The Diving Board, Episode 14

ThornCrown Network

Subscribe

Download

Share

00

00:05

And this is very significant. Not one, not even one of those Eastern bishops disputed or questioned the

00:13

Pope's authority. I mean, the

00:19

Eucharistic, let's just say this, the Eucharistic abuses are abuses to Jesus' DNA, his body and blood.

00:35

As I continued to study my early church father, older brothers and sisters, I started to realize that God had a plan for me that was bigger than any plan that I'd ever had for myself.

00:47

And before you know it, it turned to the Catholic Church. When I made that decision to become

00:52

Catholic, everything began to fit. It was like a puzzle with the four sides that I put together with the papacy and the

01:01

Blessed Mother and tradition and the Eucharist. Let's say there's a person watching this program right now from where you were.

01:16

Why should they make the same journey home that you make? I would say investigate the history for yourself because the famous line from Cardinal Newman is to be deep in history is to cease to be

01:27

Protestant. And that's pretty much what happened to me. So I would say take the Catholic Church's claims, investigate them, and as my father always told me, go wherever Jesus leads you and maybe it would end up in the

01:41

Catholic Church. Hello to everyone. This is your host, Timothy F.

01:47

Kaufman, and you're listening to episode 14 of The Diving Board, The Conversion of Cameron Bertuzzi, Part 3.

01:55

The Diving Board focuses on testimonies of Protestants who convert to Roman Catholicism thinking that to be deep in history is to cease to be a

02:03

Protestant. But getting deep in history is something a Roman Catholic cannot do because Roman Catholicism itself is a novelty 300 years removed from the

02:14

Church of the Apostles. Its roots do not go back any further than the end of the 4th century.

02:20

And as we continue to show in each episode, those Roman Catholics who think they are getting deep in history are actually very, very shallow in it, embracing a late 4th century and medieval novelty as if it were the church

02:33

Jesus Christ founded. If you remember in our previous two episodes, Cameron Bertuzzi, an erstwhile

02:40

Protestant online cultural commentator who recently converted to Roman Catholicism, identified two main reasons for his conversion, the

02:49

Eucharist and the papacy. Since Bertuzzi acknowledged that Roman apologist Matt Fradd's understanding of the

02:55

Eucharist was very influential in his conversion, we have thus far focused largely on Fradd's understanding of John 6, that's episode 12, and Matt Fradd's understanding of 1

03:06

Corinthians 11, in episode 13. And in 1 Corinthians 11, 27,

03:12

Paul says that to eat and drink of the Lord's Supper unworthily makes one guilty of the body and blood of the

03:18

Lord. Matt Fradd said that since Protestants and Catholics disagree on the interpretation of that passage, we should go back to the early writers and see what they said.

03:28

But the early church does not support him. The early writers understood 1 Corinthians 11, 27 to be symbolic and interpret it through the lens of 1

03:37

Corinthians 10 and 1 Corinthians 12, in which Paul says we are Christ's body and his members, which is why we ought to love and respect and defer to one another because of Christ.

03:49

And Matt Fradd said that the early church was unanimous on the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, citing

03:55

Ignatius of Antioch and Cyril of Jerusalem, and as if the evidence was abundant, he said that he could go on and on.

04:04

So we walked through the ancient liturgies, not only of Ignatius and Cyril, but also of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyons, and Cyprian of Carthage, to show that all the go -to ancient writers of the early church work against the

04:17

Roman apologists. Feel free to go back to episodes 12 and 13 to see what we're talking about.

04:25

So this week we proceed with Cameron Bertuzzi's view of the papacy, and we're going to cover this in two related topics.

04:33

First, on James Aiken's argument explaining the lack of evidence for the papacy in the ancient church, and second, on Roman Catholic apologist

04:41

Suon Sona's typology argument from Eliakim in Isaiah 22 -22. Both of these were influential in Cameron's conversion.

04:51

So, let's get started with Cameron's first argument, that the absence of evidence for the papacy in the very early church is because the persecuted church was unwilling to reveal its highest -ranking bishops by name.

05:05

Here's Cameron voicing his assessment and final capitulation to this argument. You'll see, like, the papacy clearly laid out in specific names and everything, and so they'll say, this is a document we would expect to find the papacy in this early document.

05:31

But there are obviously Catholics who want to respond to that, like Jimmy Aiken, and be like, well, no, there's actually reason to suspect that they wouldn't have names, specific names in the early church because, why?

05:43

The church was being persecuted. So you're not going to just spell out all the names of the most important figures in your religion so that people can just read the letter and then go hunt them down and kill them.

05:56

Okay, so this is a concession by Roman Catholics that it is hard to find the papacy in the early church.

06:03

So they had to come up with an explanation. This is very similar to Cardinal Newman's development of doctrine essay in which he confessed that the early church did not look very much like the late church.

06:15

His actual words were, the want of accord between the early and late aspects of Christianity.

06:23

So he came up with the idea that because doctrine develops, we would not expect to see the same thing in the early church as we see later.

06:31

It's the apparent absence in the early church of the trappings of medieval and modern Roman Catholicism that need explaining.

06:37

So Newman stepped in to fill that gap. What also needs explaining is that the most important aspect of Roman Catholicism, Peter, the papacy, and Rome, are also missing from the early church.

06:51

In fact, very, very much of what Roman Catholicism is faces this very dilemma, something

06:58

I documented in a blog post called Longing for Nicaea. I will provide the link to that post in the show notes.

07:06

And in that post, I document Roman Catholicism's insatiable desire to find evidence of Roman Catholicism before 325

07:13

A .D. at the Council of Nicaea. So the lack of evidence of the papacy is just one more thing.

07:20

Apologist James Aiken tried to explain it and Cameron Bertuzzi fell for it. But the argument is ludicrous.

07:27

It is remarkable just how much the early writers revealed about the workings of the early church, including naming names and even sharing secrets in time of persecution.

07:37

For example, Bishop Clement of Rome wrote to the church leaders in Corinth and concluded his letter by saying,

08:10

Notice how freely Clement simply names the names of the people that he is expecting to be returning to him.

08:16

Any one of those could have spilled the beans on where this hidden pope was located, and yet here he is sending letters and naming the names of his messengers.

08:24

Even in the midst of persecutions, Ignatius, on his way to Rome in about 107 A .D. to be put to death, in his letters repeatedly names names and locations and officers of the various churches, one of the most egregious being the whereabouts of a family with young children.

08:42

This is from Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, chapter 8. I salute all by name and in particular the wife of Epitropos with all her house and children.

08:52

I went through his letters and found 13 times in 8 letters that Ignatius mentions names, locations, church officers, bishops, presbyters, and deacons, their wives, children, and associates, taking great care to list them by name, identifying all of them as the personal friends of Ignatius, who was, by the way, on his way to be martyred for his faith.

09:11

What kind of crazy guy would reveal the names, locations, and family members of church officers throughout the empire during a period of intense persecution, and yet conceal the name and location of their precious, precious pope?

09:25

Or what about Cyprian of Carthage? In the midst of persecution, he received a clerical letter from Rome that looked like it had been altered and was therefore suspect.

09:35

So he sent it back, insisting that its author and the addressee be plainly identified. This is from Cyprian to the

09:42

Presbyters and Deacons in Rome, epistle 3, paragraph 2. For it is a very serious thing if the truth of a clerical letter is corrupted by any falsehood or deceit.

09:52

In order then that we may know this, ascertain whether the writing and subscription are yours, and write me again what is the truth of the matter.

10:02

What is particularly ironic about Cyprian's letters, insisting that letters from Rome be properly addressed and properly signed, is that the clergy at Rome felt the same way.

10:13

For instance, Bishop Cornelius himself, the bishop of Rome, wrote to Cyprian and complained that letters to the

10:19

Roman congregation were simply being addressed to the Roman clergy instead of addressing its bishop by name.

10:26

This is Cyprian of Carthage, epistle 44, paragraph 1. Cyprian took Cornelius, his brother, greeting.

10:33

I have read your letters, dearest brother, which you sent by Primitivus, our co -presbyter, in which

10:39

I perceived that you were annoyed that, whereas letters from the Adramentine colony in the name of Polycarp were directed to you, yet after Liberalus and I came to that place, letters began to be directed thence to the presbyters and to the deacons.

10:55

In that letter, Cyprian went on to assure Cornelius that all further letters to the Roman congregation would be addressed to Cornelius by name.

11:03

Cyprian and Cornelius kept on exchanging letters, addressing each other not only by name but also by location, as Cornelius was eventually exiled and then martyred, and then replaced by Bishop Lucius.

11:16

Not once was there any indication that either Cyprian or Cornelius thought their names and offices should be kept secret, and all this occurred in the midst of severe persecution in which

11:27

Christians were being imprisoned, banished, exiled, and martyred. And indeed, in some of his letters,

11:32

Cyprian gave instructions on how to visit fellow Christians in prison without raising suspicion with the prison guards.

11:39

This is Cyprian to the presbyters and deacons, epistle 4, paragraph 2. For although from their affection the brethren are eager to approach and to visit those good confessors in prison, yet I think that this eagerness must be cautiously indulged, and not in crowds, not in numbers collected together at once, lest from this very thing ill will be aroused and the means of access be denied.

12:05

So what kind of crazy bishop in the mid -250s in the middle of persecution would not only reveal the names of church officers and their locations, but also reveal their tactics in writing?

12:18

This shows that the early church was never interested in concealing the names and locations of their bishops. The reason that we don't have any evidence for the papacy in the early church is because there was no papacy in the early church.

12:30

Are we really to believe, then, that all these letters went back and forth in persecution, naming names, locations, offices, family members, and tactics for visiting prisons, but for some reason, in the earliest century of the church, there was a secret central chief episcopate that was in charge of all the rest, but just wasn't being mentioned in order to preserve the identity of the pope?

12:53

We think not. Even the bishop of Rome wanted to make sure his name was listed appropriately in the letters that were addressed to the

13:00

Roman congregation. Keep in mind that in these letters exchanged between Cornelius of Rome and Cyprian of Carthage, there was a schism in Rome, and Cyprian had to intervene.

13:12

And when it was all said and done, both Cornelius and the schismatics wrote back to Cyprian to thank him for intervening.

13:17

What is more, when all the dust settled, Cyprian wrote back to Cornelius and insisted that Cornelius of Rome must always read my letters to your very holy and large congregation.

13:27

So, by the reading of this letter, if any contagion of inventive speech and of pestilent propaganda has crept in there, it may all be purged out of the ears and the hearts of the brethren.

13:37

That's Cyprian, epistle 54, paragraph 20, to Cornelius. Cyprian had not only named names at Cornelius' insistence, but then insisted himself that his own letters had to be read in Rome to instruct the flock.

13:52

What's entirely missing is any semblance of any early papacy and any evidence at all that the early church intentionally hid its existence.

14:00

You heard it in Cyprian's letter. It was deeply offensive and problematic. Even in times of persecution, for clerical communications to be corrupted by any falsehood or deceit.

14:11

And yet, Aiken has proposed exactly that. In the early church, not only did they conceal the office of papacy, but flat out pretended it didn't exist.

14:20

Seriously, though, just look at the evidence and you'll see how laughable that claim is. We mention all this because Cameron Bertuzzi fell for James Aiken's lie that the reason there's no evidence of the early papacy is because the early church intentionally hid its existence.

14:35

That is plainly untrue. The early church was abundantly forthcoming and plainspoken in its descriptions of people and locations, including high -ranking clergy of the most prominent apostolic sees in the first century, including

14:47

Ephesus, Rome, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch, and so on, even in the midst of severe persecution and showed no inclination to obscure anything about church hierarchy.

14:57

There is, in fact, a much simpler explanation for why there's no evidence for the papacy in the early church.

15:03

There was no papacy in the early church. Yet because Cameron Bertuzzi is largely unfamiliar with history, he swallowed

15:11

Jimmy Aiken's lie and accepted the grossly inaccurate recasting of history. Okay, let's move on to the final topic, which is also the most detailed and complex aspect of Cameron Bertuzzi's conversion, and that is

15:24

Sue and Sona's typological argument for the papacy in Isaiah 22 -22. Let's analyze this, but to do so, we will need to rely on many online videos that Sue and Sona and Cameron Bertuzzi participated in.

15:39

Five of the most significant are Matt Fradd with Sue and Sona on Why the Papacy is

15:44

Biblical, April 13, 2021, Sue and Sona, The New Eliakim Typological Argument for the

15:50

Papacy, July 14, 2022, Cameron Bertuzzi with Daniel Vecchio, Investigating the

15:58

Eliakim Typological Argument for the Papacy, September 27, 2022, Matt Fradd with Cameron Bertuzzi, Cameron Bertuzzi Converts to Catholicism, November 18, 2022, and Pat Flynn and his podcast,

16:12

Philosophy for the People, with Sue and Sona, The New Eliakim Typological Argument for the Papacy, December 12, 2022.

16:20

We will provide links for listeners to find them and listen to them in their entirety, but first, let's listen to Cameron Bertuzzi's summary of the typological argument from his conversion testimony with Matt Fradd.

16:32

But what really surprised me, and this is why I spent so much of my time focusing on this one piece of data, is there is this argument called the

16:40

Typological Eliakim Argument. You may call it something like that. But there's a connection, there's a textual allusion between Matthew 16, 19 and Isaiah 22, 22, which talks about the office of Eliakim.

16:53

It's a textual allusion back to this Old Testament character, Eliakim. And so the argument goes is that Peter, that's mentioned in Matthew 16, 19, is the fulfillment of Eliakim.

17:07

So he is the new Eliakim. That's the typological argument, the connection between the

17:13

Old Testament character and the New Testament character. If this argument actually works, then it's really powerful evidence for the papacy.

17:22

Now we are going to do here with Sue and Sona and the papacy what we did with Matt Fradd on the Eucharist.

17:28

Namely, because Bertuzzi was convinced by Matt Fradd on the Roman Catholic view of the Eucharist, we had to evaluate

17:33

Matt Fradd's arguments. Now, because Cameron Bertuzzi was so convinced by Sue and Sona's argument for the papacy, we're going to have to evaluate

17:41

Sue and Sona's argument to show why it is so grossly flawed. Now, before we get to the

17:46

Eliakim argument, the listener will need to be familiar with Sue and Sona's methodology and style.

17:52

And once you see how he handles the data, you'll understand how he could take Isaiah 22 and Matthew 16, 19 and conclude that Jesus was alluding to Eliakim when he gave

18:03

Peter the keys and thus was establishing the papacy. So, if you want a summary of Sue and Sona's method, it is simply to assume that his argument is true and then reason accordingly.

18:14

He does this over and over and over again in his argument on the typology, as we will show.

18:20

But I want to start by providing this as something that Sue and Sona does habitually. So, let's get a taste of Sue and Sona's methods on proving the papacy from the

18:28

Church Fathers. And then we'll get to his particular argument on the Peter -Eliakim typology in Matthew 16 and Isaiah 22, 22.

18:37

So, I'm going to use three arguments that Sue and Sona makes. First, he cites Irenaeus to support

18:42

Roman primacy. Second, he cites Cyprian of Carthage on Petrine primacy.

18:48

And third, he cites Clement's letter to the Corinthians in support of an oral tradition of apostolic succession.

18:54

See? The early writers support the papacy, an unbroken succession of bishops in Rome since Peter.

19:01

In truth, none of these actually support his positions, which he would have discovered if he'd actually read them.

19:07

In each case, Sue and Sona does not actually discover what these men said or wrote, but rather he simply stops looking as soon as he thinks he has found something that appears to support his position.

19:18

And then he either misses, ignores, or dismisses the countervailing evidence that would be right in front of his eyes if he bothered looking any further.

19:25

It's important to show that this is how Sue and Sona approaches the typological argument to Matthew 16, 19, as we will see as we continue.

19:34

He vigorously and strenuously attempts to suppress any countervailing argument that would reveal that he simply has not done his homework.

19:42

And the only reason we have to focus on this, although it is an ad hominem argument, I don't deny it.

19:47

The reason we have to focus on this is because Cameron Pertuzzi has claimed that Sue and Sona's argument was so compelling that it led him ultimately to believe that the papacy is biblical and Roman Catholicism is the most valid expression of Christianity.

20:02

And to conclude today's episode, in order to demonstrate just how awful Sue and Sona's methodology is,

20:08

I'm going to use Sue and Sona's methods to prove that in Matthew 16, 19,

20:14

Matthew and Jesus were drawing on the book of Job in order to declare typologically that Peter is the new

20:20

Job, and that the typology is philogenous, by which I mean it elevates women to equal stature in the priesthood with men so that women can legitimately offer the

20:30

Roman Catholic sacrifice of the Mass. Trust me, the typology proves it. Wink, wink.

20:36

So let's get started. First, let's go through Sue and Sona's methodology.

20:44

Here is Sue and Sona citing from Irenaeus against heresies, book 3, chapter 3, paragraph 2, responding to Matt Fradd's request for patristic evidence that Peter is the first pope.

20:57

Sona cites Irenaeus where he indicates that Peter and Paul founded the church at Rome. Sona concludes that what

21:03

Irenaeus must have meant was that Peter and Paul organized and federated the church.

21:09

Let's listen in. So when it comes to the Petrine successors, I think the earliest source we have is

21:14

St. Irenaeus, writing in about AD 180 in his work against heresies.

21:20

So he talks about how both Peter and Paul, having founded the church in Rome, committed the office of the episcopate to Linus.

21:30

But basically, the reason why Irenaeus should be taken seriously is because he is a source within living memory, because he was trained,

21:39

I think, if I'm not mistaken, he's a disciple of Polycarp, who is a disciple of John. So he has access to the living memory of what the apostles taught.

21:50

So he has to be taken seriously. And he makes this point, right, that the Roman episcopate was handed from Peter and Paul to Linus.

21:59

What Irenaeus is probably saying here is not that they founded the church in the sense of efficient causality, right?

22:06

So it wasn't there before, and then it came into existence afterwards. Rather, what Paul and Peter had done is they had helped the churches there basically federate, have a more organized system and structure.

22:18

And in that sense, then, you could consider them like a formal cause that helped the church become more unified and federated, right?

22:25

So in that sense, they founded the church in Rome. My concern here is not so much with Sona's argument that Peter and Paul were prominent in Rome, so much is that Sona is willing to interpret

22:36

Irenaeus without even weighing the context that Irenaeus himself provides. Sona's summary analysis of Irenaeus was what

22:44

Irenaeus probably meant. But we don't need to wonder what he probably meant.

22:50

All we need to do is read Irenaeus. And if Sue and Sona had read Irenaeus, you would not have to guess either.

22:57

Sona is citing the third chapter of the third book of Against Heresies. In the first two books,

23:03

Irenaeus provided detailed analysis and history and doctrines of the heretics. But in book three, he changes course and begins to provide the scriptural argument against them.

23:14

In the preface to book three, which is a full chapter unto itself, Irenaeus says,

23:20

Wherefore, since the conviction of these men and their exposure is in many points but one work,

23:26

I have sent unto you certain books, of which the first comprises the opinions of all these men and exhibits their customs and the character of their behavior.

23:36

In the second, again, their perverse teachings are cast down and overthrown, and such as they really are, laid bare and open to view.

23:44

But in this, the third book, I shall adduce proofs from the scriptures, so that I may come behind in nothing of what you have enjoined.

23:53

For the Lord of all gave to his apostles the power of the gospel, through whom also we have known the truth.

23:59

Again, that's Irenaeus, against Heresy's book three preface. Irenaeus' sole focus in the third book is the scriptures, which are the written record of the apostles' teachings.

24:12

That's the whole point of book three. So in book three, chapter one, Irenaeus says that the scriptures are the foundation of the church.

24:20

He says, We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and at a later period by the will of God, handed down to us in the scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.

24:38

It is in that context that Irenaeus says all the apostles went about laying the foundation of the church, the scriptures, which are the teachings of the apostles.

24:48

From here, he simply catalogs the authors of the four gospels, including Peter and Paul, preaching in Rome.

24:55

Against Heresy's book three, chapter one, paragraphs one and two. Matthew also issued a written gospel among the

25:03

Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church.

25:09

After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter.

25:17

Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the

25:25

Lord, who also had leaned upon his breast, did himself publish a gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.

25:33

These have all declared to us that there is one God, creator of heaven and earth, announced by the law and the prophets, and one

25:40

Christ, the Son of God. If anyone do not agree to these truths, he despises the companions of the

25:46

Lord. Again, against Heresy's book three, chapter one. In this context, it is quite clear that Irenaeus meant that the scriptures are the pillar and ground of our faith.

25:59

So when he says that the apostles went about laying the foundation of the church, they were going about preaching the truths we can now find in the scriptures.

26:07

That's what Irenaeus means when he says, These have all declared to us that there is one God, creator of heaven and earth, announced by the law and the prophets, and one

26:16

Christ, the Son of God. If anyone do not agree to these truths, he despises the companions of the

26:21

Lord. That's what it means to lay the foundation of the church. Whether or not you personally believe that the church in Rome preceded the preaching of Peter and Paul, it is clear that Irenaeus believed that Peter and Paul had laid the foundation of the church in Rome by preaching the truths of the scriptures.

26:38

Irenaeus then continues in book three, chapter three, from which Sue and Sona quoted, and again

26:43

Irenaeus says the same thing again. Book three, chapter three. It is within the power of all therefore in every church who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world.

26:59

And again in book three, chapter four. Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others, which it is easy to obtain from the church, since the apostles, like a rich man depositing his money in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth, so that every man whosoever will can draw from her water of life.

27:23

Then again in book three, chapter five. Since therefore the tradition from the apostles does thus exist in the church and is permanent among us, let us revert to the scriptural proof furnished by those apostles who did also write the gospel, in which they recorded the doctrine regarding God, pointing out that our

27:41

Lord Jesus Christ is the truth, and that no lie is in him. Again, against heresies, book three, chapter five.

27:50

Now, we have just quoted to you from book three, the preface, which is a chapter in itself, and chapters one, two, three, four, and five.

27:58

And Irenaeus has not stopped talking about the fact that the apostles laid the foundation of the church by preaching the truths that they received from Jesus and which are now recorded for us in the scriptures, the pillar and ground of our faith.

28:10

So what do you suppose Irenaeus is talking about in chapter three when he says Peter and Paul founded and built up the church at Rome?

28:17

Is he talking about Peter and Paul reorganizing the church at Rome to optimize its operations and to federate it?

28:24

Or is he rather talking about Peter and Paul laying the foundation of the church by preaching in Rome the traditions that have come down to us from Christ through the apostles and which are now recorded in the scriptures?

28:36

Anyone who reads Irenaeus's words will come to that conclusion. It is the whole purpose of the third book of Against Heresies, and it is his sole focus in the preface and in the first five chapters of book three to magnify the truths of the scriptures over the errors of the heretics.

28:51

But Suen Sona was not trying to find the truth. He was trying to justify his position. So he concludes what

28:58

Irenaeus is probably saying here. Probably? Let me let you in on Suen's secret.

29:04

He didn't read Irenaeus. This is evident to us not only from Suen Sona's failure to read

29:10

Against Heresies book three chapter one, in which Irenaeus plainly states what he means, but also from Suen Sona's very interesting observation about Linus as recorded by Eusebius.

29:21

Listen closely. So when it comes to the Petrine successors, I think the earliest source we have is

29:27

St. Irenaeus writing in about AD 180 in his work Against Heresies.

29:32

So he talks about how both Peter and Paul, having founded the church in Rome, committed the office of the

29:40

Episcopate to Linus. And then, of course, Eusebius, who is the church historian under Constantine, later mentions the fact that Linus is mentioned,

29:48

I think, in either 1st or 2nd Timothy. So the first pope's name, aside from Peter, is in the

29:53

Bible. You can find his name. That's interesting. Irenaeus says in Against Heresies book three, chapter three, paragraph three, that the blessed apostles, then having founded and built up the church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the

30:08

Episcopate. And Eusebius, 125 years later, says in Church History, book three, chapter two, that that's the same

30:16

Linus that Paul mentioned in his Epistle. Here's Eusebius. After the martyrdom of Paul and of Peter, Linus was the first to obtain the

30:26

Episcopate of the church at Rome. Paul mentions him when writing to Timothy from Rome in the salutation at the end of the

30:33

Epistle. Okay, fair enough. That's a pretty legitimate connection to make, honestly.

30:40

But guess who else said that it's the same Linus that Paul mentions? Irenaeus said that.

30:46

In fact, Irenaeus says this not just in Against Heresies, and not just in Against Heresies book three, and not just in Against Heresies book three, chapter three, but in Against Heresies book three, chapter three, paragraph three, in exactly the next sentence after Sue and Sona's quote.

31:05

The blessed apostles, then having founded and built up the church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the

31:11

Episcopate. Of this Linus Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. My point here is that Sue and Sona quoted one sentence from Irenaeus in 189

31:21

AD and another from Eusebius at least 125 years later to assert something that Irenaeus actually said in the next sentence.

31:30

Why go to Eusebius to prove a point that Irenaeus said 125 years earlier when

31:36

Sue and Sona knows as well as the next guy that the earlier evidence is always better? I think

31:42

I know why. Sue and Sona isn't actually reading Irenaeus. He's reading other scholars quoting

31:48

Irenaeus, which is why he made such a rookie mistake here. I'm not going to dwell too long on this because I personally know how easy it is to make a mistake like this.

31:57

But it's important to recognize that Sue and Sona is not reading the source material from which he makes his arguments.

32:04

If he was, he would not have said that Eusebius pointed out that Linus was the same one that Paul mentioned.

32:10

He would have simply noted that Irenaeus did that. Okay, let's move on to Cyprian of Carthage.

32:17

This comes to us from the same interview and Matt Fradd is responding to the Irenaeus references and asks

32:23

Sue and Sona for patristic evidence that shows not only Roman primacy but also

32:28

Petrine primacy. To answer this, Sue and Sona relies on Cyprian of Carthage to prove that the church was founded on Peter.

32:36

Let's listen to his response. So this is St. Cyprian of Carthage. This is written in, let's see here,

32:43

The Unity of the Catholic Church 8251. So he says quote, The Lord says to Peter I say to you, he says, that you are

32:52

Peter and upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you

32:57

I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And then Cyprian continues. On him he builds the church and commands him to feed the sheep.

33:04

And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he, Jesus, founded a single chair or cathedra and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity.

33:19

Indeed the others were also what Peter was, an apostle. But a primacy is given to Peter by which it is made clear that there is one church and one chair.

33:29

If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he think that he holds the faith?

33:35

Wow. When was that written by Carthage? So this is still, this is beyond living memory but it's still incredibly early.

33:45

Right. And was this disputed by anyone else around that time? I'm not sure about the full context of the source and this is why

33:54

I want other people to check this out. Matt, my specialty is more like in the first century and living memory.

34:01

So, you know, I'm kind of engaging with these quotes here but I'm sure one of our

34:07

Orthodox brothers will say, well, there's more context to that quote. Aside from Sue and Sona's explicit confession that he is relying on quotes rather than documents and engaging with quotes rather than engaging with the original authors themselves, the weakness of his position becomes obvious when you realize, first, that the treatise he quotes about Peter makes no mention of Rome and second, that when

34:31

Cyprian elaborates on what he means, he states every single bishop in the world sits in the chair of Peter and not only the bishop at Rome.

34:40

To illustrate the degree to which Cyprian's ecclesiology assigned Petrine privilege to every bishop, we need only examine the cases of two separate bishops, each of which had ruled in his own province, contrary to how

34:53

Cyprian would have ruled. In one case, a bishop had closed the gate of repentance against an adulterer, a sentence more harsh than Cyprian would have administered and certainly more harsh than his co -bishops would have advised.

35:06

But the decision stood because quote, every bishop disposes and directs his own acts and will have to give an account of his purposes to the

35:14

Lord. That's Cyprian of Carthage Epistle 51, paragraph 21. In another case,

35:21

Bishop Therapeus welcomed a sinner back too hastily and quote, granted peace to him before he had fully repented, unquote.

35:29

For this, Cyprian and the other bishops felt that Therapeus's actions warranted a rebuke but quote, we did not think that the peace once granted in any ways by a priest of God was to be taken away, unquote.

35:43

So the decision stood. That's Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 58, paragraph 1. In both cases, the decision of each bishop was left untouched because Cyprian believed that the keys were possessed by they who are set over the church as he says in Epistle 72, paragraph 7.

36:00

And by that, he meant every bishop holds the keys. We covered this in a lot more detail in episode 11 of The Diving Board and our listeners can hear it in more detail there.

36:11

But a simple summary of Cyprian's view of the chair of Peter is that every bishop in the world sat in it.

36:17

As evidence, we simply remind the listeners that Cyprian believed Cornelius of Rome sat in the place of Peter, according to Epistle 51, paragraph 8, occupying the priestly chair.

36:28

That's paragraph 9. So, when a Roman schismatic, Novatian, instigated a revolt against the church in Rome, paragraph 12,

36:38

Cyprian believed it was an attack on the chair of Peter. But Cyprian, too, had been duly elected bishop in Carthage and therefore he, too, occupied a priestly throne.

36:50

That's Epistle 72, paragraph 2. But because a schismatic in Carthage, Philosissimus, was spewing that ancient venom against my episcopate, that's

37:01

Epistle 39, paragraph 1, it was not merely an attack on Cyprian, the bishop of Carthage, but upon the chair of St.

37:08

Peter itself, the very rock upon which Christ had established his church. Let me cite now from Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 39, paragraph 5, a letter to his own congregation on the schism of Philosissimus against Bishop Cyprian.

37:24

They are promising to bring back and recall the lapsed into the church who themselves have departed from the church.

37:31

There is one God and Christ is one and there is one church and one chair founded upon the rock by the word of the

37:37

Lord. Another altar cannot be constituted nor a new priesthood be made except the one altar and the one priesthood.

37:46

Whoever gathers elsewhere scatters. Again, Epistle 39, paragraph 5, of Cyprian.

37:53

Of particular interest to us here is that Philosissimus eventually sailed to Rome to lodge an appeal against Cyprian's rule.

38:00

But Cyprian considered the appeal unlawful because the decision of an African court had already been made and was final.

38:07

Already their case has been examined and already sentence concerning them has been pronounced. That's Epistle 54, paragraph 14.

38:16

After all, one admonition from Carthage was sufficient grounds to cease fellowship with a heretic. Paragraph 21.

38:24

There was no justification for any further appeal to Rome. Yes, that's right.

38:30

According to Cyprian, Jesus built his church upon the rock, Peter, and every bishop sat in the chair of Peter, and every bishop possessed the keys of the kingdom.

38:40

So no bishop was to be questioned whether his disciplinary rulings were too lax or too strict, and when such divisions arose against the disciplinary rulings of the bishops, such division, whether they occurred in Carthage or Rome, were considered attacks on the chair of Peter.

38:55

So when there was a division in the Roman church against Cornelius, Cyprian believed it was an attack against the chair of Peter.

39:01

And when there was a division in Carthage against Cyprian, Cyprian believed that that too was an attack against the chair of Peter.

39:08

Because every bishop in the world sits in the chair of Peter, and Peter is the rock on which Christ built the church.

39:13

And that is why Cyprian could write a treatise on the unity of the church that is built on Peter, the rock, without once mentioning

39:20

Rome. And Sue and Sona would know this if he actually studied the source material instead of just engaging with quotes, as he says.

39:29

Okay, let's move on to Clement of Rome. Listen as Sue and Sona explains to Matt Fradd that a significant turning point in his life occurred when he ventured out to find evidence of Roman Catholic beliefs in the first century.

39:42

That is when he happened upon Clement's letter to the Corinthians and discovered in Clement that the apostles had handed down an oral tradition on apostolic succession.

39:53

Let's listen in, and please pay particular attention to Sona's statement that quote, we don't necessarily know what

40:00

Clement is referring to. And Clement says in I think it's chapter 44, verse 1 to 3 of his letter, so too our apostles knew through our

40:09

Lord Jesus Christ that strife would arise over the office of bishop, and therefore having received perfect foreknowledge, they added those who have already been mentioned, and afterwards added the provision to the effect that if these men should die, other men should succeed to their ministry.

40:25

So notice what this is saying. It is saying that Christ himself told the apostles to protect the office of bishop, and then they chose the first bishops from those who have already been mentioned.

40:34

We don't necessarily know what he's referring to there. But then it says that these men should have successors to their ministry if they die.

40:43

So the bishops are supposed to have successors in their offices. Let me revisit that one critical statement.

40:50

We don't necessarily know what he's referring to there. In fact, we do know what

40:55

Clement is referring to there, because Clement told us. Here is Clement stating explicitly what he is talking about in paragraph 42 of the letter

41:04

Sue and Sona is citing. Chapter 42, The Order of Ministers in the Church.

41:10

The apostles have preached the gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ has done so from God.

41:17

Christ, therefore, was sent by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way according to the will of God.

41:26

Having, therefore, received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God with full assurance of the

41:34

Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through the countries and cities, they appointed the first fruits of their labors, having first proved them by the

41:46

Holy Spirit to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterward believe.

41:53

Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons.

41:59

For thus says the Scripture, in a certain place, I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.

42:07

That's Clement to the Corinthians, paragraph 42, loosely citing Isaiah 60 -17.

42:14

So, according to Clement, God appointed Jesus to preach the gospel. Jesus appointed the apostles to preach the gospel after him.

42:21

The apostles preached the gospel and appointed bishops and deacons after them. Clement said it three times.

42:27

Bishops and deacons. Bishops and deacons. Bishops and deacons.

42:34

That's who the apostles appointed. They appointed bishops and deacons. Are we clear on that?

42:40

The apostles appointed bishops and deacons. For thus says the Scripture, in a certain place,

42:46

I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith. Okay, the very next sentence, which is the beginning of paragraph 43,

42:56

Clement says, And what wonder is it if those in Christ who were entrusted with such duty by God appointed those before mentioned?

43:06

Which ministers might those be? All together now, bishops and deacons.

43:13

Okay, let's go to the next paragraph, paragraph 44, the one Suansona cited, the one where he says we don't necessarily know what he's talking about there.

43:21

And once again, Clement refers to those already mentioned. Our apostles also knew, through our

43:28

Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the Episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect foreknowledge of this, they appointed those already mentioned, and afterward gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry.

43:47

Again, Clement, Epistle to the Corinthians, paragraph 44. Now, when

43:53

Clement says the apostles appointed those already mentioned, who do you suppose he's referring to? Let's ask

43:59

Sona. We don't necessarily know what he's referring to there. Ah, but we do know what he is referring to there.

44:08

Bishops and deacons. Bishops and deacons. Clement had just mentioned both bishops and deacons when he spoke of the men appointed by the apostles.

44:18

And it is extremely important that we recognize that, because Suansona skimmed right over deacons and focused on bishops.

44:25

So, after dismissing what Clement was plainly saying, Suansona jumps to his preferred conclusion and says,

44:33

So the bishops are supposed to have successors. So the bishops are supposed to have successors in their offices.

44:40

If that were true, then according to Clement, deacons are supposed to have successors too, right?

44:47

Shouldn't there be an endless, unbroken line of deacons from the days of the apostles? Oh, of course not, since the permanent diaconate has been missing in the

44:55

Western Church since the 5th century, and it was not until Vatican II in 1964, Lumen Gentium, chapter 1, paragraph 29, that the permanent diaconate was restored.

45:05

That fact alone demonstrates just how selectively Suan is citing the early writers. But there's more, and this is where Suansona's ignorance of Clement hurts him the most.

45:15

According to the translation Suansona is using, which comes from William Juergen's Faith of the Early Fathers, volume 1, page 10,

45:22

Clement is alleged to have written that the apostles appointed bishops and then passed on orally a tradition of apostolic succession.

45:30

That's what Suansona thought he found. Clement supposedly wrote, according to Juergen's, Our apostles knew through our

45:37

Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned, and afterward added the further provision that if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry.

45:55

Okay, that sounds like an oral apostolic tradition not found in Scripture, right? They afterward added the further provision.

46:01

But that interpretation, that is, they afterward added the further oral provision, is inaccurate, utterly detaching

46:09

Clement's words in chapter 44 from what he had just written in chapter 43. As it turns out,

46:15

Clement was referring not to an oral provision on episcopal and diaconal succession, but a written provision on their qualifications.

46:23

What Clement indicated was that after appointing bishops and deacons, the apostles then wrote down their qualifications so that afterward the selection of bishops and deacons could continue reliably and orderly.

46:34

His actual words in Greek are kaimetaxu epinomen didokensin, which appears to mean that the apostles appointed bishops and deacons and afterward gave a rule.

46:46

He does not say it was an oral rule that they should have successors. Rather, it is actually clear from context that it was a written rule to lay down the proper qualification for election so when they died or were dismissed, congregations could be equipped to select suitable men after them.

47:03

That's not apostolic succession and it certainly is not the current practice of Roman Catholicism because congregations don't elect their own bishops and deacons.

47:12

It was simply an appeal to something that the apostles actually wrote down. How do we know this?

47:18

Two ways. First, Clement, citing Moses' example, observes that Moses set up a priesthood and afterward provided a written rule about the priesthood so that people after him would be informed and then

47:31

Clement indicates that the apostles imitated Moses on that point. Second, he practically quotes the verses from Paul about the qualifications for bishops and deacons for when it comes time to replace them.

47:44

Let's take a look. First, Clement said the apostles were just following Moses' example.

47:50

Namely, although there was a dispute about the qualification of priests in Moses' day,

47:56

Moses settled the dispute and then wrote down their qualifications for future generations.

48:01

In chapter 43, Clement said, And what wonder is it if those in Christ who were entrusted with such a duty by God appointed those ministers before mentioned that is bishops and deacons when the blessed

48:15

Moses who also a faithful servant in all his house noted down in the sacred books all the injunctions which were given to him and when the other prophets also followed him bearing witness with one consent to the ordinances which he had appointed.

48:32

See, Moses appointed the priests and afterward gave a written rule about their qualifications.

48:39

And guess who else did that with bishops and deacons? The apostles. In the next chapter of Clement's letter, notice that he is simply saying the apostles also wrote down the qualifications of officers.

48:50

That is, the bishops and the deacons. They appointed those ministers already mentioned and afterward set a rule so that when those should fall asleep other approved men should succeed them in their ministry.

49:03

That's chapter 44. Moses gave written instructions. The apostles gave written instructions.

49:10

So what were the written instructions the apostles gave? That's our second point. We know what the written instructions were because Clement immediately appeals to them in his rebuke of the

49:19

Corinthians. Listen carefully and notice that Clement does not say it is wrong to expel men from the episcopate who had lawfully succeeded from the apostles.

49:28

No, he says it is wrong to expel presbyters who were qualified according to Paul's written instructions.

49:35

We continue now with chapter 44. We are of the opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them or afterward by other eminent men with the consent of the whole church and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry.

49:59

Does that sound familiar? It should. It's what Paul wrote down in 1 Timothy 3 verses 2 -7 about the qualifications of a bishop.

50:09

A bishop, then, must be blameless. Moreover, he must have a good report of them which are without.

50:15

Okay, next sentence in Clement's letter to the Corinthians. For our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties.

50:28

As many of you have heard in my Eucharist episodes, the literal translation here is blamelessly offered the gifts, which is a reference to the

50:36

Eucharistic offering, but as important, blameless service is not only an appeal to the qualifications of bishops and deacons, but handling the gifts honorably is consistent with Paul's admonitions in Acts 20, 33 -35, 2

50:50

Corinthians 11 -9, and 2 Corinthians 12 -17. Okay, next sentence in Clement's letter to the

50:56

Corinthians. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure from this world.

51:06

For they have no fear, lest anyone deprive them of the place now appointed them. Does that sound familiar?

51:13

It should. The reference to bishops who finish their course and obtain a perfect departure is clearly an appeal to Paul's written sentiments about the end of his own ministry in 2

51:24

Timothy 4, verses 6 -7, in which he writes, For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand.

51:31

I have fought the good fight. I have finished my course. I have kept the faith. Okay, next sentence in Clement's letter to the

51:39

Corinthians. But we see that you have removed some men of excellent behavior from the ministry which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honor.

51:50

That's just another reference to the qualifications that bishops and deacons be blameless, as we see in Paul's written letters.

51:58

1 Timothy 3 -2, A bishop then must be blameless. 1 Timothy 3 -10, Then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.

52:06

Titus 1 -5 -7, Ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee, if any be blameless, etc.

52:13

For a bishop must be blameless. Notice that Clement does not appeal to an apostolic succession as the reason it was wrong for these men to be expelled.

52:22

Rather, he camps on the fact that the men had conducted themselves blamelessly, according to the written qualifications provided by Paul, just as Moses had written down the qualifications of the priests.

52:36

Three times Clement insists that the dismissed elders had fulfilled Paul's written qualifications, and it was wrong to dismiss men who had satisfied those written qualifications.

52:45

In truth, what Clement said was not that the apostles ordained bishops and deacons and then afterward provided an additional oral instruction on succession.

52:54

No, what he said was that the apostles ordained bishops and deacons and then afterward, just like Moses had, wrote down the qualifications so that just like in Moses' day, people who came afterward would be equipped to identify the qualifications of bishops and deacons.

53:11

In short, Clement had appealed to a written apostolic tradition on the qualifications of church officers, not an oral apostolic tradition on episcopal and diaconal succession.

53:22

What is worse, at least for Sue and Sona's case, is that his whole argument on Clement rests on that simple phrase, which from its context certainly appears to mean an afterward gave instruction, or a rule, or a law, or guidance, obviously referring to Paul's written instructions, since that is exactly what

53:46

Clement cites next, as I have shown here. But epinomen is a very obscure word, and the scholars did not know what to do with it, so they simply changed it to epimonen.

53:59

You can find this in Lightfoot's translation of 1 Clement, which rather has the meaning of continuance, instead of a rule.

54:09

Among scholars and translators, that's called an emendation or a correction to the original text.

54:16

How convenient. Now suddenly Clement's letter, which actually says the apostles provided instruction on the qualification of bishops and deacons, so they could be replaced when they died, is arbitrarily changed to say the apostles provided a succession mechanism.

54:32

And that intentional redaction of Clement's original statement now serves as the basis of Sue and Sona's discovery of apostolic succession from 1

54:40

Clement in the first century. How convenient is that? Now, that's a lot of information about Irenaeus.

54:47

What Irenaeus is probably saying here, Cyprian, I'm not sure about the full context of the source, and Clement, we don't necessarily know what he's referring to there.

55:01

And from that position of his own ignorance, both demonstrated and confessed, Sue and Sona thinks he has found the truth about Petrine, Roman, apostolic succession in the early church.

55:12

And it is all founded upon his profound ignorance and his propensity for discovering proof without actually reading the original source material.

55:20

But don't worry about that, because Sue and Sona is deep in history. It was important to go into these matters in such detail in order to demonstrate for the audience exactly how

55:31

Sue and Sona approaches history. He is satisfied to scratch the surface by evaluating other people's analysis of the church fathers without actually looking into the matters himself.

55:42

He confesses much if you listen to what he's saying. I'm not sure about the full context of the source, and this is why

55:49

I want other people to check this out. What we find upon inspection is that Sue and Sona takes this exact same approach with the

55:57

Eliakim typology, by which he persuaded Cameron Bertuzzi to convert to Roman Catholicism.

56:03

What we will find as we evaluate the Eliakim typology is that Sue and Sona returns to this exact same erroneous method to conclude that Jesus was establishing

56:13

Peter as the fulfillment of the Eliakim typology, complete with all the privileges and responsibilities of the chief steward of the household of God.

56:22

So let's jump into the Eliakim typology. In summary, the argument goes something like this.

56:30

Matthew 16, 19, where Peter gets the keys of the kingdom of heaven, Jesus is making an allusion to Isaiah 22, 22, in which

56:39

Eliakim gets the key of the household of David. If it is an allusion, then

56:46

Eliakim is a type of Peter. And therefore, because Eliakim became steward of the household of David, Peter is the fulfillment and becomes the steward of the kingdom of heaven.

56:57

If it is typological, the typology makes the most sense from the Roman Catholic perspective, providing at long last what has been missing for 2 ,000 years, biblical evidence for the papacy.

57:10

Let's listen to Sue and Sona make this argument in his own words, and we'll allow him to cite the relevant passages so you can hear the connection he's making.

57:19

Yeah, so the argument goes in three phases. The first phase is to establish a textual allusion between Isaiah 22, 22, and Matthew 16, 19.

57:29

So if you recall in Peter's great confession of Jesus' messiahship, you know,

57:36

Peter says, you are the Christ, the Son, the living God. Then Jesus says, blessed are you, Simon Bar -Jonah, for flesh and blood is not revealed to you but my

57:43

Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, this is verse 18, and I tell you that you are Peter, and upon this rock

57:49

I have built my church. The gates of hell will not prevail against it. And then in verse 19, and this is where we're really focusing,

57:55

I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven. Whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.

58:03

The first phase of the argument is trying to say that in verse 19, when Jesus mentions the keys in binding and loosing, he's alluding back to Isaiah 22, 22, when in ancient

58:13

Israel, under King Hezekiah, there was a corrupt prime minister or chief steward named Shebna. And through the prophet

58:20

Isaiah, God reveals that he's going to replace Shebna and put Eliakim in charge. In Isaiah 22, 22, it says

58:26

I will give you the key of the house of David. Whatever you open, none shall shut. Whatever you shut, none shall open.

58:32

So textual illusion, just to show you that whatever interpretation we're going to make from here, it has a textual basis.

58:40

Phase two then argues that the relationship between Peter and Eliakim that is made in the textual illusion is a typological one.

58:50

So very quickly, typology is this idea that in God's kind of predestination or providence or arrangement of salvation history, he has arranged figures or events or persons or actions to be read together as aligning and corresponding to each other.

59:11

So with the case of Eliakim and Isaiah 22 and Peter and Matthew 60 19, my argument is that we have a correspondence between historical persons,

59:24

Eliakim and Peter, and we have a correspondence between events. Both of them are being elevated by God into positions of authority.

59:31

They're both being given an office. And so, the last part of the argument is just to show how do you get from this

59:37

Peter -Eliakim typology into the papacy itself. Now, I'll mention,

59:43

Pat, first time you're getting the fresh scoop of revision that we've made to the argument.

59:49

Because we noticed that when we were debating our Protestant interlocutors, some of them were saying, oh, we'll grant the

59:56

Peter -Eliakim typology, but argue that it's not prime ministerial. It's something else, right?

01:00:02

And so now we've revised the argument so that basically it goes like this, right?

01:00:07

So, you know, it's really nice and clean now than before. So, I'm going to just read it out if that's okay with you.

01:00:14

Yeah, of course. Okay, so phase one, textual allusion. Premise one, there is a textual allusion between Isaiah 22 22 and Matthew 16 19.

01:00:22

Okay? Just state it nice and clean. Phase two, typology. If there is a textual allusion between Isaiah 22 22 and Matthew 16 19, then there is a

01:00:32

Peter -Eliakim typology. Premise three, so there is a Peter -Eliakim typology.

01:00:38

Premise four, if there is a Peter -Eliakim typology, then it is prime ministerial.

01:00:44

So, PET is prime ministerial. Oh, PET means Peter -Eliakim typology. And then when we go down to like six, seven, and eight, premises six, seven, and eight, we're basically saying like, okay, a prime ministerial

01:00:55

Peter -Eliakim typology is much more expected on the papacy hypothesis, right?

01:01:01

And then just showing that this is really strong evidence for the papacy hypothesis in scripture. The question is this, is

01:01:11

Peter receiving a position of power in Matthew 16 19? I argue that there is no allusion to Isaiah 22 22 and no typology, and that Peter is not even receiving an office of authority.

01:01:23

And we'll get to that later in the series. But even Sue and Sona agrees that his own argument is messy, or he would not have felt the need to clean it up, which he immediately attempts to do.

01:01:33

And so now we revise the argument. So, realizing how messy his argument is, he attempts to clean it up a little, as we just heard.

01:01:44

He says, if there is an allusion, then there must be typology. And if there is typology, then it must mean that both men receive offices of power.

01:01:53

Premise four, if there is a Peter Eliakim typology, then it is prime ministerial.

01:01:59

But Sue and Sona never actually closes the case on this. He is still assuming the typology is prime ministerial, largely based on his assumption that Peter is the new

01:02:09

Eliakim. Here is what he says later in the discussion, and we'll unpack this all in detail in a few minutes.

01:02:16

I think the typology between Peter and Eliakim rises to one where we can call Peter the new

01:02:21

Eliakim, given just how significant the textual allusion is, and the substitution that's going on there.

01:02:27

Even if they didn't have the same hair color, for example. Right, right. So, and obviously typology is not concerned with the most minimal, trivial properties, right?

01:02:37

So, the typology rises based on the significance of the allusion. But the argument for the allusion is so incredibly weak.

01:02:45

There is no cause for the typology to rise at all, outside of the creative imaginations of Sona and the commentaries.

01:02:51

What is so fascinating about this argument from Sona is how persuaded he is of his own conclusions. He has once again returned to the assumption that the substitution taking place in the passage,

01:03:02

Peter for Eliakim, is so profound that the allusion is evident on his face.

01:03:07

So we can conclude that the typology is sufficiently proven, and Peter is obviously the new Eliakim.

01:03:13

In other words, by cleaning up the argument, in his words, he has not corrected the fundamental flaw, which is that in the end,

01:03:20

Sue and Sona never actually proves either that the allusion is valid or that the typology that arises from it is prime ministerial.

01:03:27

It is just one long, elaborate, wishful, self -congratulatory thought, in a desperate attempt to find the papacy in the

01:03:33

Scriptures. Now, listen as Sue and Sona wrestles with the first premise, that is, in Matthew 16, 19,

01:03:40

Jesus is making an allusion to Isaiah 22, 22. He essentially goes through each potential similarity, emphasizing what is common and dismissing objections to what is not.

01:03:51

And then listen to his summary statement. The three, I think, strongest points in favor of a textual allusion are this.

01:03:59

You have a syntactical correspondence, you have significant syntactical correspondences. That is to say that you see within the same passage itself, like similar, you see the words appear in similar places where they'd be expected.

01:04:12

So, for example, like you have, I will give, Old Testament, Jesus says, I will give,

01:04:18

New Testament. Then they both give keys, or a key of some kingdom, right? And then when you look in the

01:04:24

Old Testament, as, you know, the different versions of Nathan's prophecy that David's kingdom would last forever,

01:04:32

God both says it's David's kingdom and his kingdom, right? So there was a, you know, the kingdom of David and the kingdom of heaven were viewed synonymously, in a way.

01:04:42

And so with that then, okay, you see kingdom of heaven, New Testament, kingdom, house of David, Old Testament, right?

01:04:48

And then you see then in the following parts with binding, loosing, opening, and shutting, right, that Peter and Eliakim are given definitive authority, right?

01:04:59

Whatever you open, none shall shut. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. And Jesus and God in the

01:05:05

Old Testament use contrastive metaphors or images, right? Bind loose, open, shut. So when you look at that all together,

01:05:13

I think that presents a significant case that you have syntactical correspondences, right? Okay, Suen gets into a lot of details, and we can't cover them all, but notice that he is simultaneously arguing for the obvious syntactical correspondences between the two passages, making it so obviously an allusion that it just has to be an allusion, and then turns on a dime and immediately dismisses the syntactical dissonance because to dwell on it is to overanalyze it, which we shouldn't do, because to do so would be to criticize

01:05:43

Jesus for not making the allusion clearer. Yes, that's exactly how Suen thinks about this.

01:05:49

Listen carefully as he explains after analyzing the similarities between the passages, and then tells us why we should not dwell on the differences, because we already know that the similarities so sufficiently prove the allusion that the differences cannot disprove what is so obvious.

01:06:03

Here again, he ultimately has to assume that it's so obvious that to make it more obvious would be to make it less obvious, because we obviously know how obvious it is.

01:06:15

One of the objections that I've heard, and I'll only get into one, was basically like, well, if this is a textual allusion, then we would expect bind to correspond to shut and loose to correspond to open.

01:06:29

Let me give you an example of what I'm saying. For example, a reasonable explanation is that Jesus is speaking to a

01:06:36

Jewish audience. He's using a conventional idiom. One could be accused of overanalyzing the idiom at this point.

01:06:43

It's like, okay, I think it did the job enough. To give an example, suppose that you go into a museum.

01:06:51

Obviously, everybody knows the Mona Lisa. Suppose you go into a museum and you see an artist who's adapting the

01:06:58

Mona Lisa into a Van Gogh style. You could go up to this painting and say, well, he could have made it more obvious that it's the

01:07:06

Mona Lisa. He could have maybe dimmed down some of the Van Gogh -ing aspects.

01:07:13

It's like, well, no, you're missing the point. But in a sense, it's already obvious. What makes an allusion successful is not that it's a quote.

01:07:22

It's that it alludes. It's that it's pointing to something. For example,

01:07:30

I could be 100 % certain that something is alluding to another thing, even if it could be made more obvious.

01:07:37

But at that point, then, it would just be wasted effort to make it more obvious. It's like it's there. I think that's what's going on here.

01:07:43

I think that Jesus didn't feel the need to make it more obvious, if you will, by even switching the allusion and the convention around.

01:07:51

See? What Sue and Sone in this illustration is saying is that, in Matthew 16 -19, we can't criticize

01:07:58

Jesus for not making the Isaiah 22 -22 allusion clearer, because we already know that it's an allusion to Isaiah 22 -22.

01:08:07

And to doubt that is to criticize the artist, Jesus. The only reason the

01:08:13

Mona Lisa Van Gogh illustration made sense was that the observer already knew that it was a

01:08:18

Van Gogh interpretation of the Mona Lisa. We can't approach Matthew 16 the same way, assuming to know at the outset that it is an allusion, and therefore to question the allusion is to criticize the artist,

01:08:29

Jesus. Sue and Sone's pathology is to assume what it was his duty to prove. His whole argument is that there is an allusion, and if there is an allusion, there must be typology.

01:08:39

And the allusion is so obvious it can't be questioned, and therefore the typology is obvious. What is so remarkable and almost infuriating about Sue and Sone's approach is that he continues to assume that it is true in order to prove it.

01:08:53

But don't worry, his team is hard at work developing the hermeneutics necessary for this task.

01:08:59

Okay, so when it comes to the identification of typology, there are different methods for doing this, although typology is not a strict science.

01:09:07

So that's one thing to keep in mind, right? But I mean, for instance, one of the things that you'll want to notice is if there's a pattern that is too noticeable to be considered a coincidence.

01:09:18

So there's some intuition that's involved here. Yeah, okay, so when it comes to the second part of the argument, which is typological, we're particularly trying to establish that Peter is a prime ministerial kind of figure.

01:09:32

So in terms of establishing that the type is prime ministerial or that the typology is prime ministerial, that is to say that it is, at least this is the minimum definition, that we have supremacy and succession.

01:09:46

I mean, those are the two things that people really care about. So what we do, at least what my team and I have been doing, is we've been developing now hermeneutics for interpreting typology, right?

01:09:55

So if you do have a typological connection, what are some principles that you're going to need in order to properly interpret what's going on?

01:10:04

Well, that's a relief. I can't imagine how such an approach could be susceptible to confirmation bias.

01:10:10

Okay, now that he has said the illusion couldn't be more obvious, he says the typology couldn't be more obvious either.

01:10:18

And listen to how quickly, again, Sue and Sona dismisses the counter -arguments outright by saying that typology is not concerned about little things.

01:10:28

But the big thing that you have to remember is that typology is a hermeneutic of continuity.

01:10:34

Typology is the way in which the New Testament authors connected the Old Testament to the

01:10:40

New Testament events. It was a very apostolic hermeneutic to use this kind of method.

01:10:47

So if you will, the default is in favor of transfer of properties, right?

01:10:53

And obviously typology is not concerned with the most minimal, trivial properties, right?

01:10:59

And so what I'm saying here is that when we look at the typology here, we shouldn't dismiss it or even downplay it, because what if the same situation is going on here with Peter and Eliakim, where God is establishing the divine normative order of His church?

01:11:13

Remember when Sue and Sona said that it's not that big a deal that Eliakim gets the key of the household of David, but Peter gets the keys of the kingdom of heaven?

01:11:23

Key, keys, household of David, kingdom of heaven? Hey, no biggie. It's all good. They're just so similar, we can just assume that it's just not that big of a deal.

01:11:32

One of the objections that I've heard, and I'll only get into one, was basically like, well, if this is a textual illusion, then we would expect bind to correspond to shut and loose to correspond to open.

01:11:46

So, for example, instead of, you know, we're having bind and bind in the New Testament, right? Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.

01:11:52

But in the Old Testament, it's whatever you open, none shall shut. At least in my brief scoping of the literature, a lot of people have been saying like, they can see like, okay, maybe this is a kind of difference, right?

01:12:05

But they don't see it being significant at all. They see it as kind of a trivial difference. See? All the minor differences are inconsequential, since the illusion is so obvious.

01:12:18

But when someone suggests that maybe the real Eliakim typology is in Revelation 3 -7, where Jesus says he has the key of David, and what he opens none shall shut.

01:12:29

I mean, as illusions go, this one is pretty dead on. But listen as Suwan dismisses the

01:12:36

Revelation 3 typology, which is a flagrantly obvious typological reference to Isaiah 22, by highlighting the tiny little differences.

01:12:45

So the main argument is that there's a Jesus -Eliakim typology in the New Testament, not a

01:12:51

Peter -Eliakim typology, right? Or if there is a Jesus -Eliakim typology and a

01:12:56

Peter -Eliakim typology, then the Jesus -Eliakim relationship somehow limits, right, the

01:13:03

Peter -Eliakim relationship. So, the reason why people think there's a

01:13:08

Jesus -Eliakim typology is because Revelation 3 -7, where Jesus is speaking to John, and he mentions that he has the key of David, and whatever he opens none shall shut, whatever he shuts none shall open, right?

01:13:21

So, I mean, in Revelation 3 -7 you have a pretty nice textual illusion, if not basically a quotation, of the

01:13:28

Isaiah 22 passage, although there is a variation, right? So Jesus says, I have the key of David, whereas the

01:13:34

Old Testament passage says that Eliakim has the key of the house of David. So it's interesting that Jesus just has the key of David, right?

01:13:42

He just has, you know, maybe the house is boiled into that. What he has essentially said is, yeah, even though Revelation 3 alludes to Isaiah 22, the differences are sufficient enough to not be able to know what the point was, and besides, it probably shouldn't limit the

01:13:58

Peter -Eliakim typology that is so obvious in Matthew 16 -19. Again, this is evidence that Suanzona's going in position is that there is a

01:14:06

Peter -Eliakim typology, and nothing will get in his way, not even the most obvious Eliakim typology in the scriptures from Jesus Christ himself.

01:14:15

That this is Suanzona's besetting sin is evident from his methodology, which is why we focus so heavily on his halting attempts to find

01:14:22

Roman, Petrine, Apostolic succession in the early church. He doesn't do his homework and doesn't countenance contrary evidence because that would get in the way of his arguments.

01:14:33

And frankly, some of Suanzona's arguments are so disingenuous and belligerent, they border on abusive.

01:14:39

For example, to have a compelling argument for an apostolic truth, Suanzona requires that you have early attestation.

01:14:47

Here is Suanzona talking with apologist Matt Fradd about how important it is to have early evidence if you want to make a compelling argument.

01:14:55

Early, as in within living memory of the apostles. And we don't want to be like those silly Protestants who say, well, we'll only take the scriptures on their own.

01:15:05

And then the second standard that I propose is originalism. So when it comes to originalism, the question here is which interpretation respects the original context of the scriptures.

01:15:16

A historian wants, more than anything, the primary sources. Secondary sources are good, but you want the primary sources.

01:15:23

And recently in New Testament literature, there's been a focus on what's called living memory.

01:15:29

So what you want to do is you want to find the sources that are within living memory of the apostles in order to get probably the most accurate and closest interpretations.

01:15:38

And living memory basically means anyone who either personally knew the apostles or knew those who knew the apostles.

01:15:45

So when I interpret the scriptures, I'm going to try to stick to living memory or at least those sources like Jewish interpretations, the rabbinic literature, that can trace its origins back to the first century.

01:15:57

Okay, fair enough for a Roman Catholic. That's his position. To understand the scriptures you need to find early attestation of that interpretation within living memory.

01:16:07

So where is the evidence that the earliest church fathers within living memory recognized the Peter -Eliakim typology?

01:16:13

Well, there aren't any within living memory of the apostles, but there is some evidence of this late in the 4th century.

01:16:19

And besides, you're being unrealistic to expect that level of support. And frankly, you're engaging in what he dismissively calls solus patris.

01:16:27

And frankly, the burden of proof is on you to prove that the early church fathers would have mentioned every single little thing that we find in the

01:16:34

New Testament. Yeah, who is the first prominent Christian who made this connection that you're making?

01:16:43

So to the Isaiah 22 -22 and Matthew 16 -19 passage, if you recognize independently that the arguments stand, then, you know, you're going to have to justify why you're only going to strictly go back to what the fathers themselves have strictly expressly, explicitly said.

01:17:01

So in other words, if Protestants are guilty of solus scriptura, then this method is guilty of solus patris.

01:17:06

Because then it's saying you can only use the fathers and you can only use their interpretations, right? Right, so why don't more of the fathers mention it?

01:17:13

The first thing I'm going to say is that one is that independent of whether or not the fathers said it, does the argument hold up?

01:17:20

So are there compelling grounds for believing it based on the Jewish context, the authorial intent of the Gospel of Matthew, and so on and so forth.

01:17:28

So the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that they would have mentioned every single iota in detail.

01:17:34

I'm sorry, that's not how this works, Suwan. You yourself established the criteria for early attestation in your argument for why the papacy is biblical.

01:17:42

And all we are doing is asking you whether this Peter Eliakim typology meets your own minimum standard of credibility.

01:17:51

Or consider this. Nuda scriptura is scripture and nothing else. That's the term that Suwan Soni uses for it.

01:17:58

That we wouldn't want to go down that path because it ignores historical context and tradition. Yeah, I mean, so one of the first things to recognize is that most

01:18:05

Protestants will say they believe in solus scriptura, but not nuda scriptura. So if we're going to talk about a person who believes in nuda scriptura...

01:18:14

Hang on, what's that? I've heard of solus scriptura. What's this nuda scriptura? Well, I mean, so solus scriptura and nuda scriptura, they're basically the same idea.

01:18:23

Just like the naked scriptures. So without anything else, you just go straight to the scriptures. Okay, Suwan.

01:18:30

Why are there no early writers to support this view on the Peter Eliakim typology? Suwan's answer is, that's ridiculous.

01:18:37

As if the scriptures can't stand on their own. Because then it's saying, you can only use the fathers and you can only use their interpretations, right?

01:18:44

As if the scriptures can't speak on their own. Do you see how Suwan Soni is so convinced of his own argument that he can't stand to hear objections?

01:18:53

If someone disagrees, it's because they are not as sophisticated as he is. So we're just going to have to accept that his own standards that he established don't apply to him.

01:19:04

Talk about being your own magisterium. You need early attestation within living memory to make a compelling argument, says

01:19:11

Suwan. Okay, where's your early attestation? You're engaging in sola patris. The burden of proof is on you to show the early church fathers would have spoken in detail about every single iota of truth.

01:19:21

You can't go by nuda scriptura, says Suwan. You need other attestation from within living memory of the apostles to make sure you have the correct interpretation, he says.

01:19:32

Okay, then where is the attestation from the early church fathers? You're acting as if the scriptures can't stand on their own, he responds.

01:19:40

And that is how Suwan Soni makes the argument that Cameron Bertuzzi fell for about the papacy. Okay, I have listened to hours and hours and hours of his defense of the

01:19:51

Peter Eliakim typology, and having sat at the feet of Suwan Soni in his school of typology, in the next episode

01:19:58

I'm going to demonstrate the foolishness of his methodology. I'm going to construct my own typological argument in Matthew 16, and don't worry, my team and I have been hard at work developing a typological hermeneutic that will make this make sense.

01:20:12

And remember, typology is not an exact science. It is intuitive. Typology is not a strict science.

01:20:19

So there's some intuition that's involved here. And trust me, it's just obvious enough that if it were any more obvious, it would be less obvious.

01:20:28

So let's not play down what God is plainly saying, okay? You don't want to miss the typology, and therefore miss what

01:20:34

He is communicating to us. Well, we'll save that for next time. I really intended to wrap up this series today, but there just isn't going to be a way to do it without really trying the patience of the listeners.

01:20:47

So, I will dedicate the next episode to a facetious typology argument using

01:20:53

Suwan Soni's methods to prove once and for all that Peter is the new and greater Job.

01:20:59

For now, we'll wrap up. To summarize the episode, today we visited Jimmy Akin's argument for why there's no early evidence of the papacy.

01:21:07

As you recall, he argued that the early writers concealed the papacy to protect the occupants of the papal sea.

01:21:12

So it makes sense that there's no evidence of an early papacy. That is a really convenient argument, and Cameron Bertuzzi fell for it and accepted it at face value.

01:21:21

In truth, the early writers indicate not only that they were comfortable disclosing their beliefs and methods in their letters, but also were offended if the correct people were not named and there was any evidence of fraud or deceit.

01:21:32

As arguments go, it was a nice try, but it doesn't really pass muster when you know how the early writers expressed themselves and what they said to each other.

01:21:39

Next, because Cameron Bertuzzi was so persuaded by Suwan Soni's arguments on the Peter Eliakim typology, we reviewed

01:21:46

Suwan Soni's methodology to arrive at Roman Petrine Apostolic Succession in the form of a papacy to show how demonstrably ignorant he is of the original sources and how loose he is with the evidence.

01:21:58

With that in mind, we then examined how problematic that methodology is in the Peter Eliakim typology.

01:22:05

Next time, we will continue with a facetious display of Suwan Soni's methodologies to prove that Jesus intended

01:22:12

Peter to be the new and greater Job, and finally, we will walk through an honest and sober assessment of the true typology that Jesus established in Matthew 16 .19

01:22:23

to show that not Peter, nor his confession, nor even Jesus is the rock upon which

01:22:30

Christ would build his church but the words of his Father. We will come back to that in our next episode.

01:22:36

So, just remember, what we have shown in this series so far is that Cameron Bertuzzi was foolish to fall for Matt Fradd's arguments on the

01:22:44

Eucharist, foolish to fall for Jimmy Akin's arguments on the utter lack of evidence for the papacy in the early church, and foolish for falling for Suwan Soni's Peter Eliakim argument on the papacy.

01:22:55

None of these men are deep in history, and yet all of them would swear by Cardinal Newman's dictum, to be deep in history is to cease to be

01:23:02

Protestant. Well, the truth will be hard for them to swallow, but the deeper in history you go, the more

01:23:07

Protestant the early church looks. Dive deep in history, and deep into the scriptures.

01:23:13

Stay Protestant. It has been a long episode today, but fruitful, I think. I am your host,

01:23:19

Timothy F. Kaufman, and this has been the very long episode 14 of The Diving Board. We'll see you next time with episode 15, the final episode in the conversion of Cameron Bertuzzi.