I cannot refute this:

http://www.catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp

Please do NOT post unless you have read the whole thing (thankyou). [b:7c406bc1be]I will say that I am in consent with the WCF[/b:7c406bc1be] for now, but I don't think that this can be refuted. Please do not argue from all the bad things Rome has done and their faulty theology, just INTERACT with HIS argument. DO NOT SAY ANTHING ELSE EXCEPT ABOUT THIS! NO PAPACY BASHING. LETS WORK WITH HIS ARGUMENT, AS WE MUST DO WITH OUR THEOLOGICAL OPPONENTS IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND THEIR POSITION.

I don't know who this guy is. He is probably some wacked out liberal. This is the only thing I've read by this guy; for all I know, everything else could be complete garbage: it probably is from what I hear. But it doesn't matter about him.

Please don't stone me. I am just admitting that I cannot respond to his argument. And no I don't want to go to Rome.

Paul

Paul,

Here is a helpful link with lots of evidence that the Church Fathers did not understand Matthew 16 the way that Mr. Hahn takes it. It is also informative in defining what is meant by the "chair of Peter."
http://www.christiantruth.com/mt16.html

With regard to his citation of Isaiah 22 as background to that passage, and Peter being given the keys, I would simply point you to the book of Revelation.
Isaiah 22:22 says
"And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open."
Revelation 3:7 says
"And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth; "
It is, therefore, Christ who has the key of the house of David.

Mr. Hahn says

[quote:b697118141]
Oh, really? In just 500 years, there are literally thousands and thousands of denominations that are becoming ever more numerous continuously because they only go with the Bible. It points to the fact that we need an infallible interpretation of this infallible book, don't we. I mean, can you imagine the fathers of our country putting together the U.S. Constitution and mailing it out to every citizen and saying, "Fend for yourselves. Go it alone; with the spirit of Washington you will be guided to your proper interpretation." What do you call that? Anarchy. We wouldn't have lasted a month as a nation. The Constitution established a governmental structure with a court of final appeal, the Supreme Court, that is final in all matters of constitutional interpretation.
[/quote:b697118141]

This overlooks a crucial difficulty. It assumes that the interpretation of a statement is clearer than the statement itself. But any interpretation is itself a statement. In which case, it would also need to be interpreted. Who is going to infallibly interpret the infallible interpreter? What will the pope do when we fallible humans misinterpret him?

Mr. Hahn also says

[quote:b697118141]
When Peter declares an opinion it is binding and immediately following, exactly what he advises.
[/quote:b697118141]
AND, in reference to Acts 11
[quote:b697118141]
And he explained exactly what happened and said, "Hey, God told me." It's Peter and they stopped.
[/quote:b697118141]

But this is refuted by the actual text of Acts. Acts 11:2-18 shows out how Peter has to defend himself --and it is his testimony of the facts that makes the people who questioned him back down, not Peter's personal authority. I think we see that his questioners were true believers, because they glorified God when they understood that even to the Gentiles God had granted repentance unto life. They did not stop because it was Peter: they stopped because his testimony was unquestionable (since it could be confirmed by those who went with him) and since the facts spoke plainly of God's mind.

Acts 15:13-15 provides another example.
"And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written". Here are two things contrary to Mr. Hahn's theory. One is that if anyone is in the position of supreme authority at this point it is James, not Peter --all he did was to give his historical account. The second thing, is that James supports Peter because Peter's experience agrees with Scripture. Once again, then, Scripture is the final standard, the only thing that convinces James (cf. Isaiah 8:20).

Mr Hahn says, with regards to Acts 15


[quote:b697118141]
"The Apostles and elders met together. After much debate Peter stood up and addressed them," and he basically says the Holy Spirit purified their hearts through Baptism, circumcision isn't needed; end all debate! The only thing that follows is that James, the Bishop of Jerusalem, adds the kind of qualifying proviso so that the Jews are not needlessly scandalized in Gentile lands. But Peter's word was final and absolute. The debate ended. Peter had spoken.
[/quote:b697118141]

This is demonstrated to be a false assertion by v. 12
"Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them", as well as by James' reference to Scripture, and clear leading role.

Mr. Hahn says

[quote:b697118141]
We see Peter, for instance, in Acts 11 and 12 -- even before that -- Acts 8, the first time non-Jewish half-breeds, Samaritans are brought into the Church. They are baptized. Word reaches Jerusalem that these non-Jewish half-breeds, the Samaritans are coming into the Church. Immediately, what do they do? Send Peter and John.
[/quote:b697118141]
If Peter could be [i:b697118141]sent[/i:b697118141] that implies much more of a plurality of elders type rule, as opposed to Peter being in any sense a monarch. Who "sends" a monarch around?

There are other things, but I don't want this to be too long. One final note. Mr. Hahn says

[quote:b697118141]
If one should admit one falsehood, defined as truth, the gates of Hades have prevailed.
[/quote:b697118141]

And in all the doctrines of the Roman church are there no falsehoods, defined as truths? Is transubstantiation, set forth by the IVth Lateran Council not a falsehood? Is the anathematization of anyone who does not believe that justification is INCREASED by good works a falsehood? How do you increase what is perfect? And what is acceptable in God's eyes save perfection? See Psalm 24.

Mr. Hahn's attempt to defend the doctrines of primacy and infallibility fall far short of the Biblical standard. By his own principles, the Roman church has been conquered by the gates of Hades --and by the teaching of Scripture this proves that it is NOT the church spoken of by Christ in Matthew 16.

__________________
Ruben
Moderator
F.P.C.I.
Indiana

Men can only be happy when they do not assume that the object of life is happiness. -George Orwell

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Calvinistas Conversando - Reformed Discussion Board in Spanish.

Spanish Blog -Teologia en Mexico
English Blog -The Howling Wilderness

[quote:52403fffc6]It is, therefore, Christ who has the key of the house of David.[/quote:52403fffc6]

But he gave them to Peter to execute His judgements on earth. Just like he gave them to the fellow in Is. 22. I'm not talking to you directly, but I'm tired of Protestants not giving careful treatment of this verse. Peter clearly has the keys. All the Reformers and all the Reformed Confessions say this.

[quote:52403fffc6] And in all the doctrines of the Roman church are there no falsehoods, defined as truths? Is transubstantiation, set forth by the IVth Lateran Council not a falsehood? Is the anathematization of anyone who does not believe that justification is INCREASED by good works a falsehood? How do you increase what is perfect? And what is acceptable in God's eyes save perfection? See Psalm 24.

Mr. Hahn's attempt to defend the doctrines of primacy and infallibility fall far short of the Biblical standard. By his own principles, the Roman church has been conquered by the gates of Hades --and by the teaching of Scripture this proves that it is NOT the church spoken of by Christ in Matthew 16.[/quote:52403fffc6]

Lets try to keep Roman errors out of the discussion on Church Authority. If Rome has all the authority of interpretation (not that I believe that) then whatever we say doesn't matter. (Lets try not to get into a discussion of sola scriptura. Lets use sola scriptura to see who has Church Authority.)

Paul

http://www.christiantruth.com/mt16.html

[edit] Reuben, I didn't read carefully enough and skipped right over this link already in your post. Did we find it in the same place, I wonder?

If one didn't know anything about Scott Hahn [i:b194d0680d]before[/i:b194d0680d] reading the article, surely he would after reading all the autobiographical anecdotes included ...

googled:
http://www.catholicexchange.com/css/....asp?aut_id=52

Seriously, Rembrant, how hard did you try to refute it? Are you operating from within one interpretive framework (a Reformation systematic) and trying, and failing to refute Hahn's assertions? If you don't have a place to stand, you can't argue in any direction. If your position fails you, you should look for reasons why. Were you adequately prepared? Or was the position indefensible? Or is your framework the wrong one? You say you hold the WCF positions. You say you don't want to end up where Hahn is. But your self-confessed ambivalence sounds to me like Hahn's own testimony. Does Hahn sound persuasive (initially anyway) because you are walking on a path that feels like his?

I didn't detect much in the way of argument from Hahn's lecture, mostly appeals to various authorities. This is obviously a transcript, not an argued position paper, he's not himself working to refute counter-arguments and exegesis. What exactly do you find irrefutable about his position?

[Edited on 6-11-2004 by Contra_Mundum]

__________________
Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan
ChainOLakes Presbyterian Church, CentralLake, MI


When posting friends, kindly bear those words of earthly wisdom in mind:
Oh, that God the gift would give us
To see ourselves as others see us.
--Robert Burns, 1786 (modernized) ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? --

Hello Rembrandt,
When one is faced with a difficult portion of Scripture, the right thing to do is to look at parallel or similar texts to see if they can shed any light.

Now, are there any passages in the NT that refer to rocks? Why, yes, there are. Do any of them refer to Peter? Not that I can think of. To whom do they refer? They all speak of Christ (eg. Matt 21:42; Rom 9:33; 1Cor 10:4; 1Peter 2:6ff etc.). Is there one that refers to the building of the Church? Yes, there is:-

Eph 2:20-21. '.....built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord.'

The cornerstone is Christ; the foundation is the Apostles (cf. Rev 21:14) and Prophets. This must refer to the Apostolic doctrine; the 'Faith once for all delivered to the saints' (Jude 3); and this doctrine is that Jesus of Nazareth, the carpenters Son is both Christ and Lord (Acts 2:36, 18:28, 26:22-3; Rom 1:1-4; 1John 1:1-3; 2Peter 1:16). Peter was certainly the first to openly confess this doctrine, but it is the doctrine itself, the doctrine of Christ, which is the Rock upon which the Church will be built.

The Papacy itself is a blashemous concept (Matt 23:9). The 'Apostolic Succession' is a nonsense. Some of the Popes were appallingly wicked. Who had the right to appoint such people (cf. Neh 6:12; Psalm 108:13)? Christ is head of His Church; He and no one else (Eph 4:15-16).

It's not rocket science! Just comparing [b:e724a45902]all[/b:e724a45902] the Scriptures instead of placing too much weight on one text.

Blessings,
Steve

The papacy is not plausible for a couple of good reasons:

1) Peter did not claim the authority the pope now claims.

I Peter 2:13ff - Peter does not tell his readers to submit to himself, which if you will look at what Rome has done, they have become both ecclesiastical and civil government within themselves in the past centuries.

I Peter 5:1 - Peter calls himself a fellow elder placed in the same standing as the elders of those diaspora Jewish Christians. Why should he not take the time to remind them that he is Christ's vicar on earth and that what he says should be heeded because he is the one Christ left in charge. He places himself under the Chief Shepherd like everyone else. He had the prime opportunity to show in Scripture that he was the Chief Under-Shepherd, but does not.

II Peter 2:19 - Peter explains that his readers should obey the commandments of "us", the apostles. He goes on to include Paul in this statement. He does not claim sole authority, but places himself alongside of his fellow apostles, knowing that Christ gave them all equal authority.

2) The Vicar of Christ was a later development.

The See of Rome was not always the bishopric in power. Only by a long series of events was this the case. When the bishoprics were established, they had no ecclesiastical power over another bishopric. When Constantine established Christianity, he made the four See's of power. These were not established by the Church, but by the State. The four Sees were Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch.

As a side, Peter was not considered the bishop of Rome early on, this was a later development as well, when the Pope needed to show by whose authority he should be first in the order of the bishops. Pope Leo was known as the Vicar of Peter, not Christ, in the mid 400's.

Only until Gelasius in 495, do we see the title of Vicar of Christ. And, perhaps the only reason this was acknowledged was by the ruling party who wanted him in power, not necessarily a title that should be given to the office. The bishop of Rome did not have control over the whole empire until the early 600's.

If Hahn wants to claim that the Pope is not capable of "new" revelation, then the whole Marian dogma is completely untenable. Not to mention the many other things that have come ex cathedra from no sources and by secret knowledge.

It is well documented that the "Immaculate Conception" of Mary came out of thin air. It was not suggested by anyone prior to the late 1800's that Mary was conceived without sin. This is something the Pope pronounced without having any previous debate, ancient sources, or scriptural backing. He simply sent letters to key people asking them if they would have a problem with his pronouncement. Thus comes the dogma.

Now, they get around this by saying that it is a dogma and not a doctrine. That means that the dogma is strongly suggested for belief, but in order for it to be commanded, it must become a doctrine. Still, that's a slight of hand. If it is in the catechism of the church, and it is actively taught, then there really is no difference.

I would suggest Wiley's work on this subject - The Papacy: Its History, Dogmas, Genius, and Prospects. It is available online at various places. Click here for one of them.

In Christ,

KC

__________________
Heb 13:20-21

Kevin C. Easterday
Member Covenant OPC, St. Augustine, FL
Husband to Tina (August 13, 1988), Father and Teacher to Kamden (16) and Kolton (14)
Federal Theology Website
Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Paul:

Did you closely read the article Reuben listed the link for? It is very good.

BTW, Hahn is an ex-Presbyterian / Reformed pastor who converted to Catholicism. He is a very conservative Catholic. I have read a couple of his books, including Rome Sweet Home, which is his conversion story.

Scott

__________________
Scott Roberts
Ruling Elder, Lakeside Presbyterian Church (PCA)
Southlake, Texas

[quote:3cbc30ac3e]
But he gave them to Peter to execute His judgements on earth. Just like he gave them to the fellow in Is. 22. I'm not talking to you directly, but I'm tired of Protestants not giving careful treatment of this verse. Peter clearly has the keys. All the Reformers and all the Reformed Confessions say this.
[/quote:3cbc30ac3e]

Rembrandt, in Revelation Christ still has the key: obviously, He has not relinquished it. In the context of Revelation, if anyone other than Christ is exercising a subordinate use of the keys, it is John, not Peter. So Revelation makes it quite clear that it is not exclusively Peter -whether personally or officially- who exercises the keys. With regard to Isaiah 22 and applying it to Matthew 16 there is at least one difficulty. In the context, one wicked individual is told that he will be replaced in his office with a worthy individual. So who is Peter replacing?

I also don't believe you can keep Roman errors out of it. That is precisely the ground of discussion that Hahn introduces at the end. He says that if one error has been promulgated then the gates of Hades have prevailed. Surely that naturally raises the question, "Have any errors been promulgated?". With a belief in sola scriptura, we do have the right to investigate that. The question of who has church authority can only be settled by an investigation of what is THE church. If you accept Roman presuppositions you have to accept that they are --but it is the validity of the Roman presupposition that is in question. Part of that presupposition is that they, in their ex cathedra statements, are infallible. But when this is examined, it is seen to be short of the truth. By Hahn's own standard, his church falls short of being what on his view a church must be.

[quote:c381dc78e3]I didn't detect much in the way of argument from Hahn's lecture, mostly appeals to various authorities. This is obviously a transcript, not an argued position paper, he's not himself working to refute counter-arguments and exegesis. What exactly do you find irrefutable about his position?[/quote:c381dc78e3]

Yeah I know, it just happened that this was the article that I was reading last night.

[quote:c381dc78e3]The Papacy itself is a blashemous concept (Matt 23:9).[/quote:c381dc78e3]

Is. 22 says the man with the keys will be a "father."

[quote:c381dc78e3]The 'Apostolic Succession' is a nonsense.[/quote:c381dc78e3]

Due to other factors, I see it as a neccesity. This doesn't mean Rome is right, it only means that Episcolpalian government is correct.

[quote:c381dc78e3]Some of the Popes were appallingly wicked. Who had the right to appoint such people (cf. Neh 6:12; Psalm 108:13)?[/quote:c381dc78e3]

So was Judas who was appointed by Jesus. Who would appoint such a person?

[quote:c381dc78e3]Christ is head of His Church; He and no one else (Eph 4:15-16).[/quote:c381dc78e3]

Sure, but he appoints other people.

[quote:c381dc78e3]Now, are there any passages in the NT that refer to rocks? Why, yes, there are. Do any of them refer to Peter? Not that I can think of. To whom do they refer? They all speak of Christ (eg. Matt 21:42; Rom 9:33; 1Cor 10:4; 1Peter 2:6ff etc.). Is there one that refers to the building of the Church? Yes, there is:-

Eph 2:20-21. '.....built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord.'

The cornerstone is Christ; the foundation is the Apostles (cf. Rev 21:14) and Prophets. This must refer to the Apostolic doctrine; the 'Faith once for all delivered to the saints' (Jude 3); and this doctrine is that Jesus of Nazareth, the carpenters Son is both Christ and Lord (Acts 2:36, 18:28, 26:22-3; Rom 1:1-4; 1John 1:1-3; 2Peter 1:16). Peter was certainly the first to openly confess this doctrine, but it is the doctrine itself, the doctrine of Christ, which is the Rock upon which the Church will be built.[/quote:c381dc78e3]

I've already concluded a couple months ago that the Rock is Peter. There is a number of Protestant and Reformed theologians who also see this undeniable fact. See the thread on this in the 'Biblical Text Forum'.

[quote:c381dc78e3]I Peter 5:1 - Peter calls himself a fellow elder[/quote:c381dc78e3]

that doesn't prove anything.

[quote:c381dc78e3]I Peter 2:13ff... II Peter 2:19 [/quote:c381dc78e3]

I don't see anything in that.

[quote:c381dc78e3]The Vicar of Christ was a later development.[/quote:c381dc78e3]

The name (or even the concept) of the Trinity was a later development.

[quote:c381dc78e3]The Papacy: Its History, Dogmas, Genius, and Prospects. It is available online at various places. Click here for one of them.[/quote:c381dc78e3]

I will check it out.

[quote:c381dc78e3]Did you closely read the article Reuben listed the link for? It is very good.[/quote:c381dc78e3]

I read the same article a month ago. It goes either way.

In regards to Peter's place in Acts, I think it goes either way as well. I mean, its quite obvious that he is not walking around like King Peter the Infallible Majesty. But I don't think that Rome treats the Pope like that today. I think we can assume that when Peter spoke everyone didn't bow down and say "Oh yes, your Royalty. We will obey you at once. Is their anything else you would like to say to us lowly servents?"

Paul

Paul,

You also might want to read Calvin's Institutes Book 4 Chapters 4 & 5. Calvin goes over how early church government was developed and how it the Papacy came from that.

__________________
~Wayne Wylie~
Member, Mid Cities Presbyterian Church (OPC)
Ruling Elder - Inactive
http://www.mcopc.org
Bedford, TX

Job 28:28 - And unto man he said, Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding.

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Let's say, for the sake of argument, you are correct and that Peter was the Pope. Do you realize that succession from Peter cannot be proved? Do you also realize that at one point there were at least three popes?

Also, I have this question: Why didn't Paul outline for us the gift of Popery? Why does the office of Pope not show in the places where church offices are mentioned? Why does he not include Peter in the hierarchy of the Church? He names Christ as head, why did he not also name Peter, and whoever succeeded him as the neck? Why does Paul not show deference to Peter? Why did James not do so? If the key is definitely Peter's, why was this not inscripturated in the rest of the NT?

You seem to be overlooking the fact that, although Christ recognizes Peter as the rock, the rest of the NT does not look to Peter as the authority of the church. Why are there no passages which tell us how the Pope comes to office?

I think you're working these questions from a faulty premise. You're already giving him and his successors the benefit of the doubt that they are who they claim to be. Yet Peter does not claim this of himself, nor do the other NT writers. So, you're working backwards trying to prove what is now, instead of letting the Bible be the foundation for what should be, not what is.

If the Bible does not speak of a Pope and does not give creedence to the office, nor does it tell us to obey one, nor does it set up the criteria for who this man should be, nor does it tell us how we would "select" such a man, then we have no basis for the office.

We concede the authority of the church because it is scriptural. But since Trent, the RCC has claimed that Protestants do not believe in church authority. They use that as a stick to beat us with, when all we're saying is that the Papacy and episcopal government in general has no basis in Scripture. This does not undermine church authority, it undermines their authority as a church. It is not as though Christ left us without leaders, but those leaders do not include someone who has been proclaimed as Christ's voice. The Scriptures know not of such a man.

I'll leave you with one other thought. There is a principle that God gave us in Deut. 13. Moses tells the people the words of the Lord that warn them that prophets would come and say things, do wonders, show signs. But if those prophets lead the people astray, which God said He would send them to test them, they are not to follow anything contrary to the Word of God. They were also to put away the evil man from among them by killing him.

If you cannot see how the Pope has done this, then you are not seeing it correctly. As I said, Christ has not left us leaderless, but where His true church is, there are not false teachers among the leadership, at least, not for long. And yet, how long have the Popes been contrary to the Scripture in their teaching and practice? An extremely long time, the present Pope not excepted. When he was shot, his prayers were for the blessed virgin to save him and that she was his salvation. If he were a prophet of the OT, there would be stones flying.

Now, I ask you, does this sound like a man who has the keys Christ gave Peter? Does he sound like the rock on which the Church stands? When he spoke that time in that moment, was he infallible as to whom he called on to save him?

One thing rather telling about the office of the Pope is this: it was once said, and I believe it is still thought, that if the Pope were to lead all to hell, we must follow, because he is the Vicar of Christ.

The office of the Pope is not a biblical office and it is built on shifting sand and the blood of the sheep of God.

In Christ,

KC

Paul,

An additional thought on Isaiah 22. The key of the house of David is singular. This is maintained into Revelation. In Matthew 16:19 the keys of the kingdom are plural. Why do you assume that they are talking about the same thing? They are characterized by two different phrases, and they are different grammatical numbers. Where is the demonstration of their identity?

[quote:febdb77065]
Reuben, I didn't read carefully enough and skipped right over this link already in your post. Did we find it in the same place, I wonder?
[/quote:febdb77065]

I found it on James White's website some time ago and really enjoyed it.

Paul:

This may be of interest. These comments from Jerome on the Epistle to Titus are helpful in putting things into perspective.

[quote:9b4dbf111c]
"A bishop is the same as a presbyter. And before dissensions were introduced into religion by the instigation of the devil, and it was said among the people, I am of Paul, and I of Cephas, churches were governed by a common council of presbyters. Afterwards, that the seeds of dissension might be plucked up, the whole charge was devolved upon one. Therefore, as presbyters know that by the custom of the Church they are subject to him who presides, so let bishops know that they are greater than presbyters more by custom than in consequence of our Lord's appointment, and ought to rule the Church for the common good."
[/quote:9b4dbf111c]

The office of bishop as distinct from presbyter / priest is not a divine institution. It is a human institution. This would include the office of the bishop of Rome. As bishops have no groundwork more solid than custom, they should be humble, according to Jerome.

Scott

[quote:5b951c7b16]Also, I have this question: Why didn't Paul outline for us the gift of Popery? Why does the office of Pope not show in the places where church offices are mentioned? Why does he not include Peter in the hierarchy of the Church? He names Christ as head, why did he not also name Peter, and whoever succeeded him as the neck? Why does Paul not show deference to Peter? Why did James not do so? If the key is definitely Peter's, why was this not inscripturated in the rest of the NT?[/quote:5b951c7b16]

Very good point. I assume you are leaving out the book of Acts and talking about the epistles. I believe both positions can be defended from the book of Acts, though I am leaning toward Peter's prominence. The epistles were directed to local churches, so they are dealing with local church government.

[quote:5b951c7b16]Why are there no passages which tell us how the Pope comes to office?[/quote:5b951c7b16]

If episcople church government can be proven this would be a given.

[quote:5b951c7b16]Do you realize that succession from Peter cannot be proved? Do you also realize that at one point there were at least three popes?[/quote:5b951c7b16]

Two of those three people were not be the Pope.

[quote:5b951c7b16]I think you're working these questions from a faulty premise. You're already giving him and his successors the benefit of the doubt that they are who they claim to be.[/quote:5b951c7b16]

No, I'm taking a neutral position on the Popes, and using the Bible (Matt. 16).

[quote:5b951c7b16]If the Bible does not speak of a Pope and does not give creedence to the office, nor does it tell us to obey one, nor does it set up the criteria for who this man should be, nor does it tell us how we would "select" such a man, then we have no basis for the office.[/quote:5b951c7b16]

The same argument can be brought against Episcopalianism. How do we select elders/bishops? The way Paul instructs us to in the Pastorals. Now, how do we select the office of Pope distict from the office of bishops? Well, the Pope is a bishop, so same way.

[quote:5b951c7b16]but those leaders do not include someone who has been proclaimed as Christ's voice.[/quote:5b951c7b16]

In the Reformed tradition the minister is speaking on behalf of Christ to the people; thus speaking the very words of God to us.

[quote:5b951c7b16]When he was shot, his prayers were for the blessed virgin to save him and that she was his salvation.[/quote:5b951c7b16]

Thats horrible. The Pope sins though, and his personal prayers are not infallible. I am interested to see how much prayers to Mary they still pray. I'm going to look into that.

[quote:5b951c7b16]Now, I ask you, does this sound like a man who has the keys Christ gave Peter? Does he sound like the rock on which the Church stands? When he spoke that time in that moment, was he infallible as to whom he called on to save him?[/quote:5b951c7b16]

He doesn't claim that kind of infallibility AT ALL.

[quote:5b951c7b16]One thing rather telling about the office of the Pope is this: it was once said, and I believe it is still thought, that if the Pope were to lead all to hell, we must follow, because he is the Vicar of Christ.[/quote:5b951c7b16]

Okay, but if he is infallible when he speaks for Christ, that would never happen. If he were leading us to hell, we wouldn't have to follow, because we can appeal to thousands of years of orthodoxy. If the man sets himself up as a false prophet, we can count on the Church (if the Church is infallible) to throw him out (that has happened a number of times).

NOTE: I don't necessarily believe [i:5b951c7b16]anything[/i:5b951c7b16] I am saying. I just can't get around it.

Paul

Paul:

Regarding the papacy, the well-respected Roman Catholic church historian Johann Joseph Dollinger comments:

[quote:9c652755d0]
We have a copious literature on the Christian sects and heresies of the first six centuries-Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Epiphanius, Philastrius, St. Augustine, and, later, Leontius and Timotheus-have left us accounts of them to the number of eighty, but not a single one is reproached with rejecting the Pope's authority in matters of faith. All this is intelligible enough, if we look at the patristic interpretation of the words of Christ to St. Peter. Of all the Fathers who interpret these passages in the Gospels (Matt. xvi.18, John xxi.17), not a single one applies them to the Roman bishops as Peter's successors. How many Fathers have busied themselves with these texts, yet not one of them whose commentaries we possess-Origen, Chrysostom, Hilary, Augustine, Cyril, Theodoret, and those whose interpretations are collected in catenas-has dropped the faintest hint that the primacy of Rome is the consequence of the commission and promise to Peter! Not one of them has explained the rock or foundation on which Christ would build His Church of the office given to Peter to be transmitted to his successors, but they understood by it either Christ Himself, or Peter's confession of faith in Christ; often both together. Or else they thought Peter was the foundation equally with all the other Apostles, the twelve being together the foundation-stones of the Church (Apoc. xxi.14). The Fathers could the less recognize in the power of the keys, and the power of binding and loosing, any special prerogative or lordship of the Roman bishop, inasmuch as-what is obvious to any one at first sight-they did not regard a power first given to Peter, and afterwards conferred in precisely the same words on all the Apostles, as anything peculiar to him, or hereditary in the line of Roman bishops, and they held the symbol of the keys as meaning just the same as the figurative expression of binding and loosing (Janus (Johann Joseph Ignaz von Dollinger), The Pope and the Council (Boston: Roberts, 1869), pp. 70-74).
[/quote:9c652755d0]

Notice the statements of simple historical facts:

[1] Not one of the early fathers has explained the rock or foundation on which Christ would build His Church as an office given to Peter to be transmitted to his successors.

[2] During the first six centuries, not a single heretic is rebuked for rejecting the Pope's authority in matters of faith. This is in spite of a variety of other arguments against breaching catholic unity.

[3] Of all the fathers who have addressed Matt. 16 not a single one "dropped the faintest hint that the primacy of Rome is the consequence of the commission and promise to Peter."

Scott

[quote:b9af48c23f]
The Pope sins though, and his personal prayers are not infallible. I am interested to see how much prayers to Mary they still pray.
[/quote:b9af48c23f]

It is central to their prayers. The rosary is a prayer to Mary.

BTW, be sure to see my quote from Cyprian above. It was posted while you were posting, so you may have missed it.

[quote:1350d8094f]
I've already concluded a couple months ago that the Rock is Peter. There is a number of Protestant and Reformed theologians who also see this undeniable fact. See the thread on this in the 'Biblical Text Forum'.
[/quote:1350d8094f]

Paul,

I went back and checked that thread and the only theologian you mentioned was DA Carson, who was not saying that Peter was the rock. In fact, I know of no Reformed theologian who holds to your interpretation. Would you mind giving a quick list?

[quote:accedfee1e]
I believe both positions can be defended from the book of Acts, though I am leaning toward Peter's prominence.
[/quote:accedfee1e]

Paul, I think if you were to defend Peter's prominence on the basis of the book of Acts you would also have to defend Paul's prominence --and say that Peter declined into obscurity, relatively speaking, once Paul comes on the scene.

[quote:04e37611fe]Peter declined into obscurity[/quote:04e37611fe]

Do you really think thats what happened? Both the end of Peter's and the end of Paul's life was not documented. I guess Paul fell into obscurity because his death was not recorded. Also, I think the reason for highlighting Paul in the second half of the book, was because Peter had already been dealt with alot. Do you think Paul usurped anybody's power?