only other position when debating this issue with Roman Catholicism is sola ecclesia, the church as the final and absolute authority in matters of faith.

And I believe the reason that individuals can look back at the history of the church and not see it for what it was, not see it the papacy as a gradual development, that it is contradicted by numerous things all the way through the history of the church, is because they've been told what to see by their ultimate authority.

And who is the ultimate authority? It's the Pope himself. I do not believe that if you take seriously the authority of the

Roman see that you can then in a dispassionate manner examine the evidence because Rome has already told you this is what we've always believed and this is what you are to believe.

But my friends, we cannot allow that kind of circular argument to be the foundation of our religious faith.

Every six months I go to Salt Lake City and I witness to a whole mess of folks who have a very strong belief that the man who gathers with them up there in Salt Lake City who they call a prophet is a prophet from God.

And there is nobody in this room, unless you happen to be LDS, who would accept the argument that the prophet is the prophet because the prophet says he's the prophet.

That's not going to carry the day. In the same way just because Rome says, well, this has been the universal faith of the church, you cannot then look at all of the fathers like John Chrysostom who says,

Jesus did not establish his church upon Peter the man, but in opposition to that.

See, he wasn't one of those that you could say, well, he sort of fits into both categories. He didn't. He specifically denied it was upon Peter.

It was upon his confession of faith. And yet, what happens when we ask questions about that?

What happens when we've asked the question, can you show me anybody in the early church that understood

Matthew 16 in exactly the way Vatican 1 says has always been believed? And so far, I haven't heard anyone.

I've heard someone say, well, he said something nice about Peter. That's fine. That doesn't make it relevant to the

Bishop of Rome. He says something nice about the Bishop of Rome. Okay, that's fine. It doesn't mean that only the Bishop of Rome is the successor of Peter.

My friends, we're talking about final and absolute authorities here and this is irrelevant to every single person sitting in this room.

Because the claim of Rome is, here you have the very vicar of Christ on earth, infallible in his pronouncements, and he may well,

I don't know whether he's going to or not to, but he may well define as a dogma of the Christian faith to be accepted de fide by faith that Mary is co -redemptrix, mediatrix, and advocate for the people of God.

And bind that upon your conscience. That's vital. That's important because when someone comes to me and asks me, what is the

Christian faith? I have a finished book I can point them to. I don't have to say, well, right now it's this, but next week there may be another element, de fide, a belief that no one in the early church believed.

Go back and look at the debate on Mary that we did. But if we invest in a particular human person, in a church that did not even have a singular bishop until the middle of the second century, absolute authority and jurisdiction over the

Christian people, then the walls have come down. There is no way to guard against any type of teaching whatsoever.

And I would submit to you that doctrines like the Immaculate Conception, the Bodily Assumption of Mary, which have been defined on the basis of this alleged authority, illustrate for us what happens when you both deny sola scriptura and embrace sola ecclesia.

The issues are vital. And they have been laid before you tonight, I think very clearly. Someone asked, does anyone know who wins the debate?

You are the judges. That's your responsibility. I know we live in a society today that says, oh no, don't tell anybody they've got responsibilities.

I'm telling you right now, you have a responsibility to work through this issue. You say, but I'm a busy person.

Well, eternity is a long time. So work through the issues.