Keys and Rocks and Popes and Fathers: One last Response to John Salza

John Salza responded to my exegesis of Matthew 16. As you can see, it is a quite lengthy response. We must note, however, that in all of its length Mr. Salza failed to admit or correct the errors and miscitations he made in his initial response to me. As a friend of mine noted, Mr. Salza seems like someone that will keep you writing for a long time. I have already written what he has asked (the exegesis of Matthew 16–a piece that went beyond what he asked). So my response here will be neither detailed nor lengthy–at least compared to his last response. There is no need to restate what I have already said. The only task here is to point out what I have already said to Mr. Salza–to be a little reminder, if you will. Let’s look at a few highlights:

Another of Mr. May’s tactics is to try to convince you at the beginning of the debate how illogical his opponent’s arguments are going to be, but this is nothing more than a smoke screen for the inadequacy of his own position. Please have patience with this dialogue, and you will see how Mr. May twists the Scriptures to his own destruction (2 Pet 3:16).

…Mr. May kicks things off by blowing a lot of smoke at his readers, but we will soon discover how shallow his approach to Scripture and the Fathers really is. We will see whose position is more defensible exegetically. We will also see how the Fathers not only fail to help Mr. May, but actually refute his contentions.

I’m sure we could find many words to describe what is cited above. “Humorous,” “ironic,” and “inconsistent” will suffice here. How are my opening statements any different from what Mr. Salza states above? He states, “… but we will soon discover how shallow his approach to Scripture and the Fathers really is.” Should I respond to this in a different manner than Mr. Salza did? Should I not simply state, “One of Mr. Salza’s tactics is to try to convince you at the beginning of the debate how illogical his opponent’s arguments are going to be, but this is nothing more than a smoke screen for the inadequacy of his own position”? Isn’t Mr. Salza claiming victory a bit early?

I have little problem with any of this, but it is a bit long winded and off line. Yes, Christ is establishing the Church which is part of His Messianic mission. The question Matthew 16 answers is upon whom Christ builds the Church and with whom Christ invests His authority to carry on His mission. As the text demonstrates (but which Mr. May denies), the answer is Peter.

Mr. Salza may view what I stated concerning v. 15-17 as long winded, but that is simply because his exegesis does not focus on this section. He does not build v. 18-19 off of the foundation and context of the passage. His interpretations of v. 18-19 make no sense in light of the preceding verses. Exegesis is about context. It is about foundation. And Christ’s “examination” of his disciple precedes his statements to Peter in this text.

But we must also ask Mr. Salza another question: where have I denied that Peter is the one on whom the Church is built? Where was that in my exegesis? (I did not affirm it, but I certainly did not deny it). You see, it was quite evident in my last interaction with Salza that he does not read my statements with care.

Here is where Mr. May runs into trouble. He says that Peter’s declaration did not give Peter “any primacy or superiority” above the rest of the apostles. A plain reading of the subsequent text, however, demonstrates this is not at all the case. After Peter communicated the Father’s revelation, Jesus renamed Simon to Peter, declared that He would build the Church upon the rock of Peter, gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and invested Peter with the singular authority to infallibly bind and loose (since what Peter binds or looses on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven).

Jesus gave none of these privileges to the other apostles. So it is not only exegetically untenable but also dishonest for Mr. May to tell us Peter was not given “any primacy or superiority” over the other apostles. Mr. May accuses Catholics of “reading back” into the text what we want to see, and yet his own exegesis reveals himself guilty of the error, not me. The text is clear that Jesus was giving Simon Peter a unique role in the early Church, and the Fathers were unanimous about this fact.

And here is where interaction with Roman Catholic “e-pologists” ceases to be enjoyable. They use the same language as the text but give it meaning that it never had, and yet still conclude that it is exegetically based. It isn’t enough to call Peter “rock” like the text does. What matters is that when you do so, you are alluding to what the text means by “rock”. The same goes for the Fathers. Modern Romanists tend to use some of the same jargon as the Fathers. But this doesn’t mean that they are saying the same things as the Fathers when they use this jargon. So my claim that Romanists “read back” modern Romanism into both the text and the Fathers is demonstrated here, and Mr. Salza’s only basis of denying it is to use historic jargon and, in essence, to read back into the text and into the Fathers. This the way it works with Roman Catholic “e-pologists.” You accuse them of being anachronistic, so they defend themselves using an anachronism.

Mr. Salza and I can use the same jargon when it comes to this text. But what matters is that what we mean by this jargon matches what the text intended it to mean. Are Mr. Salza’s conclusions supported by the rest of Scripture? Do we see Peter acting as infallible Pope in the rest of Scripture? Is that how the rest of the Apostles viewed these statements of Jesus? It isn’t enough to just point to the statements and claim that they support your position. You must demonstrate that your position matches the intentions behind the statements.

In regards to whether or not Jesus “invested Peter with the singular authority to infallibly bind and loose,” I must ask Mr. Salza, where does the text state that Jesus gave to Peter alone the Keys of the Kingdom? Yes, Jesus is addressing Peter here. But the verb is in the future tense (”I will give you”), so it is not here that he is giving the Keys. He does it later. And we see him do this two chapters over:

Mathew 18 18Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

This is the same content that is found in Mat 16. But here the authority is given to all of the Apostles, not just Peter (here the “you” is plural rather than singular). So Scripture directly contradicts Salza’s claim that Jesus gave to Peter any “singular” authority that he did not give to the rest of the Apostles.

No, Mr. May, only Peter “answers the question correctly.” Only Peter knew Christ to be the Son of God. The other “disciples” got it wrong (this is another example of Mr. May reading into the text what he wishes to see). That is why Jesus conferred upon Peter alone the special privileges of the keys and the singular authority to bind and loose. The readers will notice that Mr. May repeats this error in various ways throughout this dialogue. He does this in an attempt to minimize Peter’s importance. He wants you to believe that Jesus did not give any special privileges to Peter, but the text does not allow for such a conclusion.

“The other disciples got it wrong”? Where do we see that in the text? (Notice that Salza made this statement right before he said, “This is another example of Mr. May reading into the text what he wishes to see”). What we see is Peter answering on behalf of the disciples, and no disciple objecting to what he said. And Peter’s statements were correct because they were granted by divine revelation, not anything in Peter.

…The implication of your statement in this section (that Peter’s knowledge was based on divine revelation) contradicts your subsequent arguments that Jesus builds the Church only on Peter’s “faith,” but not his “person.” There is nothing about “faith” in Matt. 16:18-19. The passage is about God giving Peter a divine revelation, and Peter communicating that revelation.

1. Where did I argue “that Jesus builds the Church on on Peter’s ‘fath’ but not his ‘person’”?

2. The emphasis is on neither the person nor the faith. The emphasis is on the revelation. What is exegetically inconsistent with saying that Christ built his church on this revelation?

No problem. Peter would be nothing without Jesus. Catholics agree. But this isn’t relevant to the discussion. Mr. May is creating a straw man to knock down.

No, I’m exegeting the passage to its full potential rather than approaching it with a traditional point of view before I even allow for it to be meaningful.

Matthew 16:18-19 does not say “Christ is the rock on which the Church is built.” It says Peter (Petros) is the rock on which the Church is built.

No, it says Petra is the rock on which the Church is built. Don’t accuse me of putting things into the text in the very moment that you are guilty of doing so.

It is interesting that you used the title “Prince of the Apostles.”

Where have I done this? Mr. Salza certainly does not read me with any care.

You imply that calling Peter “rock” does not “necessitate an infallible Pontiff,” and then make a statement about “apostolic succession.” Let’s deal with these one at a time. First, you admitted that Peter made an infallible declaration in calling Jesus the Christ, which He received from the Father. So you are not going to deny that God gives Peter the ability to communicate infallibly, are you? And as a result of Peter’s infallible declaration, Jesus says He will build His Church upon Peter, and gives Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven and the authority to bind and loose.

Where does the text state that God gives Peter the ability to communicate infallibly? The text states that Peter received revelation of truth from the Father. What was the revelation? It concerned the person and work of Christ. I affirm that the Father gives this revelation to all believers. No one has within them the capacity to believe. I am a Calvinist, remember, Mr. Salza. The elect must be regenerated and have the person and work of Christ revealed to them.

Let’s skip down and take a quick look at Mr. Salza’s handling of the Fathers:

Mr. May quotes from the early Fathers primarily to prove that Peter is not really the rock of the Church.

You will notice in Mr. Salza’s handling with me that he treats me as if I were some generic protestant. Is he really reading my arguments? Has he given any care to what I have to say? My point was not to prove that Peter is not really the rock of the Church. My point, rather, was to show that the early Fathers are divided on the issue, that we lack the “unanimous consent” that the Church demands, and that the notion that Mr. Salza’s interpretation of this passage has any basis in “tradition” is a propagated myth.

Augustine is not saying that Peter is not the rock of the Church, as Mr. May contends. Augustine is saying that Jesus is the rock and Peter is ingrafted into Jesus because he is Jesus’ Vicar. Jesus is the source, not Peter. That is why Augustine says “Peter is so called from the rock; not the rock from Peter.” This is what I have said all along. Jesus is the rock, but He shares this status with Peter. Augustine’s comments underscore that Peter has truly received a divine appointment from Christ. He rules and governs the Church as the Vicar of Jesus Christ Himself.

Augustine’s comments also highlight the unifying principle that Peter’s seat of authority brings about in Christ’s true Church. Augustine says “Peter is the Christian people” because Peter is the source of unity for the entire, universal, Catholic Church. This is why the thousands of Protestant denominations (all who reject papal authority and even disagree with each other on basic Christian doctrines) cannot be Christ’s true Church.

Augustine also says:

“Number the priests even from that seat of Peter. And in that order of fathers see to whom succeeded: that is the rock which the proud gates of hades do not conquer.” Augustine, Psalmus contro Partem Donati (A.D. 393).

Augustine recognizes not only Peter’s seat of authority, but also that Peter’s chair has successors. Mr. May, who are Peter’s successors? Can you provide us a list? I can.

Who does Augustine say the Petra is in Matthew 16? He says that it is Christ himself. Augustine disagrees with Mr. Salza on this text, yet Salza acts as if Augustine supports his position. But we still have so many unanswered questions. Where does Augustine call Peter the “Vicar of Christ”? Where does Augustine consider Peter to be infallible Pope? And who does Augustine consider to be a successor of Peter? And does that agree with the rest of the Fathers? Does his list match Rome’s?

Gregory Nazianzen explains that true apostolic succession comes from doctrinal correctness, not a historical lineage:

“Thus, and for these reasons, by the vote of the whole people, not in the evil fashion which has since prevailed, nor by means of bloodshed and oppression, but in an apostolic and spiritual manner, he is led up to the throne of Saint Mark, to succeed him in piety, no less than in office; in the latter indeed at a great distance from him, in the former, which is the genuine right of succession, following him closely. For unity in doctrine deserves unity in office; and a rival teacher sets up a rival throne; the one is a successor in reality, the other but in name. For it is not the intruder, but he whose rights are intruded upon, who is the successor, not the lawbreaker, but the lawfully appointed, not the man of contrary opinions, but the man of the same faith; if this is not what we mean by successor, he succeeds in the same sense as disease to health, darkness to light, storm to calm, and frenzy to sound sense.” (Oration 21:8)

“On him He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair.” Cyprian, c.A.D. 246, De ecclesiae catholicae unitate 4, in Jurgen’s The Faith of the Early Fathers, vol. 1 (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1970), p. 220.

Mr. May, did you catch that? Cyprian says “but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair.” Will you now recant your irresponsible reliance upon Michael Winter and your own position that Peter does not have primacy?

Anyone with a basic knowledge of the early Church Fathers would never make the claims that Mr. May advances. It just shows that Mr. May doesn’t really know the Fathers or Scripture like he thinks he does.

Again, same questions: Where does Cyprian consider Peter to be infallible Pope? Where does Cyprian exegete Matthew 16 the way that Salza does? But we should also note that Salza’s response here has no relevance to anything I have said. I have no where claimed that Cyrpian did not view Peter with primacy (and, by the way, it isn’t enough to simply cite the Father as having a view of Peter unique to the other Apostles. He must view him as infallible Pope). As to Salza’s question, no, I will not “recant” my position based upon this quote of Cyprian. My position is based upon the foundation of the Scriptures, not of the Fathers. But Rome’s foundation is supposed to be based upon the tradition of the Fathers, but we have yet to see a Father view this passage in the same way that Salza does.

These same principles apply the Mr. Salza’s handling of the rest of the Fathers. He makes the “jargon” error: semantic anachronisms. He sees a Father calling Peter “rock,” or attributing to Peter some primacy, but we never see Peter referred to as infallible pope. It would simply be too lengthy to go through each individual one (even lengthier than his response). But readers may see what he has to say by looking at his comments for themselves. Near the end of his reply, Mr. Salza states “Catholics do not believe in Sola Ecclesia.” This may be easily uttered in words, but practice denies it. Romanists argue that the church defines Scripture (i.e., the canon), that the church interprets Scripture, that the church defines tradition (arbitrarily, we might add), and that the church interprets tradition. What, then, has more authority than the church?

I hope this short dialogue is helpful to those who read it, Catholic and Protestant alike. I will take my leave and let the readers be the judge of who is more faithful to the plain meaning of Scripture, me or Mr. May. If Mr. May comes back and continues to accuse me of “reading into” the text, we will know why this debate is over.

I’m glad that Mr. Salza has engaged me on this issue. I apologize that my reply here was not more detailed, but I simply do not have the time to re-hash everything that has already been stated, when a reply in principle would suffice.

Thank you readers,
Evan May.