I will comment on the Peter Williams webinar:
1. One issue is whether his exposition is representative of contemporary Catholic theology. Like so many Catholic apologists, Williams is a layman. Not a Catholic theologian like Karl Rahner or Gerhard Ludwig Müller. Not a graduate of a Catholic seminary.
What we're getting from him is the usual version of Catholicism presented by lay Catholic apologists. An idealized, retro version of Catholicism. A version of Catholicism that's well to the right of mainstream Catholic scholarship (e.g. Bible scholars, church historians). Well to the right of the contemporary hierarchy.
2. He's concerned with definitions, such as defining the sufficiency of Scripture. Up to a point, there's value in that. But should that be the starting-point?
To begin with, you can defend the content of Protestant theology without having to defend all the classic formulations. Suppose "sufficiency" isn't the best word to capture the principle. So what? It's unlikely that a single word will be adequate to represent a complex concept. Moreover, it should be possible to express an idea using more than one particular word. Just because the issue is traditionally framed in terms of "sufficiency" doesn't mean we have to use that particular word to expound and defend sola Scriptura.
3. Apropos (2), when Protestants speak of sola Scriptura and the sufficiency of Scripture, what does Scripture represent? From a Protestant perspective, "Scripture" (or the Bible) is the inspired record of God's public, propositional revelation. By "public", I mean a revelation that's normative at every time and place–unlike a topical private revelation to provide guidance to a particular individual in a particular situation. This is a somewhat roughhewn definition. It could be further refined, but I think it's adequate for immediate purposes.
3. This, in turn, goes to the burden of proof. Is the onus on Protestants to directly prove the sufficiency of Scripture? Likewise, must Protestants begin with a precise definition of Scriptural "sufficiency"?
Not necessarily. If there is no viable or comparable alternative to Scripture (as defined), then by process of elimination, sola Scriptura is the only remaining option. In that respect, the sufficiency of Scripture is defined by contrast to the alternatives. They are insufficient. Indeed, they are false alternatives. You don't have to prove sola Scriptura or the sufficiency of Scripture directly; rather, you only have to disprove rival paradigms.
If Scripture is the only source of God's public, propositional revelation, then it naturally enjoys a certain primacy in relation to other sources of information or belief. Divine revelation is normative in a way that nonrevelatory sources or putative candidates are not.
That doesn't mean Protestants have no burden of proof, but I'm just framing the issue. Where to locate the burden of proof. And, of course, Catholics have their own burden of proof.
4. Williams says Scripture cannot be sufficient because we can't establish the canon from Scripture alone. We can't can't answer the canonicity of Hebrews by looking to the scriptures. We can't prove from Scripture that Jude is inspired. Scripture has no inspired table of contents or index. The canon is not implicitly materially within Scripture.
There are, however, some basic problems with his objection. To say Scripture is insufficient because Scripture is insufficient to give us the canon of Scripture is an eccentric definition. That's not what Protestants mean by Scriptural sufficiency.
In fairness, Williams may say the Protestant definition is arbitrarily restrictive.
However, the sufficiency of Scripture doesn't rule out the necessity of extrabiblical evidence to identify Scripture and interpret Scripture. For the point of contrast involves the distinction between what is revelation and what is not revelation. The fact that we need some knowledge of history, some knowledge of the world, to identify revelation and interpret revelation doesn't nullify the unique authority of revelation to determine our duties to God and man. If the Lord has verbally expressed his will regarding our duties to God and man, how could any nonrevelatory source of information function as an equally authoritative source and standard of guidance?
In fact, Catholic apologists concede this principle by appealing to ongoing revelation when they claim the Holy Spirit guides the Roman Catholic church into all truth. They themselves regard revelation, or the functional equivalent (the extraordinary magisterium) as a higher source and standard of guidance than nonrevelatory sources of information. So where the dispute comes to a head is (i) if there is ongoing public revelation, and (ii) the church of Rome is the organ of that revelation.
5. Another distinction. The sufficiency of Scripture stands in contrast, not to extrabiblical sources of evidence, but to an illicit argument from authority. Appeal to reason and evidence is very different from appeal to the Roman Magisterium or a Roman Catholic census fidelium. It's equivocal to say that when Protestants rely on extrabiblical evidence, that's a concession to, or equivalent to, "tradition" in the technical Roman Catholic sense of the word. Appeal to extrabiblical evidence is not an argument from ecclesiastical authority.
This is a problem with Williams contention that we need to go by "tradition" to establish the canon. But that's a loaded word. In Catholicism, "sacred tradition" or "living tradition" is hardly synonymous with evidence. Rather, it's a very selective view of what constitutes the relevant evidence.
6. Williams talks about "the Church hearing the Holy Spirit's voice", but in ancient debates over the canonicity of certain books, the appeal wasn't to detecting the Holy Spirit speaking to the church, but questions of authorship and evidence for authorship.
7. Williams neglects or underestimates the internal evidence for the canon. Underestimates internal evidence for the authorship of many biblical books. Overlooks the cross-attestation between many biblical books. Many biblical books naturally group together. You don't need separate attestation for the five books of the Pentateuch. They form a literary unit. You don't need separate attestation for Luke-Acts.
The historical books for a continuous history. Each succeeding book takes up where the preceding book left off. There's overlap between the historical books and the prophets. There's overlap between Acts and the NT epistles.
Books sharing common authorship go together. The Synoptic Gospels are interconnected. Later books frequently refer back to incidents recorded in earlier books. The phenomenon of "undesigned coincidences" is another example.
The fact that the case for the canon may need to be supplemented by external evidence doesn't reduce the canon to a random anthology of writings, as if we could just as well produce a different collection.
8. In prooftexting the Roman Magisterium from Mt 16, Williams makes the standard move of assuming that v19 is an allusion to Isa 22:22, then imports the entire Isaian context into v19. However, the related metaphors of keys, gates, and doors are stock imagery (e.g. Mt 23:13; 25:10; Lk 11:52; Jn 10:9; Acts 14:27; 1 Cor 16:9; Col 4:3; Rev 1:18; 3:7-8,20; 9:1; 20:1), so it doesn't require any special explanation, in terms of literary dependence, to account for the imagery. And even if it was an allusion to Isa 22:22, it doesn't follow that Jesus is reproducing the entire context of Isa 22, rather than mining the passage for picturesque metaphors or theological motifs.
9. To ascribe certain prerogatives to Peter does not imply that he alone has these prerogatives. Mt 16 doesn't contrast Peter with what is said about the other disciples in the Gospel. It doesn't say Peter had these prerogatives to the exclusion of the other disciples. It's illogical to infer that what is said about one person can't therefore be said about someone else.
10. Williams confidently says binding and loosing is a rabbinical concept. Well, that's one possible meaning. But the binding/loosing metaphor needs to be related to the keys metaphor. And is it coincidental that we have a back-to-back comparison between the "gates of hell" (v18) and the "keys to the kingdom of heaven" (v19)? Isn't that a clue?
11. When Catholic apologists like Williams quote statements about "the church" in Matthew and elsewhere, there's the danger of committing the illegitimate totality transfer fallacy, where they read a theological construct, based on all the varied occurrences of "the church" in NT usage, back into any particular occurrence. We need to avoid making "church" a loaded word wherever it occurs in the NT.
12. Williams initially says Jn 16:13 is a promise to the apostles, but later he reverts to the standard Catholic substitution when he says the Holy Spirit guides "the church" into all truth. But that's not what the text says. At best, that's reading apostolic succession back into Jn 16:13.
And even if, for the sake of argument, we suppose Jn 16:13 is a promise to "the church", there's nothing in the text or context or entire Gospel to index that to the Roman Catholic church.
13. He says Trent simply formalized the sensus fidelium regarding the scope of the canon, yet there was no consensus when the Tridentine Fathers met. Rather, two opposing camps were represented: the Jewish canon championed by Jerome and the wider canon championed by Augustine. Moreover, the final vote wasn't unanimous, or even a majority, but merely a plurality: "by a vote of 24-15, with 16 abstentions, the Council issued a decree (De Canonicis Scripturis)" B. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament (Oxford, 1987), 246.
14. Williams emphasized the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium, represented by the sensus fidelium. In my extensive experience, Catholic apologists routinely attack sola Scriptura and "private interpretation" on the grounds that you can't interpret the Bible on your own.
15. There's abundant evidence that the Roman Magisterium is not what it aspires to be. Abundant evidence that the church of Rome performs just like you'd expect from an all-too-human organization that lacks foresight, that's improvising on the fly, that can't anticipate future developments, and must therefore reinvent itself periodically. Like other Catholic apologists, Williams is offering us a winsome paper theory that bursts into flame when put in contact with the realities of church history.
"8. In prooftexting the Roman Magisterium from Mt 16, Williams makes the standard move of assuming that v19 is an allusion to Isa 22:22, then imports the entire Isaian context into v19. However, the related metaphors of keys, gates, and doors are stock imagery (e.g. Mt 23:13; 25:10; Lk 11:52; Jn 10:9; Acts 14:27; 1 Cor 16:9; Col 4:3; Rev 1:18; 3:7-8,20; 9:1; 20:1), so it doesn't require any special explanation, in terms of literary dependence, to account for the imagery. And even if it was an allusion to Isa 22:22, it doesn't follow that Jesus is reproducing the entire context of Isa 22, rather than mining the passage for picturesque metaphors or theological motifs."
ReplyDeleteThere is more to Isaiah 22:22 - Matthew 16:18-19 parallel than just keys and doors.
Key of the House of David = keys of the Kingdom of Heaven
Power of opening and shutting = power of binding and loosing
Eliakim, prime minister in the House of King David = Pope, vicar of Jesus Christ (Jesus seats on the throne of David - Luke 1:32)
So, we have parallel in: 1) the imagery of the keys, 2) scope of power, 3) type of office, and 4) its relationship to the throne of David. Thus, it is very clear that the context is indeed reproduced and office of the Pope is foreshadowed (like many other elements of the Catholic Church) by the office the Prime Minister in the House of David in Isaiah 22:22.
God is the one who gives the key in Isaiah 22, so an exact parallel would put Jesus in the place of God, not in the place of the king. If Jesus is God and Peter is the prime minister, then who is the king? Some church official with more authority than Peter? What about Isaiah 22:25? Should we assume that Popes can "break off and fall", and that the keys of Matthew 16 can eventually pass to God himself (Revelation 3:7) rather than to a human successor?
Delete"Power of opening and shutting = power of binding and loosing"
DeleteThe opening and shutting metaphor isn't additional to the key metaphor, but a variation on the same metaphor. Keys, doors, open, shutting.
Moreover, binding and loosing are absent from Isa 22:22. That's a different metaphor.
"God is the one who gives the key in Isaiah 22, so an exact parallel would put Jesus in the place of God, not in the place of the king. If Jesus is God and Peter is the prime minister, then who is the king? Some church official with more authority than Peter?"
DeleteJesus is both King and God, therefore He fulfills both parallels - of God, and of a king who sits on the throne of David (Luke 1:32), which proves my point. In the New Covenant Jesus takes place of the king of Israel from the Old Testament.
"What about Isaiah 22:25? Should we assume that Popes can "break off and fall", and that the keys of Matthew 16 can eventually pass to God himself (Revelation 3:7) rather than to a human successor?"
Isaiah 22:22 has parallel in Matthew 16:18-19 in at least four aspects, but it does not follow that Isaiah 22:25 must be paralleled as well - Jesus never alludes to this verse while speaking to St. Peter. The New Covenant is better than the Old, so it makes sense that the Prime Minister office is superior to its Old Testament parallel and thus will not "break off and fall".
"The opening and shutting metaphor isn't additional to the key metaphor, but a variation on the same metaphor. Keys, doors, open, shutting."
DeleteBoth are connected to each other. Eliakim can open and shut because he has the key, Peter can bind and loose because he has the keys - a very clear parallel.
"Moreover, binding and loosing are absent from Isa 22:22. That's a different metaphor."
Of course the parallels are different (just like Old and New Testament sacrifices are different or baptism and circumcision are different, just to mention few other parallels), they are nevertheless similar. Two sets of opposite actions (shut vs. open, bind vs. lose) signifying the power of a Prime Minister who in both cases serves the king occupying the throne of David.
I find it interesting how Protestants desperately look for stuff like imputation in the Old Testament, resorting even to Isaiah 61:10 just because it mentiones robe, while here such an unmistakebale and multi-level parallel is denied because it does not fit Protestant theological commitments.
Binding and loosing is not a "key" metaphor. So that's not a parallel. You need to acquire a modicum of literary sensitivity.
DeleteAt best, these are two different metaphors to illustrate a common principle. The question, then, is to identify the literal principle which they jointly illustrate.
Arvinger wrote:
Delete"Jesus is both King and God, therefore He fulfills both parallels - of God, and of a king who sits on the throne of David (Luke 1:32), which proves my point. In the New Covenant Jesus takes place of the king of Israel from the Old Testament….Isaiah 22:22 has parallel in Matthew 16:18-19 in at least four aspects, but it does not follow that Isaiah 22:25 must be paralleled as well - Jesus never alludes to this verse while speaking to St. Peter. The New Covenant is better than the Old, so it makes sense that the Prime Minister office is superior to its Old Testament parallel and thus will not 'break off and fall'."
If you're going to limit our analysis of Matthew 16 to what Jesus "alludes to…while speaking to St. Peter", then you can't appeal to passages like Luke 1:32. If we just look at Isaiah 22:22 and Matthew 16:18-19 in the way you're suggesting, then Jesus is God, Peter is the prime minister, and somebody else is the king who's over Peter and under God.
Since "the New Covenant is better than the Old", how do you know that prime ministers, keys, and everything else of relevance involved have the same significance they have in Isaiah 22, which you need them to have for a papacy to follow, while simultaneously knowing that other aspects of Isaiah 22 that are inconsistent with the papacy have changed? For example, how do you allegedly know that God and the king can now be two roles for one individual (Jesus), whereas the prime minister role must be fulfilled only by Peter rather than by Peter along with the other apostles or some such thing? How do you know that the prime minister role in the New Testament era isn't better than its Old Testament counterpart by not requiring any successors (e.g., Peter's foundational work in building the church is sufficient and requires no succession, much as Jesus' work as high priest requires no succession)?
You're changing a key (singular) to keys (plural), a key of the house of David to keys of the kingdom of heaven, and two figures as God and king to one figure who's both. You go outside of Isaiah 22:22 and Matthew 16:18-19 to get information about Eliakim and the prime minister office, and you go outside those passages to get information like what we have in Luke 1:32, yet you tell me to limit my analysis to what Jesus "alludes to…while speaking to St. Peter". You assume continuity where you need it, and you assume discontinuity where you need it, to argue for a papacy, without providing a justification for making those distinctions of continuity and discontinuity. You're not deriving a papacy from Matthew 16. You're looking for a Biblical text to read a papacy into.
The Isaiah 22 background to Matthew 16 (and other relevant backgrounds) can convey a theme of authority without that authority being of a papal nature. For example, ancient Jewish tradition applied the themes of Isaiah 22 to teachers without concluding that those teachers had something like papal authority (John Nolland, The Gospel Of Matthew [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2005], 679-80).
"If you're going to limit our analysis of Matthew 16 to what Jesus "alludes to…while speaking to St. Peter", then you can't appeal to passages like Luke 1:32. If we just look at Isaiah 22:22 and Matthew 16:18-19 in the way you're suggesting, then Jesus is God, Peter is the prime minister, and somebody else is the king who's over Peter and under God."
DeleteI'm limiting it to what the New Testament says, and nowhere is Isaiah 22:25 alluded to in the New Testament, therefore I conclude that the parallel does not extend to this verse - plain and simple. The parallel between Isaiah 22:22 and Matthew 16:18-19 is, on the other hand, unmistakeble. I already dealt with your objection regarding the king in the New Testament. Jesus is both king and God. Unlike in the Old Covenant, when king was a human and his power was limited to Israel, in the New Covenant the king sitting on the Throne of David is Jesus himself. He is both God and king who received his throne from the Father (Luke 1:32), like David received the throne from God. Both kings - king of Israel and Jesus, New Covenant king sitting on the throne of David, have their prime ministers.
"Since "the New Covenant is better than the Old", how do you know that prime ministers, keys, and everything else of relevance involved have the same significance they have in Isaiah 22, which you need them to have for a papacy to follow, while simultaneously knowing that other aspects of Isaiah 22 that are inconsistent with the papacy have changed?"
Isaiah 22 was about Prime Minister in the House of David, who foreshadowed the Papacy, not about Pope himself, so I don't understand appeal to "aspects of Isaiah 22 which are inconsistent with the Papacy", especially since the New Testament does not refer these other verses (like Isaiah 22:25). Of course, the offices are different, just like other parallel elements of both covenants are different. Jesus sacrifice on the Cross is different from the Old Testament sacrifices, baptism is different from circumcision etc. They are not identical, but similar, with the New Covenant parallels being superior to the Old Covenant ones. You seem to expect the parallels to be completely identical, which is of course not the case.
"You're changing a key (singular) to keys (plural), a key of the house of David to keys of the kingdom of heaven, and two figures as God and king to one figure who's both. You go outside of Isaiah 22:22 and Matthew 16:18-19 to get information about Eliakim and the prime minister office, and you go outside those passages to get information like what we have in Luke 1:32, yet you tell me to limit my analysis to what Jesus "alludes to…while speaking to St. Peter"."
Again, where does this assumption of parallels having to be identical comes from? Using your above objections I could argue that Old Testament sacrifices do not parallel Christ's sacrifice. Multiple sacrifices vs. one sacrifice - a difference, sacrifices on the latar, sacrifice on the cross - difference, sacrifice made by Jewish priests vs. Roman soldiers killing Jesus - difference. These are much bigger differences then the ones you mention, while similarities between Isaiah 22:22 and Matthew 16:18-19 are overwhelming:
1) key - keys
2) actions of opposite meaning (open-shut, bind-loose) to signify individual's authority
3) prime minister position in both cases
4) serving to the king of the House of David - serving to the king seating on the throne of David
Parallel is unmistakeable.
"You assume continuity where you need it, and you assume discontinuity where you need it, to argue for a papacy, without providing a justification for making those distinctions of continuity and discontinuity. You're not deriving a papacy from Matthew 16. You're looking for a Biblical text to read a papacy into."
DeleteI'm not assuming any discontinuity, I just point out that verses like Isaiah 22:25 are not refered to in the New Testament, therefore there is no reason to believe that they are relevant to any Old-New Covenant parallel. You insist on Isaiah 22:25 must be consistent with the parallel without any New Testament basis (this verse is not referred to in the New Testament), because you are desperately looking for something to deny a very clear parallel betwee the office of Eliakim and that of St. Peter.
Arvinger wrote:
Delete"I'm limiting it to what the New Testament says, and nowhere is Isaiah 22:25 alluded to in the New Testament, therefore I conclude that the parallel does not extend to this verse - plain and simple."
No, you're not "limiting it to what the New Testament says", nor are you limiting your appeal to Isaiah to verse 22 of chapter 22. Neither the New Testament nor Isaiah 22:22 refers to a prime minister, explains what his role is, etc. You're going beyond Isaiah 22:22 to get the contextual information you want while excluding other contextual information that's inconsistent with your desired conclusion (e.g., Isaiah 22:25). As far as the New Testament is concerned, your comments so far have ignored Revelation 3:7's application of the terminology of Isaiah 22:22 to Jesus (a closer parallel than the one in Matthew 16). You tell us, instead, that Peter is the prime minister who parallels the one in Isaiah 22. If you were "limiting it to what the New Testament says", you'd conclude that Jesus more closely parallels all three roles from Isaiah 22 (God, king, and prime minister), with Peter only having some sort of authority associated with keys that's just partially paralleled in Isaiah 22. Similarly, as Steve documented in his initial post, other New Testament passages also offer partial parallels to Isaiah 22 that are applied to individuals other than Peter (Matthew 23:13, Luke 11:52, etc.). And I cited John Nolland's comments on how ancient Judaism applied themes like what we see in Isaiah 22 to teachers who weren't thought to have papal authority or anything similar to it.
You write:
"Both kings - king of Israel and Jesus, New Covenant king sitting on the throne of David, have their prime ministers."
That's an assumption, not an argument. As I explained earlier, there are discontinuities between the passages (one key, multiple keys; the key of the house of David, keys of the kingdom of heaven; etc.). Whether there is a New Testament equivalent of the prime minister and how the role is fulfilled (by one person or multiple people; with successors or without successors; etc.) have to be argued, not just assumed. Given the partial nature of the parallel with Isaiah 22, you can't just assume that what you want to be paralleled is and what you don't want to be paralleled isn't.
You write:
"Using your above objections I could argue that Old Testament sacrifices do not parallel Christ's sacrifice. Multiple sacrifices vs. one sacrifice - a difference, sacrifices on the latar, sacrifice on the cross - difference, sacrifice made by Jewish priests vs. Roman soldiers killing Jesus - difference."
We accept the one sacrifice of Christ, its occurrence on the cross, and the execution by Roman soldiers because the relevant Biblical figures teach those concepts. By contrast, there is no such evidence for your reading of Matthew 16.
I haven't argued that New Testament parallels of the Old Testament have to be full parallels. Rather, I've argued that the partial parallel between Isaiah 22 and Matthew 16 doesn't imply what you've claimed it does. If scripture taught the papacy in a way comparable to how scripture teaches the nature of Jesus' sacrificial work (in Romans, in Hebrews, etc.), I wouldn't object to the papacy's only being a partial parallel to the Old Testament. But when your argument depends on parallels you can't demonstrate to be probable, with nothing accompanying those parallels that's comparable to something like what Hebrews tells us about Jesus' sacrificial work, that's a different kind of situation.
Something we need to keep in mind in discussions about the papacy is that it's problematic for Catholics that they have to resort to passages like Matthew 16:18-19 to begin with. Not only do the text and context of such passages not imply a papacy, but we wouldn't expect to have to go to such passages to find references to the office if it existed in New Testament times. The offices of elder and deacon are mentioned explicitly and often, with many details about the qualifications for serving in the office, the responsibilities of the office, etc. But to find a papacy, we have to go to passages like Matthew 16? And we're supposed to look for seeds and think in terms of development and an acorn growing into an oak? Nobody has to resort to that sort of approach to argue for apostles, elders, or deacons. Yet, we're supposed to believe that the papacy is so important as the foundation of the church, the center of Christian unity, etc.
ReplyDeleteTo make matters worse (for Catholics), when the New Testament returns to the themes of Matthew 16 elsewhere, Peter is put on equal terms with the other apostles. He uses the keys with them (Matthew 18:18) and is referred to as a foundation stone that isn't distinguished from the other apostolic foundation stones (Ephesians 2:20, Revelation 21:14), even though Jesus is distinguished as the cornerstone. What's the most likely implication when Jesus gets distinguished, but Peter doesn't? Most likely, the apostles in general are the highest rank in the church rather than Peter alone holding that position (1 Corinthians 12:28). It's doubtful that people would have been grouping Peter with other apostles as pillars of the church and naming him second, after James (Galatians 2:9), if he was thought of as a Pope. What we see in the New Testament is an absence of evidence for a papacy combined with evidence against the concept.
"Not only do the text and context of such passages not imply a papacy, but we wouldn't expect to have to go to such passages to find references to the office if it existed in New Testament times."
DeleteGratuitous assertion. There are numerous examples of Old Testament parallels with the New Testament, including the key aspetcs of both Old and New Covenant, so it makes sense that Jesus would draw such a parallel as He did between Isaiah 22:22 and Matthews 16:18-19 in a matter of such importance. Offices of elders and deacons are not described with the use of such parallels, since they are less important.
"To make matters worse (for Catholics), when the New Testament returns to the themes of Matthew 16 elsewhere, Peter is put on equal terms with the other apostles. He uses the keys with them (Matthew 18:18) and is referred to as a foundation stone that isn't distinguished from the other apostolic foundation stones (Ephesians 2:20, Revelation 21:14), even though Jesus is distinguished as the cornerstone."
All of this makes perfect sense in Catholic theology. Although Pope alone is the Vicar of Christ, the gift of infallibility is bestowed not only on him, but also on the college of bishops if it teaches in union with the Pope, which is consistent with power of binding and losing being given to all of the apostles. College of bishops in union with the Pope (like Peter in union with other Apostles) can bind and loose as well.
The evidence for Peter's primacy is visible also at the Council of Jerusalem, where Peter alone makes the infallible declaration regarding not circumsizing the believers (Acts 15:7-10), which ends the debate. On the other hand, James (leader of the Church in Jerusalem) makes merely a lower level disciplinary decision about unclean food, which was temporary (Acts 15:20).
Arvinger wrote:
Delete"Offices of elders and deacons are not described with the use of such parallels, since they are less important."
How does the fact that the papacy would be a higher office suggest that it would be referred to as we see in Matthew 16 and not in the ways in which the other offices I mentioned are referred to? The higher nature of the papal office didn't prevent later papal decrees, councils, catechisms, etc. from referring to the papacy in the manner in which other offices are referred to in the New Testament. Why would the papacy be referred to so differently in the New Testament, then?
You write:
"All of this makes perfect sense in Catholic theology. Although Pope alone is the Vicar of Christ, the gift of infallibility is bestowed not only on him, but also on the college of bishops if it teaches in union with the Pope, which is consistent with power of binding and losing being given to all of the apostles. College of bishops in union with the Pope (like Peter in union with other Apostles) can bind and loose as well."
You keep adding qualifiers (e.g., "if it teaches in union with the Pope") that underscore the distinction between the Pope and other bishops. The fact that the apostles were only authoritative in union with Christ didn't prevent the Biblical authors from distinguishing between Christ and the apostles in Ephesians 2:20 and Revelation 21:14. Yet, no distinction is made between Peter and the other apostles in those contexts, even though they're so parallel to Matthew 16.
Furthermore, the supposed fact that the bishops are infallible in union with the Pope doesn't explain why Paul would refer to the apostles in general as the first rank in the church (1 Corinthians 12:28), why Peter is referred to as he is in Galatians 2:9, etc. Whether the bishops are infallible and whether they can bind and loose when in union with the Pope are distinct issues from whether they're below the Pope in authority.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
DeleteYou write:
"The evidence for Peter's primacy is visible also at the Council of Jerusalem, where Peter alone makes the infallible declaration regarding not circumsizing the believers (Acts 15:7-10), which ends the debate. On the other hand, James (leader of the Church in Jerusalem) makes merely a lower level disciplinary decision about unclean food, which was temporary (Acts 15:20)."
All that Peter would need to end the debate would be to speak with apostolic authority, not papal authority. Your claim that he was exercising the latter rather than the former is gratuitous.
Peter's significance in this context is explained sufficiently by his apostleship and his role mentioned in verse 7. Papal authority isn't needed to explain what happened.
And you're wrong about "ending the debate". Verse 12 refers to the silence of the crowd, but the silence isn't due to an exercise of papal authority. Rather, it's due to their listening to what Paul and Barnabas had to say, as the verse goes on to explain. It would be difficult to listen to Paul and Barnabas if they (the crowd) weren't silent in order to listen to what was being said. The implication of verse 12 is that more evidence was being brought forward to support what Peter said. It wasn't a matter of silence resulting from a papal ruling.
Verse 13 tells us that James "answered", with the implication that he was addressing the same issue addressed earlier, not just the lesser matter you've suggested. Verse 14 refers to God's "taking from among the Gentiles a people for his own name", which is a larger issue than "merely a lower level disciplinary decision", as you put it. Verses 15-18 then go on to cite Old Testament passages that are likewise about the larger issue in question. James' reference to not troubling the Gentiles in verse 19 is parallel to Peter's reference to not placing a yoke on them in verse 10. James also discusses the disciplinary matters you refer to, but those aren't all he discusses. James uses the most authoritative language ("listen to me…it is my judgment"), and he has the last word. The letter that's sent out incorporates his language. If anybody in this context resembles a Pope, it's James, not Peter.
But verses 22-29 say nothing of papal authority from anybody. Instead, they repeatedly refer to "the apostles and the elders, with the whole church", "the apostles and the brethren who are elders", "it seemed good to us", etc.
Your interpretation of Acts 15 makes no sense. Where did your denomination infallibly give it to you? Or is it your private judgment?
"How does the fact that the papacy would be a higher office suggest that it would be referred to as we see in Matthew 16 and not in the ways in which the other offices I mentioned are referred to? The higher nature of the papal office didn't prevent later papal decrees, councils, catechisms, etc. from referring to the papacy in the manner in which other offices are referred to in the New Testament. Why would the papacy be referred to so differently in the New Testament, then?"
DeleteBecause God revealed it that way? The parallels are used for the elements of the New Covenant which are of prime importance - sacrifice of Christ is foreshadowed by the Old Testament sacrifices, baptism is foreshadowed by circumcision, kingdom of God is foreshadowed by kingdom of Israel, New Testament Israel (the Church) is foreshadowed by the nation of Israel etc. Papacy, as one of the most important aspects of the New Covenant, is revealed in the same way - in parallel with the Old Testament.
"You keep adding qualifiers (e.g., "if it teaches in union with the Pope") that underscore the distinction between the Pope and other bishops. The fact that the apostles were only authoritative in union with Christ didn't prevent the Biblical authors from distinguishing between Christ and the apostles in Ephesians 2:20 and Revelation 21:14. Yet, no distinction is made between Peter and the other apostles in those contexts, even though they're so parallel to Matthew 16."
The distinction is most certainly made by the fact that St. Peter alone receives the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 16:19), which other Apostles do not receive, because Peter alone is the Prime Minister in the New Covenant. Both him and apostles, however, have power to bind and loose, just like in the Catholic Church both Pope and college of bishops have power to bind and loose. Perfect consistency. Also, Peter alone is told to "feed the sheep" in John 21:15-17. The word used there is poimaine, which means also to rule and was used in Revelation 2:27 to describe Jesus ruling with the rod of iron. Thus, St. Peter receives a commad to rule the Church.
The context of Ephesians 2:20 and Revelation 21:14 is not governance of the Church or ecclesiology, therefore I don't see how are they relevant to the discussion, especially since they do not contradict the Papacy - it is true that Apostles are the foundation and that Jesus is superior to any of them, how does that deny the Papacy?
(continued)
Delete"Furthermore, the supposed fact that the bishops are infallible in union with the Pope doesn't explain why Paul would refer to the apostles in general as the first rank in the church (1 Corinthians 12:28), why Peter is referred to as he is in Galatians 2:9, etc. Whether the bishops are infallible and whether they can bind and loose when in union with the Pope are distinct issues from whether they're below the Pope in authority."
Because Apostles are indeed first rank in the Church, that does not preclude a further distinction between them. If you are hang up on the fact that Peter is mentioned as second in Galatians 2:9, consider these examples:
Acts 2:37 - "Peter and the rest of the apostles"
Acts 5:29 - "Peter and other apostles answered"
Mark 16:7 - "tell his disciples and Peter"
Matthew 10:2 - "These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon (who is called Peter) and his brother Andrew". Peter is mentioned first (protos, which can mean also "chief" or "principle"), even though he was not the first one to be called by Jesus. In Mark 3 and Luke 6 lists of Apostles Peter is also always first, even though the order in which other Apostles are listed is differrent.
Of course, I do not argue that these verses in themselves prove the Papacy, I just use your own standard derived from your argument that Peter is mentioned second in Galatians 2:9. As you see, in many other examples he is explicitly singled out among other apostles or mentioned first, or mentioned by name when other of the twelve are just called "other apostles".
You write:
Delete"The distinction is most certainly made by the fact that St. Peter alone receives the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 16:19), which other Apostles do not receive, because Peter alone is the Prime Minister in the New Covenant."
Keys are associated with binding and loosing and opening and shutting (Isaiah 22:22, Revelation 3:7, 9:1-2, 20:1-2), and that's what an actual key does (Judges 3:25), so separating the keys in Matthew 16:19 from the power of binding and loosing is contrary to the context of the rest of scripture. It goes without saying that if you have the keys, you can bind and loose (or open and shut). And if you can bind and loose (or open and shut), it goes without saying that you have the keys. These things are all part of the same imagery. Some passages mention one, some mention the other, and some mention both. Matthew 23 and Luke 11 are parallel passages. One refers to opening and shutting without referring to any keys (Matthew 23:13). The other does refer to a key (Luke 11:52). Similarly, Revelation 20:1-2 mentions binding just after mentioning a key, whereas verse 7 mentions releasing without mentioning the key. But the use of the key in verse 7 is implied. To try to separate the keys of Matthew 16:19 from the power of binding and loosing that all the disciples had (Matthew 18:18), then assume that the keys represent papal authority, is irrational and speculative.
You write:
"Also, Peter alone is told to 'feed the sheep' in John 21:15-17. The word used there is poimaine, which means also to rule and was used in Revelation 2:27 to describe Jesus ruling with the rod of iron. Thus, St. Peter receives a commad to rule the Church."
You're repeating the mistake you made with Acts 15. Apostolic authority is sufficient to explain Peter's shepherding and ruling, so an appeal to papal authority is gratuitous. Even people with offices lower than that of an apostle have similar comments made about them (Acts 20:28, 1 Peter 5:2).
You write:
"The context of Ephesians 2:20 and Revelation 21:14 is not governance of the Church or ecclesiology, therefore I don't see how are they relevant to the discussion, especially since they do not contradict the Papacy - it is true that Apostles are the foundation and that Jesus is superior to any of them, how does that deny the Papacy?"
You're misrepresenting my argument. I didn't say that Jesus' superiority contradicts the papacy. Rather, I noted that Jesus is described as superior, whereas Peter isn't. He's referred to in terms of equality with the other apostles, even though he could have been portrayed as superior, having a status between the apostles and Jesus.
I don't know where you're getting the idea that Ephesians 2 and Revelation 21 aren't in ecclesiastical contexts. Ephesians 2:19 refers to "God's household" (see 1 Timothy 3:15). Paul is discussing the "one body" of the church (2:16), how Jews and Gentiles are both "members of the body" (3:6), etc. Revelation 21 refers to the New Jerusalem "as a bride adorned for her husband" (verse 2) and "the bride, the wife of the Lamb" (verse 9). The theme of the bride of Christ is also prominent in the surrounding context (19:7-8, 22:17). The New Jerusalem is likely both a group of people and a place. Even as a place, its parallels with the church are significant.
Even if neither passage were in an ecclesiastical context, ecclesiology would still be relevant. If the early Christians thought Peter had universal jurisdiction, including authority over the other apostles, it wouldn't just affect their views in contexts that were primarily ecclesiastical.
You write:
Delete"Because Apostles are indeed first rank in the Church, that does not preclude a further distinction between them."
The "further distinction" Roman Catholicism teaches is that Peter was of a higher rank. So, the apostles aren't the first rank in Catholicism.
You write:
"Of course, I do not argue that these verses in themselves prove the Papacy, I just use your own standard derived from your argument that Peter is mentioned second in Galatians 2:9."
Peter is usually mentioned first, but isn't in a few places. See here. The best explanation for why he's usually mentioned first, but not always, is that he was the most prominent of the Twelve for non-papal reasons. The significance of Galatians 2:9 is that it's in a context involving reputation and being a pillar of the church. That's highly relevant to a papacy. (Remember, Catholics are the ones who place so much emphasis on the alleged significance of Peter's being a foundation of the church in Matthew 16, which is similar to the pillar concept in Galatians 2:9.) The idea that the early Christians believed that Peter was such a unique foundation of the church, the infallible ruler of all Christians, including the other apostles, yet he would be perceived as described in Galatians 2:9, is absurd.