Boston College Papacy Opening #1

Is said this evening, and remember what my colleague Mr. Zinn said. Roman Catholicism is not telling us that the papacy is a probability. Roman Catholicism is not telling us this is something that we might want to believe.

Roman Catholicism is telling us this is something we must believe, and it's absolute truth. It is not an issue where you can have arguments that, well, maybe I can come up with an argument here, and maybe I can come up with a possible understanding of this passage, a possible understanding of that passage, and string them all together, and that's enough.

No, when you tell people that they have to believe in what you're teaching under pain of the anathema, it cannot be that that doctrine is the end of a long chain of syllogisms, and at every single point along that line you can successfully challenge that line of thinking.

If that's all we are presented with this evening is, well, maybe we can understand it this way, or maybe we can understand it that way, that is an insufficient basis for the Roman Catholic doctrine of the papacy.

Galatians 2 and the Truth of the Gospel

Now, I only want to refer to one thing that Mr. St. Genes said just a few moments ago while still fresh in your mind, and that is in regards to Galatians, chapter 2. He said that what Peter had done was a very minor infraction, and to quote him, Paul is overreacting to Peter.

I would like to ask who Mr. St. Genes is to judge what the scripture says at this point. It is the scripture that says at Galatians, chapter 2, verse 4, but it was because the false brethren who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty, which we have in Christ Jesus in order to bring us into bondage, but we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you.

Paul's talking about the truth of the gospel. He's talking about false brethren in relationship to the truth of the gospel, and it's in that context that we have verse 14 that Mr. St. Genes says is Paul's overreaction, but when I saw that they were not straightforward about what?

Just a minor thing about table fellowship? No, verse 14, but when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all. My friends, I think one of the major problems in the church today is that we think that being not straightforward about the truth of the gospel is a minor infraction.

Matthew 16, the Aramaic Original, and the Identity of Christ

Now in regards to Matthew, chapter 16, you're going to be hearing a lot about this tonight. You're going to be hearing a lot about Luke 22, John 21, Matthew 16, because folks, that's all Rome has. That's all there is, so that's what we have to deal with.

Now as we look at Matthew, chapter 16, we have heard it said, well, it must have been written in Aramaic. I would like to challenge our Roman Catholic friends to come up here and show us the Aramaic Matthew.

Show us how they can have certainty of what it said in the Aramaic Matthew. Dr. Kurt Alon, the greatest living expert in the text of the New Testament, summarizes my position that was also held by Alexander Bruce and Schode and Nigel Turner and Robert Gundry and many others there is no longer any doubt the Greek was the language in which all the parts of the New Testament were originally written.

Now are there people who believe it was written in Aramaic? Yes, but can you base an entire dogma upon which you will use the anathema upon a mythical Aramaic original that you don't know what it said?

Oh, but we know what it said. No, you don't. For example, I would like to suggest for you reading the very recent work of Chris Karagounis, available in English translation under the title Peter and the Rock, Karagounis provides compelling documentation against the theory that we have here in Matthew 16, a repetition of the Aramaic term kepha demonstrating that the evidence would more likely favor the use of the Aramaic term minra for the phrase upon this rock I will build my church.

Now let's say you disagree with Karagounis. That's fine. The simple fact matter is there is a perfectly logical and scholarly alternative to the Roman Catholic position, but there can't be alternatives to absolute dogmas, folks.

If you base yourself upon this concept of the Aramaic original, I simply would challenge my friends here to show us the Aramaic original. Prove to us that it did indeed say that. The simple fact matter is Rome claims to have canonized scripture and the gospel they canonized wasn't in Aramaic.

Now, anyone familiar with the comments of scholars on this passage is aware of the multitude of differing positions taken about it. I would like to point out to you that the central theme of Matthew 16 is the messiahship of Jesus Christ.

Any interpretation that takes the focus off of Jesus as a messiah is missing the point. Jesus' questions to disciples about the opinions of the multitudes and then their own viewpoints are all directed toward his own person, his own identity.

When Peter speaks up and confesses that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the living God, he is confessing the faith of all the disciples, not merely himself. He is speaking for them all as he so often does.

Jesus' pronouncement of blessing upon Peter is not due to any inherent goodness in Peter, but is due to Peter's being the recipient of a great blessing from the Father. Now, the subject of the passage remains the identity of Christ found in the confession of Peter.

When the Lord says, I tell you that you are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of Hades will not overcome it, the focus does not change. Jesus is not here speaking of the identity of Peter.

He is still talking about himself and his church. This is plainly seen by continuing on through verse 20 where we read, quote, then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ, the messiah.

Some modern scholars, having missed the fact that the focus remains on Christ all the way through, are so puzzled by his passage they suggest that it's not in the original, but such conjecture is simply not necessary.

The rock of which the Lord speaks is that common confession made by all who are part of the church. Jesus is the Christ, the son of the living God. This is seen, I believe, in the fact that while the Lord is addressing Peter directly, and by the way, these are the very words I used in the video presentation Mr. Syngenis just misrepresented.

Listen closely to what I actually said. In the fact that while the Lord is addressing Peter directly, he changes from direct address to the third person, this rock, when speaking of Peter's confession.

He does not say, upon you, Peter, I will build my church. Instead, you have a clear distinction between Peter, the Petros, and the third person. In what? In address. He's not addressing this Petra. He's addressing Peter, second person.

I say to you, Peter, but upon this rock, something else, third person of address, I will build my church. Notice something that has not been brought out by our Roman Catholic friends. This statement is followed by the promise to, at some time in the future, I will give.

Doso in the Greek is future. I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven to Peter. So, what he binds on earth will be bound in heaven. Whatever he looses on earth will be loosed in heaven. I emphasize this is a promise.

The verb is future intense. Yet, when we see this authority given in Matthew chapter 18, verse 18, it is given not to Peter alone, or even primarily, but to all the apostles. And that using the exact same language, word for word, regarding binding and loosing.

If someone wishes to say that Peter receives the keys in distinction from the other apostles, and that's what Mr. Butler says in his own copyrighted materials that he was presenting to you, as he was giving his presentation.

If someone wants to say that, they are also forced to admit that the giving of these keys to Peter, and Peter alone, is never recorded for us anywhere in scripture. A strange thing indeed for something supposedly so fundamental to the constitution of the very church itself.

Now, it is very true that there are many Protestant interpreters who identify Peter as the rock in Matthew 16. For example, Dr. William Hendrickson follows this course as was cited to you. However, unfortunately, again, it is not brought out, as I think it would have to be brought out, to be honest with these things, that all of these Protestant interpreters that say this, are quick to reject any papal pretensions that are placed upon this passage.

Dr. Hendrickson, who was cited in part, not in full, by Mr. Butler, in his commentary on page 645, presented three views that he said must be rejected. One view that is to be appreciated, and the one that he takes himself.

The second view presented that must be rejected is that, quote, this passage proves that Peter was the first pope, end quote. He then quotes the same passage from Cardinal Gibbon's book, The Faith of Our Fathers, and says as follows, and this is a very exalted statement about Peter being the pope.

The passage does not support any bestowal of well-nigh absolute authority on a mere man or on his successors, end quote. Similarly, we find Dean Alford identifying Peter as the rock, but following this with the following statements, quote, we may certainly exclaim with bingo all this may be said with safety, for what has this to do with Rome?

Nothing can be further from any legitimate interpretation of this promise than the idea of a perpetual primacy in the successors of Peter. The very notion of succession is precluded by the form of the comparison, which concerns the person and him only, so far as it involves that direct promise.

In its other and general sense, as applying to all those living stones, Peter's own expression for members of Christ's church, of whom the church should be built, it implies, as Origen excellently comments on it, saying that all this must be understood as said not only to Peter as in the letter of the gospel, but to everyone who is such as Peter here showed himself as the spirit of the gospel teaches us, end quote.

Therefore, the Protestants that are cited are all saying the same thing as Frederick Dale Brunner is writing. They are emphasizing, quote, the uniqueness, the historical once for allness of Peter's commission as rock.

The text does not say on this rock and on his successors, I will build my church, solus Petrus, Petra, Peter alone. To take this text literally is to honor Peter only. Peter was given the first place by Jesus as the one who first confessed Jesus Christ, the divine son, and so Peter is made the first rock of the church.

For the church is built upon the foundation of the apostles like Peter and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone. I want to...