The Papacy Debate at Boston College Pt I (White/Zins vs Sungenis/Butler)

Alpha & Omega Ministries

Subscribe

Download

Share

00

Comments are disabled.

00:04

I'd like to welcome you tonight. I want to thank Robert Zins and James White for coming here.

00:13

I believe that what we're going to be doing tonight will be looking at the biblical evidence on the papacy.

00:21

And we believe that the Catholic position on the papacy is true and that's what we're going to be trying to prove tonight.

00:29

That Peter has a role in the church today. We believe that revelation ceases, the deposit ceases at the time of Christ.

00:41

So it's not as if we pulled this doctrine out 1700, 1800 years later and created a doctrine.

00:49

We believe that it originates with Jesus Christ and his words to Peter. In Genesis 17 .5,

00:58

Abram's name is changed to Abraham. In Genesis 32 .28,

01:04

Jacob's name is changed to Israel. Whenever God changes the name of someone, many times their purpose, function, their mission will change.

01:15

Both Catholics and Protestants agree with this one principle. That God is the rock of the

01:22

Old Testament. Now the Hebrew word for rock in the Old Testament is sur,

01:27

S -U -R. This can be seen in Psalms 18 .1 and 2, Psalms 18 .31

01:34

and 32, Isaiah 30 .29. Many different scriptures show this principle that God is the rock of the

01:43

Old Testament. Both Protestants and Catholics would agree on that principle. But in Isaiah 51 .1

01:50

and 2, it says, look to the rock, look to Abraham. So to the

01:55

Jewish mind, Abraham is made the rock here. It doesn't take anything away from Christ or God being the rock.

02:07

The Jewish rabbinical commentaries, at least the ones that I've gone through, and I've gone through, I've never seen one that does not talk about Abraham being made the rock here, would say this.

02:17

When God looked on Abraham, who was to appear, he said, behold, I have found a rock on which

02:23

I can build and baste the world. Therefore, he called Abraham a rock. The important thing about this is these are the

02:29

Midrash, like the Qualcutts, and they're back in the 12th century B .C. before Christ. There's also

02:35

Midrash's back in the 5th century B .C. But we also have Jewish rabbinical commentaries, which will be commenting on the 2nd century after Jesus Christ.

02:45

So the Jews looked at this scripture, Isaiah 51 .1 and 2, as being before Christ and also after Christ.

02:53

David Stern, a Messianic Jew from Fuller Theological Seminary, says this. When the

02:59

Holy One wanted to create the world, he passed over the generations on Enoch in the flood.

03:06

But when he saw Abraham was to arise, he said, behold, I found a rock on which I can build and establish the world.

03:12

Therefore, he called Abraham a rock, as it is said in Isaiah 51 .1 and 2. Now, the majority of Protestant scholars,

03:21

Protestant commentaries, and I've gone through about 50 of them, are saying the same thing about this scripture. This is

03:27

InterVarsity Press, the New Bible Commentary. Abraham is spoken of as the rock from which you are hewn.

03:34

In 1 Corinthians 3 .11, Jesus Christ is the foundation. In Ephesians 2 .19

03:41

and 20, Jesus Christ is the cornerstone, but he's going to build the church on the apostles and the prophets.

03:49

It doesn't take away from Christ being the foundation. In Revelation 21 .14,

03:56

it says that they're going to build the foundation on the 12 apostles. The people during Christ's time did not see it taking away from Christ being the foundation.

04:08

In 1 Corinthians 10 .3 and 4, we're told that Jesus Christ is the rock.

04:17

The famous scripture that we're about ready to look at is Matthew 16 .13

04:23

through 19. Now, there's two different ways to look at this scripture as far as what languages they were written in.

04:34

The first part that I will be dealing with, and I believe it to be the correct way, is the Aramaic way.

04:40

But here is Oscar Coleman, and he says, The great antiquity and the Palestinian origin of the section,

04:46

Matthew 16 .17, may today be considered beyond question. This is shown by the quite

04:53

Semitic linguistic characters of the section. The parallelisms of the two statements, your rock and upon this rock,

05:00

I will build, shows that the second rock refers to nothing different than the first. This is more clearly expressed in the

05:07

Aramaic where the kepha occurs both times than it is in the Greek. Thus here in the name and the thing are exactly identical.

05:15

Whenever you look at the patristic evidence of what Matthew was written in the first century, all of the different writers,

05:25

Papias in 1 .30, say that Matthew was written in the Aramaic. Here is what he says,

05:31

Of Matthew he has to say, Matthew compiled the sayings in the Aramaic language and everyone translated them as well as he could.

05:38

Irenaeus in 1 .80, Origen in 2 .44 say the same thing, Eusebius in 3 .25,

05:45

Epiphanius in 3 .73, Jerome in 3 .90. Every one of the different church fathers believed that Matthew was written in the

05:54

Aramaic. Now even the Ebionites which was a first century sect that only believed in one gospel and that was the book of Matthew, they agree that Matthew was written in the

06:06

Hebrew and the Aramaic tongue. In every other language except for the

06:13

Greek which we are going to be looking at, for example in the Syriac language, the

06:18

Hebrew language, the Armenian language, the Arabic language, the Ethiopic language and the

06:24

Persian language, they have one word for each time they are talking about rock.

06:29

So for example, from a Catholic standpoint, here is how we would see it, Thou art Kepha, rock, and upon this

06:36

Kepha rock I will build my church and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.

06:41

In all those other languages it is the same word both times. We see the correct translation coming down from Kepha would be

06:50

Thou art Petra, P -E -T -R -A, and upon this Petra, P -E -T -R -A,

06:56

I will build my church and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. If you were to look at your Greek linear, what you would see is that the second

07:04

Petra remains the same, but the first Petra changes and what it says is

07:10

Thou art Petros, P -E -T -R -O -S, and upon this Petra I will build my church and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.

07:18

What are Protestant scholars saying? Why is the A ending changing to the OS ending?

07:24

Petra is a feminine noun. Peter's name is masculine and in order for that to synchronize they have to change the

07:33

A ending to the OS ending. As a non -Catholic and being very anti -Catholic at one time, one of the things that I used to use against Catholics was

07:45

Thou art Peter was a little pebble and upon this rock Jesus I will build my church, but if Jesus wanted to use that word he would have said

07:55

Thou art Lithos, L -I -T -H -O -S, but he doesn't use that word.

08:03

Now one of the things that Bob is going to be touching on, he is going to be touching on the

08:08

Greek aspect of this, but one of the things that as I was studying and I was looking at Protestant commentaries, looking at this passage,

08:19

I began to see that I couldn't take the position that I had been holding for about 15 years and as a pastor.

08:27

Protestant commentaries, Orthodox commentaries, all of these, I looked over at 75 of them and the majority of those commentaries, 99 .9

08:36

% of those commentaries were saying that Peter was the rock here. John Meyendorff says, the words of Jesus, he is an

08:44

Orthodox scholar, on the road to Caesarea I flip by, on this rock I will build my church, are bound to the confession of Peter.

08:51

The church exists in history because man believes in Christ, the Son of God, without this faith there could be no church.

08:58

Peter was the first to confess this faith and has become the head of the theologians, to use an expression of the office on June 29th, he has received the messianic title of the rock, a title which in biblical language belongs to the

09:11

Messiah himself. Gerald Kittel's Theological Dictionary says, what does

09:17

Jesus mean when he says, on this rock I will build my church? The idea of the reformers that he is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable in view of the probably different setting of the story, for there is no difference here to the faith of Peter, rather the parallelisms of thou art rock and on this rock

09:34

I will build shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first. It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter to whom he has given the name rock, he appoints

09:43

Peter the impulsive, enthusiastic but not persevering man in the circle to be the foundation of his ecclesia, the church.

09:50

To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all

09:55

Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected. I remember going into the evangelical bookstore in San Diego and I said, please give me your best commentary on Matthew 16, 18.

10:08

This is the interpreter's bible, the most natural interpretation of Matthew 16, 18 is that of the Roman Catholic tradition, the rock is

10:15

Peter, the word play and the whole structure of the passage demands that this verse is every bit as much

10:20

Jesus declaration about Peter as verse 16 was Peter's declaration about Jesus.

10:26

William Hendrickson the great reform scholar says this, the meaning is this, you are Peter that is rock and upon this rock that is on you

10:32

Peter I will build my church. Our Lord speaking Aramaic probably said and I say to you, you are

10:38

Kepha and on this Kepha I will build my church. Jesus then is promising to Peter that he is going to build his church on him,

10:44

I accept this view. Gerhard Meyer as a pastor you would be studying, he is very conservative, the end of the historical method says with all due respect to the reformers we must admit that the promise of Matthew 16, 18 is directed to Peter and not to a

11:01

Peter like faith. The Lutheran Catholic dialogue says on that level precisely because the Aramaic identity of Kepha, Kepha there can be no doubt that the rock on which the church was to be built was

11:10

Peter. D. A. Carson from Trinity Evangelical says, although it is true that Petros and Petra can mean stone and rock respectively in earlier

11:19

Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry, moreover the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable and the most probable

11:27

Kepha was used in both clauses, you are Kepha and on this Kepha, since the word was used both for a name and for a rock, the

11:33

Beshida written in Syriac language cognate with Aramaic makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses.

11:40

The Greek makes the distinction between Petros and Petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun and in Greek the feminine

11:48

Petra could not very well serve the masculine person. I could go on and on,

11:53

Herman Ritterboss, Knox Chamlin down at Reform Seminary, Blomberg at Denver Seminary, David Hill out of Sheffield, David Guthrie out of London Bible College, Albert Barnes Presbyterian Conservative, Anglicans R .T.

12:09

France, every person that is James Sheldon out of Oral Roberts University from the

12:15

Pentecostal side, the Abbeyton Press, the Methodist publishing arm has

12:20

David Boren from the Church of Christ writing the commentary on Matthew 16 in the new

12:26

Bible commentary and they admit that Peter is the rock. Now Bob will be filling us in on the

12:32

Greek aspect of the rock. I have showed the Aramaic aspect and because we only have a

12:40

Greek original we have to deal with the Aramaic text and Bob will be filling in on that. Where does this language come from?

12:50

I think this is the key thing, where is Jesus drawing from when he is talking about Matthew 16, 18?

12:57

The backdrop that Jesus is speaking was at Caesarei Philippi and it is a massive rock 500 feet long, 200 feet tall and there were pagan temples being built.

13:09

That is how we get the word Caesarei Philippi, Philip the Tetrarch dedicated a temple to Caesar Augustus.

13:16

But where does this language that Jesus is talking about in here, where is he drawing from?

13:22

And here is what they are saying, this is in the Anchor Bible and most Protestant scholars are way ahead of Catholic scholars on this issue, but this is what they are saying.

13:31

Isaiah 22, 15 undoubtedly lies behind this. He is the symbol of authority and Roland de

13:37

Bow rightly sees this. The same authority is vested in the vizier, the master of the house, the chamberlain of the royal household in ancient

13:45

Israel. Eliakim is described as having the same authority in Isaiah and Jotham as regent is also described as over the household,

13:52

F .F. Ruse. And what about the keys of the kingdom? The keys of the royal and noble establishment were entrusted to the chief steward or major domer.

14:01

He carried them on his shoulder in earlier times and there they served as a badge of authority entrusted to him. About 700

14:06

B .C. an oracle from God announced that this authority in the royal palace in Jerusalem was to be conferred on a man named

14:12

Eliakim, Isaiah 22, 22. InterVarsity Press says that, Oscar Coleman says that, the majority of Protestant scholars are saying that.

14:21

But let me give you the backdrop of what is about to happen. David's kingdom is set up somewhere between the year 1010 and 990 according to Erdman's.

14:30

When we see this passage being in Isaiah according to Erdman's it is somewhere 740 to 680.

14:38

Solomon's temple is being set up in the year 931. Ahasuer is the first person and first king for six that will talk about this chief steward role.

14:51

An analogy so you can see this would be we have the Queen of England. Under the Queen of England we have the Prime Minister Mulroney.

14:57

And under Prime Minister Mulroney we have a lot of different ministers. The Minister of Transportation, the

15:03

Minister of Commerce and all these different ministers are answering to the Prime Minister. But ultimately the

15:08

Prime Minister has to answer to the Queen. So what is taking place in Isaiah 22, 15 is this.

15:15

Shebna is the head of the Master's Palace. We don't know why but God has gotten pretty mad at him.

15:20

He says this in verse 19. I will depose you of your office. So it is the office that Shebna has.

15:28

And the person that is going to take that place he says, in that day I will summon my servant Eliakim son of Hilkiah.

15:35

And with that office will go a sash of authority. And we know that that authority, where will it be coming down through?

15:42

It will be coming down through the house of Judah. And it will be recognized because Eliakim has the key to the house of David.

15:52

And then it goes on to say whatever he opens shall be shut, whatever he shuts shall be opened.

15:58

In Jewish rabbinical language what that means is this. Whatever Eliakim in this earth declares to be moral and doctrinal teachings,

16:06

Jewish rabbinical laws, Jewish interpretation on different things are going to be declared, bound, sealed in the heavens.

16:13

Whatever he says is shut out here on earth are not going to be declared, are not going to be sealed, are not going to be bound in the heavens.

16:22

And then in verse 23 it says that this authority, this office is going to be transferred down to off springs and off chutes.

16:32

But then something drastic is going to happen. Remember the destruction of Jerusalem happens in 586 and 587.

16:40

God had formed a covenant with His people in 2 Samuel 7, 14 -16, Psalms 132.

16:46

And the Jewish people, the temple has been destroyed, there is no longer anyone holding this office and the keys and they are wondering what happened

16:54

God? What have we done wrong? So what Protestant scholars are saying is this. King Hezekiah was the king during the time of Isaiah.

17:03

And that is a foreshadowing of Jesus being the king in the New Testament. The role that Shebna and Eliakim are playing in the

17:11

Old Testament is the role that Peter will play in the New Testament. That is what the majority of scholars are saying in the

17:19

Protestant realms. Blomberg will affirm that, from Denver Seminary, Reformed Baptists, many different Protestant theologians are showing that.

17:29

But if you can't see it that way, let's go another way about it. In Revelation 1 -17 and 18 it says,

17:35

I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. I hold the keys to Hades. So Jesus holds the keys.

17:42

In Revelation 3 -7 it says, to the church of Philadelphia, to the one that is holy, to the one that is true, that holds the key to the house of David.

17:50

Whatever he opens shall be shut, whatever he shuts shall be opened. So Jesus, whatever He declares to be moral and doctrinal teachings and also

17:57

Jewish rabbinical laws and all those different types of laws, it's a very general thing, are going to be sealed, bound in heaven forever and ever.

18:05

But what does Jesus do with the keys before He leaves this earth? Jesus always holds the keys because He is outside of time.

18:13

But what He does, He delegates the keys to Peter. It says, going back to Matthew 16 -19,

18:19

I will give you the keys of the kingdom. It's in the date of Singular, Soy is the

18:27

Greek word, S -O -I. And whatever you, Singular Peter, bind on this earth shall be bound in heaven.

18:33

Whatever you, Singular again, shall be loosed in heaven. So whatever Peter declares to be moral and doctrinal teachings on this earth are going to be bound, sealed, ratified in heaven.

18:43

Whatever he declares not to be bound as far as moral and doctrinal teachings, it's not going to be bound, sealed, ratified in heaven.

18:53

So Peter has this role. Now when we go to Matthew 18 -15 -18, we see there is a disciplinary in the church.

19:03

If somebody has done something wrong, one person goes to that person and says you've done something wrong, repent.

19:08

The next step is to bring two and three brothers. If that doesn't work, the next authority, it says, you need to bring it to the church.

19:16

And if they don't listen to the church, they will be treated as a pagan and a tax collector. But then it goes on,

19:23

He's talking to all the apostles here and He says, whatever you, plural, you men, H -U -M -I -N, bind on their shirts, shall be bound in heaven, ratified, sealed in heaven, whatever you declare not to be moral and doctrinal teachings down here on earth are not going to be bound, are not going to be sealed, are not going to be ratified in heaven.

19:40

But what's the difference between the other apostles and Peter? What does Peter have that the other apostles don't have?

19:48

He has the keys. The important thing to notice here is this, just as David's kingdom had been set up for 400 years, those keys had been coming down for 400 years through a dynastic succession.

20:07

Peter gets the keys and for us to say that those keys will not follow with the next person after Peter's role, what

20:17

Catholics would say that that goes along with apostolic succession, that those keys would continue on for 2 ,000 years and that Christ had preserved

20:25

His church from that. This is the international critical commentary, He who holds the key would have power within it, power to admit, power to exclude.

20:34

In Revelation 3 this power is held by Christ Himself. He that has the key of David that opens and none can shut, and that shutteth and no one can open, the words are modeled on Isaiah 22, 22, expressed supreme authority to hold the key is to have the absolute right, which can be contested by none, to bind and to loose, and Jewish legal terminology are equivalent to forbid and allow, to declare forbidden and declare allowed.

20:57

Now the next scripture that Catholics use is this, Jesus Christ in John 10 is the shepherd, but what

21:06

He does in John 21, 15 -17, He says, feed my lambs, feed my sheep, feed my sheep.

21:14

The one thing to notice here is there are three different words for feed, the first one is boskain, and what that means is that Peter is to give spiritual nourishment to all the lambs, to the people of God.

21:30

The next word in that sequence is poimenain, and what that means is that Peter is to be the ruler or the governor or the leader over all the other shepherds.

21:43

I mean we can see this 40 % of the time in the New Testament when this is brought up, this poimenain means this, you can see it in Matthew 2, 6,

21:53

Revelation 12, 5, Revelation 19, 15, Revelation 2, 27, in fact

21:59

Revelation 2, 27 says this, He will rule them with an iron scepter, He will dash them to pieces like pottery.

22:06

So the point being is that Peter has this role over all the other shepherds and we would see this as a distinction between the laity and the clergy, but then the third time he comes back again and he says, feed my sheep, and the word is boskain, and Peter is to give spiritual nourishment to the shepherds themselves, the bishops.

22:28

Oscar Coleman says this, we still must consider the wording of the commission as it is formulated in John 21, 16, feed my sheep, it has rightly been pointed out that the

22:37

Damascus document discovered in 1910, which in connection with the recent manuscript discoveries in Palestine, take on particular importance, speak of the leader of the fellowship of the shepherd of the flock, his duty is to proclaim the word, explain the scriptures, and exercise community discipline.

22:53

The next scripture, and Bob will be covering that more in detail on that John 21, but the next scripture the

22:58

Catholics use is this, we see in Matthew 19, 28, it says those that have followed

23:04

Jesus will be sitting on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel, in Luke 22, 28 -32, what it says is that they are arguing who is going to be the greatest in the kingdom of God, and then he is speaking just to the 12 apostles, and here is what he says, you are going to be able to eat and sup with me, and you are going to sit on the 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel, the apostles have this role, they are going to be doing something for the kingdom, but then he turns to Simon, and he says this,

23:34

Simon, Simon, Satan has desired to have you, that is in the plural, he has desired to have all of you apostles, that he might sip you, in the plural again, but then his wording changes,

23:49

I have prayed for you, Simon, singular, that your faith, singular, may not fail, and when you have turned aside, when the clock goes three times, you admit that you have done wrong, singular again, confirm your brethren, that is in the singular, so we have two plurals, four singulars, now many people would say that Peter had this role, and then when he died, it leaves us, but let us take the first council, the council of Acts, Acts 15, here is what we see taking place, there is much discussion going on, there is much arguing, there is much theological discussion, and Peter gets up, and he says that the

24:30

Gentiles should be let in, and he has this vision from Cornelius back in Acts 10, and then what it says, and the multitude became silent, and then it goes on in verse 13, it says

24:45

Paul and Barnabas start telling about why the Gentiles should be let in, and confirming what

24:51

Peter had done, but right after that it says the word Sagao again, there is another silence, and we are going to show tonight that Sagao, the second silence refers to Paul and Barnabas, and the first silence refers to Peter, so it was the authoritative thing that the

25:09

Gentiles should be let in, this was a dogmatic thing that the church would let in, and this would continue throughout the church for 2000 years, then what happens is this,

25:20

James gets up and he says Simeon has declared, the word there is exegesito, the same word that came from John 1 .18,

25:29

when it says the father has declared the son, and then Simeon gets up and gives a couple of scriptures, and then he says

25:36

I give my voice, I give my opinion, the word there is egokrino, so what he is doing, and then he sets down four different conditions, known as the

25:49

Noah kite laws out of Genesis, and one of those conditions is that you couldn't have anything to do with blood eating, and then we see in verse 29, it said it seemed good to the

26:00

Holy Spirit and to us, the church, that we would live with these four different conditions that we are putting on the

26:06

Gentile believers, coming in, so they wouldn't scandalize the Jews, the farther that you would go out from the

26:11

Jewish community, these four different conditions did not pertain to it, James is the bishop of Jerusalem, but when he writes the letter in verse 22, he says

26:21

I write this letter in the name of all the apostles and all the elders, he is not trying to usurp

26:26

Peter's position, in fact Paul in 1st Corinthians 8 and 1st

26:39

Corinthians, as long as it is not sacrificed idols, 10 years later, between the year 58, the council was in 48,

26:47

Paul is going against completely something different than what James had set up, it is a pastoral decision that is coming down, and it can be replaced at any time, and with Paul it was replaced in 10 years, the only thing that is authoritative that comes down to the council, is the dogmatic decree that you

27:03

Christians and Catholics hold to today, that Gentiles can be let into the church, in the scripture, this doesn't pertain to Peter, but it pertains, it is in Jude 1 .11,

27:22

and what it says is this, Woe unto them, for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily up into the air of Balaam for a reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Korah, what is that referring to?

27:33

It is referring to Numbers 16, 1 -3, it was about the congregation of the people, they were trying to usurp the position of the hierarchy, and what did

27:43

God do in the Old Testament, when they tried to do that? He smote them, in Numbers 16 .32,

27:50

why would he be warning the people of God, in the New Testament, about a hierarchy, if you are coming against the hierarchy, you are coming against God, the point that I am trying to say is this, there are many other scriptures, and my time is about ready to end, but Bob is going to cover a lot of those different things, what we have done today is this, we are trying to show that Jesus Christ is not a liar, that when he says the gates of hell will not prevail against the church that is founded on Peter, because he has made the rock, that he has the keys, and I can be sure that his faith will never fail, because it is

28:30

Jesus that is going to guarantee the church, in Matthew 23, 1 -3 it says, the

28:35

Pharisees and the Sadducees sit in Moses' seat, therefore you must obey them, where is

28:41

Moses' seat in the Old Testament, it is not there, the word there is cathedra, you must obey them, the person that is sitting in that seat, but then it goes on to say, but if we have a

28:53

Pope, it is not living up according to that lifestyle, we are not to live like that Pope, but we are to obey the person that sits in Moses' seat, and there is only one person that can sit in that seat, and this is a first century finding, it is archeological finding in Delios, that we have

29:11

Moses' seat, and it can only fit one person, so when we are saying that the Pope speaks ex cathedra on moral and doctrinal decisions, it is because he has been given the divine right by Christ to be able to do that, and that I must obey them, because Christ is morally binding them, not to a written tradition, but to an oral tradition that the

29:32

Jews knew to be true. My pleasure to be here this evening with my esteemed colleague and my worthy opponents, and the issue before us this evening is one of great importance to each of you in the audience and each of you who will view this video in the future, for we have presented before us an issue of deep and great importance, whether or not the

29:58

Pope in the Roman Catholic religion in Rome is the Vicar of Christ on earth so designated by our

30:04

Lord Jesus Christ. Now on September 20th, 1351,

30:10

Clement VI issued these questions to the Catholicon of the

30:16

Armenians in a letter of examination of their beliefs concerning the

30:21

Roman Pentecost. In these questions we find an apt description of what the

30:27

Roman Catholic religion means when it speaks of Peter being the

30:34

Vicar of Christ on earth. Let us suppose these questions were asked of you in the audience.

30:42

What would be your response? What do you really believe about the

30:47

Roman Pontiff? Indeed, what does the Catholic religion teach about the

30:53

Roman Pontiff? Can you disagree with this teaching and still be considered a

31:00

Roman Catholic? Indeed, can you, in light of Roman Catholic dogma on this issue, disagree, that is, not be obedient to the alleged

31:11

Vicar of Christ on earth and still be considered a Christian? Here then are the questions.

31:21

We ask whether you believe that no man outside the faith of this church and outside of the obedience of the

31:29

Pope of Rome can finally be saved. We ask whether you have believed, believe, or are prepared to believe that blessed

31:40

Peter received complete power of jurisdiction over all faithful Christians from our

31:47

Lord Jesus Christ, and that every power of jurisdiction was completely subject to the authority and power which blessed

31:57

Peter received from our Lord Jesus Christ himself, over whomsoever are believers in Christ in all parts of the world, and that no apostle or any other one whosoever received that very complete power over all

32:17

Christians except Peter alone. We ask whether you have believed and have held or are prepared to believe and to hold that all the

32:29

Roman Pontiffs who succeeding blessed Peter will succeed in the same plenitude in the jurisdiction of power over the complete and universal body of the militant church which blessed

32:44

Peter himself received from our Lord Jesus Christ. Now in these citations which

32:50

I have read to you, we find these words over and over again, complete power of jurisdiction, every power of jurisdiction completely subject to the authority and power given to Peter, over and over again, complete universal power and authority, power and authority.

33:11

The teaching of the Roman Catholic religion is that our Lord Jesus Christ gave unto

33:16

Peter every jurisdiction of power as fitting the head of the church.

33:24

In the Council of Florence held under the authority of Pope Eugenius meeting in 1438, we have this striking appraisal of the role of Peter.

33:35

We likewise define that the Holy Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold the primacy throughout the entire world and that the

33:44

Roman Pontiff himself is the successor of blessed Peter, the chief of the apostles and the true vicar of Christ and that he is head of the entire church and the father and teacher of all

33:56

Christians and that full power was given to him in blessed Peter by our

34:02

Lord Jesus Christ to feed, rule and govern the universal church just as is contained in the

34:07

Acts of the Ecumenical Councils and in the sacred canon, etc., etc.

34:13

There can be no missing the point here. The Roman Catholic religion teaches that the

34:18

Pope at Rome has the authority, power, dominion and jurisdiction allegedly given to Peter in the first century.

34:31

Not much has changed today. The modern Catholic religion has confirmed this dogma in the writings of Vatican II and in the new catechism of the

34:39

Roman Catholic religion. The Catholic catechism quoting from Lumen Gentium, Dogmatic Constitution of the

34:46

Church, in paragraph 22 has this to say, The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named

34:53

Peter, the rock of his church. He gave him the keys of his church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock.

35:01

The office of binding and loosening which was given to Peter was also assigned to the College of Apostles united to its head.

35:09

This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church's very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the

35:20

Pope. For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as vicar of Christ and as pastor of the entire church, has full, supreme, universal power over the whole church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.

35:39

I do not want anyone in this audience to go away with a misunderstanding of what the

35:44

Roman Catholic religion thinks of their Pope. In summary,

35:50

Peter is said to be the teacher of all Christians, the head of the whole church, the root of the unity of the church.

35:58

We read these words from Pius IX. Therefore the Catholic Church alone is conspicuous and perfect in the unity of the whole world and of all natures, particularly in that unity whose beginning, root, and unfailing origin are that supreme authority and higher principality of blessed

36:17

Peter, the Prince of the Apostles and his successors in the Roman chair.

36:23

The Roman Catholic religion is so bold in their dogma as to say that to be subject to Peter and his successors is necessary for salvation.

36:34

If you disagree with this dogma that I have just read, you run the risk of being outside the orbit of salvation itself and do not qualify for the hallways of heaven.

36:46

Listen to the words of these two Romish Popes and Vatican I. Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they, by necessity for salvation, are entirely subject to the

37:02

Roman Pontiff, Boniface VIII, and whoever rises to reproach him cannot be an inhabitant of the heavenly regions,

37:15

Boniface I, 418. If anyone then says that it is not from the institution of Christ the

37:23

Lord himself or by divine right that the blessed Peter has perpetual successors in the primacy over the universal church or that the

37:33

Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in the same primacy, let him be anathema.

37:43

Let him be accursed. Vatican I, dogmatic constitution on the church.

37:48

And finally, this is the doctrine of Catholic truth from which no one can deviate and keep his faith and salvation.

38:04

There you have it. By Rome's own testimony, I stand here condemned.

38:10

I am anathematized. I have no hope of the halls of heaven unless I repent of my position, unless I consider the language of these councils to be accurate in their fulness report of the primacy of the papacy,

38:29

I stand condemned before you. Now the question in light of these claims, for Peter being the vicar of Christ on earth, we naturally must ask the question, is there any biblical support and foundation?

38:44

We are concerned that in the first portion of this debate to determine if the

38:49

Bible supports Rome in its claim that Peter was given absolute authority over the church.

38:57

Does the Bible indeed support the contentions of the Catholic religion when it comes to Peter?

39:03

We wish to be as noble minded as the Bereans to examine the scriptures as to whether these things are so.

39:13

Will a fair reading of the scriptures yield to the Romish claim of tetrine primacy as defined by the aforementioned popes and councils?

39:23

We ask, where is the biblical proof from the Bible offered up by Romanists for their conclusions that Peter received complete power of jurisdiction over all believers in all parts of the world and no other except Peter alone received this very complete power, that all

39:42

Roman pontiffs will succeed the same plenitude of jurisdiction of power, that all future

39:48

Roman pontiffs who are vicars of Christ have received immediately from Christ this power in the highest degree over the complete and universal church, that Peter had full, supreme, universal, whole, church power over all other apostles and was chief apostle, true vicar of Christ, and head of the entire church.

40:13

We ask for the biblical data. Let us review then the portrayal of Peter given to us in the

40:22

Word of God. Simon, brother of Andrew, son of Jonah, is presented to us in scripture as one of the first disciples called by the

40:33

Lord to follow him. Early on in his relationship with Jesus, Simon was given the name Peter, Petros in Greek, Cephas in Aramaic.

40:43

Peter, Petros, and Cephas all mean stone or rock, and he brought him to Jesus.

40:50

Jesus looked at him and said, you are Simon, the son of Ioannis, you shall be called

40:56

Cephas, which translated means Peter. Paul refers to Peter as Cephas in 1

41:03

Corinthians 1 .2. In fact, Paul refers to Peter as Cephas in circumstances that convey just the opposite meaning of the modern papal designations.

41:16

For we find that some at Corinth were holding men in high esteem, and Paul reports this to the

41:24

Corinthians, now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, I am of Cephas, and I am of Christ.

41:35

Their guilt and their sin was holding a man in high esteem, rather than holding

41:41

Christ in highest esteem. Again in 1 Corinthians 9 .5, Paul brings up Cephas as an illustration of apostles having the right to bring along believing wives.

41:52

Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the

42:01

Lord and Cephas? In Galatians 2 .9, the pillars of the church,

42:08

James, Cephas and John, triumvirate, three, not one, give to Paul and Barnabas the right hand to fellowship in acceptance of their call to the

42:17

Gentiles. And recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James, Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand to fellowship, that we might go to the

42:30

Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. And we know early on that Paul had to oppose

42:38

Peter to his face, for Peter's hypocrisy. But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.

42:49

But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas, in the presence of Paul, and I noted that the rest of the

43:01

Jews had joined him, Cephas, in his hypocrisy.

43:07

Aside from these well -known references in the epistles of Paul, Peter is best known for the following.

43:16

He's among the inner group, Peter, John and James in Luke 8 .51, the raising to life of the daughter of the synagogue official.

43:26

In Luke 9 .28, it is Peter, John and James at the transfiguration.

43:33

In Matthew 26 .37, they are together again at the Garden of Gethsemane. Peter is the impetuous one in the scriptures, walking on water in Matthew 14 .28,

43:45

but drawing the sword in defense of our Lord, in John 18 .10.

43:50

He affirms Jesus in Matthew 16 .16, Thou art the Christ, the

43:56

Son of the living God. But later on in the same chapter, Matthew reports that Peter rebukes

44:04

Jesus. May God forbid it, Lord, that you should do this. He denies our

44:11

Lord Jesus Christ. In Luke 22 .60, we read these words from Peter, Man, I do not know what you are talking about, in reference to the accusation that he was with our

44:26

Lord on the night of his betrayal. We find Peter going fishing, going back to his old profession, having thought the entire scenario of the man being restored at the end of John 21 .10,

44:48

to my sheep. We find him writing two letters to the Jewish diaspora, 1st and 2nd

44:54

Peter. But in all of the New Testament data, there is not a shred of evidence for Peter being a

45:02

Pope. There is not a shred of evidence for the office of Pope anywhere in all of scripture.

45:09

What we do find are fallible human beings. Peter was a sinner saved by the grace of God, and called to be one of the original men to confess

45:20

Christ and proclaim Him in the world. God worked marvelously through Peter, Paul and the other men whom he chose to spread this gospel.

45:33

Peter was special, but Peter was no Pope. In fact, we now need to turn our attention to the fallibility of Peter.

45:44

After receiving the keys to the kingdom of heaven, Peter attempts to stop Jesus from his appointed mission in Jerusalem, Matthew 16, 22 and 23.

45:54

After receiving the keys of the kingdom of heaven, Peter joins in an argument about who would be first in the kingdom,

46:01

Luke 22, 24, and there arose also a dispute among them as to which one of them was regarded to be the greatest.

46:11

Why the dispute? Why the argumentation, if it was settled by our

46:16

Lord that Peter would be in fact the greatest? After the day of outpouring of the

46:24

Spirit of God at Pentecost, Peter is confronted by Paul at Antioch with the accusation of immorality, that is deceit, and undermining the gospel, that is the faith issue.

46:37

Listen to these words, but when I saw that they were not straightforward about the gospel,

46:44

Peter being among them, not straightforward about the gospel, and the

46:49

Jews join him in hypocrisy. Peter shares authority with James and the other apostles at the council of Jerusalem.

46:58

Acts 15 has already been mentioned in the opening statement of my opponent.

47:04

Let me say briefly here that we find in Acts 15 verse 4 that it's the apostles and elders meeting together.

47:11

We find in verse 6 of Acts 15 it's apostles and elders, and in verse 22 it's the apostles and elders all in harmony, not one shred of evidence that Peter was the governor of the council, the vice regent holding the key of David at the council, not one shred of evidence whatsoever.

47:30

In fact James stands up and has the final word and closes the session. Peter admits to equal if not greater status in the writings of Paul in his second epistle.

47:44

Just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you as also in all his letters, speaking in them things in which some things are hard to understand.

47:57

Peter's own testimony to the credibility of Paul and his writings in some things perhaps that Peter didn't even understand, as well as Paul.

48:09

Peter is never said to be the all powerful leader in the church by anyone at any time. In fact Paul's words indicate the opposite, where he says in 2

48:17

Corinthians 11 5, for I consider myself not in the least inferior to the most eminent of apostles.

48:25

Peter finally refers to himself as a fellow elder in 1 Peter 5 .1,

48:32

therefore I exhort the elders among you as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ and I partake also of the glory that is to be revealed, shepherd the flock.

48:46

Peter writing to fellow elders telling them to shepherd the flock, poimen, shepherd the flock.

48:58

Peter is never called pope or father in all of scripture. Now let's take a look at the book of Acts.

49:06

The book of Acts is the unfolding of God's redemptive program. It is a chronicle as it were of the historical outworking of salvation beginning from the day of Pentecost and moving forward.

49:17

We find the first sermon given by Peter in the book of Acts. We find first Gentile converts in the book of Acts.

49:25

We find first missionary journey in the book of Acts and it's in the book of Acts where those who believe on Christ are first called

49:32

Christians. Shouldn't we search and find a shred of evidence where we might find

49:38

Peter being called pope first in the book of Acts or at least given primacy in the book of Acts?

49:48

Hardly. Peter is obedient to scripture in Acts 1 when he says brethren the scripture had to be fulfilled.

49:55

He does not take authority on his own as vicar of Christ on earth but rather he subordinates his exhortation in Acts 1 to the scriptures.

50:04

Scripture had to be fulfilled. Peter is conspicuous in Acts 2 but not alone.

50:12

Peter is prominent in Acts 3 but not alone or above his peers. Peter is a defender of the faith in Acts 4 and Acts 5 but not alone.

50:22

He is always with another apostle. He acts in concert with fellow believers.

50:29

There is no trace of popery here. Peter goes down to Samaria in Acts 8 but he is not alone and incidentally he is sent down.

50:36

He does not carry a peculiar jurisdiction or authority over John with whom he goes.

50:42

The text reads now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God they sent them

50:52

Peter and John. Peter was sent by the other apostles.

50:58

Peter preaches the gospel and heals in Acts 9 but there is no hint of popery here. In Acts 10

51:04

Peter is amazed at the work of God at the household of Cornelius. In recounting the experience

51:10

Peter proclaims that the Holy Spirit was given to the Gentiles and fell upon them just as he fell upon us at the beginning.

51:21

No distinction given by way of the Spirit of God being given unto believers differently from what was given to Peter and all early believers.

51:32

In fact if we take into account the book of Acts we believe that Paul would be a better candidate for being pope at Rome.

51:42

Paul was especially set aside by the Holy Spirit for his ministry Acts 13 .2. Paul did not consult with flesh and blood concerning the contents of his gospel

51:52

Galatians 1, 12 and 17. Paul says in his own testimony that he had the pressure of the entire church on him continually.

52:01

That's something a pope might say. I have the pressure of the entire church on me continually.

52:08

2 Corinthians 11 .28. Paul was especially entrusted with the gospel to the

52:13

Gentiles. Peter was entrusted with the gospel to the Jews Galatians 2 .7.

52:20

Whereas the 15th chapter of the book of Acts ends the accounting of the ministry of Peter there is no more mention of his missionary work nor advice to the church in the book of Acts or the epistles of Paul.

52:36

Paul is mentioned throughout the remaining chapters of Acts all the way through Acts 28 and writes six times as much to the body of Christ as Peter.

52:47

If you're looking for a pope ladies and gentlemen give it to Paul. No one has more prominence.

52:53

No one has more authority. No one has more divine initiative in his ministry than the great apostle

53:00

Paul. Furthermore Paul at least claimed authority whereas Peter never did.

53:07

Listen to the words of Paul. If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual let him recognize that the things which

53:14

I write to you are the Lord's commandment. That's papal language. And we for this reason we also constantly thank

53:23

God that when you receive from us the word of God's message you accepted it not as the word of men but for what it really is the word of God which also performs its work in you who believe.

53:36

1st Seth 2 .13. Who is to shepherd the flock of God according to the word of God?

53:44

What does first century ecclesiology look like from the New Testament? Well the New Testament plainly paints the picture of a multitude of missions in the local church.

53:54

The local body is to be governed by elders, presbyters, bishops, episkopos in the assembly.

54:01

They are to be aided by deacons, diakonos, servants. This we find in Acts 20 verses 17 and 28 on Paul's final departure for Jerusalem he calls together the elders at Ephesus and warns them.

54:16

He doesn't call the Pope and warn him. He calls the elders plural together to warn them.

54:25

What are the qualifications for an elder or a bishop? According to the New Testament they are clearly set forth in scripture and have nothing to do with Romish popery.

54:34

Read it yourself 1st Timothy 3, 1 and following and Titus 1. What was the gospel of Peter?

54:43

What gospel did God give to Peter? Peter preached the gospel of repentance and faith for forgiveness of sins.

54:50

We find these words in Acts 2 .38. Repent and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins and you shall receive the gift of the

55:00

Holy Spirit. Again in Acts 15 .11. But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the

55:05

Lord Jesus in the same way also as they are. This message is contrary to the modern message of Rome and serves notice that scriptural

55:16

Petrine prominence has nothing to do with Romish religion let alone the false primacy of the

55:23

Romish Pope. I'd like to turn now in the final few minutes that I have to a focus on an initial denial of the

55:32

Roman Catholic interpretation of four passages summoned to prove Romish popery.

55:38

Matthew 16 and I also say to you that you are Peter and upon this rock

55:43

I will build my church and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.

55:52

Whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Matthew 16 .18 .19.

55:58

We deny that Matthew 16 .18 establishes that Peter was the very foundation of the church with all the aforementioned power and authority lauded on the

56:10

Pope at Rome. It cannot be proven that the original

56:15

Matthew was written in Aramaic. This eliminates the Catholic charade of Aramaic originals lending the so -called true translation of thou art

56:28

Cephas and upon Cephas I will build my church. Ladies and gentlemen there is no proof whatsoever that Matthew was written in Aramaic original.

56:36

We have not one scrap of manuscript evidence that it was in fact Aramaic. There is scholarly opinion and that's it.

56:44

What we do have however is manuscript evidence of the Greek text. It has a differentiation in the words.

56:51

Secondly the use of the demonstrative pronoun upon this rock I will build my church diverts attention away from Peter.

57:01

Christ did not say upon you I will build my church.

57:06

The change from second person to the demonstrative opens up the proclamation of Christ to either

57:11

Peter's confession thou art the Christ or to Christ himself. And I also say to you that you are

57:19

Peter and upon this rock, this being the demonstrative, not upon you

57:25

Peter but upon this rock diverting attention away from Peter to either his confession or to Christ himself.

57:32

Thirdly even granting Peter as the rock upon which Christ will build his church does not lead to Popery. Petrine prominence has already been noted.

57:41

It is an unwarranted leap from Peter being an apostle of initial prominency to the

57:47

Pope at Rome. Christ is everywhere called the foundation of the church. Also the passage does not say upon this rock and thy successors

57:59

I will build my church. Neither does it say that the universal Son of the body of Christ will be in Rome.

58:09

Luke 22, 31, and 32 was mentioned when once you have turned again strengthen your brothers. There's no room for Popery here or power or papal potency.

58:20

Jesus exhorts Peter to strengthen his brothers after he himself has been restored from his own serious weaknesses.

58:28

The word strengthen here is used in Revelation 3 .2 as part of the Lord's admonition to strengthen the things that remain.

58:34

There is nothing magical about this exhortation. Paul wishes to strengthen the church at Rome with his visits.

58:43

Romans 1 .11 same word. John 21 .15 -17 that was read earlier there's nothing in John 21 that remotely suggests

58:51

Popery. This passage centers around the reinstatement of Peter to the ministry after he decided to go fishing.

58:58

We notice the three -phoned questioning of our Lord by way of recapitulation. This is a new charcoal fire and unlike the one where Peter denied the

59:09

Lord, this fire will be a source of warmth and sustenance. The entire episode centers around the reenlistment of Peter for the work of service.

59:20

Ironically Peter unlike modern Romish Popery is told to keep his mind out of what

59:28

God may be doing with others for Jesus said if I want him to remain until I come what is that to you?

59:37

Thank you. I'm Bob St.

59:43

Genes and I thank you for all being here tonight. Mr. Zins I would like to thank you for a very accurate historical presentation of what the

59:51

Catholics believe about the Pope. Very accurate. However your biblical information is totally inaccurate and I will address each of the points that you have brought forth to us.

01:00:12

In Galatians 2 as Mr. Zins pointed out he says that Peter was upbraided by Paul for what

01:00:21

Peter had done in perverting the gospel supposedly. Let me just give you some background on this issue.

01:00:31

Paul's major concern in Acts 15 .1 is that the Jews are commanding that the

01:00:36

Gentiles be circumcised before they come into the church. That is his concern. That is also his concern in Galatians 2.

01:00:45

We read that he didn't want to circumcise Titus to give the Jews any space to say that yes we were falling back into the circumcision that we were denied.

01:00:54

That is the issue. Is that what Peter is doing in Galatians 2? No not at all.

01:01:01

Paul accuses Peter of disfellowshipping with the Gentiles. A very minor infraction.

01:01:08

Peter is not doing what Paul had accused him of. He is not perverting the gospel.

01:01:15

He is not circumcising anyone. Paul is overreacting to Peter. It is actually the very

01:01:21

Paul who had decided to circumcise Timothy because he had an understanding of the

01:01:30

Jews. He wanted to placate them. He circumcises Timothy so that it would be much smoother to approach the

01:01:35

Jews. Then he changes his mind in Galatians 2 and says that I didn't circumcise

01:01:40

Titus because I didn't want to give any place to the Jews. Which is it Paul? One or the other?

01:01:48

He does this both because Timothy is a Greek and Titus is a Greek. That is the criterion that Paul uses.

01:01:56

Yes Paul is overreacting. What is Paul's address to? The Galatians, the

01:02:02

Judaizers. These were the ones who were trying to circumcise Christians and say that they had to be circumcised had to obey this law to become

01:02:11

Christians. When you read the rest of the Galatian epistle that is his concern. As a matter of fact he says I wish they would circumcise their whole body and leave me alone.

01:02:21

His concern is not with Peter. Augustine says yes Peter did have a moment of imprudence.

01:02:27

But it wasn't the destruction of the gospel that we are told that it is. In Matthew 16

01:02:33

Mr. Zinn says that Jesus rebuked Peter for Peter's alleged stopping of Jesus from going to the cross as if this is some great crime.

01:02:43

Let me back up a little bit and give you the context of Matthew 16 so you can understand what is going on here.

01:02:49

Peter is given a revelation from God. Jesus recognizes. He says you did not have this information given to you by flesh and blood that I am the

01:02:58

Son of God. It was given to you directly by the Father. You see the whole context that Jesus is basing the giving of the keys to Peter is on the revelation that Peter received from God.

01:03:11

Not so much on his faith. Yes faith is a prerequisite for anyone who comes to the kingdom.

01:03:17

But what is special about Peter that is not given to the other apostles is his revelation from God directly.

01:03:24

Now we know that Peter was not given a revelation that Jesus had to go to the cross and die. Because in the next verse it says that is the first time that Jesus told the apostles that he had to die.

01:03:35

So naturally Peter is surprised at this. The Father had not given this information to Peter. He had given the information that yes he was the

01:03:42

Son of God but not that Jesus had to go to the cross. So there is no conflict here.

01:03:48

There is no issue here. Jesus is now teaching Peter that yes I must die. And not even until Jesus died and rose again did the apostles really understand the death and resurrection of Christ.

01:04:00

Not a shred of evidence we are told for Peter being the Pope. Peter was a sinner.

01:04:07

I didn't know that sin was a disclaimer or a disqualifier for being a Pope. I didn't read that anywhere in the

01:04:14

Bible. He brought the fact out that the apostles are talking about who is the greatest.

01:04:21

This is pettiness among the apostles. This is their problem. They are all vying for leadership.

01:04:28

Vying to see who is the better among them. That is exactly what Jesus is condemning. Don't talk about who is the greatest.

01:04:35

What Jesus wants them to be is servants. That is exactly what Jesus said he was. He was going to be a servant.

01:04:41

Does that diminish his authority at all because he wants to be a servant? No. This is exactly what he doesn't want

01:04:47

Peter to be. To claim to be the greatest. It is not a competition here. It is a position of servanthood for the rest of the church.

01:04:56

That is what Jesus is concerned about. In Acts 15 we are told that all the apostles and elders are present.

01:05:05

Well I hope so. It is a council. That is why they are there. But who is the one who stands up first and declares this dogma that the

01:05:15

Gentiles do not have to be circumcised in order to be let into the church? It is Peter. And you know what else

01:05:20

Peter says? He says God told me this. A revelation again.

01:05:26

The same thing as in Matthew 16. God told him that in Acts 10. The sheep came down with all the animals in it.

01:05:33

And as a matter of fact he backs it up and he says and why do you test God trying to give

01:05:38

Gentiles this burden to carry? He is speaking in God's place at the council. And everybody is hushed up listening to him.

01:05:48

Paul and Barnabas come over and give examples of all the miracles that were performed. Yes Peter is right. James stands up and says yes

01:05:54

Peter is right. Simeon has declared this. And I am going to add my little opinion here. And then the whole group gets together and says yes.

01:06:01

But Peter made the doctrinal proclamation that still stands today. Gentiles do not have to be circumcised to be let into the church.

01:06:13

He says in 2 Peter 3 .16 Peter did not understand what Paul was writing. Where does it say that in 2 Peter 3 .16?

01:06:19

It says the unstable wrestle with Paul's writings that they do not understand it. It does not say that Peter did not understand it.

01:06:25

In 1 Peter 5 .1 we are told that Peter is just a fellow elder. That he addresses these people just as a fellow elder.

01:06:33

And that does not really give him any prominence among these people. Well I don't know about you but when I talk to a group of people

01:06:39

I don't say hey I am the big cheese here. I am the boss. You have to listen to me. No. What you do is you come down to their level and you say

01:06:47

I am a fellow elder with you. Just like the President would say I am a fellow American citizen with you.

01:06:54

But it does not diminish his authority as the President of the United States. Exactly what is happening here is

01:07:02

Peter is doing exactly what Jesus told him to do in John 21. If you remember what my colleague has said about John 21.

01:07:09

Jesus uses the special Greek word poimene. Almost half of the time that it is used in the

01:07:15

New Testament refers to ruling. There are lambs and sheep that he is supposed to rule over in John 21.

01:07:22

They must represent the whole church. There is nobody else in view here. In other words Peter is to poimene, to rule, to govern over this whole church.

01:07:31

And he is also to boske, to feed them. That is exactly what he is doing in 1 Peter 5.

01:07:37

He is governing, he is ruling and he is feeding. What Jesus told him to do. He says in the book of Acts he is always with another apostle.

01:07:53

Why hope so? I hope that the apostle is one of the travel around with Peter. And trying to imply that this means that Peter is somehow degraded because he has his companions along with him.

01:08:05

Please people do not get that impression at all. If you look at what is happening in the book of Acts, every chapter that talks about Peter, he holds the prominence.

01:08:14

He is the one who speaks. John who is the inner circle of the apostles is there and John does not say a word.

01:08:21

Most of the time John may perform miracles but there is no recorded miracles of John nor James.

01:08:28

Peter is the one who raises people from the dead. His shadow is curing people.

01:08:34

As a matter of fact when it refers to the apostolic man it says Peter and the apostles. It does not even name the other apostles sometimes.

01:08:48

He says that Paul did not consult flesh and blood in Galatians chapter 1 and 2. Here is

01:08:55

Paul knocked off his horse. He has all this new stuff he has got to learn. God gives him this special revelation.

01:09:02

But what does he do afterwards? He goes to see Peter for two weeks to consult with Peter. The Greek word used there is hysteria which means to get information from, to learn from.

01:09:13

Now if Peter has no prominence why is Paul going to him? He is consulting with flesh and blood now because Peter is somebody.

01:09:26

Yes Paul says I have the pressure of the church on my shoulders. I hope so because he is the messenger to the

01:09:34

Gentile churches. He is the one who is doing it as Peter was to the

01:09:39

Jews. I hope he has the pressure. He has to take that pressure. That is God's mandate for him. Paul is mentioned more than Peter was the claim.

01:09:50

So what? I mean Paul has a mission to do from God.

01:09:56

Peter had his mission to do from God. Frequency is not a criterion for leadership.

01:10:03

It is not a criterion for papal primacy. And he says that because Paul says the things

01:10:09

I write to you are the Lord's commandment as if Peter does not believe the same thing. It does not matter if I guess exactly what

01:10:16

Peter says in his epistle. The things I write to you I want you to believe too because it is scripture. They both believe scripture is

01:10:21

God's word. I would say that too if I were Paul or Peter. And he says in Acts 17

01:10:27

Paul calls the elders not the Pope. It is because he is dealing with elders at the church.

01:10:33

The Pope is not there. He is in Jerusalem. Why call the Pope up there? He does not need the

01:10:38

Pope in Acts 17. They are not having a council there. They had their council in Acts 15. Let me give you some more information about the understanding of Matthew 16,

01:10:51

John 21, Luke 22 and others. As I said before there is a revelation that is given to Peter.

01:10:59

It is not based so much on his faith. Now the problem that Protestants have is they don't understand that someone can be called rock and another person can be called rock.

01:11:12

Someone can be called a stone and another person can be called a stone. In Ephesians 2 .20 the apostles and the prophets are the foundation.

01:11:19

And Jesus is called the foundation. Believers are called stones and rocks. Jesus is called a stone and a rock.

01:11:26

The metaphors are interchangeable. Jesus is called the shepherd and bishop.

01:11:31

The exact same two words that are given to the pastors of the church, shepherd and bishop. One amazing thing that I found in Matthew chapter 16 is this very word that was brought up, this.

01:11:47

When Jesus says upon this rock I will build my church. It is the Greek taltite petra.

01:11:53

This is a very interesting phrase in Greek because it can be translated this. It could be this very rock or this same rock or even this rock.

01:12:07

If you want to prove this to yourself go to Protestant translations of this Greek phrase in the

01:12:12

Bible and you will see it. In the King James Version for example it's translated as the same in 1

01:12:17

Corinthians 7 .20 or this same in 2 Corinthians 9 .4. The same thing can be found in the

01:12:23

New American Standard Bible, the Revised Standard Bible, the NIV, the NEB, all Protestant versions of the Bible.

01:12:28

In other words how could we translate this phrase? It could be this. Upon this very rock

01:12:34

I will build my church or upon this same rock I will build my church.

01:12:40

The Greek word taltite there has a very demonstrative force, yes Mr. Zins it does. It's pointing out exactly the rock that I just talked about two words ago.

01:12:51

That's the natural reading of this text and verified more by the Greek. What's even more amazing is what

01:12:56

Jesus didn't say. He didn't say upon the rock or upon a rock to make it more ambiguous.

01:13:02

He said upon this rock or this very rock. He didn't say you are Peter but upon this rock

01:13:08

I will build my church. He said you are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church. He's connecting the two phrases together showing that they are one and the same.

01:13:18

There was an argument brought up in the production Mr. White did from Peaceway Productions claiming that the word you is in the second person in this passage and because the word rock is in the third person therefore second person and third person do not match up therefore

01:13:35

Peter cannot be the rock. Let me tell you this we don't need anything past 8th grade grammar to understand that rock is a noun and it doesn't have person.

01:13:46

Pronouns have person I, you, he, she, it have person. So it's a fallacious argument to say a second and third person don't match up together.

01:13:55

Another aspect of this passage is very important. Jesus says whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.

01:14:02

In Hebrews chapter 6 verse 13 it says that God cannot lie. That means that God cannot bind anything in heaven that is a lie on earth because God cannot lie.

01:14:18

God cannot confirm, validate or accept anything that is an error in heaven because he is

01:14:25

God. That is his nature not to lie. Therefore whatever Peter binds on earth must be without error or God could not bind it in heaven.

01:14:35

How will this happen? Because God will intrude into the mind of the Pope and prevent him from error.

01:14:41

That is the only way it can happen. The precedent for that was already set in Matthew 16 when

01:14:46

Peter was given a revelation from God that Jesus was the son of God. It wasn't from Peter's own heart it was given to him by God.

01:14:54

That is what the Pope has today. In John 21 when

01:15:01

Jesus says do you love me Peter? Feed my sheep and the whole scenario there. Does Jesus say to Peter as some

01:15:09

Protestants tell us well Peter you don't really agape me you only filet on me so I'm not really going to accept your answer.

01:15:15

That's the kind of claim that is made because Peter is using a different word for love. No. Jesus accepts

01:15:21

Peter's answer every time. He says yes Jesus I love you and he says okay do this.

01:15:26

This is your job, this is your position. Feed my sheep, shepherd my sheep, feed my lambs and he does that very thing.

01:15:34

The other apostles are all there. No one of them is approached. James and John the inner circle are there.

01:15:40

They are not approached. They are not given this job and position. Peter is. He passed the initial test.

01:15:48

Jesus gives people tests before he gives them a position. He had failed yes but now he is going to be reasserted and Jesus wants to know where his heart is.

01:15:57

Yes Jesus I love you. The comment was made that when in Luke 22

01:16:04

Jesus says when you are turned around strengthen your brothers that this word that reads on in the

01:16:09

Greek is used of Paul to confirm the brethren. Well of course all that does is define the word.

01:16:15

Yes it does mean to confirm but what is the context of this passage? It is used in reference to Peter's relationship with the apostles not the laity.

01:16:26

He is to confirm the apostles, the highest authority that there is on earth and in order to confirm them

01:16:33

Peter must be a higher authority. In 1

01:16:41

Peter 5 .1 which I already covered a little it says that Peter tells the people to feed their flocks, to shepherd their flocks.

01:16:50

That's because he is fulfilling the mission that Jesus gave him from John 21. Feed the sheep, rule the sheep.

01:16:57

It was pointed out that that word means to rule. As a matter of fact other words are used in that context.

01:17:04

Presbyteros, episcope, all words that are used for leadership in the church.

01:17:10

Peter is using those. In Isaiah 22 that was brought up by my colleague.

01:17:16

It's amazing when you go back, if you remember the argument there, Eliakim in Isaiah 22 is the prime minister under King Hezekiah and many

01:17:27

Protestants are claiming that yes this is where Matthew 16 gets its language from. Yes it appears in Revelation 3 .7

01:17:33

as well where Jesus says I have the key of David too but there is a sharing of authority. Just like the father can have authority, the son can have authority.

01:17:41

It doesn't diminish the son's authority because the father has authority nor the father the son. Likewise it doesn't diminish

01:17:48

Jesus' authority if he gives to Peter authority. But what is important about this is the dynastic succession of this office and in the

01:18:00

Hebrew it's called El Habayit, the master of the palace. In our setting it could be something like the chief of staff of the

01:18:06

White House. That's what Peter is. The house is the church. He's the chief of staff.

01:18:11

He rules that house. That's exactly what Israel had. Ahashar under King Solomon.

01:18:19

Arzah, first King 16 .9 under King Elah. Under King Ahab there was Obadiah, first Kings 18 .3.

01:18:26

It's the same Hebrew phrase that is used El Habayit, the master of the palace and that was passed down in succession all throughout

01:18:34

Israel's history. Now there is only one king left, Jesus, but there is a prime minister still and there is a succession of prime ministers going on.

01:18:44

Now we are told that there is no succession. Can you imagine when the framers of the U .S.

01:18:50

Constitution got together and they elected George Washington as their president all the while musing that after his death there would be no more presidents?

01:18:58

Can you imagine that happening? No, that's an absurd proposition. Now are they any smarter than Jesus?

01:19:04

Doesn't Jesus know the future? Yes. Why would he set up an office in Matthew 16 and all these other places giving

01:19:11

Peter this position and not follow it through with a succession? It doesn't make sense.

01:19:19

In my next approach, my next time I will go through succession even in more detail in the scripture.

01:19:26

I just want you to be, when you listen to the rest of this debate, please understand that because scriptures are thrown out and said this way or that way, please, as the

01:19:36

Bible says in Proverbs 18 .17, when you hear one story, wait until you hear the other side because you need both to make your decision.

01:19:44

Thank you for listening to all that is said this evening and remember what my colleague Mr. Zinn said.

01:19:51

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.

01:20:00

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

01:20:08

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.

01:20:15

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.

01:20:31

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

01:20:39

Roman Catholic doctrine of the papacy. Now I only want to refer to one thing that Mr.

01:20:45

St. Genes said just a few moments ago while still fresh in your mind and that is in regards to Galatians chapter 2.

01:20:51

He said that what Peter had done was a very minor infraction and to quote him,

01:20:56

Paul is overreacting to Peter. I would like to ask who Mr. St. Genes is to judge what the scripture says at this point.

01:21:04

It is the scripture that says at Galatians chapter 2 verse 4, but it was because of 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.

01:21:20

Paul is 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.

01:21:30

St. Genes says is Paul's overreaction, but when I saw that they were not straight forward about what?

01:21:37

Just a minor thing about table fellowship? No, verse 14, but when I saw that they were not straight forward about the truth of the gospel,

01:21:45

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 straight forward about the truth of the gospel is a minor infraction.

01:21:57

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,

01:22:02

Matthew 16 because folks that's all Rome has. That's all there is so that's what we have to deal with.

01:22:08

Now as we look at Matthew chapter 16 we have heard it said, well it must have been written in Aramaic.

01:22:14

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

01:22:24

Aramaic Matthew. Dr. Kurt Alon, the greatest living expert in the text of the

01:22:30

New Testament summarizes my position. It was also held by Alexander Bruce and Schode and Nigel Turner and Robert Gundry and many others.

01:22:37

Quote, there is no longer any doubt that Greek was the language in which all the parts of the New Testament were originally written. End quote.

01:22:42

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?

01:22:53

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

01:23:04

Peter in the Rock. Karagounis provides compelling documentation against the theory that we have here in Matthew 16 a repetition of the

01:23:10

Aramaic term kepha demonstrating that the evidence would more likely favor the use of the Aramaic term minra for the phrase upon this rock

01:23:18

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

01:23:26

Roman Catholic position, but there can't be alternatives to absolute dogmas, folks. If you base yourself upon this concept of the

01:23:35

Aramaic original, I simply would challenge my friends here to show us the Aramaic original.

01:23:41

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.

01:23:52

Now anyone familiar with the comments of scholars on this passage is aware of the multitude of differing positions taken about it.

01:23:59

I would like to point out to you that the central theme of Matthew 16 is the Messiahship of Jesus Christ.

01:24:05

Any interpretation that takes the focus off of Jesus as Messiah is missing the point.

01:24:12

Jesus questions the disciples about the opinions of the multitudes and then their own viewpoints are all directed toward his own person, his own identity.

01:24:20

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.

01:24:29

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

01:24:40

Father. Now the subject of the passage remains the identity of Christ found in the confession of Peter.

01:24:46

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.

01:24:54

Jesus is not here speaking of the identity of Peter. He is still talking about himself and his church.

01:25:01

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

01:25:10

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

01:25:22

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

01:25:28

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

01:25:34

I used in the video presentation Mr. St. Genes just misrepresented. Listen closely to what I actually said.

01:25:40

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.

01:25:51

He does not say upon you, Peter, I will build my church. Instead, you have a clear distinction between Peter, the

01:25:57

Petros, and the third person. In what? In address. He's not addressing this

01:26:02

Petros. He's addressing Peter, second person. I say to you, Peter, but upon this rock, something else, third person of address,

01:26:11

I will build my church. Notice something that has not been brought out by our Roman Catholic friends.

01:26:17

This statement is followed by the promise to at some time in the future, I will give.

01:26:24

Doso in the Greek is future, I will give. This is future. I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven to Peter.

01:26:30

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.

01:26:36

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.

01:26:56

If someone wishes to say that Peter receives the keys in distinction from the other apostles, and that's what

01:27:01

Mr. Butler says in his own copyrighted materials that he was presenting to you as he was giving his presentation.

01:27:07

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.

01:27:15

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 prophets and interpreters who identify

01:27:23

Peter as the rock in Matthew 16. For example, Dr. William Hendrickson follows this course as was cited to you.

01:27:29

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 prophets and interpreters that say this are quick to reject any papal pretensions that are placed upon this passage.

01:27:45

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.

01:27:55

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.

01:28:06

He then quotes the same passage from Cardinal Gibbons 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.

01:28:24

Similarly we find Dean Alford identifying Peter as the rock but following this with the following statements, quote, we may certainly explain with bingo all this may be said with safety for what has this to do with Rome.

01:28:35

Nothing can be further from any legitimate interpretation of this promise than the idea of a perpetual primacy in the successors of Peter.

01:28:41

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.

01:28:50

In its other and general sense is 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 this origin 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.

01:29:11

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

01:29:21

The text does not say on this rock and on his successors I will build my church, solus

01:29:26

Petrus, Petra Peter alone. To take this text literally is to honor

01:29:31

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.

01:29:40

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

01:29:47

I want to comment just briefly on the use of Isaiah chapter 22 and the key to the house of David to Peter himself in Matthew chapter 16.

01:29:57

Such an attempt to connection is logically necessary for their own position for there must be some effort found somewhere in scripture to establish succession in this passage despite the fact that it simply isn't there.

01:30:10

Yet upon what basis do I identify the keys and Mr. Butler went back and forth between key and keys never pointing out there's a difference between the two.

01:30:17

The keys plural of the kingdom of heaven which are associated plainly with the preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ in the

01:30:25

New Testament. With the key singular of the house of David which is messianic in nature.

01:30:32

How do we connect those two? We weren't told. And should we not instead accept the interpretation given by the

01:30:38

Lord Jesus himself when he cites Isaiah 22, 22 of himself in Revelation 3, 7 where we read unto the angel of the church of Philadelphia write he who is holy who is true who has the key singular of David who opens and no one will shut and who shuts and no one opens says this.

01:30:56

Jesus has present tense the key of David. He does not say that he gives this key to anyone else.

01:31:03

And it's very interesting to note that in the materials that Mr. Butler has written he says well yes Jesus has his key but who did he give it to before he passed off the earth see

01:31:12

Matthew 16, 19. Wait a minute. Can we put this in order here? This is being written to the church of Philadelphia.

01:31:19

Folks there was no church of Philadelphia when Matthew 16 was written and when that was promised was made. Jesus says

01:31:25

I am right now the one who holds this key and that's long after Matthew 16. There's a real problem with anachronism in the arguments being presented by our friends across the way this evening.

01:31:38

Now John chapter 21 I hope you're all keeping a deep seat in the saddle. John chapter 21 you've heard it read to you feed the sheep, feed the sheep so on and so forth, shepherd the sheep.

01:31:51

Now we are going to be dealing with the church fathers in just a few minutes but I hope you don't mind my using

01:31:56

Cyril of Alexandria as my interpretation of this passage because I agree with him. Cyril said if anyone asked for what cause he asked

01:32:03

Simon only though the other disciples were present and what he means by feed my lambs and the like we answer that St.

01:32:08

Peter with the other disciples had already been chosen the apostleship but because meanwhile Peter had fallen for under great fear he had thrice denied the

01:32:15

Lord he now heals him that was sick and exacts a threefold confession in place of his triple denial contrasting the former with the latter and compensating the fault with the correction end quote.

01:32:27

Here we have the gracious Lord restoring the apostle who in his brash impetuosity had promised to follow him even to death and yet had denied him three times.

01:32:35

The threefold question of Peter followed by the command to feed or shepherd Christ's sheep is restorative in nature.

01:32:42

Nothing in the passage even begin to suggest to us that this means that the other apostles were not likewise commissioned to feed and pastor

01:32:48

Christ's flock on an equal base with Simon and Peter. There is no indication that only

01:32:53

Peter is told to shepherd God's flock nor that all others who shepherd the flock do so derivatively from Peter's supremacy which is the

01:33:00

Roman position. Indeed if such were the case Paul seems to have been very ignorant of this doctrine for he instructed the

01:33:07

Ephesian elders in Acts 20 28 keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers.

01:33:12

Be shepherds of the church of God which he bought with his own blood. Paul does not say as Peter is the chief shepherd you act as under shepherds of the flock of God.

01:33:21

No again the only way that such an understanding can be found is if we take a much later development and read it back into the text as our

01:33:28

Roman Catholic friends are forced to do. This passage in no way sets Peter apart as the prince of the apostles.

01:33:34

Instead it shows that he was in need of special pastoral care on the part of Jesus Christ. Then Luke chapter 22 was brought up Simon Simon Satan has asked to sift you as wheat and the

01:33:45

Lord Jesus prays specifically for Simon. Now even after Jesus tells

01:33:52

Peter that he's in trouble he rashly says in verse 33 the same passage Lord I am ready to go with you to prison and to death to which the

01:33:59

Lord replies that Peter will in fact deny him three times. Roman Catholics have cited this passage as pointing out yet once again the preeminence of Peter and some have even gone so far to say it the

01:34:08

Lord's prayer for Peter's faith extends to Peter's successors and the bishops of Rome. Yet if there is any

01:34:14

Petrine primacy here it is Petrine primacy in the denial of Christ not in being the vicar of Christ.

01:34:22

This passage like John 21 shows us that Peter was more in need of pastoral care by the Lord due to his impetuosity nothing more.

01:34:31

The Lord's prayer was fulfilled for even having denied Christ Peter unlike Judas went out and wept bitterly but his faith did not fail completely and he was restored humbled but wiser.

01:34:42

To take this as indicating Petrine primacy however is to go far beyond anything the text says and again if this is the type of basis that a dogma upon which you use the anathema is based we have a real problem.

01:34:56

Now some have said that Peter is here set apart by from the others by the phrase and when you have turned back strengthen your brothers. Mr. St.

01:35:02

Genes just told us yes St. Rydzine is used elsewhere for example in Acts 14 22 and 15 32 and many other places this term is used and not only of Peter by the way those places are where Paul confirms the churches but he says if you're gonna do that you have to have higher authority.

01:35:19

Where do you get that from? I don't see it in the passage. Where does it say those who confirm someone else must be of higher authority

01:35:27

I would like to find the lexical sources from which Mr. Genes derived that meaning of St. Rydzine I would like to ask him to provide those things to us in his opportunity of responding to my comments.

01:35:39

Now in the few moments that I have left Mr. Butler told us that in Matthew chapter 23 we have the chair of Moses and in his printed materials he says that Christ passed the chair of Moses on to Peter.

01:35:54

I would like to invite all of you to take your Bibles to read Matthew chapter 23 and see if you can find anywhere anything about the chair of Moses being passed on to anyone.

01:36:06

In fact I'd like to invite Mr. Butler to show us a single place where cathedra in the Greek is ever used of Peter at all.

01:36:13

I'd like to see where this comes from we were told that that is the case. Much has been made of Acts chapter 15 we were told that we were going to be demonstrated that one use of Sagao and another use of Sagao means this that and the other thing we haven't heard any of that but in Acts chapter 15 again

01:36:31

I would invite you to take the time to get out your Bible read it and see if Peter is a

01:36:37

Pope in Acts chapter 15. Don't start with the assumption that he is just read the scriptures and ask yourself the question is the man speaking starting at verse 7 through verse 11 the vicar of Christ on earth do the people hearing him see this man is the vicar of Christ on earth the

01:36:57

Holy Father the one upon whom the church is built ask yourself if that passage teaches this.

01:37:06

Peter speaks the truth we were told that he got a revelation here he doesn't say that he says you know that in the early days

01:37:11

God made a choice among you that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word the gospel and believe and he preaches the truth about the gospel but the

01:37:18

Gentiles are not to be brought under the necessity of circumcision but then after he speaks is the issue over would you derive that from any honest reading of the text verse 12 says and all the multitude kept silence and they were listening to Barnabas and Saul as they were relating what signs and wonders

01:37:38

God had done to them among the Gentiles. Paul, Paul wait a minute the vicar of Christ just spoke you don't need to relate these signs and wonders the case is settled it's all over we don't need this

01:37:47

Paul you don't need to do that anymore no Paul confirms the truthfulness of what

01:37:54

Peter has said Peter is exactly right but for some reason Paul and Barnabas felt the need to get up and the whole assembly fell silent as they listened to what they were saying and when they then fell silent that is

01:38:05

Paul and Barnabas James gets up and I would like to point a few things out a

01:38:10

I would like to ask my friends to show us anywhere else in Acts 15 where the speaker uses the imperative mode in the

01:38:18

Greek issues a command James says brethren listen to me imperative and then we were told that in when when

01:38:29

James gives his decision and when he talks about my judgment in verse 19 well that's my opinion that's just my voice you know it doesn't mean anything more than just simply my voice verse 19 says therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the

01:38:49

Gentiles ego Chrono I judge is that used of opinions yeah it is is it also used the very judgment of God by the same author yeah it is read it for yourself and judge and again remember these things folks if in every single one of these verses

01:39:08

I can give you a perfectly logical consistent and plausible alternate understanding the

01:39:16

Roman position fails the Roman position is based upon this long line

01:39:21

Peter's the rock Peter's given the keys nobody else has given the keys this song has has something to do with Isaiah 22 that has something to do with the

01:39:27

Bishop of Rome therefore their successors if you can challenge that line all the way along think about what it means for Rome to say you are anathema if you reject this belief thank you very much my concluding remarks will be confined to rebutting what mr.

01:39:45

White has just said in Galatians chapter 2 he asked who was I to judge that Paul was just overreacting that's exactly the point in the context of Galatians 2 there is no divine judgment

01:39:58

God is not saying Paul you're correct Peter you are wrong nor Paul you are totally correct and Peter you are totally wrong we must remember that this is written from Paul's disposition

01:40:09

Paul was really concerned about people circumcising Gentiles but let me reiterate that is not what

01:40:17

Peter did Peter just disfellowshipped himself from eating with Gentiles that is not a major crime that is not distorting or destroying the gospel circumcising

01:40:31

Gentiles is destroying the gospel he talks about the

01:40:37

Aramaic we don't need the Aramaic I don't even use the Aramaic in my arguments

01:40:42

I use the Greek I was very demonstrative in pointing out the demonstrative tauti te

01:40:48

Petra this very rock I don't know how much clearer it can be in Matthew 16 what else does

01:40:55

Jesus have to say to us to get it through our heads it is not the rock it is not a rock it is this rock

01:41:02

I just talked about Petra's means rock John 142 he changed his name from Simon to rock the

01:41:09

Aramaic Kephas how much more information do we need he says that Peter speaks for all the

01:41:21

Apostles yes on certain occasions but in this occasion in Matthew 16 he doesn't speak for all the

01:41:28

Apostles matter of fact their information is wrong they don't know who he is they say some say you're that nobody speaks up Peter gets the revelation as I said before from God that this is the

01:41:44

Son of God he says that rock is the third -person address my friends let me tell you again there is no such thing as a third -person address for a noun rock is a noun it's

01:41:56

Petra nouns do not have person address they have declensions in Greek to signify what represent in the context his argument about Chris Karagounis his book his own professor for theological seminary says any argument of the caliber of Chris Karagounis is just prejudice against the papacy of the

01:42:20

Roman Catholic Church and this is a Protestant scholar he says

01:42:26

Matthew 16 19 uses the word do so in the future well of course Peter will be on the sitting on the chair of Peter in the future he will be restored from his fall and be the

01:42:39

Pope and he will continue throughout the centuries it doesn't dilute the message that Jesus gave him remember

01:42:48

Jesus gave him the keys he said whatever you bind shall be bound listen to that that's what he said to him don't get confused about future perfect and present in the

01:42:57

Greek but doesn't mean anything here he will have it if he doesn't have it now he will have it in the future he says that yes

01:43:05

William Henderson talks about Peter as the rock he admits it congratulations mr.

01:43:11

Hendrickson and you along with many other Protestant scholars but he says well mr. Hendrickson doesn't talk about succession he doesn't believe the succession

01:43:19

I know that's a Protestant that's a Protestant problem they haven't they took him 400 years to discover that Peter was the rock

01:43:26

I hope it doesn't take him another 400 years to discover the next truth that there is succession and we never said that Matthew 16 talked about succession all

01:43:36

I said was Matthew 16 said Peter was the rock he was given the keys to bind and to loose and mr.

01:43:45

White makes a big deal about the singular key in this end of plural keys and he says well

01:43:50

Jesus gave Peter the keys plural in Matthew 16 but it's singular in Isaiah 22 and it's singular with Jesus let's not get petty about these words the singular is also used of Jesus Revelation 118 it says

01:44:05

I have the keys plural of hell and death and he says in singular I have the key of David Jesus uses both singular and plural about his own authority so what's the big deal about singular and plural

01:44:16

Jesus uses both of them and he gives this to Peter the keys many commentators say it's because he's opening and shutting there's there's there's a significance to the plural keys here because he has the complete authority it's as if there are two keys and Peter has both of them not just one because it may imply that somebody else may have a key there's a lot of nuances here that we can't cover but I hope that that suffices he says that Paul does not this is what he says

01:44:47

Paul does not say you are to go to Peter as the under shepherd when when Paul is talking to the elders another argument from silence just because he doesn't mention

01:44:58

Peter the Pope doesn't mean that Peter is not the Pope he's talking to the people in this specific church about their problem it doesn't dilute

01:45:09

Peters authority in Jerusalem and he asked where did

01:45:14

I get this higher authority idea of the words to reads on in John 21 to remember that word was also used of Paul as they claim when

01:45:23

Paul says I strengthen the brethren to I strengthen the churches I get it right from the context of John 21

01:45:29

I don't have to be you know confused about the definition of stir reads on the context helps us define what its usage is in this passage the usage is in the context of the

01:45:42

Apostles they we know are an authority are they not are they not the highest authority in the church it says build on Apostles and prophets now if Peter is to strengthen them who have authority how can he do it without greater authority and he's not talking to James and John he says

01:46:04

James you strengthen the brethren John you do it these are part of the inner circle of Apostles he talks to Peter Peter is mentioned over and over and over and over again in the

01:46:13

New Testament Jesus is speaking him constantly Peter speaks up for everyone can we get it to our heads that there's something significant about this person and he says read open up your

01:46:25

Bibles and read Acts 15 and tell me if you think Peter is the Pope well from his understanding I don't see how you could understand

01:46:32

Peter was the Pope I explained to you before there is a doctrinal issue at stake here in Acts 15 1 look at verse 1 it says the

01:46:43

Jews were coming down and wanted people to be circumcised to be saved that is a problem that is a doctrinal problem

01:46:50

Peter no one else stands up and says no that will not be the case they do not have to be circumcised and uses

01:46:57

God as his authority God told me and why do you test God how much clearer can it be that he's laying down a doctrinal proclamation now he says that Paul and Barnabas get up and and this discussions not over they get up and they talk about their miracles and all this up and then the discussions not over and James has to get up as if Peter you know wasn't complete he didn't really do his job come on mr.

01:47:24

white all they're doing is confirming exactly what Peter said and now giving the stipulations that may be good for the church that is the four

01:47:33

Noah kind laws that were mentioned don't offer me to donate meat offer the idols just so these Jews won't be hurt they're supporting

01:47:40

Peter yeah the discussions not over because somebody wants to add something but it doesn't dilute Peter's authority he already made the doctrinal proclamation no

01:47:49

Gentiles are to be circumcised and that still stands today that has never been taken away but as we saw from my colleague the pastoral concerns of James were diluted they were taken away because they're not dogmatic proclamations why would

01:48:04

James stand up and speak because he's the bishop of Jerusalem the council's taking place in Jerusalem I hope he would have something to say well you know that's the only time that James said something in the

01:48:13

New Testament he's only mentioned four times and the other three are just in passing this is the only time he said something and it's in support of his

01:48:22

Pope Peter he doesn't deny what Peter is saying in the

01:48:32

Greek it says a go Kareena yes it can be used in very divine senses

01:48:38

I give a judgment very firm judgment it can also be used in a very weak sense the word a go

01:48:43

Kareena has a wide semantic range we can't pin acts 15 down and say yes it refers to James's judgment as if he's making some doctrinal proclamation here we have no way of verifying that from the use of this word as a matter of fact in many passes in many translations of the

01:49:00

Bible Goodspeed Moffitt the New American Bible Society all translated as this is my opinion

01:49:07

I'm not saying that they're correct either we just don't know what the semantic force of this word is but I'll give

01:49:13

James every right to speak up he has it but he's not denying what Peter is saying he's just adding to it to help the church to get along with the problems that they have now as I said before the problem with the exegesis that is presented by mr.

01:49:30

white is it touches on some things but it ignores the very things that we need to understand these passages

01:49:37

I wish I had time to go through more of them but I think you're getting a flavor for how they can distort the scriptures with what they do we would certainly like to know what it's going to be from our opponents on the one hand mr.

01:49:56

syngenis has stated over and over again frequency does not equal papacy in response to my argumentation that Paul would have made a better Pope but then he says

01:50:07

James is not mentioned much in Scripture and look how many times Peter is mentioned but then frequency does not equal papacy does it also in Galatians chapter 2 since this seems to be the issue that we're on at the moment

01:50:25

I want to just read to you the context so that you can have in mind what is going on verse 7 of Galatians 2 but on the contrary

01:50:35

Paul speaking seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised just as Peter had been to the circumcised for he who affectionately worked for Peter and his apostleship to the circumcised affectionately worked for me also to the

01:50:49

Gentiles and recognizing the grace that had been given to me James and Cephas and John who reputed to be pillars gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship that we might go to the

01:50:59

Gentiles and they did the circumcised they only asked us to remember the poor the very thing I also was eager to do notice

01:51:06

Paul says that he had been trusted with the gospel in verse 11 next verse he says but when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face because he stood condemned for prior to coming etc etc and the rest of the

01:51:20

Jews joined him in hypocrisy it is not a small issue for an apostle to say of somebody that he stands condemned as much as our opponents wish to minimize the passage the passage speaks for itself insofar as the seriousness of the accusation now then

01:51:39

I had mentioned earlier that the Apostles were vying for leadership after Peter had already been allegedly given the position of primacy by Jesus Christ this was never answered why would they argue who would be the greatest among them after Peter had already been declared to be the greatest among them

01:51:57

James at Jerusalem he stands up in Acts 15 13 and says listen to me in the imperative

01:52:10

Peter does not stand up and say listen to me can you imagine what our opponents would do if Peter had stood up and said listen to me we would still be hearing it ringing off these walls

01:52:22

Peter says listen to me Peter says listen to me what other apostles have listened to me but Peter Peter speaking with authority but when

01:52:29

James says it it means nothing it's only his opinion mr.

01:52:35

Syngenis says that Peter is given primacy and proves it by the fact that he is the one performing miracles in the book of Acts that there are no other miracles performed by anybody else in the book of Acts to speak of I direct your attention to Acts chapter 8 early on Philip at Samaria performs miracles comes back and reports to the rest of the

01:52:53

Apostles all that God is doing in Acts chapter 8 also in Acts 20 Paul who does not qualify for the papacy brings a man back to life who has fallen out of a window so much for nobody else performing these grandiose miracles we've already shown that in Matthew 18 keys equals binding and loosening and binding and loosening is repeated in Matthew 18 given to all of God's Apostles and also this binding and loosening is remarked on later in the book of Luke as the preaching of the gospel many

01:53:28

Roman Catholic scholars reject the position that Peter is the rock in Matthew 16 and if you stay around long enough for the historical end of the debate which will bring forth evidence that these will be in the minority insofar as the interpretation of Matthew 16 referring to Peter as the rock so how can it be that the established principle of the entire papacy of Rome is equally divided among Roman Catholic scholars as to what

01:53:58

Matthew 16 is teaching they would have you believe that this is the teaching that has been given to us from the first century on forward and they are just trying to protect this teaching we'll show you the contrary in the next hour also

01:54:11

I'd like to mention to you that my opponent this evening our opponent this evening mr.

01:54:18

Bobson Janice has written of his conversion story in a book entitled surprised by truth they're showing outside in the hallway in his conversion story which is given in this book surprised by truth there's a footnote at the bottom of his testimony towards the end of it in which he says quote this is

01:54:36

Bobson Janice our points this evening I am inspired by the holy example of the counter -reformation apologist st.

01:54:43

Francis de sales his sermons and apologetics writings converted over 60 ,000 reformed

01:54:48

Protestants back to the Catholic Church as a result of his bold proclamation of biblical truth the story of his ministry among the

01:54:56

Calvinist as well as the scriptural and patristic arguments he employed to combat the heresies of Calvin and Luther can be found in the

01:55:06

Catholic controversies just happen to have a copy of the Catholic controversies with me this evening and I'd like to give you some of the information from Francis de sales that so impressed my opponent to turn away from biblical

01:55:19

Christianity and embrace the Romish religion let me give you some good Roman Catholic double speak from st.

01:55:27

Francis de sales and so far as the cornerstone is concerned and I quote the sale says our

01:55:32

Lord then is foundation and st. Peter also but with so notable a difference that in respect of the one the other may be said not to be it for our

01:55:44

Lord is foundation and founder foundation without other foundation foundation of the natural mosaic

01:55:50

Evangelic Church foundation of perpetual and immortal foundation of the militant and triumphant foundation of his own nature foundation of our faith hope and charity and of the efficacy of the sacraments but st.

01:56:03

Peter is foundation to not founder of the whole church foundation but founded on another foundation which is our

01:56:10

Lord foundation of the Evangelical Church alone foundation subject to succession foundation of the militant not the triumphant foundation by participation ministerial not absolute foundation on and on he goes he closes with a difference between being a foundation and being a foundation is so great as this makes the one unable in comparison to be called a foundation by the side of the other while however taken by itself it can be called a foundation in order to pay proper regard to the word of God if you can follow that Peter is the foundation but not the foundation but is the foundation in the foundation and Jesus is the foundation upon which the foundation is founded you can follow along further with Francis to sales

01:56:53

I want to turn to some of his other comments here in the time that I have closing he says on page 209 and following he gets some comparisons insofar as his biblical proof for the supremacy of Peter and Peter being

01:57:10

Pope at Rome he likens the church to a ship if the church is a ship st.

01:57:17

Peter is its captain if the church is a fishery st. Peter is first in the fishery if the church is to draw nets st.

01:57:28

Peter who cast them into the sea and st. Peter is the one who draws them you say the church is like an embassy st.

01:57:36

Peter is the first ambassador you say it is a brotherhood st. Peter is the first governor and confirm or the rest would you rather have it a kingdom st.

01:57:45

Peter receives its keys would you consider it a flock or a fold of lamb st. Peter as its pastor and shepherd general etc etc the problem with all of this of course is that the church is not called a ship it's not called a fishery it's not called a drawn that it's not called an embassy and if it is called the kingdom of God it is given to Jesus Christ not to Peter Colossians 113 if it is the flock and if there is a shepherd we read in John 10 that my sheep hear my voice and they follow me he is the good shepherd who lays down his life for the flock the sales goes on with his biblical proof by saying that Peter is the first one to preach penance page 271 in this book says that Peter is the first catechist of the church and preacher of penance now the

01:58:40

Roman Catholic Church long ago decided that penance was the improper word for act 238 but yet here it is quoted by the one who most impressed my opponent this evening that Peter is the first one to preach penance not repentance not metanoia to 30 but penance

01:58:54

Catholic penance this is confounded by modern Roman Catholic Bibles that have changed the word to its proper understanding of repentance not penance he says

01:59:04

Peter touches the lame and he alone wrong Philip and Samaria touched the lame he goes on to say that in Acts 12 when

01:59:14

Peter is in jail they pray intensely for Peter why didn't they pray for James could it be that James was beheaded in Acts 12 chapter 1 and there's no need to pray from unless you're