Intertextuality, Matthew 16, A Bit More David Allen

Alpha & Omega Ministries iconAlpha & Omega Ministries

6 views

Three major portions to the program today, starting off with some observations on the relationship of the Prologue of the Gospel of John (John 1:1-18) to the Prologue of the First Epistle of John. Then we looked at a post on X from a few weeks ago presenting a very one-sided view of the supposed "Petrine Promise" in Matthew 16, and finished off with about twelve minutes more looking at David Allen's new book.

Comments are disabled.

00:29
Well, greetings, welcome to the program. You know, we started doing this stuff back in the 1980s. We will never have a perfectly accurate count of how many programs we've done because we don't have recordings from all the stuff back on the.
00:45
The days before the Internet, when we were doing this on Saturday afternoons on radio stations, sometimes driving out to these.
00:55
Musty, smelly. Um, radio studios out in the middle of nowhere to do the program that nobody was listening to on a
01:08
Saturday. You know, they were just the station was just happy to have somebody to do something, you know, and but but.
01:18
We have lots and lots of them now on certain audio getting up around 3000, and I think somewhere in that general vicinity been doing this a while.
01:30
And who knows how long we'll keep going? I mentioned on on Twitter just a few minutes ago that you ought to.
01:37
You got to tune in to every program because eventually Richard is going to keel over. And that'll be must see
01:45
TV. It really will. You'll you'll want to be able to say I was watching that day when it all came to a screeching halt and gallows humor, folks.
01:57
It's what happens when when you get past a certain milestone in the in the years as they roll by.
02:06
So, you know, I am. I'm doing I'm filling in at Apologia a good bit.
02:14
I think I've done the last three weeks. I'm doing next week and then I'm I'm going to be gone for all of September and we'll be doing road trip dividing lines.
02:23
But last Lord's Day before yesterday.
02:30
I did a study of the prologue of John, it'll be directly relevant to the debate coming up in Tullahoma with Dale Tuggy.
02:43
On the prologue of John, specifically John one, one, three, 18. And so when
02:51
I sort of got the call to do this week. I'm not sure why
02:57
I thought of doing this, but I decided to do the prologue of First John.
03:05
And, you know, I want to give the folks some some background information as far as how important it is, how useful it is.
03:15
That we break out of the mindset. That we very often have in American modern
03:23
Christianity, where we, we, we take the
03:29
Bible and we, we break it up into parts. And very often the connections between the parts get lost.
03:38
We don't see them. And our appreciation of the consistency of the text, the message of the text is impacted by that really is.
03:49
And so, yeah, OK. And it's gone again.
04:00
It's just, well, I hope my truck's out there somewhere.
04:05
I got no earthly idea since this. Open and failed at whatever.
04:11
Whatever. Anyway, yeah,
04:20
Windows, what can I say? So as I was looking at First John, I.
04:31
You know, there's. When you buy commentaries on these things, there'll be discussions about authorship and did
04:38
John really write this? Was this the this the elder John? Oh, it just decided to come back.
04:44
Hello. It just. Oh, OK.
04:51
And my truck's still there, too. That's that's the important part. And and yours isn't, but mine is just kidding.
04:57
That's why I disappeared. They they blocked it. And Rich is minus one.
05:02
Pretty truck anyway. As I was translating through it, because obviously.
05:09
First, John, it's almost always the first book you translate when you when you learn Greek. It's baby
05:17
Greek. It's a level two out of ten, I would say. And so if you want to encourage people to continue the study of Greek, you don't want to start them off in a really bad place.
05:28
And so as I was reading through it, I was just struck.
05:36
By the purposeful connections. Between First John and John, Chapter one, the
05:44
Gospel of John and the Epistle of John. And I know I know the.
05:52
Critical scholarship would say, well, that's what you'd expect a forger to do and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
05:58
But but what was fascinating to me is when you accept the
06:03
Bible as word of God as a whole. We have further commentary.
06:11
On the meaning of the prologue of the Gospel of John, thanks to the prologue of John.
06:18
So let me let me give you some examples here. One of the things that I emphasized in my sermon a week ago, not yesterday, but a week ago, there were two things
06:30
I wanted to communicate to everybody. I want everybody in the church to understand. The first.
06:38
Was. An insight that my dad shared with me one
06:45
Christmas night, somewhere around 19. Eighty four ish,
06:56
I think. Maybe 83, probably 84, because I started my my
07:04
Greek studies by that time in college. And my dad had gone to Moody Bible Institute.
07:12
And he had studied under Dr. Kenneth Wiest. And when I first started showing an interest in theological things, he took me to.
07:22
Marine Christian Bookstore and he bought two sets of books for me. That I still have in my library this day.
07:31
One was A .T. Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament. And the other is the other was
07:38
Kenneth Wiest's. I think it was word studies in the New Testament, something like that. Robertson was brown and Wiest was black as far as the hardback covers.
07:50
And. So by the by the light of the
07:56
Christmas tree. After a wonderful. Turkey and dressing dinner, like my dad always provided for us, just the best in the world.
08:11
He got out his old Greek New Testament, which I have. That's in my office.
08:19
I should bring that in here. He got out his Nessie Allen. And what was that?
08:24
Twenty third edition, I think something like that. And I had the twenty seventh edition and well, might have been twenty six back there.
08:32
And then I think about anyway. And he walked through.
08:39
The prologue of John and said, do you ever notice this? And the issue was that when
08:45
John speaks of the logos, the word. He uses the imperfect form of I mean, ain.
08:56
So in the beginning was the word an imperfect does not point to a point of origin.
09:03
Does not point to a beginning. As far back as you push the beginning, the word is already in existence.
09:11
And the word was Prostantheion was with God again, eternal relationship.
09:17
And the word was God. As to his nature, deity, eternal, not something that starts in time.
09:25
And as you walk through the prologue, as soon as he starts talking about the creation of other things, he uses a genital, he uses the aorist form of another verb of being, but it's an aorist form.
09:39
And it can refer to point of origin in time, things like that. And he keeps this distinction all the way up to verse 14.
09:49
And verse 14, you have the incarnation and the word became now he uses a genital became flesh.
09:57
Why? Because the word had not eternally been flesh. The word entered into flesh at a point in time.
10:04
This is the incarnation. And I just I'm so thankful to have that memory.
10:13
Of that discussion on a on a Christmas night. Many, many, many moons ago now, you know, over 40 years ago with my dad.
10:24
Who's gone to be with the Lord and my mom who went went before my dad did.
10:31
And so I shared that with with the folks at Apologia. And I want you to remember this.
10:39
And then the other thing I did is I talked about the bookends. How John 1 18 is the bookend to John 1 1.
10:46
And how the two verses help to interpret each other. That was the author's intention.
10:53
And answer many of the key questions in regards to the meaning of the prologue.
11:01
And so yesterday as I began speaking and of course as I prepared.
11:13
I was struck by the fact that the prologue of 1
11:19
John evidently assumes. You've already read the gospel.
11:26
And it provides insight into the meaning of the gospel of John as well.
11:35
So, for example, in 1 John 1 1, what was from the beginning?
11:45
Now, of course, in our case, John 1 1.
11:51
Here's our case in 1 John 1 1. And what's the verb? What was from the beginning?
11:59
Not what was created the beginning, but what was from the beginning. Which we have heard.
12:07
So what was from the beginning has entered into our experience that we can hear.
12:15
What we have seen with our eyes. What we have gazed upon.
12:21
And that same word that he uses, as I recall, in 1 John 1 14. We beheld his glory.
12:28
Same, same word. And our hands handled, touched, concerning to lagu teis zoes.
12:38
The word of life. Lagos. Hopefully you don't have the same level of Greek background that Joe Ventilacion had.
12:54
And you can recognize that in Greek, lagos, nominative form.
13:01
Lagu, genitive, singular form. They're not different words. They're just different forms of the word, depending on how they're functioning in a sentence.
13:11
Remember, ton dayon, ton dayon. Ton dayon.
13:17
Yeah, that was a great night. Anyway, concerning the word of life.
13:24
And the life was manifested. And we have seen and bear witness. And again, martyreo, to bear witness, doesn't mean necessarily give your life.
13:33
It means to testify. Is again used, this is John. John testified concerning Jesus.
13:40
Same terminology is being used. And then it says, and proclaiming to you the eternal life, which ain was pros ton patera.
13:54
What is John 1, 1? The second phrase. Caelogos ain pros ton patera.
14:01
Is with God. And the assertion, finally got around to that.
14:07
I was sitting here going, is he ever going to put this up? I have it, I put it up here. I made the font big. I did the whole thing.
14:12
Ours, but you know, I, I assume that he was off talking in the chat channel, doing whatever, you know, it's just, just how it works, you know, anyway, and we are proclaiming to you the eternal life, which was, there's your, your ain, again, the same eternal form used in the prologue, which was pros ton patera, which is with the father.
14:46
Was pros ton theon in John chapter 1, but we know that that's what he intends in John 1, 1 because of John 1, 18.
14:57
And then when you allow first John to be a commentary as well, now you have further evidence of the fact that the, the
15:07
God with whom the word was in John 1, 1 is the father.
15:16
So you have one who is eternally existed. And our K a not log us in the beginning was the word and word was with God.
15:25
That is the log us is with the father. John 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, identifies him as a father.
15:34
And the word was as to his nature deity. And then back to first John and was manifested to us.
15:42
John 1, 14. So it's so clear that the author of first John is not only assuming that his audience has the gospel, but he's purposefully connecting this epistle at the very beginning with that gospel as well.
16:08
And if we, and I know the way that we have translated the
16:15
Bible and format of the Bible and things like that, it creates this.
16:22
I can memorize this verse here and this verse here and it sort of breaks stuff up. And the idea of looking for the themes and the connections and the language and use of verbal forms and things like that.
16:38
Can seem somewhat daunting or maybe irrelevant. And very often when we preach the text, you know, those of us who are ministers who preach the text, we don't explain these things.
16:50
I certainly tried last night myself to do that and noticed as normal the clock in the back of the church.
17:03
We rent is too small for me to see very well. And so.
17:10
And I don't like tapping on my phone or running a clock and like that.
17:17
No matter how, no matter how it feels to me, it always ends up being right at an hour.
17:22
It's just, it's just what it is. I'm not sure how that is working that way.
17:28
But anyways, I want to show that to you. There's so much of that in the
17:35
New Testament and Paul and things like that, that this type of analysis, these things, seeing those connections,
17:43
I think is important and helpful to people. So anyways, you can even though we didn't have it up very long, you can take that down.
17:54
I almost said something about, you know, he's busy with. He's busy with whatever he's doing over in the other room.
18:04
Which is not listening to me, but hey, don't worry about it. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
18:09
Okay. Okay. Now I had this tweet.
18:16
And I wish there were it was clear as to exactly when these things. Okay. It looks like August 5th.
18:25
Wow, it's been there this long. All right. I bookmarked this tweet from a
18:31
Roman Catholic named Mr. Casey at Mr. Casey 62. I'm not sure what 62 means.
18:42
Maybe it means date of birth. So then we're the same age.
18:49
It doesn't look that way to me. But anyway, and I thought, you know,
18:56
I'm not going to spend a whole lot of time on this, but I think it would be useful to folks to just sort of walk through something like this because this is the kind of claim that you see all the time and historically and biblically aware
19:13
Protestants used to be prepared for this kind of stuff, but we don't talk about much in our churches any longer.
19:23
And so just want to run through it. I wish there was a way to yeah, there really isn't.
19:33
Um, so he's responding to someone that I think
19:38
I follow Sola Chad. It said who tricked Catholics into believing that Peter is the rock.
19:46
Okay, so he's responding to that as a traditionalist Catholic.
19:52
Here's his way says who tricked Protestants. You know what I'm gonna do? I'm gonna since this is all going to be talking about this.
20:06
I'm gonna put it up there so that when we get to it, we can in fact, I'll just go ahead and okay.
20:16
Who tricked Protestants into ignoring every piece of evidence? That proves
20:23
Peter is the rock every piece of evidence. Rich finally got to use his camera over here.
20:34
You'll notice he just he just said can you hear that? Can you hear the the the teacher from I call that the
20:42
Edward R. Moreau angle. Okay, that is my favorite shot. Yeah, it's it's it's and it is my least favorite.
20:48
In fact, I hate it. So that's why it's his favorite and that's just how life goes at Alpha Omega Ministries.
20:56
After we've been working in the same thing for how long has it been? When did the 30 how many years 38 years?
21:05
Okay. All right. I am looking over here.
21:11
So I mean, I suppose that all right 15 reasons why we know he is
21:25
Peter is the rock. Fascinating to me. A person who would go back and listen to the third debate that I did in January of 1990.
21:42
No, December of 1990. At City the Lord in Tempe, Arizona.
21:49
Debated papacy would find a lot of this stuff address there and certainly this few years later.
21:56
When we did us over seven hour to night debate in Denver on the papacy.
22:04
All this stuff is fully address. This this traditionalist Catholic doesn't seem to have any idea what any of the problems of this are.
22:18
When you live in an echo chamber, that's what's going to happen. You're not going to be aware of what's outside of that.
22:24
And look, there are Protestants to do the exact same thing. I get it. I'm not saying that's great for anybody, but here it is.
22:30
All right, 15 reasons why we know he is Jesus and the Apostles spoke
22:35
Aramaic to each other. Not Greek. How do you know that?
22:43
I mean, do you know what was said in Greek? What was said in Aramaic and what might have been said in Hebrew?
22:50
How do you know what level of proficiency? Any of the
22:56
Apostles would have had in Greek. I mean, you can assume that Jesus didn't speak
23:03
Greek. I'm not sure what he was speaking to pilot in. I doubt pilot was proficient in Aramaic.
23:11
Haven't been sent there from Rome. So. That's all speculation.
23:18
I remember the Matthew 16 18 claim the Petrine promise, which is in the couple of the
23:26
Vatican in gold. Look up and it's in Latin, but it's around the couple of up there thought.
23:33
And it's in gold not talking gold leaf. We're talking in gold. Without it.
23:39
You have no papacy. Even with it. You don't have a papacy for that matter, but without it, it's done.
23:47
This is the central text. And there are so many.
23:54
Problems with the Roman Catholic interpretation of this text. That as I pointed out in the debate in 1993, you take each of these issues.
24:06
And let's say there's a 50 -50 chance that the Roman Catholic view is right on this issue. And then but that's dependent for this next issue.
24:14
There's a 50 -50 chance of 50. Once you put the whole line together. There's like a 3 % chance that the
24:21
Roman Catholic claim is true. Because you just have so many might be this might be that then it might be this might be that might be this so on so forth all the way down the line.
24:31
So you're going to see that despite the boldness of this fellows claims.
24:38
It doesn't it doesn't pan out. Of Jason Apostle spoke Aramaic to each other not
24:44
Greek. I would assume in most instances that would be true.
24:50
But what facility do they have in any of the languages? We don't know. Next the
24:57
Aramaic word for rock is Kefa. Well again 1993. I presented argumentation.
25:04
Chris Karagounis is scholarly article. That in that context the better Aramaic term was
25:12
Minra. There's more than one word for rock in Aramaic. And you have no idea.
25:20
Because we have no Aramaic original. For Matthew he's going to make the claim.
25:27
We'll talk about that moment, but you got nothing. So you're assuming you just assume.
25:34
What the Aramaic word would have been. When you don't know.
25:40
So the ultimate authority of the Petrine promise is again based upon speculation about languages.
25:49
We have no original sources for fascinating. Now Kefa is and I think part of what the guys responding to here is a less than Sterling argument the
26:06
Protestants frequently use because they know the difference between Kefa and Kefa.
26:11
That's not really relevant. Just as I was saying hadn't really thought about this when we were looking at first John and Lagu Lagas different forms in Greek language, but I think that's the main thing.
26:24
The guy has in the back of his mind is well Kefa sets a Peter but Kefa means a big rock or something like that.
26:32
Well, we could argue that and he's going to spend a lot of time not going to spend much time refuting it because it's not relevant.
26:42
But that's where it's coming from. So he says so GS actually said you are Kefa and upon this
26:48
Kefa. I will build my church. He doesn't know that. Pure speculation. How do you know you didn't say mineral?
26:55
And the most important thing is as was pointed out long long ago, but Roman Catholics don't read.
27:06
Criticisms outside Roman Catholicism just like most Protestants don't read Roman Catholics. The fact of the matter is that the real issue here is why?
27:21
Right here in Matthew 1618 and I say to you that Sue I Petras you are
27:33
Peter. Kai Epi Tau Tei Tei Petra. What kind of Meso?
27:39
Mutane Ecclesion Kai Pulai Hadu. Ooh, Katascusis and I'll taste so.
27:49
And upon this rock this why?
27:56
Why doesn't he say it upon you? What why and upon this rock?
28:04
I will build my church. That's if you're talking to the person you're identifying.
28:10
That's not how you speak and you can sit here and pretend. Well, that wouldn't have been in the
28:16
Aramaic. You don't know what the Aramaic was. You don't know it was in Aramaic. There is no
28:24
Aramaic of Matthew. He's going to make that claim later on.
28:30
But the point is this is the issue that he never even acknowledges.
28:36
Never even acknowledges. And this has been part of not only
28:45
Protestant but old Catholic criticisms of pre -Vatican one papal
28:56
Authority claims and things like that. It's nothing new, but the problem with the internet is you can take arguments that have been refuted many times in the past as long as you repeat them enough times social media.
29:10
They sound good. You'll convince somebody. So then he says, you know that because when
29:18
Peter is referred to by his actual name in the testament, he's called Cephas. He gives a number of different places where that is.
29:24
Yes. He is called Cephas. There's no there's no question about that that Peter Petras and Cephas are interchangeable, but that doesn't mean you know what term
29:38
Jesus used because he uses tout a. That's the problem.
29:44
If he was trying to make the play on words, he did it in a in the most obtuse way possible.
29:51
So it's highly probable that we're missing something. By trying to push that alleged identification as we'll see.
30:00
Next point Matthew's Gospels originally written in Aramaic see Saints Papias and Irenaeus second century and Eusebius history.
30:06
Oh, so we'll just simply hey, they mentioned Aramaic Matthew. Yeah, they did. We don't have it. We don't have it and there have been extensive papers written so on and so forth.
30:18
What is very obvious is the Matthew we have today was not originally written in Aramaic. It was written in Greek.
30:25
So you have to you have to pretend that the Matthew we have is not the original work of Matthew.
30:33
And you don't know who translated it. And so you have a derivative work that's in the canon Scripture.
30:40
And by the way before you go, yeah, but we're in the church. We can Define who says what? I don't think there's a single member of the papal biblical
30:48
Commission today that believes that Matthew wrote Matthew. So don't give me that. Catholic answers used to do that back in the olden days back in the
30:59
Patrick Madrid Carl Keating olden days. How do you know Matthew wrote Matthew?
31:05
And maybe they just didn't know back then that since Vatican to especially
31:10
Rome doesn't know who wrote Matthew and Rome believes that it's a pseudonymous work.
31:17
Somebody else wrote it Matthew. So to then say
31:23
Matthew's Gospels written in Aramaic, you don't know that. Yes, there are references to a
31:29
Aramaic Matthew, but that doesn't mean it was the Gospel of Matthew. We don't have it. We can't check it.
31:35
Therefore. Anything you're doing here is pure speculation and you're going to tell me this is the ultimate authority for the
31:41
Christian today. You don't accept this kind of speculative argumentation and you got nothing. This is the the sand foundation upon which the papacy is built.
31:53
It really is. They says when Matthew's Gospels translated into Greek by whom when we don't know.
32:02
And somehow the Aramaic disappeared. We can't find it. Don't know the translator knew some
32:07
Greek readers might not know the word kepha meant rock. So to make the rock image clear. He used the
32:13
Greek word for rock Petra upon this Petra. I will build my church. Well, how do you did you know who did the translation?
32:21
Did you talk to them? Did they leave anything behind whereby you can discern this or are you just simply mind reading someone from 2 ,000 years ago?
32:31
Evidently, that's what you're doing because you're ignoring again. The fact that this translator, whoever it was said talte epi talte te
32:46
Petra upon this rock not upon you. He had just said and I say to you soy first person singular second person.
32:58
Sorry. I say to you soy that sue I Petra's you are
33:05
Peter Chi epi talte. That's something else. That's the only way that language can be understood.
33:13
It's referring to something else. And if you just do what
33:19
Roman Catholics normally do and maybe look at some early Church fathers, you'd find many of them who will say this is based upon the confession of faith that Peter had just enunciated that Jesus was the
33:34
Christ, the Son of the Living God. That's what they believe. And they weren't were they early
33:41
Protestants? You're not going to say that now, are you? Probably not. upon this
33:53
Petra, I'll build measures again ignoring. I mean he puts the word this he just never seems to recognize that he needs to explain why you go from you second person to talte third person.
34:11
That's I doesn't even know the issue exists. The vast majority of Roman Catholics don't.
34:17
That's very dumb. Petra is feminine. Peter is a man. So Matthew had to take
34:23
Petra and masculinize it to Petras. He has to use Petra for rock. So his Greek readers will understand the concept.
34:29
He can't use the feminine Petra of Peter's name again. Now he this is why I say he seems to be primarily arguing against the
34:36
Petras Petra thing, which is what I heard when I was a kid. You know when I was young that was and so there's nothing wrong with pointing out that that's not strongest argument on the planet.
34:48
He says the claim that Petra means rock but Petras means stone was true in Attic Greek but never in Koine Greek the
34:56
Greek of the New Testament entirely entirely different dialect. That's way overstating it in Koine Greek both
35:03
Petra and Petras meant rock see fourth and fifth tweets. Well, that's not my argument.
35:10
And so I'm not going to spend any time pulling out the TLG stuff and looking for every use of Petra or Petras in Greek literature in the ancient world.
35:23
Not not my point. Not the issue. And by this time and by Jesus time any distinction between Petra and Petras had ceased to even exist in Attic Greek.
35:34
That's probably an overstatement. But between the 8th and 4th centuries
35:41
BC they were used as rock and stone and Attic Greek poetry, but that distinction had long disappeared by the time
35:47
Matthew is translated into Greek Koine Greek having become more popular in the 4th century BC and continuing and widespread use until the 5th century 80 even though obviously over that thousand year period.
35:58
There would be some who would not necessarily identify all of that as Koine Greek. So let's say
36:05
Petra and Petras are synonymous. It's not relevant to this particular argument. If Matthew would want
36:11
Peter to mean stone not rocky would have used a Greek word for stone lithos or even clearer Cephas which means small stone.
36:19
Okay, maybe so but again, do you know do you see what you just did?
36:26
You don't have a translator doing this anymore. You're talking about Greek, but you said this is all written in Aramaic.
36:34
So you don't mean Matthew. You mean the translator who is an uninspired person? You don't know.
36:41
Maybe you just didn't even notice that but I find it rather interesting here.
36:49
Jesus uses the second person personal pronoun you singular seven times in these three verses.
36:56
The context is clearly one of communicating a unique Authority of Peter here and to Peter alone again common error, which demonstrates this individual.
37:06
Is in an echo chamber is only reading Roman Catholic material and has never read anything that comes from the other side.
37:14
Which is the same thing with almost every Protestant in reverse, but yes, and I say to you.
37:22
You are Peter. Those are second -person singular as we pointed out we read it. But and upon this rock is not second -person singular.
37:33
Third -person the the pronoun the monster pronoun which is putting the in the feminine to mark to match
37:46
Petra, by the way, does not make sense if the continued direction is
37:53
Peter himself, but please note and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.
38:02
Verse 19 do so soy. I will give to you the keys the kingdom of heaven.
38:08
What is dosa? If this long post that he made maybe he cut and paste it from something else.
38:16
I don't know. But if this long post is going to have any meaning to it, he says communicating a unique Authority to Peter here and to Peter alone.
38:30
Okay, so I'll ask the same question that I've been asking for number of decades now.
38:39
What is dosa? Well dosa is from is a standard verb did me to give.
38:48
But why is it dosa? Because it's future tense. I will give to you not
38:57
I am giving. That's how it's almost always interpreted. By Roman Catholic Advocates is that it's not a future.
39:05
It's a present not. I will give so right there.
39:12
Now that rich caught up with me. I will give right there though.
39:19
So to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. So when did that happen?
39:30
It didn't happen here. Even though the guy says that he is communicating unique Authority to Peter here
39:36
Peter here and to Peter alone, but it's in the future. When did it happen?
39:42
Well, the only two answers are Matthew doesn't record it for us or it happens in Matthew chapter 18.
39:50
But you can't say math chapter 18 because at that point, it's to all the Apostles together. Not to Peter alone and down through church history.
39:59
Of course, there are all sorts of different views of these things and the primary people initially pushing.
40:06
Certain interpretations of Matthew chapter 16 happened to be in Rome for some strange odd reason and people outside of Rome had very different understandings these things.
40:18
But you can't there there have been those who would have seen
40:28
Matthew 18 as the fulfillment, but you can't do it anymore because of theological development within Roman Catholicism and especially after Vatican one and the infallibility of the
40:43
Pope absolute supremacy of Pope remember. Again, this is church history stuff, but there was a time when there were three popes busily anathematizing each other was right after the
40:56
Babylonian captivity of the church where you have the Avignon papacy papacy in Rome. The papacy in Rome had left
41:03
Rome and went to Avignon and then another group has reestablished
41:10
Authority in Rome claim to anyways, and they're busily anathematizing each other. And then a council appointed a new
41:18
Pope deposed the other two, but they refused to go. So I got three posts as well as the Council of Constance that finally rescued the papacy because the papacy could not rescue itself.
41:31
And so there was a there was a brief opening there. This is in the 15th century early 15th century.
41:38
There's a brief opening there for what's called conciliarism.
41:45
The idea of having councils as the ultimate Authority. But the papacy shut that down real fast and especially after Vatican one in 1870.
41:59
There's there's no way that that can make you rise from the dead shall we say and become the way things would be done and unless you're going to go.
42:09
Well, okay, so we were wrong back then so much papal infallibility that type of thing. So when is this either either it's not recorded which is highly strange or if it is it actually contradict
42:29
Roman Catholic teaching but this guy doesn't even seem to know on it doesn't even seem to know that that's there doesn't even seem to seem to go over the future.
42:38
I hadn't really thought about that. So insisting on stone versus rock and again, that's not that's not the issue is during the
42:47
GS said blessed are you signed by Jonah for flesh and blood is not revealed as to my father who is in heaven. I tell you you are an insignificant stone on the rock and on this rock.
42:55
I'll build my church. I will give you the keys to heaven. So what you is actually doing is giving Peter the man not his faith not his confession a threefold blessing the scene that knows what he said there the man not his faith not his confession many in the early church that recognize that the confession of Jesus Christ as the
43:15
Messiah the son of God is the cornerstone of the Christian church and that's why the gates of Hades will not prevail against the church by the way.
43:26
That language is offensive language gates are defensive. So what that means is the church will be victorious over the realm of death.
43:40
So it says blessed are you upon this rock I will build I will give you unto you the keys so he doesn't deal with the third person.
43:48
He doesn't deal with the future tense. So he's just running stuff together creating his own little narrative what he is not doing is blessing him that undermine his authority then blessing him again.
44:01
I guess I'm undermining his authority be upon this rock. I will build that tells you something about this man's view of the papacy that the confession of Jesus as Messiah and son of God is insufficient.
44:13
You've got to have Peter as the rock that tells you something the rock obviously cannot be
44:20
Christ because he's the builder. Well, that's like saying the sacrifice obviously can't be
44:26
Christ because he's the priest that offers. Oh wait, he's both isn't he? Yeah careful about that kind of argumentation
44:32
Christ rather is the wise man who built his house upon the rock the builder the corner stone the foundation of faith, but Peter is his foundation for the church.
44:42
That's just pure faith. That's not what the text is saying. That's just pure faith in his part.
44:49
And you know that because looking at the grammar with you are
44:54
Kefa and upon this Kefa this Kefa now he capitalizes all of this.
45:02
This Kefa must refer back to the closest now. No, it doesn't. Where did you get that?
45:09
And by the way, I thought this is an Aramaic. How would you know? Oh, well, to say this
45:18
Kefa refers to Jesus or to Peter's confession three verses earlier is to completely ignore the sentence of structure.
45:24
No, you are completely ignoring the sentence of structure. You are not answering why you go from second -person singular to a third -person demonstrative pronoun.
45:33
That's your problem. You're just not even aware of it. You've never been challenged. He didn't say you are
45:39
Kefa but upon this other Kefa I will build my church. No, as I asserted very strongly in the debate at Denver Seminary long ago.
45:50
The focus in this text is always on Jesus and any interpretation that changes that to for example,
46:00
Peter who is about to be called Satan immediately after this is a misinterpretation of the text misinterpretation.
46:08
So there you go. Okay. Want to cover that one had that one in the in the bookmarks there.
46:17
For a while and finally got around to it now back to in the last 15 minutes or so that we have on the program today.
46:31
Want to get back to I think it was yesterday.
46:38
I couldn't help honestly, but to even I had to comment on on X.
46:46
Let me see if I can find this here. It was man.
46:55
I repost that one thing about someone predicting the rapture again and my feed has been absolutely filled.
47:06
There is a. David Allen posted from the conclusion of my liberating
47:13
Romans from reformed captivity. Which again is just such a bad.
47:24
There are a couple people he quotes. That are. Truly problematic.
47:30
But one of them I really I want he said
47:36
David Bentley Hart's verdict on Augustine and his reformed heirs is both severe and salient and I went.
47:46
David Bentley Hart. Seriously. The pseudo -orthodox guy the
47:55
Universalist you're quoting David Bentley Hart as if this is relevant.
48:00
You can't you can't find better sources than this. It seems like as long as you can throw it and sticks to the wall.
48:08
David Allen's going to quote it. I mean, wow. Okay. I'm sure we can find some fascinating stuff that David Bentley Hart is said about things similar to David Allen's theology to because David Bentley Hart says a lot of really odd things.
48:26
So anyway. I wanted to get. To the change on size.
48:36
We're trying to get to where we trying to get to where.
48:43
David Allen's actually dealing with Romans chapter 8. To once again demonstrate that exegesis is not the forte of this book at all.
48:57
So but before we get there right before we get there, we have another Ken Wilson citation again uses sources.
49:05
Ken Wilson likewise was critical of Augustine's construal of the human will. Oh, you want to put that up to?
49:17
Augustine remained too committed to his systematic theology demanding a damnably corrupted evil will willer to entertain any notion of a neutral will in humans.
49:31
So let me just stop right there neutral will in humans where we're on Earth.
49:39
Can you get that from the Bible? I mean, have you read
49:45
Jeremiah recently? We don't even have to go to the New Testament read Jeremiah recently something about the leopard spots and Ethiopian and his skin and maybe
49:56
Proverbs. How about Nebuchadnezzar? I mean, there's just so much in the
50:02
Old Testament and then it's just so explicitly said that man is dead in sin.
50:11
And that does not and it's not that that means there's no response. No, the response is always negative. The response is rebellion inability to do what is good in God's sight.
50:22
This is the plain direct indisputable teaching of the text. And as Ken Wilson criticizing him for that sounds like it.
50:34
Precisely because this evil willer could only choose evil without God no neutrality, right?
50:41
God must infuse salvific initial faith as a gift. How about God must raise by grace the recipient of his grace to spiritual life?
50:57
And give to that individual everything that is needed for life and godliness.
51:03
Which would include repentance and faith initially by the power of the
51:10
Holy Spirit of God the same power that raised Jesus from the dead. How about that?
51:15
How about we use New Testament? There's plenty of New Testament stuff. We don't need to use as a following his current stoic and prior neoplatonic and Gnostic Manichaean views.
51:31
Wow, balderdash. Okay, it's just the level of absurdity is difficult to comprehend.
51:41
And again, this is why you'll never find Ken Wilson. Willing to debate this stuff based on the
51:47
Bible. Never do it. Never do it. Won't do it.
51:52
Just watch David Allen won't do it. Ken Wilson won't do it. They won't do it. Can't do it because all this
51:59
Manichaean stuff. Okay. So finally here we get to Romans 828 to 30 election and predestination
52:08
Romans 828 to 30 serves as a foundational text reform theologians who argue for the doctrines of predestination and unconditional election.
52:16
John Piper, for example, referred to Romans 823 as the most important text of all in relation to the teaching of unconditional election.
52:23
This passage is often described as the golden chain outlining what is known as the ordo salutis a logical and chronological sequence of events and salvation.
52:30
Then I score it's God's absolute sovereignty leaving no room for human agency. Well, it it contains and I would say
52:40
Romans 828 through 3435. Actually, this is an artificial limitation.
52:50
But at the same time the golden chain is not exhaustive of the ordo salutis by any stretch of the imagination. No one. I don't know of anybody who claims it that it that is exhaustive of of the ordo salutis.
53:02
So I again strange stuff from David Allen doesn't use our language.
53:08
Okay, same reason that Leighton Flowers doesn't either but Leighton Flowers claims with once Calvinist doesn't use our language.
53:17
That's problem. Oops. Go back. Thank you. However, there is strong exegetical basis for challenging the
53:25
Reformed reading Romans 828 to 30. Well, let's see if we can see some exegesis.
53:33
See if we can if there's actually some exegesis out there or if we just get a bunch of quotations of various people from every perspective under the
53:41
Sun rather than okay. Here's what it positively actually says.
53:48
Because we can do that. We've done that in this very studio for years. Hours of it on this text in response to David Allen a pivotal pivotal contribution.
54:02
This discussion is Aaron Sherwood's Romans a structural thematic and exegetical commentary a nearly 950 page work.
54:11
Oh my goodness. Utilizing discourse analysis to examine the structure and semantics of Paul's letter.
54:18
Is that Allen's way of saying I ain't doing this. I'm gonna have somebody else do it. Anyway, Romans 8 specifically highlights the divine initiative accomplishment and consummation of salvation for all believers.
54:35
Please note that the argument has already begun. This has a specific meaning for David Allen all that Romans a is talking about is what
54:49
God will do in response to man's faith. This is the issue with provisionism.
54:59
This is the fundamental issue. And that is well since Paul's already talked about faith in Romans 3 and 4 and 5 and you know, then he can't go back and talk about eternal stuff.
55:14
He can't talk about foundational issues now. So since he's talked about faith in the past and yeah, okay here in Romans 80s.
55:23
Yeah, he has said that those recording the flesh can't do what's pleasing to God and you know, all that kind of stuff but but look no.
55:33
Romans 8 specifically highlights the divine initiative accomplishment and consummation of consummation.
55:39
Not the not not the beginning. But the consummation of salvation for all believers.
55:46
But has nothing to do with who's going to be a believer. This this is the beginning assumption and it's going to then be used as the mechanism to get around when the text specifically makes reference to God's sovereign election unto salvation.
56:09
Because if if you say that someone is going to be conformed the image of Christ that requires all the salvation what they're saying is all this is talking about is that once you become a believer and once you buy your free will accept
56:29
God's free gift why everybody else doesn't do it. We don't know but doesn't make you better but your choice meets so once you demonstrate that you're a prime rib.
56:41
Then this is the promise of God that he's going to do this for you because you're a believer.
56:51
That's what you got. Then we had one of the first things
56:59
I pointed out in response to this this point is recognized by Armenians and Calvinists alike yet as Mu correctly cautioned.
57:07
This does not entail any minimizing of the importance of the human response of faith that has received so much attention chapters 1 through 4 that is a misuse of Mu that is a correct quotation, but we provided when this book first came out.
57:19
It's the first thing I ran into. And someone pointed out it's the exact same quote that we dealt with years ago when he misused it then too.
57:33
That's one of the reasons he won't debate. He can't defend this stuff. We've been exposing these errors for years.
57:39
He just keeps repeating them. It's just never ending but we provided the whole quotation from Mu and that quotation does not support this utilization.
57:52
So he's he's taking a quotation where Mu is going to specifically talk about the sovereignty of God all the rest is and because in his mindset believing is what drives everything not
58:11
God's choice. It's again provisionism starts with man reason up to God Bible starts with God down to man.
58:18
That's that's why provisionism is a misleading and destructive perspective.
58:27
Mu doesn't take that perspective, but Alan does and that's the problem.
58:37
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Look at that. Look at that clock. I don't have the time here to try to find my response.
58:53
Maybe and again just my apologies, but I'm I'm preaching the trips coming up.
59:02
I think it's I think I actually pick up the unit next week. I've got all the packing for that speaking at 1 2 3 4 least five or six churches on this trip over its 5 ,000 miles of driving.
59:24
So I've got a few other things going on including a debate with Dale Tuggy a dialogue with a progressivist got a few other things going on that somewhat limits the amount of time that I can put into tracking down stuff that we've that we documented years ago and the
59:38
David Allen has ignored all along. So, you know, there you go, but I'll try before the next program to pull up that quote so we can provide that before we move on to the rest of the citation, but we will pick up with that on on the flip -flop, which
59:56
I'm not sure when that's going to be I thinking I'm thinking Wednesday. We'll see see how it all works out.
01:00:04
Got a bunch of stuff going on this week. And then like I said, once the trip starts, you just got to watch the app to know when we're going to be getting together.
01:00:11
So, all right. I appreciate you listening. We covered a lot of you know, what
01:00:17
I have to admit a lot of technical stuff today. Okay, we were talking technical stuff in in John and first John technical stuff regarding the
01:00:28
Petrine promise allegedly in Matthew 16. Save times type of stuff here.
01:00:34
Some of you geeks. That's what you love. I get it. If you're not one of the super geeks apologize.
01:00:40
Sometimes we just got to deal with what you got to deal with and that's how you do things. Okay. All right.
01:00:46
Thanks for watching the program today. I do need to just mention. Yeah, got a trip coming up and diesel fuel has not gotten any cheaper.
01:00:57
It was going down a little bit when when Trump took over but it's gone. It's sort of snuck back up a little bit as far as cost.
01:01:05
And so we need your support and to be able to continue to do this and the trips and everything else that we appreciate that let you know about that leave that to God's people.