Hi !

Hi Stephen,

> > Well! It depends who you mean by "everyone".

> > I mean everyone except groups rejected as heretics by mainstream > Christianity.

As my example of Hippolytus and Tertullian shows, this is not the case, unless you are calling them heretics?

> > I would not call false doctrine "legitimate." But definition it is an > abomination in the sight of God. >

Are you aware of the sort of disputes I am talking about? It just wasn't the case that there was a clear cut set of doctrines which everyone accepted and then a few heretics come along and denied them, the church denounced them and everything was lovely again. The whole history of the church, but in particular the first few centuries are alive with debate. Perhaps as an example of your black and white theory you could explain whether you believe Origen taught false doctrine?

> > There were plenty of disagreements. But mainstream Christianity holds that > Catholicism was right in its condemnation of these heresies. I suspect you > are not mainstream, however. >

So what are you saying now? First you claim everyone was in agreement, now you are saying there were plenty of disagreements.

What is the phrase "I suspect you are not mainstream, however." thrown in for? As we have been finding, it is the SDA arguments which are supported by evidence and clear argument, the RC arguments which appear to be powered by generalisation and name calling.

> > Doctrinally the Catholic Church has made no wrong turns thus far. >

Interesting point of view. Do you believe the Catholic church has ever been inconsistent?

> > No. The Church has no free will of its own, except the will of Christ. The > men who run it have free will, but God prevents their use of their free will > from having a destructive effect on the Church. >

What a sad point of view. I take it you don't think freedom and free will are natural to the human state?

> > A pope is free to sin, yes. A pope is free to believe a false doctrine, > yes. But as head of the Church the pope is incapable of teaching a false > doctrine. The Holy Spirit prevents that. Just as the Holy Spirit guides > the free will of men to make the right decisions, so He will guide the free > will of any heretical pope. >

Out of curiosity, what is your understanding of the view that the Catholic church didn't want the Bible to be translated from the Latin so that "common people" would be able to read the Bible and decide if the church was correct in its interpretation?

> > No, my reading of Acts 15 has Peter being in charge, but James merely > speaking to the group of people providing his view and his argument. The

How do you make this reading? Since Acts 15 is clearly key to your argument, perhaps you might like to take us verse by verse through it to see how your argument holds up? Paul's reference to the Council of Jerusalem certainly doesn't agree with your interpretation.

> facts remain that Peter is by far the most prominent Apostle in the entire > Bible, except for the fact that Paul did more writing.

As you already indicate, it is not a fact that Peter is by far the most prominent apostle. If someone read through the New Testament, they would not come away with the view that Peter was in any way important, if anything they would find him a rather confused person, as Paul writes "when Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray" (Gal 2:11:13)

> As for Acts 15, > notice verse 7 where Peter also talks. So it is wrong to say that James is > in charge simply because we have record of him speaking. He might well have > presided over the council as it was in his diocese, but that is debatable. >

I think you need to read this passage again. You appear to be arguing that just because Peter speaks in the debate this proves he is in charge, whereas James, who uses the words at the end "it is my judgement, therefore", you doubt had any authoritive role. I didn't argue that James was in charge just because he spoke, the evidence for his being in charge is the way the Council is conducted. Each party says their part, then James passes judgement at the end. This rather clearly makes him in charge, and those who spoke within the debate were just participants.

> > Other stories concerning Peter seem to cast him as being caught in the > > middle between the Paul and James groups.

> > As is expected when two sides of a debate come to the Pope for a decision.

Are you not aware of the facts here? First Peter agrees with Paul about food sacrified to idols, then some of James followers arrive and he agrees with them instead. This is hardly the behaviour of a pope.

> > The fact that he is often > > mentioned with other disciples and often referred to first simply seems to > > be because he was literally the first disciple (the first one Jesus > called).

> > Being mentioned first implies authority rather than temporal precedence. > The leader is always mentioned first.

Again, where is your evidence? No wonder you are able to reply so quickly, there are no proofs in your replies, just unsupported assertions. Let's look at this one. In Acts 4:27 we read: "Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles", here we have the name of the Roman Governor and the local Jewish king. I think you will agree the Roman Governor was the leader here, yet is mentioned second.

> > Considering the fact that more than 60% of the times when an Apostle is > mentioned by name, it is Peter who is mentioned, and considering that it his

This is the best evidence, in your opinion, for Peter being in charge of the early church? The fact that there are no direct references to him as leader, no examples of him acting as a leader, no letters which indicate he was a leader, not even any ambiguous phrases which might suggest he was leader - the lack of all this evidence doesn't bother you? In fact even this statistic sounds improbable, perhaps you could give some evidence of it? I have done a quick count of the number of times Peter's name is mentioned in the NT, and it doesn't come out at anywhere near this figure, so even your main argument, unconvincing as it is, is factually incorrect.

> shadow that is venerated by the believers, considering that Peter alone is > the rock upon which the Church is built, considering that Peter alone was > told to feed Jesus' sheep, etc etc etc, it takes deliberate refusal to > acknowledge the obvious to deny that Peter was the most prominent of the > Apostles.

Again, the passage of Matt 16 we have already established as being apocalyptic in its language and symbols, and nothing to do with church organisation. Immediately following the passage, Jesus refers to Peter as "Satan", and says to him "you are a stumbling block to me, you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men" (Matt 16:23). which is hardly the way to talk to someone you have just made temporal leader of your church. You also stated above that "head of the Church the pope is incapable of teaching a false doctrine", yet here Jesus clearly denounces Peter for this very thing, so this further proof that by your own criteria Peter cannot not be a pope.

> > I will send you a listing of texts that show Peter's preeminence. It will > be attached to this e-mail.

These are the proofs in the attachment:

1. Matt 16, which we have already dealt with.

2. Peter's name occurs first in lists of apostles, we have covered this point above - that order does not imply leadership, but should also point out that there are a number of cases where this does not happen: Gal 2:9 "James, Peter and John" 1 Cor 3:22 "Paul or Apollos or Peter" 1 Cor 1:12 "one of you says 'I follow Paul'; another 'I follow Apollos'; another 'I follow Peter'" 1 Cor 9:5 "the other apostles, and the Lord's brothers and Peter"

3. Peter alone receives a new name. Not true, Paul receives a new name (Saul to Paul) and Rev 2:17 says that to him who overcomes will be given a new name.

4. Jesus tells Peter to "feed my sheep" (John 21:17). There is no indication in the passage that this means assume temporal power over the church. As with a similar passage in Luke 22:33 ("strengthen your brothers") it rather shows that Peter was to minister to Israel (see Gal 2:9-10, "James, Peter and John... agreed that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the Jews").

5. Jesus prays that Peter's faith does not fail (Lk 22:32). This of course is in the context of Peter about to betray Jesus, and does not indicate Peter head of the church.

6. Peter is told to "strengthen your brethen" (Lk 22:32). As shown above, this is a reference to Peter ministering to the Jews.

7. Peter first confesses Christ's divinity (Mt 16:16). This is no reason to assume he must therefore be head of the church.

8. Peter alone is told he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation (Mt 16:17), this is just another way of saying Peter's realisation that Jesus was the Christ came from God, as did everyone who believed. It is also not true that only Peter received divine knowledge by a special revelation, for Paul also received revelations from God (e.g. 1 Cor 11:23, 2 Cor 12:1-6 etc).

9. Peter is regarded by the Jews (Acts 4:1-13) as the leader and spokesman of Christianity. The passage shows that the Jews simply approached Peter and John because they were preaching to the people, not because they thought Peter was their leader.

10. Peter is regarded by the common people in the same way (Acts 2:37-41; 5:15). This is a reference to Pentecost, where they crown simply address themselves to "Peter and the other apostles" because they are addressing the crowd - so again there is no indication they regard him as a leader.

11. Jesus Christ uniquely associates himself and Peter in the miracle of the tribute money (Mt 17:24-27). This is just another way of saying Jesus speaks to Peter during the telling of this story. Jesus spoke to lots of people during his parables and miracles, are we suppose in doing this he was making them all heads of the church?

12. Christ teaches from Peter's boat. Why does this make Peter leader of the early church?

13. Peter was the first apostle to set out for, and enter, the empty tomb. Why does this make him head of the church?

14. Peter is specified by an angel as the leader and representative of the apostles (Mk 16:7). The angel actually says "tell his disciples and Peter", he doesn't say Peter is the leader, and notice this is another example of Peter's name being at the end.

15. Peter leads the apostles in fishing (Jn 21:2-3,11). Again, why does this make him head of the church? All these texts do is list things Peter did, as if even the simplest action proves he was being designated head of the church.

16. Peter alone casts himself into the sea to come to Jesus (Jn 21:7). Again, why does this make him head of the church?

17. Peter's words are the first recorded and most important in the Upper Room before Pentecost (Acts 1:15-22). This simply shows Peter spoke to the apostles - we know Peter, James and John were prominant apostles, there is no surprise to see Peter addressing the group.

I will list the other arguments below. Generally it will be clear that none of the points give any evidence that Peter was the leader of the church, rather they simply list things Peter did, such as preach, perform miracles etc. The final argument is that because Peter wrote his letter from Rome, this shows he was the first pope in Rome. In fact the letter makes no reference to this at all.

The point about Peter's name being mentioned many more times that the other apostles is for two basic reasons:

a) Because Peter has his name changed, often he will get a "double" mention, for example Matt 4:18 reads "Simon called Peter and his brother Andrew", so here Peter gets two counts, one for Simon and one for Peter, whereas Andrew gets only one count. It is clear this double counting is going on, as the argument below reads "191 times (162 as Peter or Simon Peter, 23 as Simon and 6 as Cephas)", here Matt 4:18 would have given one count for "Peter" and another for "Simon".

b) The count clearly does not include the apostle Paul, who is mentioned around 152 times as Paul, and about 20 times as Saul. Adding this to the mix puts Peter's "percentage" much lower, to around 40% (I am also including 42 references to James, as well as the 48 references to John mentioned).

Here are the remaining arguments.

* Peter takes the lead in calling for a replacement for Judas (Acts 1:22). * Peter is the first person to speak (and only one recorded) after Pentecost, so he was the first Christian to "preach the Gospel" in the Church era (Acts 2:14-36). * Peter works the first miracle of the Church Age, healing a lame man (Acts 3:6-12). * Peter utters the first anathema (Ananias and Sapphira) emphatically affirmed by God (Acts 5:2-11). * Peter's shadow works miracles (Acts 5:15). * Peter is the first person after Christ to raise the dead (Acts 9:40). * Cornelius is told by an angel to seek out Peter for instruction in Christianity (Acts 10:1- 6). * Peter is the first to receive the Gentiles, after a revelation from God (Acts 10:9-48). * Peter instructs the other apostles on the catholicity (universality) of the Church (Acts 11:5-17). * Peter is the object of the first divine interposition on behalf of an individual in the Church Age (an angel delivers him from prison - Acts 12:1-17). * The whole Church (strongly implied) prays for Peter "without ceasing" when he is imprisoned (Acts 12:5). * Peter presides over and opens the first council of Christianity, and lays down principles afterward accepted by it (Acts 15:7-11). * Paul distinguishes the Lord's post-resurrection appearances to Peter from those to other apostles (1 Cor 15:4-5). * Peter is often spoken of as distinct among apostles (Mk 1:36; Lk 9:28,32; Acts 2:37; 5:29; 1 Cor 9:5). * Peter is often spokesman for the other apostles, especially at climactic moments (Mk 8:29; Mt 18:21; Lk 9:5; 12:41; Jn 6:67). * Peter's name is always the first listed of the "inner circle" of the disciples (Peter, James and John - Mt 17:1; 26:37,40; Mk 5:37; 14:37). * Peter is often the central figure relating to Jesus in dramatic Gospel scenes such as walking on the water (Mt 14:28-32; Lk 5:1, Mk 10:28; Mt 17:24). * Peter is the first to recognize and refute heresy, in Simon Magus (Acts 8:14-24). * Peter's name is mentioned more often than all the other disciples put together: 191 times (162 as Peter or Simon Peter, 23 as Simon and 6 as Cephas). John is next in frequency with only 48 appearances, and Peter is present 50 percent of the time we find John in the Bible. Archbishop Fulton Sheen reckoned that all the other disciples combined were mentioned 130 times. If this is correct, Peter is named a remarkable 60 percent of the time any disciple is referred to. * Peter's proclamation at Pentecost (Acts 2:14-41) contains a fully authoritative interpretation of Scripture, a doctrinal decision and a disciplinary decree concerning members of the "House of Israel" - an example of "binding and loosing." * Peter was the first "charismatic," having judged authoritatively the first instance of the gift of tongues as genuine (Acts 2:14-21). * Peter is the first to preach Christian repentance and baptism (Acts 2:38). * Peter (presumably) takes the lead in the first recorded mass baptism (Acts 2:41). * Peter commanded the first Gentile Christians to be baptized (Acts 10:44- 48). * Peter was the first traveling missionary, and first exercised what would now be called "visitation of the churches" (Acts 9:32-38,43). Paul preached at Damascus immediately after his conversion (Acts 9:20), but had not traveled there for that purpose (God changed his plans). His missionary journeys begin in Acts 13:2. * Paul went to Jerusalem specifically to see Peter for 15 days at the beginning of his ministry (Gal 1:18), and was commissioned by Peter, James and John (Gal 2:9) to preach to the Gentiles. * Peter acts, by strong implication, as the chief bishop/shepherd of the Church (1 Pt 5:1), since he exhorts all the other bishops, or "elders." * Peter interprets prophecy (2 Pt 1:16-21). * Peter corrects those who misuse Paul's writings (2 Pt 3:15-16). * Peter wrote his first epistle from Rome, according to most scholars, as its bishop, and as the universal bishop (pope) of the early Church. "Babylon" (1 Pt 5:13) is regarded as code for Rome.

The other point to make about these arguments, is that it clearly shows you are relying on a second-hand Bible study. Rather than sitting down with the Bible to find out for yourself what it teaches, you find someone else who has done the studying for you, and use their arguments and texts. Believe me, this is not the way to discover what the Bible teaches.

> > At least we recognise that the Papacy existed as far back as Clement. Many > do not recognise this fact. >

The point is, decisions at that time were taken through church councils, the ultimate authority didn't lay with the pope.

> > Remember that either a doctrine is wrong or it is right. If it is wrong, it > should not be tolerated, IMHO. >

This is what I am trying to show you - the Bible turns this sort of intolerance on its head. If we can refer to "religion" as man's search for God, there have always been people who have claimed to discovered God, or had access to God, and everyone else could only get access to God via these special people. Whether we call these people bishops or priests or popes or shamen or witch doctors or medicine men their argument is always that access to God is through them. Therefore they have the "truth" and anyone who disagrees with them clearly challanges their status and position and cannot be tolerated.

The Bible on the other hand says "I wish that all the LORD's people were prophets and that the LORD would put his Spirit on them!" (Num 11:29), "and afterwards I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters shall prophecy, your old men will dream dreams and young men will see visions" (Joel 2:28).

But why is the Christianity different? It is because of a profound and fundamental truth about God - God is searching out humanity, God reveals himself to us. This is the opposite of religion traditionally understood, and "Christian Religion" that deformed the original message into yet another institution with selected access to God.

Christianity is not interested in defending or establishing a group of priests, bishops and leaders - this is why you find it so difficult to find who the "leaders" were. Your theology prevents you seeing history.

It is the Spirit - not priests - who teach us truth, Paul writes "I speak the truth in Christ - I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit" (Rom 9:1); and also "for God who said, 'Let light shine out of darkness' made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ" (2 Cor 4:6). We receive God's Spirit, so we do not need a priest to tell us about God.

John writes "but you have an annointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth" (1 John 2:20). So the idea that the truth comes from some special group who are "spiritually higher" than the "common people" may have been true in other religions, but is not the case in Christianity where God has revealed himself to us - not to priests who in turn will tell us what they have seen, but directly into our hearts.

"The annointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his annointing teaches you about all things and as that annointing is real, not counter-feit - just as it has taught you, remain in him" (1 John 2:27).

Because we have the Spirit, we have a direct relationship to God, not one mediated by a religion and religious officials. This requires a psychology wholly different to the traditional religious psychology, which is happy to be obedient, conform, keep to tradition, don't create, don't invent, don't discover, this is what Dostoyevsky's Grand Inquisitor says the people want from religion - they don't want direct access to God who might start doing something new and different - they want to be told what to think and what to believe, they want to be relieved of the responsibility. True Christianity is can throw the traditional believer into intense existential anxiety as they realise the "safety net" of the church and tradition has been removed, and it is up to them to be responsible for listening to the calls of the Spirit.

Real Christianity is liberating and exhilarating but it isn't easy.

God Bless

John

Stephen Korsman is a Roman Catholic
John Mann is a Seventh-day Adventist

© John Mann 2000
New Perspectives on Seventh-day Adventism
jon.mann@btinternet.com