Friday, August 10, 2012
Let's be Honest about the Papacy
With few corrections in grammar, the following are comments I left at Triablogue --->HERE<---
Any other significant additions by me are in double brackets.
Let's be honest. If Peter was the Pope then:
1. Why were the Zebedee brothers asking if they could be Jesus' right-hand and left-hand men (Matt. 20:20ff) if Jesus already made it clear that Peter was to be the Pope in Matt. 16? Why wouldn't the Gospel writers correct their misunderstanding and state that Peter was Pope? [[We know that Mark made a comment about Jesus' teaching in 7:19.]]
2. Why wouldn't Paul make the exception of Peter when he sarcastically referred to "super apostles" (2 Cor. 11:5) if the Papacy is true?
Indeed, I consider that I am not in the least inferior to these super-apostles.-ESV
For I consider myself not in the least inferior to the most eminent apostles.-NASB
3. When Paul's apostleship was questioned by some, why didn't he immediately appeal to the fact that the Pope acknowledged his genuine apostleship to settle the issue, if the Papacy is true?
4. In light of 1 Cor. 1:12ff and the whole of chapter 3, why wouldn't Paul refer to Peter as Pope? If the Papacy is true, then there can be a genuine sense in which one could say, "I am of Cephas/Peter". Even if there might be a negative fleshly sense in which it can be said. Yet Paul doesn't explicitly affirm or implicitly acknowledge the Papacy. Nor does Paul address the abuses of the Papacy but deals with himself, Peter and Apollos as equals. It seems to me that a Pope cult developed years later (as the Orthodox have documented).
5. If the Papacy is true, why would Paul (in Gal. 2:9) refer to James, Cephas, and John as seeming/reputed pillars of the Church when he knows all along that there is a special sense in which Peter is pope? He refers to all three as if they were equals.
6. Regarding the same context, if the Papacy were true, why would Paul say what he did in Gal. 2:6?
And from those who seemed to be influential (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me.-ESV
But from those who were of high reputation (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)-- well, those who were of reputation contributed nothing to me.-NASB
Paul implies his equality with them (including Peter).
7. If central authority was essential to Christianity, why didn't Jesus do something about those others who were preaching in His name (Mark 9:38ff)? If the Papacy were true, why would Jesus say, "For he that is not against us is on our part"? Notice I cited Mark's gospel. The gospel that may have been based on Peter's sermons. Why wouldn't Mark make clear in this passage (or any where else in this gospel) that Peter is the Pope?
8. If the Papacy is true, why in John 12:20-22 did Philip go to Andrew and then together they went to Jesus, when Philip could have gone to Peter as the Pope? The only way I can understand this is if the Church didn't realize Peter was the Pope until later. Maybe after the resurrection. If so, when exactly after the resurrection? Before or after Paul's conversion? Before or after Peter's own death? How many generations or centuries afterward?
9. If the Papacy is true, why isn't that office mentioned in Eph. 4:11-12, 1 Cor. 12:28-29, 1&2 Timothy or Titus?
10. If the Papacy is true, why doesn't Peter (in his epistles) acknowledge or make reference to it? In fact, Peter refers to himself as a "fellow elder" (1 Pet. 5:1ff) in a context where it would be supremely fitting for him to appeal to his position as Pope.
So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed:- ESV
Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed,-NASB
11. If the Papacy is true, then why doesn't the author of Hebrews acknowledge the Papacy in light of the fact that authority and priesthood are two of the main topics of the book? How could such a supposedly vital and useful office not be referred to in any of the epistles (including Peter's) or in this very long book (Hebrews)?
12. If the Papacy is true, why didn't Christ sent Paul immediately to the Pope to be instructed and have his apostleship legitimized? Or why didn't Christ send Peter to Paul ahead of time like Cornelius did when he sent two of his servants and one of his soldiers to find Peter? Instead Christ sends Ananias to Paul. You might say that it's because Ananias was closer. But Paul didn't visit Peter for years afterward. In all those years, Paul could have gone to see Peter, or Peter to have seen Paul. When they do meet, Paul refers to Peter and the others as not having "added/contributed anything" to him (Gal. 2:6). How could the Pope not add/contribute anything to Paul? After Paul's conversion, many Christians feared whether he was a false convert. At any time he could have sought the Pope's confirmation.
13. If the Papacy is true, then wouldn't the Jews know that Peter was the Pope and therefore the leader of Christianity? If so why didn't they go after him and "cut off the head", as it were? Why, instead, go after Paul (Acts 21:28)? As Jason said, "he's the man they hold most responsible for teaching Christianity everywhere." It was Paul, not the Pope that opponents of Christianity wanted to assassinate (Acts 23:12).
14. Paul says in 1 Cor. 11:1 "Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ." (ESV). Why doesn't Paul or any other writer of the NT say that about Peter, especially since he's supposed to be the Pope? Excluding Matthew (because of the disputed interpretation of chap. 16), no New Testament writer teaches about or refers to (even implicitly acknowledges) the office of the Pope (or Peter as Pope). Not the writer of Hebrews, or Mark, James, Jude, or in the entire Lukan, Johannine, Pauline, (EVEN!) Petrine corpus.
15. If the Papacy is true, why would Peter's centrality fade in NT history as the book of Acts shows and as the rest of the epistles show by their deafening silence of Peter? Before Luke published Acts, he could have conferred with other Christians regarding the Pope's whereabouts and activities. But he didn't. [[It might be said that Luke was in a rush to get his book distributed. Still, why didn't he publish a longer version with the Pope's history included? Why wasn't a book written in the NT that was dedicated to the Pope's exploits? Any of the Apostles' assistants could have done it (obviously with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit).]]
Finally, EVEN IF Peter were the Pope, that doesn't prove that his successors have the same or similar prerogatives. Apostolic succession is an additional burden of proof Catholics need to shoulder.
The following 16th question was added MONTHS AFTER Dave Armstrong interacted with this blog post. I'm noting this to be fair to him. He's always welcome to respond to it or continue the dialogue.
16. If the Papacy is true, then why didn't Jesus explain in what sense Peter was leader of the Church and of the other apostles after He explained how the leaders of the Church aren't supposed to "Lord it over" their fellow believers in Matt. 25:24-28? Jesus said this in the context of when the sons of Zebedee (James and John) wanted to be the top leaders in Jesus' Kingdom.
24 And when the ten heard it, they were indignant at the two brothers.
25 But Jesus called them to him and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them.
26 It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant,
27 and whoever would be first among you must be your slave,
28 even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." (ESV)
I understand that the Pope considers himself to be the "Servant of the Servants of God" (an official title). However, a case can be made that the bishop of Rome has "Lorded it over" other believers and bishops (as Tertullian argued when he sarcastically called the bishop of Rome "Pontifex Maximus" on account of how Callistus abused his bishopric by asserting/claiming more authority than he actually had).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My posts are now not allowed to be instantly posted at Triablogue, so here are my latest:
ReplyDeleteHi AP,
Thanks for your kind words. It has been an enjoyable dialogue.
I can't respond right now; gotta do my regular work that I am behind on (probably later today), but I wanted to preface any reply by noting the curious irony of the structure of all your questions: "If the Papacy is true, why [Bible passages x, y, z, etc.] . . . ?"
This is, of course, an argument from plausibility: precisely similar to many in my 50 Petrine Bible Proofs.
But you and Jason have bashed that form of argument when I make it on behalf of a papacy. He described my method as "the same sort of bad reasoning that Catholics often apply to Peter." You called it "Catholic-style eisegesis" and a "sophistical game."
The logical structure of most (but not all) of my 50 proofs was:
1. "IF we assume for the sake of argument that Peter was indeed a leader / "pope" then would the (presented) data in the Bible about Peter be consistent with that notion?"
You simply flip that around, using the same logical structure for the opposite proposed conclusion:
2. "IF we assume for the sake of argument that Peter was NOT a leader / "pope" then wouldn't the (presented) data in the Bible about Peter be consistent with that notion and inconsistent with his being pope?"
It's the same sort of argument: from plausibility, analogy, and strong to the degree that it creates a cumulative effect: if each point can be solidly defended under scrutiny.
Therefore, since (far as I can tell), your fifteen questions are perfectly serious: not merely a reductio that utilizes (as you view it) unworthy Catholic eisegetical methods, how is it that it is legitimate exegetical analysis or permissible speculation when you use it to argue against the papacy, but sophistical eisegesis when I use it to defend same?
You seem to be perfectly serious, rather than tongue-in-cheek or turning the tables (merely rhetorically) when you state things like "for someone like myself, these questions seriously call into question the concept of the Papacy." That's not just joking and fooling around, is it?
It seems to me, then, that if you wish to argue in this way, you have to retract your opinion of my method as a whole in my 50 Proofs paper. You can still, of course, disagree with my particular and broad conclusions (just as all Bible exegetes will question others in good faith).
That is much different, however, from questioning the entire methodology from a to z, and classifying it as "sophistical eisegesis" etc. It's simply attempted exegesis that you disagree with for [biblical] reasons a, b, c.
***
We could also compare your method and mine in another way by using your exactly stated structure:
AP: "If the Papacy is true, why [Bible passages x, y, z, etc.] . . . ?"
Dave: "If the Papacy is untrue, why [Bible passages x, y, z, etc.] . . . ?"
You say I can't and shouldn't argue in that fashion in my paper, yet you are allowed to do it with your 15 questions? It's a disconnect and inconsistent.
Either both are legitimate forms of argumentation (considered apart from the particular premises and conclusions drawn) or neither is. It can't be (logically) that one is legitimate and the other not.
For elaboration on arguments from plausibility, see the following book devoted to it (esp. p. 3 ff.):
http://books.google.com/books?id=ef1S81lVT-YC&pg=PA3&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false
Am I banned now at Triablogue so it can look like you got in the last word in great triumph and I have departed in abject terror in the face of invulnerable Protestant arguments? LOL
ReplyDeleteHow impressive if so. So far my comments above have not appeared there.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI can't respond to you in full at the moment. Maybe tomorrow. My comments had to be approved too. I posted my comments around 3AM central time. I estimate that they were posted on Triablogue past 10 AM central because they weren't posted at 7AM, but I did see them around noon time.
ReplyDeleteI can't respond to you in full at the moment. Maybe tomorrow. My comments had to be approved too. I posted my comments around 3AM central time. I estimate that they were posted on Triablogue past 10 AM central because they weren't posted at 7AM, but I did see them around noon time.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNow they aren't posted after almost 24 hours. Are you willing to publicly protest these absurd "shut up all dissent" tactics?
ReplyDeleteIf you're still alive, I've replied to your remaining comments, including your 15 points: all added to my existing paper:
ReplyDeletehttp://socrates58.blogspot.com/2012/08/failed-protestant-attempts-to-tear-down.html
Enjoy!
Sorry for my delay in responding. I had other obligations during the weekend.
ReplyDeleteDave, you said...
This is, of course, an argument from plausibility: precisely similar to many in my 50 Petrine Bible Proofs.
I have no problem with the form of argument you used. I use abductive arguments all the time. As you probably know, abductive arguments are a form of inductive argumentation whereby one argues to that hypothesis/theory which has the greatest explanatory power and explanatory scope (AKA inference to the best explanation). I've repeatedly affirmed in my posts on Triablogue that I use abductive arguments.
My problem with your responses is not the form of argumentation, but that you haven't provided positive proof (or at least strong evidence) for the Papacy. You've only made attempts to show how none of my objections or questions demonstrates the Papacy cannot be true. As I said before...
Primacy is consistent with Papacy, but it doesn't amount to Papacy. ... The burden of proof is on Catholics to prove Papacy, not MERELY to prove things consistent with it.
Maybe you provide such evidence in your other works. But I'm not familiar enough with your works to know if and where you do. So, I just need to browse through your works to find out. I'll start with ones you've already suggested.
But you and Jason have bashed that form of argument when I make it on behalf of a papacy.
I didn't bash the form of the argument. I criticized how you made inferences that didn't follow. Or made greater inferences than was justified.
You simply flip that around, using the same logical structure for the opposite proposed conclusion:
But I wasn't making the positive assertion. You're the one who's making the additional claim that Peter was the pope. I'm merely asking for the evidence for that claim. I didn't say positively that Peter absolutely cannot have been the pope. I was saying that the evidence (or lack thereof) doesn't lead me to conclude that the Papacy is Biblically true. On the contrary, the evidence would suggest that
it is false.
The one who positively claims there's buried treasure at location X has the burden of proof, not the one who doubts it.
We were discussing the inductive Biblical case for the Papacy. So, I'm waiting for the positive evidence. Unless, that is, you want to argue presuppositionally and/or transcendentally for the Papacy.
2. "IF we assume for the sake of argument that Peter was NOT a leader / "pope" then wouldn't the (presented) data in the Bible about Peter be consistent with that notion and inconsistent with his being pope?"
You're making a leap in logic. To affirm that Peter was the leader of the Apostles isn't equivalent to saying Peter is the pope.
I said, Affirming that the apostles were equals doesn't mean that one can't at the same time affirm that Peter had primacy.
You're the one using "either/or" thinking when you imply that "EITHER Peter had primacy OR the apostles were equals. Since, Peter clearly had Primacy, THEREFORE the apostles weren't equals. Hence the Papacy is true. QED". But that's a false dichotomy/dilemma. It's possible (and I believe at the present) that it's BOTH the case that Peter had Primacy AND the Apostles were equals (such that Peter wasn't the "Pope").
That's why you can quote Protestant scholars who affirm Petrine Primacy and yet those same scholars reject the Papacy.
CONTINUED
ReplyDeleteIt's the same sort of argument: from plausibility, analogy, and strong to the degree that it creates a cumulative effect: if each point can be solidly defended under scrutiny.
That's not just joking and fooling around, is it?
Yes, I'm being serious.
That is much different, however, from questioning the entire methodology from a to z, and classifying it as "sophistical eisegesis" etc. It's simply attempted exegesis that you disagree with for [biblical] reasons a, b, c.
Notice I criticized the exegesis, not the form of argumentation.
It seems to me that attempting to present a case for the Papacy using a long chain of syllogisms (each link of which can be disputed) doesn't bode well for the truth of the Papacy. Since it's supposed to be a dogma of the Church that goes back to the days of the Apostles and yet when we search the NT we don't find it explicitly taught. At least I don't.
Dave, here are some questions I have, which you're free to answer or not. We're both busy, so I understand if you don't.
1. Do you believe that the NT explicitly or implictly teaches the Papacy?
2. When do you believe the Church explicitly and consciously believed in the Papacy?
3. Do you believe that sometime during his lifetime Peter consciously knew he was the Pope? If so...
4. Do you believe Peter knowingly had all the prerogatives that Vatican I says the Pope has? Or do you believe he had them, even if he wasn't aware of having them (since maybe it was later understood by the Church that Popes have such prerogatives)?
Now they aren't posted after almost 24 hours. Are you willing to publicly protest these absurd "shut up all dissent" tactics?
I believe that blogs are like people's living rooms. For example, some people don't let anyone place their feet on their furniture, while others allow close family members to do it. I believe bloggers have the right to do what they want on their blogs so long as they aren't intentionally lying or committing libel. If I recall, even you refuse to refer to a particular Protestant apologist (or apologists) by name.
You posted...
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2012/08/failed-protestant-attempts-to-tear-down.html
Thanks for the link. I've browsed it, but haven't read everything yet. I'll read it as I have time.
Yeah, they can do what they like on their blog. My objection is that they want to cynically censor while not making folks aware that they are doing so. I was allowed to make several replies, and then all of a sudden I'm not allowed to anymore, and no one is told that, so it is made to appear as if I had no answers to you, when in fact I did.
ReplyDeleteI don't care if they don't allow Catholics to comment (but they do, as long as they think they aren't scoring debating points), as long as this is made clear, without all the silliness and double standards (folks can reply to me while I'm not allowed to respond).
Anyone is allowed to comment on my blog and Facebook pages, as long as they are civil. I don't allow personal attacks because I'm trying to promote a nice, warm atmosphere for discussions of theology.
Hi AP,
ReplyDeleteYou described my article as a "sophistical game." That's not merely a disagreement in good faith on the conclusions of an opponent's exegesis. It's loaded, polemical language.
1. Do you believe that the NT explicitly or implictly teaches the Papacy?
Implicitly in most cases, but since there is quite a bit, it is cumulative. In other instances (such as Matthew 16), it is fairly explicit, once cross-referencing and the cultural and OT background is considered in the overall equation.
2. When do you believe the Church explicitly and consciously believed in the Papacy?
From the beginning, but with increasing development as time went on. Buy the time of Pope Leo the Great (440-461), it was pretty much developed, except for fine details. But it continues to develop.
3. Do you believe that sometime during his lifetime Peter consciously knew he was the Pope? If so...
Yes. That derived from his commission in Matthew 16 ("rock" and keeper of "the keys of the kingdom").
4. Do you believe Peter knowingly had all the prerogatives that Vatican I says the Pope has? Or do you believe he had them, even if he wasn't aware of having them (since maybe it was later understood by the Church that Popes have such prerogatives)?
No, because that incorporated another 1800 years of development. I believe he knew he was the leader and had strong central authority as somehow the shepherd over the flock of the universal Church.
Much of Protestant misunderstanding of the papacy, as with many "Catholic" doctrines, such as Mariology, has to do with an insufficient grasp of development of doctrine. That's why the latter was key in my own conversion. Once I understood that, it was the final piece of the puzzle found. It explained many things to me that were formerly perplexing.
The rest is pretty much reiteration. You can have the last word. I'll note your reply on my post.
You're a guest on my blog, so you can have the last word.
ReplyDeleteThis post is over a year after the discussion with Dave Armstrong. I now realize that rather than the word "Primacy", it would have been better for me to use the word "Prominence." "Petrine Primacy" has an established connotation and use which usually implies and concedes the Papacy. In various debates, James White affirms Petrine Prominence but denies Petrine Primacy. So, I'll follow White's use of terminology.
ReplyDelete