Papal Infallibility (White vs Sungenis)

Papal Infallibility and the Authority to Define the Gospel

I'm Bob Sungenis. I'm happy to be here to defend the Catholic position on this very important topic. Just to let you know a little bit about myself, I was born and raised a Catholic for 19 years, and after that I was a Protestant for 18 years.

And eight years ago I came back to the Catholic Church, and I'm happy to represent the Catholic Church's teachings, and I can safely say that I know both sides of the issue, having spent equal time on both sides.

I do run an organization, and it's called Catholic Apologetics International, and we teach and defend the Catholic faith across the country and internationally, with books and tapes and lectures and debates like this and all kinds of things.

We have an internet site, and you can call us up any time, day or night, and we'll answer your questions about the Catholic faith, and feel free to do that if after tonight you have any questions about what's debated.

So with that, as far as my education, I was educated more as a Protestant than I was as a Catholic. So I went to a Protestant seminary, I graduated from there, Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia.

And so I'm very familiar with Protestant doctrines, how you think, what you believe, and why you believe them. And I hope tonight to maybe give you the other side of the story. Thank you.

It is good to be with you this evening. My name is James White. I'm the director of Alpha and Omega Ministries. I teach for the Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary and Columbia Evangelical Seminary.

I'm an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church, and author of a number of books, two of which are relevant here, The Roman Catholic Controversy and Mary, Another Redeemer. And our work with Alpha and Omega Ministries has given us the opportunity of engaging in, and I believe this is about the 28th or 29th moderated debate like this, on the subjects of Roman Catholicism and giving an answer.

And so I really do appreciate the hard work that has gone into making this evening an opportunity for us to address this very important issue.

In 1870, Pope Pius IX said in Pastor Aeternus, It is a divinely revealed dogma that the Roman pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when acting in the office of shepherd and teacher of all Christians, he defines, by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the universal church, possesses through the divine assistance promised to him in the person of blessed Peter, the infallibility with which the divine redeemer willed his church to be endowed in defining the doctrine concerning faith or morals, and that such definitions of the Roman pontiff are therefore irreformable of themselves, not because of the consent of the church.

Now, there are certain criterion for papal infallibility that are listed here. Let me go through them for you. Number one, the pope must be speaking in his recognized role as teacher for all Christians.

Number two, that he precisely defines a doctrine, not merely give general teaching. Number three, that the definition concerns only matters of faith or morality. Number four, that the definition is commanded to be believed and obeyed by the whole church.

And number five, that such teachings are irreformable and not subject to denial from the church. Without these criterion fulfilled, the Roman pontiff does not speak infallibly. If only a percentage of them are fulfilled, then the Roman pontiff is not speaking infallibly.

Does this infer that when the pope does speak infallibly, that he can and has taught error? Well, this is one of those have you stopped beating your wife questions that takes a little more than a yes or no answer to answer.

God gives each man a measure of wisdom. Moses, for example, was a great man and had a great amount of wisdom from God. With that wisdom, Moses made many great decisions for the people of Israel. He commissioned 70 elders with a proportionate amount of wisdom to help in making these judgments.

Solomon, too, had great wisdom. He saved a baby's life from the treacherous hands of a barren woman by using his wisdom. Yet no one would say that Solomon or his decisions were infallible. In the end, although things are a little different today, we still go by the same principle.

In his ordinary teaching, the pope will use his God-given wisdom to lead the church. John Paul, too, for example, has written many encyclicals and letters and has spoken about the faith on countless occasions to the world.

Like Moses, his judgments are trustworthy and demand the assent of God's people. When he writes, he writes with authority. When he speaks, he speaks with authority. Yet not every sentence of an encyclical, for example, if diagrammed and analyzed, would show that everything the pope said was absolutely without the slightest tinge of error.

But in such teachings, not every word or phrase has to be infallible in order for the general teaching to be in line with the general truth of the Christian faith, which was passed down through the fathers and the previous popes and councils.

But things are very different when the pope speaks infallibly. Speaking infallibly means that not only is the general teaching correct, but every word, every phrase, every sentence used to arrive at that truth is without error, for it is a precise definition of a specific issue.

To give you an idea of this in a conciliar document, the Nicene Creed is infallible in every word, every phrase, every sentence it proclaims. There is not a single item that is subject to error. Christ is begotten, not made, one in being with the Father.

The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. There is one baptism for the forgiveness of sins, and so on and so on. In the same way, when Pope Pius XII defined the assumption of Mary in 1950, all his words were without error, for they defined a specific issue and bound people to that issue under threat of anathema.

In cases like these, similar to God's other intrusions into human history, the Holy Spirit miraculously protects the Church from producing any error. In my next section, I will explain the biblical basis for this Catholic teaching.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Question of Authority

Why are we here this evening? Why would someone such as myself desire to debate the subject of papal infallibility? Quite simply, it's because of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And you may ask, what do you mean?

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the reason why we have this debate this evening. Fundamentally, the differences that exist between what I believe is biblical Christianity and the Roman Catholic system of belief comes to the issue of authority in defining what the Gospel is.

It was only a few years ago that I debated another Roman Catholic apologist by the name of Jerry Matitix. And in the course of our debate on the doctrine of Mary, Mr. Matitix very boldly proclaimed that the bodily assumption of Mary, which is based upon the dogma we debate this evening, the infallibility of the Pope, as Mr. St. Genes just said in making reference to those things, that the bodily assumption of Mary is a part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

And so who has the authority to define the Gospel of Jesus Christ? Has the Gospel once for all been delivered to the saints? Or is the Gospel subject to addition? Now, Rome does not say that the bodily assumption is an addition, that in fact it is an apostolic tradition.

But when we examine those teachings, whether it be the Immaculate Conception, the bodily assumption, the Mass is a perpetuatory sacrifice, the infallibility of the Pope himself, when we examine these dogmas and we find them to be ahistorical, to be things that the Apostles and the Lord Jesus never taught, fundamentally we come down to the conclusion that we have two differing views of authority.

And the ultimate authority of the Church in the Roman Catholic system results in the proclamation of dogmas that I believe violate the command of the Apostle Paul in Galatians 1, 6 -8. Therefore, if I love people, including those who are a part of the Roman Catholic communion, then the greatest act of love that I can give to them is to point out to them the errors of the system that would take from them the Gospel of grace and add anything to the Gospel that brings men into a right relationship with God.

And so ultimately the only reason that we address this issue this evening, the only reason that we address Bishop Honorius and Bishop Zosimas and we get into the historical details, is to come back to being able to say, what is the Gospel, where do we go to find out what the Gospel is?

Do we go to that which is the Anustos, the Scriptures, and do we confess that they are sufficient to act as the sole infallible rule of faith of the Church, or is there something more, is there an infallible magisterium that we must follow to know what the Gospel is?

That's why we're here this evening. And so I invite every one of you, whether you are Catholic or non-Catholic, whatever your background is, to listen carefully to what is said this evening, because remember, ultimately the system that is being defended this evening claims to have the authority to define the Gospel by which you will either stand before God or by which you will not be able to stand before God.

The issues this evening are eternal. The issues this evening are vital. And I'm so thankful that you're here to share in this experience with us. Thank you.

I will cover two passages in this eight-minute section. The first passage is Matthew 16, verses 18 to 19. Here Jesus gives Peter the keys to the kingdom. This giving of the keys is, in itself, very important, since the keys to the kingdom are given to no other single person of the apostolic band.

Although in Matthew 18, verse 18, the other apostles are also given the power to bind and loose, they are not given that power in connection with the keys of the kingdom. In fact, right after Jesus gives Peter the keys, in Matthew 16, verse 19, the words for you in the clauses you shall bind or you shall loose are Greek singulars which refer only to Peter.

There are several distinguishing features of Matthew 16 from which we derive the teaching of the infallibility of the Pope. First, if we back up a few sentences to verses 13 to 17, we see that Peter is given a direct revelation from the Father that none of the other apostles receive.

What he receives is the knowledge that Jesus is the Messiah. At Peter's declaration that Jesus is the Messiah, Jesus says, Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father in heaven.

In other words, no flesh and blood human taught this to him. It came directly from the Father. Second, still speaking to Peter in verse 18, Jesus says that he will not allow the gates of hell to prevail against the church.

This shows that Jesus will be continually active in protecting the church throughout its existence. Thus, it is no surprise to read in John 14, verse 16, Jesus saying these words, And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another counselor to be with you until the end of the age, the spirit of truth.

And again in John 16, verse 13, When he, the spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. Hence, the protection of the church does not merely refer to its physical existence, but to its possessing of truth given to it by the Holy Spirit.

By declaring that Jesus is the Messiah in verse 13, Peter has already shown us how the Father will reveal truth to him through the Holy Spirit. Third, the parameters of what the church will receive are detailed in the statement of verse 19.

Jesus says, Whatever you bind, and whatever you loose. The word whatever comes from the Greek words ho-aon and means precisely what our translations render it. Jesus says that whatever Peter decides to bind or loose, then that is bound or loosed.

This is the same Greek singular we find in Luke 22, verses 31 to 32, when Jesus says, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded to sift you, singular, like weak, but I have prayed for you, singular, that your faith may not fail, and you, singular, when you, once you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.

Whatever one's interpretation of Matthew 16, it must be admitted that in verse 19, Peter is given the sole prerogative to decide what shall be bound and what shall be loosed. Hence, if we as Catholics state that the Pope, who has succeeded the office Jesus gave to Peter when he gave him the keys of the kingdom, has the power to decide what will be bound and what will be loosed, we derive it right from this passage.

If, for example, the Pope decides that in order to establish infallible teaching, all Peter's successors must fulfill the five criterion of infallibility I listed earlier from Pastor Aeternus, in order for their teaching to be considered infallible, then that teaching stands and all Pontiffs will be subject to it.

No, the Pope is not being audacious here. He is merely following Jesus' declaration that whatever you, Peter, decide to bind, it shall be bound in heaven. Notice that Jesus does not say whatever Scripture says you can bind, you shall bind, but whatever you, Peter, shall bind shall be bound.

This is why Paul also, in 1 Timothy 3 .15, says, the church is the pillar and ground of the truth, not Scripture. Fourth, and most important, is how, in Matthew 16, verse 19, Jesus uniquely constructs the reciprocal relationship between heaven and earth.

Not only does Jesus give Peter full prerogative to decide precisely what will be bound or loosed, Jesus says that whatever Peter decides the binding or loosing will be, then that binding or loosing will also be bound or loosed in heaven.

Now here is the fascinating and absolutely overwhelming truth that emanates from this reciprocal relationship Jesus established. God is in heaven. Thus the binding or loosing of Peter is sent to God in heaven.

We know from Titus 1 .2, in the very nature of God, that he cannot lie. He cannot tell a lie, he cannot sanction a lie, he cannot condone a lie, he cannot confirm a lie. Thus, it is an axiomatic theological truth that God cannot bind or loose a lie.

Yet we are told clearly in Matthew 16, verse 19, by Jesus himself, that whatever Peter binds or looses, God will bind or loose in heaven. If, since he cannot lie, God can only bind truth, then this must mean that whatever Peter decides to bind or loose cannot be a lie.

Otherwise, this would make God a liar, for he committed himself to bind whatever Peter bound. The next passage is Acts 15, verses 1 -28. I don't have time to read all that I have written on this, but let me begin.

This is the precedent for papal infallibility because in Acts 15 it opens with the account of various men from Judea who were teaching the brethren that unless a man is circumcised according to the custom of Moses, he cannot be saved.

There was much discussion about this. One Pharisee stood up and said, it is necessary for them to be circumcised in order to be saved. There was a lot of discussion. No one came to a conclusion. This was especially difficult because Scripture did not predict or even allow the rescission of circumcision.

In fact, circumcision was first performed with Abraham 700 years prior to Moses and the Mosaic Law. And one might think that it had a special place in the economy of God because it was outside the Mosaic Law.

And to the Jews, the Torah was unchangeable. Further, there was no tradition for the apostles and elders to fall back on. The Talmud, the Mishnah, and all oral tradition never suggested that the act of circumcision could be rescinded.

But in the midst of this confusion, Acts 15 .7 records Peter standing up and addressing the apostles and elders. Three times in his speech, he invokes the name of God to back up his singular authority to speak on this issue and make a decision for the whole church.

In verse 7, he says that God chose him singly to give the gospel to the Gentiles. In Acts 15 .10, he ridicules those who are pressing for circumcision by accusing them of affronting God and placing an undue yoke upon new believers.

Peter concludes in verse 11 by declaring the doctrine of salvation that men are saved by grace, not works of law. This was an unprecedented moment for the church. Without reference to either scripture or tradition, Peter makes an irreformable doctrine for the church that will bind the church from then till the end of time.

We know this to be the case since the church, from Peter onwards, has never required circumcision for its converts.

Scripture Alone, the Bereans, and the Limits of Papal Succession

When we consider the claim of biblical evidence for papal infallibility, we have to recognize a number of things. The argument for the idea that the bishop of Rome is the successor of Peter is the result of a very long chain of propositions.

You heard a few of those assertions made in regards to Matthew 16. But what we need to recognize is the bishop of Rome is never mentioned in scripture. Even though there is a letter to the church at Rome, there was no singular bishop of Rome at the time, and in point of fact, church historians, Catholic and Protestant, recognize that the church at Rome continued to function under the auspices of a multitude, a plurality of elders, well into the 2nd century.

So the idea that the apostles and the writers of the New Testament had in mind a singular successor to Peter, even if all the arguments of Peter were valid, which we do not believe they were, somewhat begs the question of how, then, that becomes transferred specifically to the bishop of Rome.

Now, I would like to point out, in responding to what Mrs. St. Janice says later, first and foremost to you what the New Testament teaches about what our ultimate authority is. When the Lord Jesus taught, the ultimate authority, when he would quote from scripture, was the very words of God.

Jesus did bind men to scripture. He never bound them to Peter, nor did he bind them to anyone else but the scriptures. He held men accountable to those scriptures. He called them hypocrites when they had the scriptures and denied what the scriptures said.

The apostles likewise. One quotation from the scriptures was sufficient to settle the case in their words as well. But it's highly significant. Think with me briefly, and time is fleeting, so just write these passages down.

When Paul wrote to Timothy in 2 Timothy 3, he warns Timothy that evil men would be coming into the church. He warns Timothy there's going to be difficulties. And in Acts 20, the apostle Paul warned the Ephesian elders that there would be those who would come up within the ranks of the eldership itself that would teach false doctrine.

Now in light of these issues, and here we're specifically talking about false teaching, how to respond to false teaching and false doctrine, in the light of the fact that the church is going to experience false teachers, what does the Bible tell us to do about false teaching?

Does it say, look to the successors of Peter, the bishops of Rome? It never says anything of the kind. Does it set up a hierarchy based upon Peter as the bishop of Rome? No, it never does. What do we see in both Acts 20 and in 2 Timothy 3?

We see in both instances, the apostle Paul directs the church to the Scriptures. He says to Timothy, if you want to be a man of God who is able to reprove and rebuke, you go to that which is theanoustos, you go to the Scriptures.

He says to the Ephesian elders in Acts 20, Even when men arise from among yourselves speaking perverse things, what does he say to the church in Acts 20, verse 32? And now I commend you to God and to the word of His grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified.

There is no word of a bishop of Rome. There is no word of a pope or a papacy or an infallible authority outside of what God Himself speaks in Scripture. Now if there is going to be anywhere where we find the apostle Paul directing us to what modern Roman Catholicism teaches, this is where it would be.

We're not talking about binding and loosing. Binding and loosing has to do with the proclamation of the gospel and the forgiveness of sins. All the apostles were given equal authority, and the early church fathers all believed that the apostles were given this, the keys and the power of binding and loosing are the same thing.

That was the early church's view. So that was in the proclamation of the gospel. But what about doctrine? What about theology? Where do we go for that? And when we find the Scriptures talking about doctrine and theology, what do they direct us to?

They direct us solely and only to God's holy word. That needs to be remembered when we think about the biblical evidence concerning this doctrine that I submit to you was unknown in the early church, it was unknown to the apostles, and it was unknown to the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.

And so if we follow the apostolic example and the apostolic command, then we do not look to Peter. In Luke 22, when the Lord Jesus reestablishes Peter and says, when you've been turned, strengthen the brethren, the reason in that passage that's singularly addressed to Peter is because Peter is the only one who publicly denied his Lord and had to be reestablished in his place of leadership.

He made a public denial of Christ, and he needs a public reinstatement to that position of leadership, and aren't we all thankful that God doesn't discard us when we have failures, as Peter did, because we would all be out of an opportunity of ministry.

I am reminded when we think of the biblical evidence on this subject of the words of Augustine, who will come up later on. He was talking about Scripture, and he said these words when he talked about reading from the Holy Scriptures in order for our instruction in salvation.

He says, a thing which you ought especially to observe and to commit to your memory, because that which shall make us strong against insidious errors, God has been pleased to put in the Scriptures against which no man dares to speak who in any sort wishes to seem a Christian.

I agree with Augustine. God has committed to us in the Scriptures that which makes us strong in refuting the heresies and errors that the church will have to deal with throughout her existence. And we need to recognize that one of the main arguments that other Roman Catholic apologists are presenting today is that, well, you know, if you only go with Scripture and you don't have the papacy, then you have no way of responding to all these false teachers out there.

You have all these false teachers teaching this, that, and the other thing, and if you have the Bible alone, you can't refute them. I do not believe that that is the case at all. The Scriptures are sufficient for the refutation of false teaching.

It is not the Scriptures' fault that men like to have their ears tickled. In fact, the Scriptures warn us that there will be those who are like the sailboats that we saw out on the ocean today, blown about by every wind of doctrine.

It is not an insufficiency in Scripture to recognize the impact of sin upon man himself. And so when we think of these particular issues regarding the assertion that there is biblical evidence for the infallibility of Peter, I remind you that what Peter did in Galatians 2, when he did not walk straight in accordance with the truth of the Gospel, but had to be rebuked by the Apostle Paul for his not walking in accordance with the truth of the Gospel, it was after all these words had been said to him.

And upon what basis was he to be corrected? He was to be corrected on the basis of the fact that the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ is not something that is up for modification over time. It has been once for all delivered to the saints.

And it is that Gospel that we stand for and that we love. Thank you.

Rome, Honorius, and the Claim that Papal Definitions Can Err

Dr. White has said that the bishop of Rome is never mentioned in Scripture. Well, the bishop of no city is never mentioned in Scripture. So it really makes no difference whether the bishop of Rome is not mentioned.

Scripture doesn't mention a lot of things, but we can't make arguments based on its silence. And he's tried to divert the discussion to one of succession, but we really aren't here to talk about succession.

If we were, we would have to set aside another debate to do that. That's kind of hard to do. But I would be willing to come back to do another debate on that very topic. He said that Jesus never bound the truths of the Gospel to Peter.

But that's exactly what Matthew 16, verse 18 says. It says, whatever you, Peter, shall bind shall be bound. He didn't say that about Scripture anywhere in the New Testament. Although Scripture is extolled and glorified for the beauty and the truth that it holds, it is never put in a position of being the determiner of truth singly.

That was given to Peter in Matthew 16, which he did not address. Bound to Scripture? Yes, we believe that we are bound to Scripture, but who is the interpreter of Scripture? Everyone's bound to Scripture.

But that is the key issue is who has the authority to interpret what it says. He says that the New Testament does not set up a hierarchy to determine truth. Well, I suggest that you turn to Matthew 18, verse 18.

And it says, if you have a conflict with your brother, take it to your brother. If he doesn't listen to you, you take it to the church. Does it say take it to Scripture? No, it does not. It says take it to the church.

In 2 Timothy 3 .16, which he alluded to, Noah doesn't talk about controversy there. And that's why the command to Timothy is not dealing with the church in that passage. Because Paul is not talking about controversy in 2 Timothy 3 .16.

He's talking about teaching people. When it comes to controversy, that's when the church is brought into the picture, as we see in Matthew 16 and Matthew 18. And where does it direct us for doctrine and theology?

Mr. White said it only directed us to the Scripture. Well, that's not what 1 Timothy 3 .15 says. 1 Timothy 3 .15 says that the church is the foundation and pillar of the truth. He said that Peter denied his Lord.

Well, we acknowledge that, but as I stated earlier, that's not a criterion for infallibility. Infallibility does not mean that the man himself is impeccable. It means only under certain conditions and guided by the Holy Spirit he can give us truth.

So that example will not demote infallibility. He said Augustine said that that which makes us strong is the Scripture. Well, we agree with that in Catholicism. But the extolling of Scripture is not sola scriptura.

The extolling of Scripture does not demote papal authority. We extol Scripture all the time, and Augustine, you will never find in his writings ever once opposing the church's teachings to Scripture. Not once.

Acts 15, the Church as Pillar of Truth, and the Sufficiency of Scripture

Well, this is our opportunity for rebuttal, so let me respond to some of the things that have been said. If you look back at Acts 15, you'll discover that the people came to the apostles and elders in Jerusalem, not to Peter the Pope in Jerusalem.

Secondly, it was just said that the bishop of no city is ever mentioned. That's incorrect. Timothy was the bishop of Ephesus, Titus the bishop of the church of Crete. Acts 17 tells us that Scripture does determine the truth, and in fact, if you look at what happened with the Bereans, the Scriptures determine the truth even of the apostolic proclamation of the gospel.

In fact, the Bereans are commended for comparing what the apostles taught with what the Scriptures, to see whether those things were so. So the Scriptures are put in that position. We are told that Matthew 18 establishes this hierarchy of the church.

Matthew 18 tells us you have something with your brother. It's talking about interpersonal matters of sin, and I never said that there is no quote-unquote hierarchy in the church. There are elders and there are deacons in the church.

There is just not a bishop of Rome that is the pastor of all Christians. 2 Timothy 3 .16 does refer to matters of dispute, especially about doctrine, the words that Paul uses there, especially when he speaks of reproving and rebuking and exhorting in sound doctrine are exactly about that very issue, and 2 Timothy makes it very clear that the bishop in the church is to be able to refute those who contradict.

1 Timothy 3 .15 does say that the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, but we need to recognize something. There are pillars and there is a foundation in this building right now, and all of those under the balcony are very thankful that they are sound.

Are you not? Because that pillar and foundation is holding something else up. The church holds something else up. The church does not become the truth because she is the pillar and foundation of the truth.

She holds the truth up and presents the truth. She does not become the very definition thereof. When we look at what Augustine said, he said that what is in Scripture is what makes us strong against insidious errors.

You will not find Augustine saying that what is found in the papal encyclicals of the bishop of Rome is what makes us strong against insidious errors. That was the reason that I cited that. And finally, in regards to Matthew 16, we discover that the future tense is used in Matthew 16.

Jesus says, I will give you the keys. If Matthew 18 is the fulfillment of that, then all the apostles got them together. If Matthew 18 is not the fulfillment of that, then we do not even have the Scriptures recording for us the point in time when this allegedly most important and foundational event took place.

In reality, Matthew 18 is when Peter received this authority, equally with all the other apostles, not separate from them. And so we see that when we look at the Scriptures, we see that they are consistent with themselves and with the form and function of the Church that is based upon the Holy Scriptures.

Thank you. We only have one clock, and we're now supposed to do cross-examination, so I'm not sure how we're going to do that. Since you're asking the questions first, I'll give you the clock. Okay, thank you.

Acts 15, Matthew 16, and the Nature of Papal Authority

Dr. White, you said that the missionaries did not come in Acts 15 to see Peter, but the apostles and the elders. I would direct you to Acts 15, which says that in the first verses that they are in discussion, and for the next verses, from verses 1 to 11, Peter is addressing the Council of Jerusalem, and only he is speaking.

And it was for the very purpose that the missionaries came to the Council of Jerusalem to get a decision on whether Gentiles needed to be circumcised. And Peter gave that decision, that they don't have to be circumcised.

So I would ask you why you insist that they didn't come to see Peter, they came to see the apostles and elders, and what distinction, that I would call distinction without a difference, really means. Okay.

15 .2 says, Paul and Barnabas and some others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue, which was the citation that I was quoting. I think you just said Peter spoke from 1 to 11.

He actually speaks from 7 through 11. And then I would respond by saying that if he gave the decision, there was no reason why, beginning in verse 12, the people keep silent, listening to Paul and Barnabas, as they then relate their experiences in God sending the Gospels to Gentiles, and why it is that then James is the one who gives his judgment using the imperative voice, and in point of fact this council is under his direction and not Peter's direction.

And so that is the brief biblical basis for the comment that I made, but specifically verse 2 is what I was referring to just a few moments ago in my comments. All right, let me follow up with that.

Peter is not an apostle, is he not? Yes, he is one of the apostles. Okay, so would you agree that they also came to see Peter?

Yes, to all the apostles and elders, yes.

Okay, would you agree that the subject material now changes in verse 12 when Paul and Barnabas start talking about their missionary activity, and also that the subject has changed when James starts to speak about something other than what Peter declared about circumcision?

No, I do not believe there is a change at all, only in the sense that beginning in verse 12 when Paul and Barnabas speak, they are confirming the statements of Peter. There is a harmony that exists between all of the apostles, and when James gives his judgment using the imperative voice in the Greek language, I think he is the one who is summing up the information that has been presented from a number of sources, but we are only given two, and that is verses 7 through 11 where Peter speaks, and verses 12 and following where Paul and Barnabas speak.

Two issues. One is you said that they confirmed Peter's declaration. What does that mean?

That means that they demonstrated through the retelling of their missionary efforts the fact that God had in fact poured out his blessing upon the ministry to the Gentiles, which is a confirmation of what Peter himself has said in those verses 7 through 11 that you've already looked at.

And does that not tell us that Peter made a declaration, and they are agreeing to that?

Certainly. He makes a declaration that the gospel is the gospel of grace, and they are saying that they have themselves been declaring that gospel of grace and that God has blessed that gospel of grace by pouring his spirit out upon the Gentiles who embraced it.