Tom,
Perhaps you felt the need to lay these arguments out freshly for others at this forum, but I know you could not possibly have directed them toward me, since you and I have discussed every one of them at least twenty or thirty times each on the air over the past 11 years.
A primary problem in our communication is that I always answer your points by exegeting the scriptures, and you never answer my arguments. You just wait a few weeks or months, and then return and raise the same points again, as if we had never discussed them, and as if the ball was not already in your court to come back with a response.
Here are a few of the points I have made before, which I am waiting for you to answer:
You wrote:
If we believe in Matt 18:17 that we are to "take it to the Church", and this is what Paul and Barnabas did in Acts 15. Then we need to ask which church and why?
"Which church?" There is only one Church, under one Head. It is found wherever there are true followers of Jesus. Disputes can be brought before the segment of that church with which one is in regular contact. You might find this logistically impractical, or personally unacceptable, but you have never been able to show the scriptural defect in my reasoning.
You wrote:
During Moses' reign we see this same question of authority. Moses set his people/Gods people up with a multi level authority system, Ex 18:13-26. Then we see some didn't like the set-up and wanted to change the whole thing, and why not, they are all praying to the same God, right? Then in Num, 16:31 we see Korah and his followers wanted to change that. They wanted to have their own authority, why not, God is with us also! We see what happened to them in Num 16:31-33.
You wish to build your case upon a survey of Old Testament history—yet your survey is confusing. I am aware that Moses established a pastoral hierarchy under himself, but does Moses, in your analogy, represent Christ, or Peter? Since the apostles saw Jesus (not Peter) as a second Moses (see Acts 3:22-23; 7:37), I am assuming that you are making this same comparison. In that case, Korah would represent those who wish to overthrow Christ's leadership. Evangelicals have no such intention. They actually want to recover the leadership of Christ from the usurping "Korah" whose rule you advocate.
If you are saying that evangelicals are like Korah because they wish to overthrow
Christ's appointed hierarchy (under Peter), then your analogy doesn't work at all—first, since we have no evidence that Korah wished to overthrow the hierarchy—he just wanted to supplant Moses—and second, because you have not shown (only asserted) that Jesus ever set up a hereditary hierarchy where the authority of Peter and the apostles was to be passed down to apostolic successors in each generation (that is not what Moses set up anyway). Therefore, to reject the Roman Catholic hierarchy is not analogous to rejecting the authority of Moses—or of Christ.
You wrote:
Who is the new 'son of David' ? Jesus, Matt 1:1. Jesus is even compared to Solomon, Matt 12:42, "and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here." The Jews are thinking to themselves, "there's no one greater than Solomon!" Jesus compares himself to the temple, Matt 12:6, "But I say unto you, That in this place is [one] greater than the temple.
"
Yes, Jesus is superior to the temple, to Solomon, and even to David (Matt.22:45). That is why exact comparisons are not appropriate. In what sense is Jesus greater than David and Solomon? One point of His superiority is that they ruled only over an earthly, political kingdom, and Christ rules over a spiritual, universal kingdom. In what sense is He greater than the temple? Is it not that He (and His Body) are the living temple that replaces all earthly religious shrines and institutions? One thing seems obvious, Jesus did not come to set up the same
kind of kingdom as that over which David reigned (John 18:36), nor to erect the same
kind of temple as Solomon erected (John 2:19-21).
But your analogy is suggesting that the Roman Catholic church
really is the same kind of kingdom, with the same kind of hierarchy as that in which David reigned. In a political kingdom (like the Roman Catholic Church) there are political positions of leadership, and automatic self-perpetuation of the institution through an arrangement for succession of leaders. You are not taking into consideration the fact that a kingdom
not of this world might have a different authority structure than would the kingdoms of this world. In fact, this is the case. In the kingdom of God, greatness does not reside in the ones wearing religious habits and having others kiss their rings in adoration and calling them "Father" and "Teacher" (Matthew 23:5-10). In fact, if there could be said to be positions of leadership at all in a spiritual kingdom, they are the positions called "slave of all" (Matt.20:26-27; 23:11) and "little ones" (Isa.11:6 /Matt.18:1-5).
You wrote:
John the Baptist declares; "The kingdom of heaven is at hand", Matt 3:2. Jesus is asked what the kingdom of heaven will be like? Several answers are given, Matt 13:24 -52. This can't be heaven! Jesus must be describing some kind of earthly kingdom. Heaven is perfect and what Jesus is describing is far from perfect. Heaven on earth!?
Tom, if you have ever listened to my answers, then you know that I do not equate the kingdom with heaven. And if you consult the history of the Dark Ages, you will realize that the reign of the papacy has been
anything but "heaven on earth."
You wrote:
Jesus tries to work with the pharisees but they don't see the 'God' among them! Finally Jesus tells pharisees that he will give their authority to another, (Mark 12:1-12).
I don't actually remember Jesus ever trying to work with the Pharisees, since He saw them, in general, as children of Satan (John 8:44). He did indeed tell them that the kingdom was to be given to others, but, contrary to Catholic assertions, He was not saying that He was giving their leadership positions away to the apostles. He was giving "the kingdom" to "a nation" who would bring forth its fruit (Matt.21:43)—that is, the kingdom itself was being transferred from one nation (Israel), to another nation (the Church—1 Peter 2:9-10)—not from one group of institutional leaders (the Pharisees) to another group of institutional leaders (Peter,
et al.).
You wrote:
Jesus starts to build His new Davidic kingdom by choosing 12 Apostles Just like the 12 Tribes. We see the foundation is built on Jesus and Apostles, (Eph 2:20). Luke 22:30, "That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel".
Jesus gives unique authority to Simon in Matt 16:13-20
This is where your argument really gets a bit disjointed. On one hand, you admit that all the apostles had special teaching roles in the church, but on the other, you claim that Peter had "unique authority"—that is, above the other apostles. You base this upon the statement of Jesus that He would build His church "upon this rock."
Now we all know that there are a variety of opinions about the identity of "this rock." It would appear that the only rock Peter himself saw as preeminent was Jesus Himself (1 Peter 2:4-7). However, if Jesus was, in fact, saying that He would build the church upon Peter (which is conceivable), then this was nothing more than could be said of all the apostles, who provide a foundation upon which the church is built (Eph.2:20). When the church is depicted as a New Jerusalem, it has twelve "foundation stones"—bearing the names of the twelve apostles (Rev.21:14). Significantly, no special mention is made of Peter.
Even the special privilege of receiving "the keys of the kingdom" which, according to your own admission, provide the authority to bind and loose on earth what has been bound and loosed in heaven, does not place him above the other apostles. Christ gave them all this identical authority, in Matthew 18:18. If this authority is what is meant by the "keys of the kingdom," then those keys were possessed by all the apostles, and there is no evidence of Peter having unique authority.
Of course, the assertion of Peter's "unique authority" is essential to the fundamental Roman Catholic claim of the papacy's supremacy, since it is thought that the pope, being the Bishop of Rome, occupies the chair of Peter, giving him supreme rule over all the other churches and their bishops (who correspond to the other apostles). Yet, if it cannot be shown that Peter held the supreme rule over the other apostles, then no such grandiose claim can be made for the See of Rome.
You wrote:
Jesus builds the Church on Peter. We see this further shown in John 21:15-17, Luke 22:31-32 and Acts 11:51, (Acts 15:7).
The reference to Jesus saying to Peter, "Feed my sheep" (John 21:15-17) is thought, by Catholics, to be placing Peter above all Christians, including the other apostles. However, Peter himself gives the same charge to all the "elders" of the churches (1 Peter 5:1-4), and Paul gives that charge to the elders of Ephesus (Acts 20:28). Are we to assume that, because these local elders were told to "shepherd the flock of God," that they now were to have authority over the whole church worldwide, including the apostles? This would be as reasonable as the claim you make about John 21.
As for the appeal to Acts 15:7, it has always amazed me that you always bring this up, in view of the fact that the Jerusalem Council was clearly not headed up by Peter, but by James. We are told that Paul, Barnabas and Peter all told their stories, and then James made the final decision, based upon what had been shared. Why wasn't Peter chairing the meeting?
You wrote:
Look at Isaiah 22:20-23, "And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah: And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. 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. And I will fasten him [as] a nail in a sure place; and he shall be for a glorious throne to his father's house."
We have discussed this passages together at least twenty times! What I have pointed out to you is that this obscure passage in Isaiah actually
is mentioned in the New Testament, but not in the connection you are making. It Jesus, not Peter, who is said to possess the "key of David" (Rev.3:7, alluding to Isa.22:22).
Jesus and Peter are not the same guy in the New Testament. One is the Lord, and the other, by his own admission, was "a sinful man" (Luke 5:8). That man was redeemed, sanctified, and ordained to preach, but he was never equated with the one who had the "key of David"—who was Christ. I realize that you are equating the "key of David" (which only Jesus is said to possess) with the "keys of the kingdom" (which were given to Peter and the apostles). The concepts sound like they could be similar, or even identical, but we must be careful not to jump to unwarranted conclusions. Had He wished to draw a connection to Isaiah 22 in Peter's (or our) mind, Jesus could have told Peter "I give you the key of David," rather than the quite different phrase, "keys of the kingdom of heaven."
The only similarity in the two expressions is that they both speak of "keys" (or only "the key"—singular—in the case of Isaiah 22 and Revelation 3). While we can easily see some connection between "David" and "the kingdom," we cannot pretend that the terms are synonyms, nor that they are speaking of the same aspects of the royal concept. After all, all Christians are in "the kingdom," whereas only Jesus is the new
David, ascending to David's throne. It is a sad thing for Catholics that, in the only place where the New Testament cites Isaiah 22, it does so in a way that supports Protestant contentions, not Roman Catholic ones.
You wrote:
Note how many times Peter is in the forefront throughout the New Testament. Even Steve Gregg admits that Peter is chief among the Apostles. F.F. Bruce states; "Peter would be, so to speak, 'chief steward' ". Jesus is the Good Shepherd, John 10:14 and appoints Peter to be the Shepherd, John 21:15-17. Note 2Sam 5:2 and Num 27:17
.
The most I have ever said along these lines is that Peter, in the early days, was the
chief spokesman for the apostles. Later, James held this distinction in the Jewish churches, as Paul did, in the Gentile churches.
Remember Korah? He and his followers rebelled against Moses and Aaron having the final authority. We see Korah mentioned again in the New Testament, Jude 1:11. It states; "How terrible it will be for them! For they follow the evil example of Cain, who killed his brother. Like Balaam, they will do anything for money. And like Korah, they will perish because of their rebellion.
New Living Translation . Why mention Korah if everyone is to read and make their own decision and be their own authority?
Please explain whom you are likening Moses to in this analogy, and then in what way Evangelicals are rebelling against him.