INDEX:
Justification: Faith Alone
or Faith + Works
Edward
Dalcour vs. Church of Christ minister Ron Thomas: Justification: Faith Alone or Faith
+ Works
[see all notes]
ED Wrote (opening affirmation): In
dealing with the biblical doctrine of justification, it is first
important to define the meaning of justification in a
soteriological context since that is the core issue of our
debate. Throughout this debate, I will attempt to confine my
affirmations and conclusions solely from the exegesis of the
text. Likewise, I will ask the same of you. That way, our debate
will center on Scripture alone, thus avoiding non-exegetical
prattle and philosophical assertions. In saying that, I trust
that you would adhere to an accepted hermeneutical method.
The doctrine of justification (any doctrine for that
matter) must be derived solely on exegetical grounds. For
outside of those grounds, one can certainly assert any view one
wishes and make the text say what one would like it to say. So
to avoid this, please let us be fixed on the exegesis of the
text. I do not wish to debate with you if you cannot interact
with the text on its own merit considering the grammar,
historical setting, and most importantly the context.
First, in defining the biblical doctrine of
justification, the basic meaning (in soteriological contexts) of
the term translated “just” or “righteous”
must first be addressed. Thus, the verb dikaioō
simply means to be
declared righteous
or just before God.
Since the word is used differently in other contexts, we must
limit the usage of the term exclusively to the context of being
declared righteous in God’s sight. For that is the issue of
our debate, to which we agreed: How is a man declared righteous before
God—not before
man.
To go to irrelevant contexts
such as James 2:14ff. is to commit the fallacy of equivocation,
that is, interpreting terms like “faith” and “justified”
as though they had only one
strict meaning in every context. I surely hope you would not
go down that route (been there done that).
Further, you objected to justification by “faith alone.”
You said that my “contention of salvation by faith alone is
patently false,” and then you said, “I am offering you an
opportunity to ‘refute’ what you think is my error.”
However, as I will demonstrate, the Bible itself refutes your
error. The Apostle Paul sharply anathematizes your error of “adding”
to the work of Christ in justification (cf. Gal. 1:6-9). The
Bible indeed teaches that justification (salvation/eternal life)
is a free gift (charisma) given by God alone (cf.
Rom. 6:23; 8:32). You do not do meritorious works in order to
receive a gift that is given to you. “For if it is by grace,”
Paul says, “it is no longer on the basis of works” (Rom.
11:6).
As will be pointed out, Jesus said “he that believes
[pisteuon: pres. act.
part. of pisteuō] HAS [or “possesses”; echei:
pres. act. indic. of echō] eternal life”
(John 6:47; cf. 5:24). Jesus here clearly excludes works as a
means of receiving eternal life. The Apostle Paul declares that
a man is justified “by faith without
[chōris]
works” (Rom. 3:28; emphasis added). Furthermore, the man who
does NOT work, but believes
(pisteuonti) in Him is the man whom God regards as righteous or just
(cf. Rom. 4:4ff. [Rom. 4:4-8 is discussed in detail below]). The
man is “not justified by
works [ex ergōn; lit.
“from works”] of the law but through
faith [dia pisteōs]” (Gal. 2:16; emphasis
added).
Moreover, in the New Testament, “faith” is never said
to be the cause of justification nor is a man justified on the “account”
of his faith. The prepositions used clearly bare this out: The
man is justified (i.e., declared righteous)
before God, “by faith” (pistei as a simple dat.; Rom.
3:28; 5:2); “by faith” (ek + gen.;
e.g., Rom. 1:17; 3:30; 4:16; 5:1; 9:30; 10:6; Gal. 2:16; 3:8,
11, 24; Heb. 10:38); “through faith” (dia + gen.;
Rom. 3:22, 25, 30; Gal. 2:16; Phil. 3:9); “upon faith” (epi
+ gen.;
Phil. 3:9); and “according to faith” (kata + acc.;
Heb. 11:7). Hence, NEVER is faith said
to be the cause nor is justification because of faith (as with dia + acc.).
Rather, the sole basis or ground of justification is the
righteousness of Christ (i.e., His work), whereas faith is the
sole instrument of justification.
In other words, the saving faith that is given (by God alone) to
the sinner does not emerge from within him or her. That saving
faith is a gift, which is granted from
God alone (cf. Acts 5:31; 13:48; Eph. 2:8; Phil. 1:29; 2
Tim. 2:25). Even more, nowhere in the New Testament is
justification earned or achieved by creaturely works. Thus, in
light of the above, where, may I ask, in the New Testament is
justification said to be earned by works including the action of
faith?
Of course, there are many more of passages in which Paul
asserts the “aloneness” of faith as the ALONE instrument (dia)
of justification, as surely as if he had used the term “alone.”
Thus, he is asserting the aloneness more strongly then if he had
used the word monos each and every time.
Hence, “faith alone” is simply faith without
additions or modifications. Justification is
never deemed as a reward for meritorious works or
performance, rather it is said to be a gift,
which cannot be earned. Paul was clear: “But to the one who does not work, but believes [or “has faith,” pisteuonti]
. . . his faith is
credited [or “imputed,” logizetai]
to him as righteousness” (Rom. 4:5; emphasis added). Even
more, Romans 4:6 literally reads: “Blessed is the man to whom
God imputes, or credits righteousness WITHOUT works” (theos
logizetai dikaiosunen choris ergōn;
emphasis added). Note that Paul here does not limit works
to only “works of the Law” (a Catholic assertion). Paul does
not even (in this context) use the phrase “works of law” (ergōn
nomou), but
rather ergōn—any
works. Later on, I will expound on this important text
(viz. Rom. 4:4-8) in greater detail.
Faith Alone
RT Wrote: Ed: Your first three paragraphs are fine as they
are written. Context is most important, but context includes
what God said on the topic, not in one place exclusively, but
wherever the topic is under discussion. So, the text can be
dealt with on its own merits, but to avoid what the Holy Spirit
said elsewhere, on the same topic, is mishandling the biblical
text. An exegetical study is not exclusive to the verse under
consideration. It also includes the context. I reject your fifth
paragraph’s mentioning of James 2 as being irrelevant. It
matters not to me whether the LDS find the passage a favorite or
not, if the Holy Spirit wrote it—it is relevant. If I were to
use the passage, you would have to demonstrate my “misuse.”
Your assertion of the “fallacy of equivocation” is merely
that. Demonstration would need to be forthcoming.
ED Wrote: Your assertion: “if the Holy Spirit wrote it—it
is relevant” confuses the issue. Relevance is dictated by
context. To be sure, to apply James 2 to the issue of “how a
man is justified before God” is a blatant “misuse” of that text. Contextually,
the context of James 2 is not saving
faith in which one is justified before
God. Rather, the context is clearly demonstrative
faith, e.g., v. 18: deixon moi, “show me”; soi
deixō, “will show you”; v. 22: blepeis, “you
see”; v. 24: horate, “you see,” etc. This, along
with Abraham’s “show” of faith (to offer Isaac as a proof
of his faith, which was at least twenty years after
he was credited as “righteous”), defines the context: a
show-faith before man,
not before God.
Thus, only by ignoring the audience to whom James wrote,
the specific words being used (viz. deixon moi; soi deixō;
blepeis), and the examples of Abraham and Rahab
causes groups like Catholics, LDS, Church of Christ, etc. to
remove James 2 out of its natural context and make it discordant
with Paul faith-alone theology.
RT Wrote: What translation (version) of Scripture do you
have that translated in any portion of the NT with any
equivalent use of the phrase, “justification by faith alone”?
ED Wrote: Sir I have already addressed this point in my
opening statement. I never said that the exact phrase “faith
alone” is contained in the text.
I clearly pointed out that justification is said to be through
faith alone apart from
additions or modifications (i.e., any works). That is the
biblical data. Thus, faith alone simply means faith without meritorious
creaturely works. You still have not responded to the texts that
I put forward.
RT Wrote: If, as you say, “Of course there are many more
of passages in which Paul asserts the “aloneness” of faith
as the ALONE instrument (dia)
of justification, as surely as if he had used the term “alone,”
and he is asserting the aloneness more strongly then if he had
used the word monos each and every time.” Surely, you can
produce a translation for us.
ED Wrote: I am not sure what you mean. The presentation of
faith alone is contained in all recognized translations: “faith”
as the sole instrument of justification with no additions or
modifications implied. Perhaps you should go back and re-read my
points concerning monos in my opening statement. I said,
“Paul was clear: ‘But to the one who does not work, but believes [or “has faith,” pisteuonti]
. . . his faith is
credited [or “imputed,” logizetai]
to him as righteousness’ (Rom. 4:5; emphasis added).”
RT Wrote: A Series of questions: What does the word “work”
mean?
ED Wrote: It depends on the context.
RT Wrote: Is the word “work” used the same in every
context?
ED Wrote: In soteriological contexts, the term translated
“work” (ergon)
always denotes any creaturely act, deed, or exercise, which is
performed in order to achieve justification (eternal life).
It is always set in
sharp contrast to the alone-instrument of justification—faith.
RT Wrote: Is “faith” the work of man or the work of God?
ED Wrote: As shown earlier, saving faith (along with
repentance and the ability to believe) is granted
to the sinner by God alone (e.g., Acts 5:31; Phil. 1:29; 2 Tim.
2:25; Eph. 2:8; Heb. 12:1ff.). The bare facts of the gospel
(e.g., deity of Christ, the resurrection, etc.), however, are
the result of that God
granted-faith. Therefore, saving faith is the sole work of God.
RT Wrote: Does the word “alone” exclude anything?
ED Wrote: It depends on which Greek word translated “alone”
that you mean along with its context.
RT
Wrote: An
interesting way in which you answered whether “alone”
excludes anything. Does the dictionary use of the word represent
accurately its meaning?
ED
Wrote: [silly
question] Sir, dictionaries do not provide contexts—only various
definitions that a word can have. In the
context of justification, Paul constantly draws a pointed
contrast between “works” and “faith.” Hence, he sees
that saving faith is “apart from,” or “without” (chōris)
works. Therefore, a sinner is declared
righteous (viz. justified) by faith apart
from works, any works
(i.e., additions or modifications). If faith is said to be apart
from or without
creaturely works, then it is alone. That is the biblical
presentation.
RT
Wrote: The word
“alone” is not in the English text, it has to be added. Are
you more informed than the translators [sic] since they
did not insert the word in the English text? Did they translate
wrongly by not having it there?
ED
Wrote: Interesting, at what passage did a translator add
the term “alone”? I know of no translation that adds the
word “alone” to faith in a soteriological context. Again, as I
pointed out above, the specific word monos
(or any equivalent) is not attached to the word “faith”
(saving faith). Although, since Scripture indicates that a man
is justified by lone “faith” “apart from works” (any
works) then we can say with biblical certitude that faith alone,
that is, “faith” unattached or unmodified is the alone-instrument
of justification.
Saving
Faith: Gift or Acquired
RT Wrote: If faith comes from God and man can do nothing on
his own to receive this faith, except God were to give it to
him, then God sends people to heaven purely because He wants
them to go. The converse of this is God sends people to hell
because He does not want them to go to heaven. If not, then why
not?
ED Wrote: The question cannot be “then why not,” but
rather what does Scripture say on the subject. God does not owe
salvation to anyone (no passage indicates this). He will have
mercy on whom He wants (cf. Rom. 9:15ff.) and He give salvation
to whomever He wills
(cf. John 5:21). Thus, God is not obligated to show mercy or to
save anyone.
Thus far, I have asserted many passages that clearly
indicate that a man is justified by faith alone without any
additions or modifications. You have not adequately proven your
position nor have you provided an adequate refutation to my
position.
RT Wrote: If Jesus Christ is “the sole basis or grounds of
justification” (and He is the ground upon which justification
is granted), can man “act” upon the work of Jesus Christ?
That is, can man respond with a heart of faith on his own? Or,
does faith need to come from God apart from his own volition?
What if a man does not want to be saved, does he have any choice
in the matter?
ED Wrote: First, Romans 8:7-8 indicates that the
unregenerate man does not
submit to God’s law, for he cannot
(ou dunantai), nor
does he have the ability to
do so (Rom. 8:7-8 is discussed below). Your question “What if
a man does not want to be saved, does he have any choice in the
matter?” is a hypothesis contrary to fact. Jesus said, “All
that the Father gives Me will come to Me. . . . of ALL
that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last
day
(John 6:37, 39; emphasis added).
RT Wrote: You will need to make a more coherent argument on
the prepositions. You have not shown (from the context) your
assertions that Romans 1:17, Galatians 2:16, Philippians 3:9,
Hebrews 11:7, or Romans 3:28 have negated man’s responsibility
to respond to God’s gift. All you have said is that
justification is “foundational” upon Jesus Christ. I have no
difficulty with that.
ED Wrote: Coherent? You need to read what I said more
carefully. You are ignoring many chief points that I have
provided to affirm my position. You have not refuted the
grammatical features of the passages that I presented—you only
deny them. I was very specific in terms of showing that
prepositions which have “faith” (in specific cases) as its
object clearly demonstrate that faith (saving faith) is never
“on account of” or “because of” (as with dia + acc.),
but is the sole instrument of justification. That was the point
to which you have not exegetically responded.
RT Wrote: You use Acts 5:31. Does verse 32 have any bearing
on the discussion, since it is within the same context? Here it
is evident that the Holy Spirit demands that man obey His holy
will. If man cannot believe the gospel, unless God grants him
the gift of faith, how can man obey? If man obeys after having
received the gift of faith already [sic] (apart from obedience), then he has salvation without the Holy
Spirit because it is not given until he obeys.
ED Wrote: First, only a justified sinner has the capability
to submit to God’s law (viz. obedience; cf. Rom. 8:7-8).
Hence, obedience is the result of being regenerated by
means of the Holy Spirit (cf. Titus 3:5-7). It was not until
“the Lord opened her heart” (i.e., regeneration) that Lydia
responded (subsequent) “to the things spoken by Paul” (Acts
16:14).
John
1:13
who
were born not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the
will of man, but of God.
RT
Wrote: It
is mighty interesting to me that so very few say as you do. I
have continually interacted by means of the context and the
analysis of your position and its failings. I am perfectly
satisfied for one to read this debate and give due consideration
to what has been said. For those who read this debate, who are
uncertain, they will be the ones who determine which position is
stronger than the other [sic].
Consider John 1:12. Did God give some the ability to “believe”
(“receive” Jesus) and then deny them the possibility of
salvation? The verse clearly teaches that that those that
believed (received Him); He gave them the right to become
children of God. I am interested in what you think about this,
Ed.
ED
Wrote: I
will try to simplify. John 1:12 reads: “But as many as
received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of
God, even to those who believe in His name.” Please note that
verse 12 does not indicate as to why they
receive Him and believe in His name. The term translated, “believe”
is pisteuousin, which is
the plural present active participle of pisteuō
(lit. “the believing ones”). Thus, the verb indicates a present
active and continuous action. But the answer to your question
lies in the next connected
verse: “who were born NOT
of blood nor of the WILL of the flesh NOR
of the WILL of MAN, but
of GOD” (emphasis added).
Consider
the following:
1.
The phrase “were born” is from one Greek word, egennēthēsan.
The
verb egennēthēsan
(“were born”) is the aorist passive
indicative of gennaō.
2.
Because the verb is an aorist
indicative, the being born was a past event,
which preceded the act
of “believing in His
name” (v. 12).
3.
The verb is passive, which indicates that the being
born was an act
of God done to the subject—unregenerate man.
Hence, the being born
was an action in which man’s participation was completely
excluded: “NOT
of blood nor of the WILL of the flesh NOR
of the WILL of MAN, but
of GOD”; emphasis added.
4.
Thus, the “believing ones” in verse 12 are the ones who
first “were born” not of blood, will, or flesh. Nothing is
said that would indicate that the being
born was an act of man’s self-determination or free will. In fact,
the opposite is clearly stated: NOT of the WILL of man, BUT OF
GOD.
RT
Wrote:
Again, how can Paul say to the jailer that HE must believe on
the Lord Jesus Christ before he can be saved if it is not
possible (16:30)?
ED Wrote:
You have not responded to John 1:12-13. Nevertheless, in
response to your question, Christians
are supposed to preach the gospel. God ordained preaching as a
means to call His people to salvation (e.g., Rom. 10:14ff.; cf.
2 Tim. 4:2). Acts 16 does not say WHY they believe, only that
they must believe. The question is why do some believe and
others do not. John 1:13 answers that question: those who
believe “were
born not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the WILL
of MAN, but of God”
(emphasis added).
RT Wrote: When Paul said a man is not justified by works in
Romans 3:28, what did he refer to (by context)? Is the NKJV
correct in the translation of this verse?
ED Wrote: I have already addressed this passage: “A man is
justified ‘by faith without
[choris] works’” (Rom. 3:28). You asked, “What
did he refer to (by context)”? Is the text not clear?
Faith vs. works: the righteousness of God is through faith
in Christ Jesus alone—“without works.”
John
5:24
“Truly,
truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him
who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into
judgment, but has passed out of death into life” (John
5:24).
RT
Wrote: A man is
taught by the Father [sic]
when he reads and obeys that which God said. When a man hears
and obeys what God has said, he is moving in the direction of
God. . . . So, if man will read (hear) what the prophets are
saying, then that person will come to Jesus.
ED
Wrote: [Millions read the Bible and never come to
Christ] The grammar of the text (5:24) speaks the opposite.
Starting with the first clause: “He who hears [akouōn]
My word, and believes [pisteuōn] Him who sent Me” (emphasis added). The Greek verb akouōn
(lit. “hearing”) is a singular present active
participle. The verb pisteuōn
(lit. “believing”)
is also a singular present active participle. Note
that both verbs are in the present tense,
literally: “the one hearing and the one believing.”
Then the phrase: “has [echei] eternal life.”
As seen above, the verb echei (“has”) is the singular
present active indicative of echō. The indicative
mood of the verb indicates the absolute certainty of the event
(i.e., “eternal life”). That echei
is in the present tense shows that the one believing
possesses de facto eternal life presently and continuously.
For this reason, the one believing will never
come into God’s wrath and judgment (cf. John 10:28).
We now come to the last clause of the passage: “but has
passed out of death into life” (emphasis added).
The verb metabebēken (“has passed”) is the perfect active indicative
of metabainō.
The perfect tense indicates a completed action that
normally occurred in the past, which has continuous
results into the present.
Hence, the reason as to why the one believing (apart from
works) “does not come into judgment” is that he “has
passed out of,” completely and indicatively (an assured
certainty), spiritual death. I submit, therefore, the full force
of what Jesus was literally saying:
He
who presently and continuously hears My word and believes Me (who I really am), I promise that he will presently and
continuously possess, without end, eternal life, that is,
salvation. And he will NEVER come into condemnation. He has, in
times past, been called to be declared righteous (justified) and
then glorified, whereby passing out of death into life with Me forever.
See also John 6:47 and 1 John 5:12 [as discussed below]
where the present indicative echei is utilized to indicate the certainty of eternal life for the
one believing. In point of fact, never is creaturely works
(e.g., water baptism, obedience, etc.) grammatically or
contextually connected to salvation in John’s gospel. God
justifies His people
freely apart from their meritorious performance. What is more,
Paul anathematizes those who would assert that creaturely works
are a necessity or requirement for justification (Gal. 1:6-9).
Hence,
verses like 5:24 specify that justification is the sole work of
the Triune God. They grammatically and contextually support that
regeneration precedes faith. I would suggest for you to
grammatically analyze this text a bit more thoroughly.
RT
Wrote: “The grammar of the text (5:24) speaks the
opposite”: Well, sure, let us give consideration [sic]
to the grammar of the verse (John 5:24) without any
consideration to the context. Is that how you interpret the
Bible? There is no wonder there is confusion in the religious
world. This is a great illustration of how one mishandles the
Scripture. Jesus said that if a person would HEAR and BELIEVE,
he will [sic] pass from judgment to life. Ed, there is no other way to
understand the passage except to maintain a doctrine that a
person will not find in Scripture—unless they have been taught
it (such as you believe).
ED
Wrote: You have
not provided any exegetical
interaction to support your assertion. Nor have you adequately
refuted my exegesis of the passage. You merely say that I am
mishandling the passage. Yet, I provided much by way of lexical
meaning of words and grammar. You sir, do not give me the same—you
only deny it.
John
6:27-29
Do not work for food
which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal
life. . . . Therefore they said to Him, “What shall we do,
so that we may work the works of God?” Jesus answered and
said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in
Him whom He has sent.”
RT
Wrote: Man does have a response to God’s will. Jesus
told the people to DO something (verses, 27, 29). He told them
to “labor” (ASV, NKJV) for the food that endures unto
eternal life. If this is not a response of man, nothing is.
Further, He said, “this is the work of God, that YOU believe.
. . .” How is this possible, Ed, if man cannot respond to God
on his own? It is not possible! Is the NKJV translation of John
6:27 accurate?
ED Wrote: The NKJV is fine. However, if you are suggesting
that the English translation teaches that one must work for
eternal life, I would point out that
1. In
the same chapter (a mere twenty verses later), Jesus states
clearly, “He that believes [pisteuon] HAS [echei]
eternal life” (John 6:47; see above). Note that it is the one
believing (apart from works) presently
possesses eternal life (cf. John 5:24).
2.
“Work” is defined in verse
29: touto estin to ergon tou theou hina pisteusēte,
“this is the work of God, that [hina]
you shall believe in Him.” Thus, Jesus here expresses that
belief (note the hina clause with the aorist subj. pisteusēte)
is the work of God (tou
theou; i.e.,
originated from God). Hence, the passage is clear, not
from the NKJV, but rather from the Greek text. Again, you cannot
separate this verse from 3:16; 5:24; 6:47; etc., all of which
denote that eternal life is by solely believing in Him. Thus,
you have not said anything pertaining to the text nor did you
interact with it, you only deny it.
John
6:37-40, 44
“All
that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who
comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. For I have come
down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him
who sent Me. This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all
that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the
last day. For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who
beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life,
and I Myself will raise him up on the last day. . . . No one
can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I
will raise him up on the last day” (John 6:37-40, 44).
RT
Wrote: John 6:35-44 must be understood within the
context. Jesus placed a responsibility upon man in 6:27-29, 47,
51, 54, 56, [and] 58. How does the Father draw? He draws people
through the Word of God. What does the Father give them? Eternal
life—if they believe (verse 47). . . . Earlier you said that
“faith” is the work of God. This is what Jesus is saying in
the context. Jesus is not putting emphasis upon what man is to
do apart from a devoted heart; He is putting emphasis upon what
man is to do in conjunction with the will of God.
ED
Wrote: First, verse 44 does not say that the
(irresistible)
“drawing” is through the agency of the Word of God. Second,
nowhere in John 6 [or any where in the NT]
is faith + works (viz. works in “conjunction
with His will” as you said) a condition for justification. The
text (John 6:37-40, 44) is clear: The only
ones that Jesus raises up (eternal life) are the ones that, prior to their belief, were given to Him by the Father.
John 6:37 says, “all which the Father gives”
(didōsin,
pres. tense here) do come. Jesus secures them all for they will
by
no means be cast out.
Note the double negative construction: ou
mē, “certainly
not” followed by the aorist active subjective ekbalō,
lit. “I shall cast out.”
This grammatical construction
absolutely indicates that there is not even a possibility
(due to the subj.) that the ones that come to Christ will be
cast out. We find the same construction in John 10:28: “I give
eternal life to them [viz. His sheep], and they
will
never perish [ou
mē apolōntai]”
(emphasis added).
Following,
John 6:39
says, “all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it
up at the last day.” Please notice that dedōken
“has given” is a
perfect tense, hence, a completed
action in the past
with continuous effects.
Thus, the reason as to why they believe and do His will (v. 40)
is that they were first “given” to Christ by the Father—all
creaturely works of man are excluded. Thus, “the Son gives
life to whom ever He wills
[thelei]”
(John 5:21; emphasis added).
RT
Wrote: In
6:44-45, Jesus said a man would come to Him if he was [sic]
taught by the Father.
ED
Wrote: Read
the passage in its original significance and context. The
only ones that are taught by the Father are the ones that He
draws to the Son, as the passages indicate. Jesus
said in verse 65 that “no one can come to Me unless it has been
granted him from the
Father” (emphasis added). Thus, the
only ones that Jesus raises up (eternal life) are the ones that,
before they believed, were given by the Father” (6:37-40,
44).
RT
Wrote: You wrote, “The
only ones that Jesus raises up (eternal life) are the ones that,
before they believed, were given by the Father.” Again, “The
only ones that are taught by the Father are the ones that He
draws to the Son, as the passages indicate.” This makes a
mockery of Jesus and His preaching to the whole community. If
man has no free will, a mockery is exactly that which is being
done [sic]. The “drawing power” of man to God is the
word of God. It is that objective (that which transcends man)
source of truth that removes subjectivity (the “I think” of
man). A man will draw near to God when he hears it. He will be
taught by God when he accepts it and obeys it.
ED
Wrote: [There are
many who are “taught,” but never come] First,
you have not provided any biblical support for your assertion
regarding the will (i.e., how you understand the will). However,
I do not wish here to discuss the will of man. For both Reformed
and non-Reformed Christians believe that justification is apart
from creaturely works—faith alone.
You are putting up a straw man argument only to detach yourself
from the main point of this debate: the biblical doctrine of
justification.
Acts
13:48
as
many as had been appointed [tetagmenoi]
to eternal life believed (emphasis added).
ED Wrote: As I have pointed out, faith, the ability
to believe, and repentance are gifts granted by God (cf. Acts
5:31; 13:48; Phil. 1:29; 2 Tim. 2:25; etc.). You have not
refuted or responded to those passages on any exegetical
grounds. The New Testament and Old Testament know nothing of a
self-generated faith whereupon man can please God—for he cannot
(ou dunantai; Rom. 8:7, 8 [as discussed below]).
RT Wrote: You use Acts 13:48. So, I suppose, Paul preached
to them, though he knew they could not believe unless God
granted unto them the gift of faith. Did Paul mock the people
when he gave them promising words in 13:32, 38-39? Why would
Paul give them any kind of warning in verse 40, if it were not
possible for them to heed the warning?
ED Wrote: You again have not provided any exegetical
refutation or interaction at all. You only give me your
supposition as to what you think Paul meant. We should take
Scripture on its own merit. Why did Gentiles rejoice? “As many
as had been appointed [tetagmenoi]
to eternal life believed” (emphasis added).
The verb tetagmenoi is
the pluperfect
passive participle of tassō.
Hence, the appointing was a past
action prior to
belief (due to the pluperf.).
Hence, the reason as to why they believed
was that they were first
“appointed”
by God to eternal life. Thus, they “belonged to” (BDAG)
Him prior to their belief (cf. Rom. 8:29: proegnō,
“foreknew”)—not of
themselves (due to the pass.). This was an act of God—not
man.
RT
Wrote: In Acts
13 . . . why did Paul preach to the people when they could not
believe on their own? If God wills to give salvation to whoever
[sic] He desires, why did Paul preach to all the people?
ED
Wrote: That is a
philosophical question, which does not deal with word tetagmenoi
in Acts 13:48.
RT
Wrote: You need
to answer this for the benefit of those who would read this
debate. If man has no free will, that is, he cannot believe on
his own, then Paul mocked the people and gave them a hope that
they could not attain, even if they wanted to. In 13:46, is
mockery at its best (as per you) because it was not possible
that they could even believe it! Clearly, the idea in Acts 13:48
is that God placed them where He wanted them (a similar idea is
found in 2 Corinthians 1:21), but not apart from their own will.
That is unreasonable to think otherwise. The lexicon you cite
does not reference the verse under the translation you offered
(it says, “devote oneself to a service” p. 806).
ED
Wrote: First,
we interpret the meaning of words based on the form of the word
and its context. Again, the word tetagmenoi is a pluperfect
passive participle. This clearly indicates that the ones that believed
were beforehand (due to the pluperf. force) appointed
to eternal life. Even more, tetagmenoi
(viz. the appointing
to eternal life) is passive—not
active. Hence, the action of appointing was preformed by God—not
man.
RT
Wrote: A proper
understanding of this verse (13:48, context) is that they
refused the Gospel because they were “insistent” on seeking
their own righteousness and not seeking after the righteousness
of God (cf. Romans 2:10). This is exegetically (contextually)
put forth, now refute it.
ED
Wrote: The
context and meaning of the term does not indicate that. The
pluperfect and passiveness of the verb clearly refutes your
assertion. You have not refuted (again) the grammatical aspects
of the verb—only denied it. You have said nothing pertaining
to the pluperfect tetagmenoi.
RT Wrote: Philippians 1:29 and 2 Timothy 2:25 say nothing
about what you want.
ED Wrote: These passages teach clearly that faith,
repentance, and the knowledge of truth are
gifts given by God alone.
RT Wrote: The word “earned” is not under discussion. I
have never affirmed, and neither will I affirm that salvation is
earned.
ED Wrote: Your assertion, as you have indicated, is clear:
works + faith = salvation, let us not play semantic games.
RT Wrote: Did you not argue earlier that man cannot have
faith or believe, but rather it is given to him by God [sic]? Now which is it? Does man have his own faith or not?
ED Wrote: Faith is given freely to the sinner in which he is
credited as righteous before God. Thus, God gave the
faith that the justified sinner possesses.
So far, you also have not provided any refutation as to
the grammar of particular texts, which I have provided. In fact,
you have not provided any solid refutation to the many biblical
passages that I presented (esp. John 1:13; 5:24). You only ask
questions, which are squarely based on your own philosophical
notions.
RT
Wrote: You said,
“Saving faith is the work of God alone as I have already
demonstrated.” Are the commands that God has given man to
obey, the work of man or the work of God?
ED
Wrote: You
confuse
justification and sanctification. Obeying God’s commandments
deals with sanctification, which is synergistic
and
ongoing. However, my
previous point was that justification is the work of God alone,
which is monergistic, and
a
one-time declarative act.
Romans
4:4-8
Now to the one
who works, his wages are not credited as a favor, but as what is
due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who
justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,
just as David also speaks of the blessings on the man to whom
God credits righteousness apart from works: “BLESSED ARE THOSE
WHOSE LAWLESS DEEDS HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN, AND WHOSE SINS HAVE BEEN
COVERED. BLESSED IS THE MAN WHOSE SIN THE LORD WILL NOT TAKE
INTO ACCOUNT.”
RT
Wrote:
How well have you read Romans? I am beginning to think not very
well [sic]. To whom
was Paul addressing this letter? What was the problem Paul had
to address? The first question answered: the church at Rome
(Christians). The second question answered: salvation by faith
(1:16-17). This second question posed tremendous difficulties
for some of the Christians (in Rome) who were persuaded by
Jewish ideology.
ED
Wrote: That is not
entirely accurate. Fundamentally, Paul
wrote to the Romans to refute exactly what you are presenting:
faith + works = salvation (viz. the doctrine of the Judaizers).
RT
Wrote: True or
false [did] the ASV (1901) translate John 3:36 accurately?
ED
Wrote: I do not have an ASV 1901. However, an
inferior translation of the verb apeithōn
would be the KJV.
RT
Wrote: Again,
this is why I asked the question. Certainly, the text (context)
is clear. Paul is talking about the Law of Moses. The Law of
Moses could not (and never could) save a person. That is why
Paul cited Habakkuk 2:4. If a person sought to be justified by
“doing” the law, apart from a circumcised heart, he could
never be saved. The law was not designed to save anyone [sic].
It was designed to show what sin is and to teach the people they
were in need of a Savior.
ED
Wrote: Nowhere does Paul limit the “works”
to only “works of the Law.” In fact, he does not even use the phrase
ho
nomos,
“the Law,” in
Romans 4:4-8. I
would suggest that you carefully and plainly read Romans 4:4-8
(even in English). Consider the following:
1.
In verse 4,
Paul explains that “works” are not credited as a gift or a
favor, but “what is due.” The literal rendering is even
clearer: “Now to the working one, the reward is not reckoned
[or “imputed,” logizetai] according to grace
[charin; Paul’s normal word for “grace”], but
according to debt [misthos].”
In other words, if an employer, after giving a paycheck to the
employee, says, “Thanks a lot, here is your gift,” the
employee would object stating that he or she earned that or
worked for it! Hence, it was not a gift. Exactly the argument
Paul makes here: wages are the result
or reward from works (viz. “what is due”). In verse 5 he
then contrasts “wages” (that one earns by
works) with being “credited” as righteousness by
faith ALONE—apart from additions or modifications. This
contrast cannot be missed: works
vs. faith.
2.
Paul presents two kinds of people here: the
one working and the
one not working: “But to the one who does not
work, but believes in
Him . . . his faith is credited as righteousness.”
Note that the same participle (ergazomenō,
“working”)
is used for both verses 4 and 5. However, Paul
inserts a negation in verse 5:
4:
tō de
ergazomenō, lit.
“but the
one working.”
5:
tō de
mē ergazomenō,
lit. “but the not working one.”
It is God, Paul declares, “who justifies the ungodly.”
We find here a double imputation: The righteousness of Christ is
imputed to the sinner’s account when they are justified and
the sinner’s sins are imputed to Christ (cf. 2 Cor.
5:21).
3.
In verse 6, Paul now shows
that David understood that “God credits righteousness apart
from works [chōris ergōn; emphasis added].”
The verse literally reads: “Blessed is the man to whom God
imputes or credits righteousness WITHOUT
works [theos logizetai dikaiosunen choris
ergōn].”
Again, Paul does not here limit works only to “works of the
Law” (a Catholic assertion). Please note once again, Paul does
not (in this context) use the phrase ho nomos, “the
Law,” but ergōn, “works”—any
works.
To avoid the plain and straightforwardness of Romans 4:4-8, some would
appeal to Ephesians 2:10 (“created . . . for good works”).
However, in this passage, Paul is simply teaching that salvation
is chariti, “by
grace,” and dia pisteōs, “through faith,” and ouk
ex ergōn, lit. “not of works” (2:9). Hence, works are the result, not the cause, of genuine faith (as pointed out
above). The Apostle James draws the same point: genuine faith
does not result in a deedless life.
4.
Then, in verses 7 and 8, Paul quotes David (Psalm 32:1-2): “Blessed
are those whose lawless deeds have been forgiven, and whose sins
have been covered. Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will
not take into account” (emphasis added).
When the sinner is justified (through faith), he is legally
declared: NOT GUILTY!
Justification is a one-time declarative act in which God
pronounces the sinner just or righteous. Hence, God does not
count their trespasses against them (cf. 2 Cor. 5:19). Note the
strong and specific language that Paul uses in verse 8: “Blessed
is the man whose sin the Lord will not take into account” (emphasis
added).
Many times the full import of particular passages is lost
in translations, which is the case here. As in John 6:37 (and
10:28 as noted above), Paul employs a double negative (ou mē)
followed by the aorist subjective (logisētai):
“Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will not take into account [ou mē logisētai]”
(emphasis added). The NIV reads, “whose sin the Lord will
never count against him.” Paul used this specific
grammatical construction to deny that there is even a possibility
that the Lord will count any sin against the justified. I would challenge you to examine this
text on its own exegetical merit and allow the text to read for
itself.
RT
Wrote: Ed, how
can you misunderstand a passage so badly?
ED
Wrote: Your
comments above do not refute the exegesis of the text, which I
provided above. You have not provided one ounce of textual
interaction—you only deny it.
RT
Wrote:
Ed, could Paul have disobeyed if he wanted? These passages (the
ones I referenced in my previous post) refer to man’s response
(of his own volition). How does “faith” come? If it comes by
hearing the word of God, can man respond to that hearing? If man
can respond to that hearing, will he be doing so because HE
(man) heard it or because God touched his heart (apart from the
Word) with some indescribable action and MADE him believe?
ED Wrote:
[But why do certain men hear while others do not?] I had
previously dealt with that assertion [cf. “John 1:13”
above]. You had asked the same question regarding the jailer in
Acts 16, which I have responded to, “Acts
16 does not say WHY they believe, only that they must believe.”
I then explained further, “The question is why do some believe
and others do not. John 1:13 answers that question: those who
believe ‘were
born not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the WILL
of MAN, but of God’”
(emphasis added).
RT
Wrote:
You have said more than you believe (I am sure). What about
Romans 15:4? No Israelite in Isaiah’s (or Daniel’s,
Jeremiah, et al.) day could interpret the written record and
understood it accurately?
ED Wrote:
What does 15:4 have to do with the
doctrine of justification or the passages that I have presented?
RT
Wrote:
They could not read (hear) and apply it to their lives (having a
correct understanding)? They needed to hear the word in the
context of the New Testament, coming nearly one thousand years
later.
Romans
8:7-8: ou dunantai, “cannot”
Because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward
God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it
is not
even able (dunatai)
to do so,
and those who are in the flesh cannot (ou
dunantai)
please God (emphasis added).
RT Wrote: Can man, of his own volition, believe?
ED Wrote: Paul declares that “the mind set on the flesh [viz. the unregenerate] is hostile toward God;
for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it
is not even able to do
so [dunatai], and those who are in the flesh CANNOT [ou
dunantai] please God” (Rom. 8:7-8; emphasis added).
In verses 7 and 8, the terms dunatai (the sing. pres. mid. indic. of dunamai) and dunantai
(the pl. pres. mid. indic. of dunamai), clearly denotes
ability.
Think about it, a decision to receive Christ would certainly
please God, would it not? However, Paul says that the
unregenerate sinner does not even have the ability (dunamai)
to (a) subject itself
to God and (b) please God. So, sinful man, based on his
own self-determination, that is, free will, will never choose
Christ—for he cannot.
Paul here employs a double use of dunamai
to stress this point. Thus, only if God regenerates the hostile
rebellious sinner granting
him faith and repentance
does he then choose (based on his own volition) to believe.
Therefore, the answer to you question is yes, only if, however,
he is first regenerated by God (i.e., regeneration precedes faith).
RT Wrote: Does man have free will?
ED Wrote: It depends on what you mean by “free.” Man has free will; however, Scripture indicates that man’s
freedom does not supersede God’s sovereignty.
RT
Wrote: You said
man has free will and yet it is not possible for him to believe
because of Romans 8:7-8 (which you misused).
ED
Wrote: Misused? The passages speak for
themselves as I have shown. The unsaved man who is “in the
flesh” has not the ability (dunamai) to submit to God or please Him. He can
make other choices, but he (based on his own in bondage to sin
will) will never choose nor seek for Christ (cf. Rom. 3:11). Hence,
man, based on his own free will, cannot,
that is, does not have the ability
to “subject itself to the law of God” or “please God.”
You have not refuted the strong language here (esp. the double
use of dunamai)
you only deny it.
RT
Wrote: Romans
8:7-8 is talking about a mindset of man. If a man is in a
particular mindset (that is, fleshly, sometimes called “carnal”),
there is no way he can please God. That is the point and
exclusively so.
ED
Wrote: [the context speaks of an unregenerate man—unsaved]
So, how can
an unregenerate man please God with a self-determinative choice
to obey the commandments, repent, believe, have faith, etc.,
when Paul says that the unregenerate man (i.e., spiritually
dead, “in the flesh”) cannot
please God? You have
not responded to the meaning of dunamai,
which clearly denotes ability. Nor have you justified your
position regarding the passages.
RT
Wrote: In Romans
9:30 [and] 10:3, Paul makes clear the application of Romans 8:7
(not to mention what he said in 8:5-6). The context of Romans
3:10ff. [sic] is that there is none righteous in and of themselves (cf.
7:18). When man is left to his devices, he departs because he
does want [sic] he
wants to—that is the whole point of what 1:18-32 is all about.
This does not mean that man cannot be touched by the message of
God when he hears it.
ED
Wrote: You import unrelated passages (viz. 10:3) into
8:7, 9. Romans 10:3 does provide the reason as to why they did
not subject themselves to God. Whereas Romans 8:7, 8 does: dunamai.
Hence, the unregenerate man does not the have the ability
to subject himself to God. Romans 3:10-19, however, confirms
exactly what I am saying: “There is none who seeks for God.”
Again, the
unsaved man does not have the ability to please God nor will he
ever seek
after God. You have
not answered as to how does a man, in his unsaved state, make a
self-determinative decision to serve Christ when Paul says that
he cannot
submit to God or please Him—“not even able to do so.”
RT Wrote: Man
does have free will and when he fails to come to God, it is
solely because he does not want to. No other reason [sic].
ED
Wrote: [Why does he not want to?] I
will answer, but again you are driving off the agreed subject of
debate. The subject of this debate, as we agreed, is simply:
what is the ground of justification, that is, how is a man
declared righteous before God:
faith alone or faith and external works (e.g., water baptism,
obedience, etc.)? Please, let us stay on target.
1
John 5:1
Whoever
believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God. . . .
RT
Wrote: You are
right, 1 John 5:1 is very clear. Amazingly though, it is clear
because of what John said in the following verses (2 and 3). Why
is that so difficult for you? You (and others)
are insisting upon a doctrine of salvation that is not taught in
Scripture. You respond to Roman Catholicism because THEY put
emphasis upon works apart from the heart, such as infant baptism
(which is also false). (If infant baptism is not “works”
religion, nothing is!). Where did you learn that the perfect
tense (in this verse, 1 John 5:1) is BEFORE the act of
believing? Utterly remarkable [sic]!
There is nothing in the context that would say as much.
ED
Wrote: Context
does not determine the tense and form of a verb. Sir,
your unawareness of Greek causes you to ask, “Where
did you learn that the perfect tense is BEFORE the act of
believing?” First, I would strongly suggest that you pick up a
book on the basics of Greek grammar. It is very frustrating to
debate with you when you make dogmatic assertions regarding
grammatical grounds of which you are not familiar. The term gegennētai
is the perfect passive indicative of gennaō. Please
look up this word to verify this. To say, as you do, that the
perfect passive verb is not the result of a past action
is sheer ignorance.
I am trying my best to dialogue with you. But if you keep
denying and ignoring word forms and their meanings without
examining the word first, I do not wish to waste my time. At
least check it out for yourself before affirming what you assume
to be true.
First, the present participle pisteuōn,
“believes” (lit. “believing”) does not mean obeying
commandments. Pisteuōn is the present active participle of pisteuō,
which, in soteriological contexts, carries the meaning of
knowledge, assent, and trust (e.g., BDAG, 816-18; Thayer,
511-12; etc). I am not sure as to what lexical source(s) you are
using (if any). In fact, this passage is so clear that I would
hope you would carefully and objectively examine it.
The Greek reads: Pas ho pisteuōn hoti
Iēsous estin ho Christos, ek tou theou gegennētai, lit. “Everyone believing that Jesus
is the Christ, from of the God has
been born.” Now, the present active participle pisteuōn indicates
that the believing is ongoing and active. The verb gegennētai (lit. “has been born”) is a perfect passive indicative.
The perfect tense indicates a past
action with continuous effects. Thus, the action of being born
of God denotes an action that was prior to
the action of the present active participle “believing.” Additionally, the voice of gegennētai, “has
been born” is passive, not
active (this is a key point regarding
the meaning of the verse). So clearly, John is saying that the
being born
of God was not of the one believing. Thus, the action of the verb
(i.e., the being
born) was
done to the subject—no work of man included.
Therefore, in light of the grammar we can now properly
exegete the passage: Everyone believing that Jesus is the Christ
has
been, prior to believing, born from God, hence, by God—not
of themselves (i.e., regenerated before believing). Clearly then, the being born
of God was the cause, not
the result
of believing.
RT
Wrote: No Greek
commentator I have read says as much. Where did you get this? As
a matter of fact, Donald Burdick argues against this
interpretation (The
Letters of John the Apostle, Moody Press, pp. 342-343) [sic].
ED
Wrote: Show
me one Greek grammarian, lexicographer, or scholarly source that
disagrees that the verb gegennētai
is a perfect
passive indicative.
RT
Wrote: The “everyone
who believes” refers to the response of the individual. The
“everyone who loves” refers to the response of the
individual. [ED said] “So, in light of the grammar we can now
properly exegete the passage: Everyone believing that Jesus is
the Christ has been, prior to their believing, born from God,
hence, by God, not of themselves (i.e., regenerated before
faith).” If this were correct, the translation (any and all [sic]
reputable translations) would read that way. No translation
does; therefore, your analysis is incorrect.
ED
Wrote: First, we
do not go to translations to test the accuracy of the Greek New
Testament. It
is a grave mistake to rely exclusively on an English translation
to acquire and accurately understand the authors’ intended
meaning. If you know anything concerning biblical translations,
you would recognize that no
translation corresponds flawlessly to the Greek text
(or the Heb.). Second,
pertaining to my literal rendering, “has
been born”
(emphasizing the antecedent action), you asserted, “No
translation” indicates this. Have you read them all? Have you
read The
Modern Language Bible
(1969) or The
New Revised Standard Version (1989)?
In these translations, 1 John 5:1 is rendered: “Every one who
believes that Jesus is the Christ has
been born of God. . .
.” (emphasis added). Moreover, The
Jerusalem Bible (1966)
reads: “Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ has
been begotten by God”
(emphasis added). Therefore, your assertion “No
translation does” is incorrect.
ED
Wrote: (conclusion):
If I
am in error, why have you not provided any exegetical
interaction to show this? You merely deny my presentations. . .
. As indicated, obeying the commandments (e.g., water
baptism) does not save anyone. Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses
both try to obey all the commandments, but that does not mean
(even if they are successful) they are Christians. Again, you
confuse sanctification (i.e., living holy, obeying commandments,
etc.) with justification (i.e., a one-time declarative act where
God pronounces the sinner righteous).
As shown repeatedly, unregenerate man
does not have the ability (dunamai;
cf. Rom. 8:7-8) to subject himself to God nor can he please
God. Hence, it is God who grants him this ability, along with
the ablity to believe and repent (cf. Acts 5:31; Phil. 1:29; 2
Tim. 2:25). The one that continuously
believes (due to pres. part.) that Jesus is the Christ has
been regenerated (before believing, due to the perf.) by God (cf.
John 1:13; Acts 16:14; 1 John 5:1). He was
born, “not
of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man,
but of God” (John 1:13; emphasis added; cf. Rom. 9:11,
16).
Hence,
as biblically demonstrated, both contextually and grammatically
the sole ground of justification is the work of Christ, whereas
the sole instrument is faith alone. For that reason, man cannot add to God’s work in justification. Accordingly,
Paul anathematizes (cf. Gal. 1:6ff.)
those who would assert that creaturely works (any works) are
necessary in order to achieve justification. Justification is
the saving and exclusive work of God—monergistic (cf. Ezek. 36:25-27; Rom. 9:16; 1 John 5:1). To
deny justification through faith
alone is to deny the sole work of Christ—sola fide.
NOTES
Believing the essential facts of the gospel is
the result of the unregenerate man being born of God
(i.e., regenerated) as discussed below (“John 5:1”). In
Romans 5:1, Paul teaches that the believer, having
been justified (dikaiōthentes)
from faith (ek pisteōs),
presently and permanently has
(echomen) peace with
God (pros ton theon).
The peace with God was the result of the prior action
of having been justified. The verb dikaiōthentes
is an aorist passive participle. As with John 1:13, the
passiveness of the verb clearly shows that the act of being
justified was done to the subject. Moreover, the
aorist participle describes an action that is antecedent to
the time of the main indicative verb echomen, “have.”
I do acknowledge, however, the “majority” rendering of
the hortatory subjunctive echōmen, “let us
have peace.” Even though I understand that the subjunctive
is possible, I do not see it as contextually probable
(cf. Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the
Greek New Testament, Second Edition, [New York: United
Bible Societies, 1994], 169-70; James R. White, The
God who Justifies [Minneapolis:
Bethany House, 2001], 237, n. 8). Greek
exegete Kenneth Wuest explains further:
The
context is didactic. It contains definite statements of
facts. It is highly doctrinal in nature. It has to do with
the sinners standing before God in point of law, not his
experience. . . . Furthermore, there is a difference between
having peace with God and having the peace of God in the
heart. The first has to do with justification and the second
with sanctification. The first is the result of a legal
standing, the second, the result of the work of the Holy
Spirit. The first is static, never fluctuates, the second
changes from hour to hour. The first, every Christian has,
the second, every Christian may have. The first, every
Christian has as a result of justification. What sense would
there be in exhorting Christians to have peace when they
already possess it? The entire context is one of
justification. Paul does not reach the subject of
sanctification until 5:12-21 where he speaks of positional
sanctification and 6:1-8:27 where he deals with progressive
sanctification (Kenneth S. Wuest, Romans
in the Greek New Testament [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1955], 76-77).
Jesus said in John 10:26, “you do not believe because you
are not of My sheep.” He did not say, “you are not of My
sheep because you do not believe.” Hence, only His sheep
(who the Father gave to Him, cf. v. 29) believe.
Man has free will, but not utter free will. Every decision
that man makes (both saved and unsaved) is under the control
and providence of God—good or evil (e.g., Gen. 20:6; Exod.
3:21; Judg. 14:3-4; Ps. 105:25; Prov. 16:4; Lam. 3:37-38;
Acts 4:27-28). What I find is that Arminians do not consider
the fact that the will of man is in total bondage to sin. No man can wake up in the morning and say, “I
choose never to sin again.” It is only by the grace of God
that the justified sinner is free from
his
natural bondage to sin and, by His grace alone, enables him
freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good.
Nevertheless certain corruptions remains in the sinner, so
that his will is never completely and perfectly held in
captivity to that which is good, but also entertains evil.
It is not until man enters the state of glory that he is
made perfectly immutably free to will that which is good,
and that alone (Baptist
Confession of Faith, 31).
Back
to the Top
Oneness
teacher MF Blume vs. Edward Dalcour:
Is
The Son Eternal
MF
writes >>[responding to my statement] “Jesus was clear: a necessary condition
of true salvation is believing that He is eternal: UNLESS YOU
BELIEVE THAT I AM YOU WILL DIE IN YOUR SINS (John
8:24; cf Gk.). Heresy to be sure, is the fact that in Oneness
theology Jesus' life started in Bethlehem."
You
are incorrect about what we, United Pentecostal Oneness people
believe. We believe that JESUS is the eternal God, and that His
manifestation as SON OF GOD began at the incarnation of
Bethlehem. We do not teach that JESUS began to exist as the
incarnation. In your mind, Jesus and the term SON OF GOD are
synonymous. They are not in our minds. JESUS is the eternal God
who was manifest as Son for the first time in the incarnation.
My website explains these details:
www.ns.sympatico.ca/mfblume/oneness.htm.
Jesus is the Great I AM of the entire Old and New Testaments. So
it is a straw-man to say that Oneness people propose that Jesus
began to exist in the incarnation. Thank-you God Bless
ED
>>
Thank you for your response. First, your assertion assumes
that when Jesus spoke in 8:24, He was speaking as the divine
Father (Jesus’ divine nature). Oneness doctrine denies that
Jesus, the eternal Word, was numerically distinct (kai arithmō
heteron) FROM the Father before time. In other words, as
David Bernard asserts, Jesus, that is, the Son's life (as a distinct conscious
Self/Person) did not start until Bethlehem. Hence,
you can say Jesus is eternal but in Oneness thinking, He is only
eternal *as the Father* not as a distinct Self from
the Father. You assert your conclusion: God is unipersonal,
which you are trying to prove. Thus, you deny that Jesus (as the
Son) is the “I AM” distinct from His Father.
MF
>>Your
reason is ill based upon an insertion and quasi-interpolation of
the scriptures. You are in effect “adding” to the Word when
you say that Jesus can only be
the Great I Am due to the supposed need for Him to be distinct
from the Father. Nothing in that verse implies that
requirement of thinking that you propose.
ED
>>
Nothing? Sir, we do not take verses in a vacuum, you accuse me
of eisegesis, however, do really believe that when Jesus spoke
He actually shifted His mode from “Son” to “Father”
without mentioning this or even giving His hearers a hint? Where did He state that He was doing
this? You accuse me of eisegesis but yet ALL through the chapter
Jesus makes clear distinctions between Himself and the
Father, Jesus said in John 8: 16, “But even if I do judge,
My judgment is true; for I am NOT ALONE in
it, BUT I AND THE FATHER who sent me. And in verse
18, “I am He who testifies about Myself and the Father who
sent me testifies about Me.” Now given the plainness of the
chapter, in terms of the way Jesus clearly differentiates
Himself from the Father, who do you think is “adding”
to the Word of God?
*Instead of specifically responding, MF Blume downloads pages and pages
of Oneness theology from his website to ED.
ED
responds to the term “modalism” [MF opposes the term] >> First of all, I
use the term “modalism” because it represents Oneness
theology historically and presently—namely that there
are no distinctions of Persons or Selves—only a lone
unipersonal deity named Jesus, that manifests in different
modes, successively (modern
modalism) or developmentally (early modalism).
Thus, the easiest way to dialogue with you, I feel, is to deal
with the fundamental difference between modalism and historic
Christianity: Is Jesus eternally distinct from the
Father? I will not burden you with pages of Trinitarian
theology, but, I will ask one question at a time if you can do
the same please.
ED
>> Since
Oneness asserts that the Person of Jesus is not eternally
distinct from the Father, how would you exegete Colossians
1:16-17 where Jesus is said to be the Creator, that is, the AGENT
of creation? This cannot be the Father role or mode since in
verse 15 the Son is clearly distinguished from the
Father.
MF
>>
You ask where we find a statement that proves Jesus changes from
role of Son to Father. If you read my note more carefully, you
would have noticed that I pointed out that Jesus as Son was both
Deity and humanity. The Deity spoke the pertinent words at hand.
And the Divine nature of the Son did not begin but is eternal.
Deity spoke. It was not necessarily the Father that spoke at
all.
ED
>> You
assume what is meant to be proved—namely, that Jesus
played 2 roles. I simply asked, where did Jesus or any biblical
author teach that Jesus spoke as “Father” then switched to
the “Son” mode? Please provide one verse in the Bible that
demonstrates this.
MF
>>
And
if you want to ask questions, may I pose the question of where
we read that Jesus or any biblical writer said that the Father
was a person apart from the Son?
ED
>>
Sir, can you first respond to my question regarding Colossians
1:16-17?
MF
>>
God [the Father] was using Christ [Son] as a pattern to make
Adam and using Christ as a purpose for creation in the sense of
agency. As with Adam in Romans 5:14: “Adam who was a type of
Him Christ) who was to come.” Adam was a type of the coming
Son. Christ was a pattern of creation; He was in view when the
Father created.
ED
>>
In other words, as you assert, God looked ahead in time and
created with the Son merely in view. First,
I had asked you to provide an exegesis of Col.
1:16-17 not a Oneness solution to the passage. You have
not provided any exegetical interaction with the passage. The
problem with your interpretation is that the grammar is wholly
against such a view. The text reads that Jesus was the actual Agent
of creation, where “all things” were
created “through Him [di’ autou]” not
a future plan or “thought” in the Father’s mind. If that
were what Paul wanted to communicate, he would not have
used the Greek preposition dia (“through”) followed
by the genitive case autou (“Him”).
So, if Jesus was the Creator then, He WAS existing BEFORE the creation
of the “all things” with (distinct) the
Father. The reason that I believe that Jesus eternally existed
distinct from the Father is due to the grammar of the text not
an a priori unitarian [i.e., God as one Person]
assumption.
MF
>>
I cannot see what difference there would be between God using
Christ as a pattern to make Adam and using Christ as a purpose
for creation in the sense of agency. Without understanding Greek
Grammar, I think the thought of the Son of God posing, as an
Agent in the sense of being foreknown and trepanned is valid.
And it fits the thought of Romans 5:14, too.
ED
>>
Your assertion again is not from the exegesis of the text,
but rather your own Oneness predilection. Second, I do not use
Greek as a tool merely to win arguments. That would never be my
intention. However, it is important that we really do understand
what Scripture is saying. That does require that we go to the
original. If we rely on an English translation only, we can
never exegete important passages properly. Example: JWs think
(relying on the Eng.) that the word
firstborn
(prōtotokos; cf.
Col. 1:15) means, “first created.” Hence, they assert
that Jesus was created. However, lexically the word has the
denotative meaning of “supremacy” or “first rank” (cf.
Col. 1:18). Sorry I am taking so long to make my point, but if
we are going to draw-out the *intended* meaning,
we must, go to the original.
Your assertion above (i.e., the Son “was in view when the Father
created,” hence He was not the Creator) is clearly refuted by
the specific grammar that Paul used. Again, when Paul says that “all
things [panta] were created through Him [di’
autou]” he chose the preposition dia followed by
the genitive [autou]. Therefore, in light of the exegesis
of the passages the point is unambiguously obvious: Paul, in
refuting Gnosticism teaches clearly that ALL THINGS were
created “by” (en + dative) the Son; “for” (eis
+ accusative) the Son; and “through” (dia +
genitive) the Son. There is no stronger way in Greek in which
Paul could have communicated that the Son was the real and
actual Agent of creation (not merely an instrument). We also see
the same grammatical construction (dia + the gen)
denoting the “Son” as the Creator in John 1:3; 1 Cor. 8:6
and Heb. 1:2. Hence, the Oneness “in view of” assertion
falls headlong in light of the grammar and context.
If in the above passages Jesus was not the Creator Himself, then,
what would a verse look like that did teach that He was?
For that reason I would invite anyone to simply allow the text
to speak for itself: Jesus, the “beloved Son, was the Creator.
Please check this point out independently. That is why
historically the eternality of the Person of the Son has been a
central theme in Christianity [*no response by MF Blume to the
above].
ED
then writes >> Next question: John 17:5: The text is clear: Jesus shares (eichon)
or has glory “WITH” the Father (para seautō)
before time. Could you explain John 17:5 from an
exegetical standpoint and show me how Jesus is really is not
distinct from the Father as the plain meaning states.
Note: MF Blume has not contacted me since I posed this last question—typical.
Back
to the top
Roman
Catholic Apologist Robert Sungenis
VS.
Edward Dalcour
Romans
5:1:
Justified:
by Faith Alone or Faith + Works
Therefore having
been justified [dikaiōthentes]
by faith, [ex pisteōs]
we have [echomen] peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
ED writes>>
You (fr. a previous writer) still have not responded to
the exegesis of Romans 5:1, you only refer to other passages. Do
you know what I mean when I say “exegesis”? That is, to
analyze the grammar, syntax, case endings of nouns, aspect of
the verbs, lexical meaning of the words, context, etc. You have
not provided an exegetical refutation, this is typical though
when dealing with Roman Catholics: no refutation only
comments on other verses.
I asked you to exegetically
respond to Paul’s assertion in Romans 5:1, wherein Paul
clearly uses the aorist passive verb, dikaiōthentes
to indicate a past undefined action, not of ourselves, but by
faith (ek pisteō) and the present indicative
verb echomen “have,” indicating a presentation
of certainty.
RS (Robert Sungenis) writes>> Pardon the intrusion here,
gentlemen, but Frank asked me to respond to the “exegesis”
of Romans 5:1. My name is Robert Sungenis, author of the book Not
By Faith Alone: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for the
Catholic Doctrine of Justification. I run the organization
Catholic Apologetics International. Regarding the words in
Romans 5:1, I think it would help if you categorized the verb
[dikaiothentes] more specifically. It is an aorist participle.
As such, aorist participles merely indicate an action which
proceeds, and thus leads up to, the action designated by the
main verb, which in this sentence is echomen. In other words,
Romans 5:1 means: the reason we have peace with God is due to
the fact that we were justified. The aorist participle coupled
with the present indicative is thus illustrating a cause-effect
relationship. The aorist participle is not, however, describing
when or how the justification took place, nor its longevity, for
that matter. All it says is that the state of justification
provides peace with God.
ED
writes>>
But
what you overlook sir, is that the aspect of the aorist is a past
undefined action which indicates that dikaiōthentes
[“having been justified”] is a past
event. Further, you did not consider that the verb is passive,
Hence, the work of justification was something done to the sinner.
Hence,
the passage literally reads: Therefore since we
have been, in the past, made right before God (justified).
RS writes>>
Granted,
it is implied that the justification must precede the peace, but
if you are trying to draw a conclusion that the sentence is
giving a description of the origin or nature of the
justification, this verse won't help, since it is not addressing
that question.
ED
writes>>
Yes, the
justification precedes the peace just as you mention, but again,
the justification is a past
(preceding the "peace") undefined action as the aorist
indicates. So, even if the justification is undefined: it is a past
action that happens to
the believer. I believe that you were hit with this point in a
debate with James White. More so, the verb [dikaiōthentes,
“having been
justified”] is in the passive voice—not
in
the active (if so, Paul would have used the active verb of dikaioō).
RS
writes>>
This is really a non-sequitur, since Catholics do not view
justification as a self-initiated act.
ED writes>> The Catholic position is
fides caritate formata,
[“faith formed by love”], thus teaching that faith is
clearly NOT
alone. As Trent declared: “If anyone says that people are justified either by the sole
imputation of the righteous (justitia) of Christ or by
the sole remission of sins, the exclusion of the grace and
charity ... or even that the grace by which we are justified is
only the favour of God, let him be anathema” (Canon
XI).
Rome
teaches that the justification comes by co-operation with
God; not through faith alone. Paul never modified the faith
(which is alone) in Romans 5:1 or anywhere else. He states the
converse: “A man is justified by faith apart from the
law” (3:28), that is, ex
pisteōs,
“by faith” with no added modifications.
RS writes>>
Romans
5:1 is not addressing “modifications,” so your argument, you
are probably directing it as a critique of Catholic
justification, is inappropriate. When Romans address “modifications”
(those proper and those improper) it makes it quite clear it is
doing so Romans 2:6-8; 2:13; 4:3-4; 7:7-8; 14:10-12).
ED writes>>
Again
you ignore the specific language: “having been justified by
faith we now have
peace with God.” Hence, the justified person possesses
presently and actively (i.e., echomen,
“have” [present
active indicative]) “peace” pros
ton theon, “with the God.”
RS writes>>
The
verb, as a present indicative, displays a present reality that
is ongoing, but the only thing that is certain is that
justification produces peace. The verse does not say that once
the peace is attained through justification that such peace
cannot be lost, especially if one were to lose the
justification. Unfortunately for your side, the verse does not
say the justification is unmodifiable. Again, the verse only
says that the person has peace because he has justification. It
does not say that either the peace or the justification are
unalterable, and thus, the verse does not give you the certainty
of salvation you are looking for.
ED writes>>
That,
is your conclusion that you are wishing to reach. The
indicative points to the certainty that the believer has
ongoing peace, because he HAS BEEN justified, with no
modification in the text. Let us allow the text to read for
itself.
RS writes>>
Moreover,
there is a well-known textual variant in Romans 5:1. The verb
could just as well be echōmen, which is the subjunctive
mood, and is thus translated as "we might have peace."
Since the manuscript evidence is virtually split down the middle
on this verb, there is no sure way to know which variant is
correct. If the subjunctive mood is the correct one, then this
puts even more uncertainty into your position.
ED
writes>> It is not the number of MSS, but the *contextual*
precedence that provides the
indicative rendering. Hence, observing the context of chapter 5,
even the Roman Catholic Jerome Biblical Commentary
says of the variant: “The pres. indic. echomen (‘we have’
[peace]) is preferred by modern commentaries to the pres. subj.
echōmen (‘let us have’), which, though better attested,
is an obvious scribal correction” (II:305).
RS writes>>
I
challenge you to name one, clear passage of Scripture that
teaches that justification comes by faith alone. Perhaps you may
want to define what you mean by “faith alone,” as well,
since there seem to be many versions of what this unbiblical
phrase means.
ED writes>> Faith alone simply
means “faith” without additions or modifications.
Paul
wrote Galatians for one purpose: to anathematize the “adding
to justification” Judaizers. “and knowing that a man is not
justified by works of the law” (Gal. 2:16). Further,
Paul said that “Abraham believed [episteusen] and it was credited [elogisthē]
him as righteousness [dikaiosunēn]” (Rom.
4:3). How was Abraham justified?: By believing or
by faith alone—without additions or modifications. “You foolish Galatians,” Paul
says, “Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law or by
believing what you heard?” (Gal. 3:2) When Paul asks, “Are
you now trying to attain perfection by human effort?” (Gal.
3:3), the Catholic would have to say “yes” (e.g., fides
caritate formata).
However, Paul affirms: “Those who believe are the
children of Abraham.”
But the Catholic cannot exegete Scripture, not because he
or she is not able to do so but because the Catholic Church has
already decided for its members. That is why Frank does not
grammatically respond to Romans 5:1, instead he goes to other
unrelated passages.
RS writes>>
I
think the shoe is on the other foot here, gentlemen. It appears
that you are the ones who have stated what your “church” has
dictated to you, and you’ve tried to support it by a rather
self-serving analysis of St. Paul’s grammar.
ED
writes>>
Paul
was clear: “When a man works his wages are not credited to
him as a gift, [note: in the NT, eternal life is never termed
as a reward but as a gift] but as an obligation, however he
who does not work but has faith, that faith is credited
to him as righteousness (Rom. 4:4ff). The great fear of
Rome: sola fide, faith
alone.
Back
to the Top
Mark
Bonocore vs. Edward Dalcour:
The
Early Church and Matthew 16:18: The Roman Catholic Assertion of the
"Rock"
Mark
Bonocore Wrote>> Oh, okay. :-) If you
wish to discuss the case of Pope Honorius, I will be most happy
to go through that with you. Yet, FIRST, let's finish the
conversation we were already having in which you, among other
thing s, claimed that only18 Church fathers taught that Peter
was the Rock of Matt 16, while (if I remember correctly) over 40
supposedly denied that Peter was the Rock, teaching that the
Rock was other things. Well, as I recall, I
presented you with exactly 24 fathers who clearly taught that
Peter was the Rock of Matt 16, and asked you to present quotes
from these 40+ fathers who supposedly denied this (minus, of
course, any fathers whom I presented stating that Peter was the
Rock ;-). So, when can I expect that list of
quotes? Before you accuse us of dishonesty, wouldn't it be a
good idea to show the world that you are not dishonest yourself?
You made an assertion. Now can you back it up with solid
evidence or not?
ED
Wrote>> I am frankly surprise that you honestly
think that the majority of church Fathers held to such a view as
you (the Roman Catholic Church) do.
Also,
the Fathers that you submitted as affirming the Petrine Rock
interpretation were mainly post-Augustine. Why? I think that the
answer is quite obvious because the majority of Fathers of
antiquity did not hold to such. One question I have for you:
what is your patristic source? I say that because it is all too
common for many Catholics to use
post-Augustine sources to support their view.
First,
not to offend you, but you seem unfamiliar with many Catholic
apologists on the subject. Example, H. Burn-Murdock admits that,
“None of the writings of the first two centuries describe St.
Peter as a bishop of Rome” (The Development of the Papacy, 130f.).
In fact, no one before Callistus used Matt. 16 to support the
primacy of Rome—NO ONE.
In
terms of the early Fathers (note: “early” Fathers), first
the reference that I provided to show that the Petrine Rock
interpretation, was, I had thought, common knowledge among Roman
Catholic apologists. For the statistics that I had provided came
from a Catholic Archbishop, in which you disagreed with.
Archbishop
Peter Richard Kenrick prepared a paper on this subject that was
to be delivered to Vatican I. However, it was never delivered
but it was published later, along with other insights (An
Inside View at Vatican I, ed. Leonard Woolsey Bacon [New
York: American Tract Society, 1871). He points out that of the 5
interpretations, which Fathers of antiquity held to, (1)
Peter as the Rock, 17 Fathers, (2) All the apostles, 8 Fathers,
(3) that the church was built on the faith that Peter confessed 44
Fathers, including the most important Fathers, (4) Jesus as
the Rock, 16 Fathers, (5) All Christians were the living stones
held by very few Fathers.
Thus,
only 20 % of the Fathers held to the now postulated Petrine Rock
interpretation that is far from being the norm of the
early church. Do you disagree with an Archbishop? Was he off?
Now
then, please consider the following the statement of important
church Fathers:
Tertullian
explains what he means when he says that Peter is the rock on
which the Church would be built:
If,
because the Lord has said to Peter, ‘Upon this rock I will
build My Church,’ ‘to thee have I given the keys of the
heavenly kingdom;’ or, ‘Whatsoever thou shalt have bound
or loosed in earth, shall be bound or loosed in the heavens,’
you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing
has derived to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter,
what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the
manifest intention of the Lord, conferring (as that
intention did) this (gift) personally upon Peter? ‘On
thee,’ He says, ‘will I build My church;’ and, ‘I
will give thee the keys’...and, ‘Whatsoever thou shalt
have loosed or bound’...In (Peter) himself the Church was
reared; that is, through (Peter) himself; (Peter) himself
essayed the key; you see what key: ‘Men of Israel, let
what I say sink into your ears: Jesus the Nazarene, a man
destined by God for you,’ and so forth. (Peter) himself,
therefore, was the first to unbar, in Christ’s baptism,
the entrance to the heavenly kingdom, in which kingdom are
‘loosed’ the sins that were beforetime ‘bound;’ and
those which have not been ‘loosed’ are ‘bound,’ in
accordance with true salvation...(On Modesty XXI,
99).
I
have seen many RC apologists only quote sections of this
citation. For example, in a recently released Roman
Catholic defense of the papacy entitled Jesus, Peter and the
Keys. The authors give the following partial citation from
Tertullian:
I
now inquire into your opinion, to see whence you usurp this
right for the Church. Do you presume, because the Lord said
to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have
given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’ [Matt.
16:1819a] or ‘whatever you shall have bound or loosed on
earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:19b]
that the power of binding and loosing has thereby been
handed on to you, that is, to every church akin to Peter?
What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was
the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this
personally upon Peter? On you, he says, I will build my
Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church;
and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed,
not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed
(Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, David Hess, Jesus, Peter
and the Keys (Santa Barbara: Queenship, 1996), pp.
216-217).
When
comparing this citation with the one given above it is clear
that these authors have left out the last half of the quotation.
The part of the quotation that is omitted defines what
Tertullian means by the statement that Christ built his Church
on Peter and invested him with authority. Again, what he means
by these words is that Christ built his church on Peter by
building it through him as he preached the gospel.
Cyprian
held that Jesus was addressing the whole body of bishops since
He later endowed al the apostles with “honor and power”:
The
Lord saith unto Peter, I say unto thee, (saith He,) that
thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church,
and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. And I
will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and
whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in
heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be
loosed in heaven (Matt. 16:18–19). To him again, after His
resurrection, He says, Feed My sheep. Upon him being one He
builds His Church; and although He gives to all the Apostles
an equal power, and says, As My Father sent Me, even so I
send you; receive ye the Holy Ghost: whosoever sins ye
remit, they shall be remitted to him, and whosoever sins ye
shall retain, they shall be retained (John 20:21);—yet in
order to manifest unity, He has by His own authority so
placed the source of the same unity, as to begin from one
(Cyprian, On The Unity of the Church 3-4, pp.
133-135).
Most
Catholics cite only selective portions, but in full context
Cyprian view is clear. Cyprian, like Tertullian, states that
Peter is the rock, however their statements must be defined in
the entire context. Historically there was some confusion as to
the interpretation of Cyprian’s teaching because there are two
versions of his treatise, The Unity of the Church. Not
any more both Cath. and Prot. agree on the veracity of the work,
as does Roman Catholic historian, Robert Eno, when he points out
that Cyprian did not believe that the bishop of Rome possessed a
higher authority than he or the other African bishops. They were
all equals (Robert Eno, The Rise of the Papacy
(Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1990), pp. 57-60.
Eusebius
unambiguously taught that the rock is Christ. He
correlates this interpretation with the parallel rock and
foundation statements of 1 Corinthians 10:4 and 3:11. He goes on
to say that there is a subsidiary foundation, from Ephesians
2:20, of the apostles and prophets, the Church also built upon
them, but the cornerstone is Christ:
‘And
he sent out arrows, and scattered them; he flashed forth
lightnings, and routed them. Then the channels of the sea
were seen, and the foundations of the world were laid bear,
at thy rebuke, O Lord, at the blast of thy nostrils’ (Ps.
18.14)...By ‘the foundations of the world,’ we shall
understand the strength of God’s wisdom, by which, first,
the order of the universe was established, and then, the
world itself was founded—a world which will not be shaken.
Yet you will not in any way err from the scope of the truth
if you suppose that ‘the world’ is actually the Church
of God, and that its ‘foundation’ is in the first place,
that unspeakably solid rock on which it is founded, as
Scripture says: ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church,
and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it’; and
elsewhere: ‘The rock, moreover, was Christ.’ For, as
the Apostle indicates with these words: ‘No other
foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is
Christ Jesus.’ Then, too, after the Savior himself, you
may rightly judge the foundations of the Church to be the
words of the prophets and apostles, in accordance with the
statement of the Apostle: ‘Built upon the foundation of
the apostles and the prophets, Christ Jesus himself being
the cornerstone.’ These foundations of the world have been
laid bare because the enemies of God, who once darkened the
eyes of our mind, lest we gaze upon divine things, have been
routed and put to flight—scattered by the arrows sent from
God and put to flight by the rebuke of the Lord and by the
blast from his nostrils. As a result, having been saved from
these enemies and having received the use of our eyes, we
have seen the channels of the sea and have looked upon the
foundations of the world. This has happened in our lifetime
in many parts of the world (Commentary on the Psalms,
vol. 23, col. 173, 176).
Sharing
this view (Christ as the Rock) was Augustine. In fact, he
commented more on Matt. 16:18 more then ANY other church Father.
It is true that at the being of his ministry, he saw Peter as
the Rock but he changed his positon throughout the remainder of
his ministry he adopted the view that the Rock was not Peter
but Christ or Peter’s confession, which pointed to the person
of Christ:
In
a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On
him as on a rock the Church was built’...But I know that
very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the
Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will
build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him
whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son
of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock,
represented the person of the Church which is built upon
this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of
heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the
rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in
confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon
was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these
two opinions is the more probable (Augustine, The
Retractations Chapter 20.1).
And
I tell you...‘You are Peter, Rocky, and on this rock I
shall build my Church, and the gates of the underworld will
not conquer her. To you shall I give the keys of the
kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in
heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in
heaven’ (Mt 16:15-19). In Peter, Rocky, we see our
attention drawn to the rock. Now the apostle Paul says about
the former people, ‘They drank from the spiritual rock
that was following them; but the rock was Christ’ (1 Cor
10:4). So this disciple is called Rocky from the rock, like
Christian from Christ...Why have I wanted to make this
little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in
Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see,
built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession.
What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the
Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s
the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built,
which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer (Sermons,
XI, Sermon 229, p. 327).
I
will present more citations from Augustine, which clearly reveal
his position in regards to his interpretation of the Matt. 16,
and the Rock as Christ:
But
whom say ye that I am? Peter answered, ‘Thou art the
Christ, The Son of the living God.’ One for many gave the
answer, Unity in many. Then said the Lord to him, ‘Blessed
art thou, Simon Barjonas: for flesh and blood hath not
revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven.’
Then He added, ‘and I say unto thee.’ As if He had said,
‘Because thou hast said unto Me, “Thou art the Christ
the Son of the living God;” I also say unto thee, “Thou
art Peter.” ’ For before he was called Simon. Now this
name of Peter was given him by the Lord, and in a figure,
that he should signify the Church. For seeing that Christ
is the rock (Petra), Peter is the Christian people. For
the rock (Petra) is the original name. Therefore Peter is so
called from the rock; not the rock from Peter; as Christ is
not called Christ from the Christian, but the Christian from
Christ. ‘Therefore,’ he saith, ‘Thou art Peter; and
upon this Rock’ which Thou hast confessed, upon this rock
which Thou hast acknowledged, saying, ‘Thou art the
Christ, the Son of the living God, will I build My Church;’
that is upon Myself, the Son of the living God, ‘will I
build My Church.’ I will build thee upon Myself, not
Myself upon Thee.
For men who wished to be built upon men, said, ‘I am
of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas,’ who is Peter.
But others who did not wish to built upon Peter, but upon
the Rock, said, ‘But I am of Christ.’ And when the
Apostle Paul ascertained that he was chosen, and Christ
despised, he said, ‘Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified
for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?’ And, as
not in the name of Paul, so neither in the name of Peter;
but in the name of Christ: that Peter might be built upon
the Rock, not the Rock upon Peter. This same Peter
therefore who had been by the Rock pronounced ‘blessed,’
bearing the figure of the Church (Augustine,
Sermon vol. XXVI.1-4, pp. 340-341).
And
this Church, symbolized in its generality, was personified
in the Apostle Peter, on account of the primacy of his
apostleship. For, as regards his proper personality, he was
by nature one man, by grace one Christian, by still more
abounding grace one, and yet also, the first apostle; but
when it was said to him, ‘I will give unto thee the keys
of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on
earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt
loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven,’ he represented
the universal Church, which in this world is shaken by
divers temptations, that come upon it like torrents of rain,
floods and tempests, and falleth not, because it is founded
upon a rock (petra), from which Peter received his name. For
petra (rock) is not derived from Peter, but Peter from petra;
just as Christ is not called so from the Christian, but the
Christian from Christ. For on this very account the Lord
said, ‘On this rock will I build my Church,’ because
Peter had said, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the
living God.’ On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou
hast confessed, I will build my Church. For the Rock
(Petra) was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter
himself built. For other foundation can no man lay than that
is laid, which is Christ Jesus. The Church, therefore, which
is founded in Christ received from Him the keys of the
kingdom of heaven in the person of Peter, that is to say,
the power of binding and loosing sins. For what the Church
is essentially in Christ, such representatively is Peter
in the rock (petra); and in this representation Christ is to
be understood as the Rock, Peter as the Church (Augustine,
On the Gospel of John, Tractate 124.5).
Before
his passion the Lord Jesus, as you know, chose those
disciples of his, whom he called apostles. Among these it
was only Peter who almost everywhere was given the privilege
of representing the whole Church. It was in the person of
the whole Church, which he alone represented, that he was
privileged to hear, ‘To you will I give the keys of the
kingdom of heaven’ (Mt 16:19). After all, it isn’t just
one man that received these keys, but the Church in its
unity. So this is the reason for Peter’s acknowledged pre–eminence,
that he stood for the Church’s universality and unity,
when he was told, ‘To you I am entrusting,’ what has in
fact been entrusted to all.
I mean, to show you that it is the Church which has received
the keys of the kingdom of heaven, listen to what the Lord
says in another place to all his apostles: ‘Receive the
Holy Spirit;’ and straightway, ‘Whose sins you forgive,
they will be forgiven them; whose sins you retain, they will
be retained’ (Jn 20:22-23). This refers to the keys, about
which it is said, ‘whatever you loose on earth shall be
loosed in heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be
bound in heaven’ (Mt 16:19). But that was said to Peter.
To show you that Peter at that time stood for the universal
Church, listen to what is said to him, what is said to all
the faithful, the saints: ‘If your brother sins against
you, correct him between you and himself alone’ (Sermons,
III/8 (273-305A), On the Saints, Sermon 295.1-3, pp.
197-198).
According
to Augustine then: all the apostles had equal authority. Yes, he
and other Fathers had exulted language of Peter but that does
nto follow that they held to the Catholic view of papal
primacy.
Even
more Augustine was clear:
Previously,
of course, he was called Simon; this name of Peter was
bestowed on him by the Lord, and that with the symbolic
intention of his representing the Church. Because Christ,
you see, is the petra or rock; Peter, or Rocky, is the
Christian people (Sermon 76).
So
then, this self–same Peter, blessed by being surnamed
Rocky from the rock, representing the person of the Church,
holding chief place in the apostolic ranks (Sermon 76).
For
as some things are said which seem peculiarly to apply to
the Apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning,
unless when referred to the Church, whom he is acknowledged
to have figuratively represented, on account of the primacy
which he bore among the Disciples; as it is written, ‘I
will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’
and other passages of like purport: so Judas doth represent
those Jews who were enemies of Christ (Exposition on the
Book of Psalms, Psalm 119).
You
will remember that the apostle Peter, the first of all the
apostles, was thrown completely of balance during the Lord’s
passion (Sermon 147).
Christ,
you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s
confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the
Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for
you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church
has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot
conquer. (Sermon 229).
John
Chrysostom:
For
he who then did not dare to question Jesus, but committed
the office to another, was even entrusted with the chief
authority over the brethren (Saint
Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily
88.1-2, pp. 331-332).
This
would seem to indicate that Chrysostom taught that Peter was
the supreme ruler of the Church. However in the passage
cited above Chrysostom speaks of the apostle John as also
receiving the charge of the whole world and the keys equally
with Peter:
And
this He did to withdraw them (Peter and John) from their
unseasonable sympathy for each other; for since they were
about to receive the charge of the world, it was necessary
that they should no longer be closely associated together (Philip
Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Chrysostom, Homilies
on the Gospel of John, Homily 88.1-2, pp. 331-332).
For
the Son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the
Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of
heaven...(Chrysostom,
Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 1.1, p. 1).
And
this He did to withdraw them (Peter and John) from their
unseasonable sympathy for each other; for since they were
about to receive the charge of the world, it was necessary
that they should no longer be closely associated together (Chrysostom,
Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 88.1-2, pp.
331-332).
For
the Son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the
Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of
heaven...(Homilies
on the Gospel of John, Homily 1.1, p. 1).
He
goes on to speak of Paul as being on an equal footing with
Peter:
Where
the Cherubim sing the glory, where the Seraphim are flying,
there shall we see Paul, with Peter, and as chief and leader
of the choir of the saints, and shall enjoy his generous
love....I love Rome even for this, although indeed one has
other grounds for praising it...Not so bright is the heaven,
when the sun sends forth his rays, as is the city of Rome,
sending out these two lights into all parts of the world.
From thence will Paul be caught up, thence Peter. Just
bethink you, and shudder, at the thought of what a sight
Rome will see, when Paul ariseth suddenly from that deposit,
together with Peter, and is lifted up to meet the Lord. What
a rose will Rome send up to Christ!...what two crowns will
the city have about it! what golden chains will she be
girded with! what fountains possess! Therefore I admire the
city, not for the much gold, nor for the columns, not for
the other display there, but for these pillars of the Church
(1 Cor. 15:38) (Chrysostom,
Homilies on the Epistle to the Romans, Homily 32, ver.
24, pp. 561-562.).
Further,
Chrysostom speaks of James, and not Peter, as
possessing the chief rule and authority in Jerusalem and over
the Jerusalem Council:
This
(James) was bishop, as they say, and therefore he speaks
last.. There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter
Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently;
not starts up (for the next word). No word speaks John here,
no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for James
was invested with the chief rule, and think it no hardship.
So clean was their soul from love of glory. Peter indeed
spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it
behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant
for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder
part (Chrysostom, Homilies
on the Acts of the Apostles, Homily 33, pp. 205, 207
This
authority was shared equally by all the apostles. Chrysostom
states that John also held the authority of the keys and, like
Peter, he held a universal teaching authority over the Churches
throughout the world:
For
the Son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of
the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of
heaven...(Homilies
on the Gospel of John,
Homily 1.1, p. 1).
He
did not interpret the rock of Matthew 16 to be the person of
Peter, but his confession of faith, pointing to Christ himself
as the rock and only foundation of the Church:
‘And
I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will
build my Church’; that is, on the faith of his confession.
Hereby He signifies that many were on the point of
believing, and raises his spirit, and makes him a
shepherd...For the Father gave to Peter the revelation of
the Son; but the Son gave him to sow that of the Father and
that of Himself in every part of the world; and to mortal
man He entrusted the authority over all things in Heaven,
giving him the keys; who extended the church to every part
of the world, and declared it to be stronger than heaven (Homilies
on the Gospel of Saint Matthew,
Homily 54.2-3; pp. 332-334).
He
speaks from this time lowly things, on his way to His
passion, that He might show His humanity. For He that hath
built His church upon Peter’s confession, and has so
fortified it, that ten thousand dangers and deaths are not
to prevail over it...(Chrysostom,
On Matthew, Homily 82.3, p. 494).
‘For
other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is
Jesus Christ.’ I say, no man can lay it so long as he is a
master–builder; but if he lay it...he ceases to be a
master–builder. See how even from men’s common notions
he proves the whole of his proposition. His meaning is this:
‘I have preached Christ, I have delivered unto you the
foundation. Take heed how you build thereon, lest haply it
be in vainglory, lest haply so as to draw away the disciples
unto men.’ Let us not then give heed unto the heresies.
‘For other foundation can no man lay than that which is
laid.’ Upon this then let us build, and as a foundation
let let us cleave to it, as a branch to a vine; and let
there be no interval between us and Christ...For the branch
by its adherence draws in the fatness, and the building
stands because it is cemented together. Since, if it stand
apart it perishes, having nothing whereon to support itself.
Let us not then merely keep hold of Christ, but let us be
cemented to Him, for if we stand apart, we perish...And
accordingly, there are many images whereby He brings us into
union. Thus, if you mark it, He is the ‘Head’, we are
‘the body’: can there be any empty interval between the
head and the body? He is a ‘Foundation’, we are a ‘building’:
He a ‘Vine’, we ‘branches’: He the ‘Bridegroom’,
we the ‘bride’: He is the ‘Shepherd’, we the ‘sheep’:
He is the ‘Way’, we ‘they who walk therein.’ Again,
we are a ‘temple,’ He the ‘Indweller’: He the ‘First–Begotten,’
we the ‘brethren’: He the ‘Heir,’ we the ‘heirs
together with Him’: He the ‘Life,’ we the ‘living’:
He the ‘Resurrection,’ we ‘those who rise again’: He
the ‘Light,’ we the ‘enlightened.’ All these things
indicate unity; and they allow no void interval, not even
the smallest (Homilies
on the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians,
Homily VIII.7, p. 47).
Now,
in terms of Peter faith being the Rock I do agree with Archbishop
Peter Kenrick that most of, and the important Fathers held
to this
Cyril
states clearly that the Rock was in fact Peter’s confession:
Cyril
is one of the most important and influential theologians of the
Eastern Church. He was bishop of Alexandria in the first half of
the fifth century from 412 A.D to 444 A.D. He presided over the
Council of Ephesus and is considered the great defender of the
orthodox faith against Nestorius. His views on the rock of
Matthew 16 and the foundation of the Church are unambiguously
presented in his writings:
For
that reason divine Scripture says that Peter, that
exceptional figure among the apostles, was called blessed.
For when the Savior was in that part of Caesarea which is
called Philippi, he asked who the people thought he was, or
what rumor about him had been spread throughout Judea and
the town bordering Judea. And in response Peter, having
abandoned the childish and abused opinions of the people,
wisely and expertly exclaimed: ‘You are Christ, Son of the
living God.’ Now when Christ heard this true opinion of
him, he repaid Peter by saying: ‘Blessed are you Simon Bar–Jonah,
for flesh and blood have not revealed this to you but my
Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and
upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell
shall not prevail against it.’ The surname, I believe,
calls nothing other than the unshakable and very firm faith
of the disciple ‘a rock,’ upon which the Church was
founded and made firm and remains continually impregnable
even with respect to the very gates of Hell. But Peter’s
faith in the Son was not easily attained, nor did it flow
from human apprehension; rather it was derived from the
ineffable instruction from above; since God the Father
clearly shows his own Son and causes a sure persuasion of
him in the minds of his people. For Christ was in no way
deceptive when he said, ‘Flesh and blood has not revealed
this to you, but my Father in heaven.’ If, therefore,
blessed Peter, having confessed Christ to be the Son of the
living God, are those not very wretched and abandoned who
rashly rail at the will and undoubtedly true teaching of
God, who drag down the one who proceeds from God’s own
substance and make him a creature, who foolishly reckon the
coeternal author of life to be among those things which have
derived their life from another source? Are such people not
at any rate very ignorant? (Dialogue
on the Trinity IV, M.P.G., vol. 75, col. 866).
But
why do we say that they are ‘foundations of the earth’?
For Christ is the foundation and unshakable base of all
things—Christ who restrains and holds together all things,
that they may be very firm. Upon him also we all are built,
a spiritual household, put together by the Holy Spirit into
a holy temple in which he himself dwells; for by our faith
he lives in our hearts. But the next foundations, those
nearer to us, can be understood to be the apostles and
evangelists, those eyewitnesses and ministers of the word
who have arisen for the strengthening of the faith. For when
we recognize that their own traditions must be followed, we
serve a faith which is true and does not deviate from
Christ. For when he wisely and blamelessly confessed his
faith to Jesus saying, ‘You are Christ, Son of the living
God,’ Jesus said to divine Peter: ‘You are Peter and
upon this rock I will build my Church.’ Now by the word
‘rock’, Jesus indicated, I think, the immoveable faith
of the disciple. Likewise, the psalmist says: ‘Its
foundations are the holy mountains.’ Very truly should the
holy apostles and evangelists be compared to holy mountains
for their understanding was laid down like a foundation for
posterity, so that those who had been caught in their nets
would not fall into a false faith (Commentary
on Isaiah
IV.2, M.P.G., vol. 70, col. 940).
The
Church is unshaken, and ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail
against it,’ according to the voice of the Saviour, for it has
Him for a foundation (Commentary
on Zacharias.
Cited by J. Waterworth S.J., A Commentary (London: Thomas
Richardson, 1871), p. 143).
It
is likely that by these words (Is. 33:16) our Lord Jesus
Christ is called a rock, in Whom, as some cave or sheepfold,
the Church is conceived as having a safe and unshaken
abiding place for its well-being; ‘For thou art Peter,’
the Saviour says, ‘and upon this rock I will build My
Church’ (Commentary
on Isaiah
3.iii, on Isaiah 28:16. Cited by J. Waterworth S.J., A
Commentary (London: Thomas Richardson, 1871), p. 142).
Likewise
Gregory of Nyssa, Isidore of Pelusium, Hilary (On
The Trinity,
Book VI.36,37; Book II.23; Book VI.20),
Theodoret
declared:
Surely
he is calling pious faith and true confession a ‘rock.’
For when the Lord asked his disciples who the people said he
was, blessed Peter spoke up, saying ‘You are Christ, the
Son of the living God.’ To which the Lord answered: ‘Truly,
truly I say to you, you are Peter and upon this rock I shall
build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail
against it’ (Commentary
on Canticle of Canticles
II.14, M.P.G., vol. 81, col. 108).
Also
Theophanes, and John of Damascus declared:
This
is that firm and immovable faith upon which, as upon the
rock whose surname you bear, the Church is founded. Against
this the gates of hell, the mouths of heretics, the machines
of demons—for they will attack—will not prevail. They
will take up arms but they will not conquer (Homily
on the Transfiguration, M.P.G., vol. 96, col. 554-555).
This
rock was Christ, the incarnate Word of God, the Lord, for
Paul clearly teaches us: ‘The rock was Christ’ (1 Cor.
10:4) (Homily on
the Transfiguration, M.P.G., vol. 96, col. 548).
They
all believed that the Rock was Peter’s the confession of
faith.
So
which Father is correct? Is this how you exegete Scripture? Do
you believe the majority or the most important Fathers? What is
your rock, the Fathers? You have not provided any exegetical
interaction for your position, instead, as most, Catholics, you
merely assert the doctrine of the Fathers. Well what do you do
when Fathers contradict each other?, or as in this case, when
the majority of and most important Fathers were
against Catholic dogma?
I
do not wish to argue the Fathers, for they are fallible men,
hence unreliable. Most Catholics appeal to them, as if they were
the supreme infallible authority that determines doctrine, well
not for me.
Hence
if you can provide exegetical interaction from the text to
affirm your position then I will dialogue with you. After all
doctrine is not determined by statements of church Fathers but
by God’s Word: You either build your house on the Rock, Christ
Jesus or on the sand.
Sola
fide, sola gratia, sola Scriptura.
ED
Mark
Bonocore Wrote>> You said: [>>]
I am frankly surprise that you honestly think that the majority
of church Fathers held to such a view as you (the Roman Cath.
Church) do. >>>
:-)
Well, you may "be surprised" all you wish. Yet, I'm
still waiting for
you to provide quotes from over 40 fathers who supposedly deny
that Peter was the Rock of Matt 16:18. Remember, I provided 24
fathers who say that he was, even though your sources claimed
that only 18 were available. :-) (I can also provide more.) So,
I now would like to see where there are 40+ fathers (of course,
not counting any of those I used to support the Catholic view)
who denied Peter was the Rock. Where are they? And, if you
cannot provide them, will you at least do the honest,
**Christian** thing and admit that you were incorrect and that
your sources were flawed?
ED
Wrote >> As
I indicated, I am citing Catholic Archbishop Peter Richard
Kenrick who prepared a paper on this subject that was to be
delivered to Vatican I. You did not respond to that. I will ask
again “was he in error or not”? The information of the 40
non Petrine Fathers was based on his research. Either there are
not 40 early Fathers, who denied the now Catholic doctrine,
which then an Archbishop of the Church was in error, or his
research was accurate. So, which one?
Mark
Bonocore Wrote>> You said: >>Also, the
Fathers that you submitted as affirming the Petrine Rock
interpretation were mainly post-Augustine. Why? >>>>
:-) I beg to differ. Of the 24 quotes I provided, 17 are prior
to St.
Augustine.
These consisted of quotes from ... Tatian the Syrian (170 A.D.),
Tertullian (220 A.D.),
ED
Wrote>> Did
you not read Tertullian? He did not hold to the current Catholic
dogma of succession of the bishops:
Tertullian
explains what he means when he says that Peter is the rock on
which the Church would be built:
If,
because the Lord has said to Peter, ‘Upon this rock I will
build My Church,’ ‘to thee have I given the keys of the
heavenly kingdom;’ or, ‘Whatsoever thou shalt have bound
or loosed in earth, shall be bound or loosed in the heavens,’
you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing
has derived to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter,
what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the
manifest intention of the Lord, conferring (as that
intention did) this (gift) personally upon Peter? ‘On
thee,’ He says, ‘will I build My church;’ and, ‘I
will give thee the keys’...and, ‘Whatsoever thou shalt
have loosed or bound’...In (Peter) himself the Church was
reared; that is, through (Peter) himself; (Peter) himself
essayed the key; you see what key: ‘Men of Israel, let
what I say sink into your ears: Jesus the Nazarene, a man
destined by God for you,’ and so forth. (Peter) himself,
therefore, was the first to unbar, in Christ’s baptism,
the entrance to the heavenly kingdom, in which kingdom are
‘loosed’ the sins that were beforetime ‘bound;’ and
those which have not been ‘loosed’ are ‘bound,’ in
accordance with true salvation...(On Modesty XXI,
99).
Note
the citation in context.
Mark
Bonocore Wrote>> St.
Hippolytus (225 A.D.), Origen (230-250 A.D.),
ED
Wrote>> Origen?
Do you read selectively? Origen on Matt. 16 said that “rock
means every disciple of Christ” Every disciple of Christ.
(ANF 9.456).
Mark
Bonocore Wrote>> St.
Cyprian (246 A.D.),
ED
Wrote>>Cyprian?
Did you even read the citations that I provided? Or did you
merely cut and paste the work of others? You did not respond to
Tertullian or Cyprian either. Instead, you just deny it. Cyprian
was clear. He held that Jesus was addressing the whole
body of bishops since He later endowed all the apostles
with “honor and power”:
The
Lord saith unto Peter, I say unto thee, (saith He,) that
thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church,
and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. And I
will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and
whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in
heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be
loosed in heaven (Matt. 16:18–19). To him again, after His
resurrection, He says, Feed My sheep. Upon him being one He
builds His Church; and although He gives to all the
Apostles an equal power, and says, As My Father sent Me,
even so I send you; receive ye the Holy Ghost: whosoever
sins ye remit, they shall be remitted to him, and whosoever
sins ye shall retain, they shall be retained (John 20:21);—yet
in order to manifest unity, He has by His own authority so
placed the source of the same unity, as to begin from one
(Cyprian, On The Unity of the Church 3-4, pp.
133-135).
Again
most Catholics who I have read who deal with the subject cite
only selective portions, but in full context Cyprian view is
clear. Cyprian, like Tertullian, states that Peter is the rock,
however their statements must be defined in the entire context.
You
did not respond to my citation of John Chrysostom either. Chrysostom
speaks of the apostle John as also receiving the charge of the
whole world and the keys equally with Peter:
And
this He did to withdraw them (Peter and John) from their
unseasonable sympathy for each other; for since they were
about to receive the charge of the world, it was necessary
that they should no longer be closely associated together (Philip
Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Chrysostom, Homilies
on the Gospel of John, Homily 88.1-2, pp. 331-332).
For
the Son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the
Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of
heaven...(Chrysostom,
Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 1.1, p. 1).
And
this He did to withdraw them (Peter and John) from their
unseasonable sympathy for each other; for since they were
about to receive the charge of the world, it was necessary
that they should no longer be closely associated together (Chrysostom,
Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 88.1-2, pp.
331-332).
For
the Son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the
Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of
heaven...(Homilies
on the Gospel of John, Homily 1.1, p. 1).
Please
read carefully, Chrysostom goes on to speak of Paul as being on
an equal footing with Peter:
Where
the Cherubim sing the glory, where the Seraphim are flying,
there shall we see Paul, with Peter, and as chief and
leader of the choir of the saints, and shall enjoy his
generous love....I love Rome even for this, although indeed
one has other grounds for praising it...Not so bright is the
heaven, when the sun sends forth his rays, as is the city of
Rome, sending out these two lights into all parts of the
world. From thence will Paul be caught up, thence Peter.
Just bethink you, and shudder, at the thought of what a
sight Rome will see, when Paul ariseth suddenly from that
deposit, together with Peter, and is lifted up to meet the
Lord. What a rose will Rome send up to Christ!...what two
crowns will the city have about it! what golden chains will
she be girded with! what fountains possess! Therefore I
admire the city, not for the much gold, nor for the columns,
not for the other display there, but for these pillars of
the Church (1 Cor. 15:38) (Chrysostom,
Homilies on the Epistle to the Romans, Homily 32, v.
24, pp. 561-562.).
Further,
Chrysostom speaks of James, and not Peter, as
possessing the chief rule and authority in Jerusalem and over
the Jerusalem Council:
This
(James) was bishop, as they say, and therefore he speaks
last. There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter Paul
speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently; not
starts up (for the next word). No word speaks John here, no
word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for James
was invested with the chief rule, and think it no hardship.
So clean was their soul from love of glory. Peter indeed
spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus
it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is
unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in
the milder part (Chrysostom,
Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles, Homily 33, pp.
205, 207
This
authority was shared equally by all the apostles. Chrysostom
states that John also held the authority of the keys and,
like Peter, he held a universal teaching authority over the
Churches throughout the world:
For
the Son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the
Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of
heaven...(Homilies
on the Gospel of John,
Homily 1.1, p. 1).
He
did not interpret the rock of Matthew 16 to be the person of
Peter, but his confession of faith, pointing to Christ
himself as the rock and only foundation of the Church:
‘And
I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will
build my Church’; that is, on the faith of his
confession. Hereby He signifies that many were on the
point of believing, and raises his spirit, and makes him a
shepherd...For the Father gave to Peter the revelation of
the Son; but the Son gave him to sow that of the Father and
that of Himself in every part of the world; and to mortal
man He entrusted the authority over all things in Heaven,
giving him the keys; who extended the church to every part
of the world, and declared it to be stronger than heaven (Homilies
on the Gospel of Saint Matthew,
Homily 54.2-3; pp. 332-334).
Please
note: “That is, on the FAITH OF HIS CONFESSION” says Chrysostom.
He
speaks from this time lowly things, on his way to His
passion, that He might show His humanity. For He that
hath built His church upon Peter’s confession, and has
so fortified it, that ten thousand dangers and deaths are
not to prevail over it...(Chrysostom,
On Matthew, Homily 82.3, p. 494).
‘For
other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is
Jesus Christ.’ I say, no man can lay it so long as he is a
master–builder; but if he lay it...he ceases to be a
master–builder. See how even from men’s common notions
he proves the whole of his proposition. His meaning is this:
‘I have preached Christ, I have delivered unto you the
foundation. Take heed how you build thereon, lest haply it
be in vainglory, lest haply so as to draw away the disciples
unto men.’ Let us not then give heed unto the heresies.
‘For other foundation can no man lay than that which is
laid.’ Upon this then let us build, and as a foundation
let us cleave
to it, as a branch to a vine; and let there be no interval
between us and Christ...For the branch by its adherence
draws in the fatness, and the building stands because it is
cemented together. Since, if it stand apart it perishes,
having nothing whereon to support itself. Let us not then
merely keep hold of Christ, but let us be cemented to Him,
for if we stand apart, we perish...And accordingly, there
are many images whereby He brings us into union. Thus, if
you mark it, He is the ‘Head’, we are ‘the body’:
can there be any empty interval between the head and the
body? He is a ‘Foundation’, we are a ‘building’: He
a ‘Vine’, we ‘branches’: He the ‘Bridegroom’, we
the ‘bride’: He is the ‘Shepherd’, we the ‘sheep’:
He is the ‘Way’, we ‘they who walk therein.’ Again,
we are a ‘temple,’ He the ‘Indweller’: He the ‘First–Begotten,’
we the ‘brethren’: He the ‘Heir,’ we the ‘heirs
together with Him’: He the ‘Life,’ we the ‘living’:
He the ‘Resurrection,’ we ‘those who rise again’: He
the ‘Light,’ we the ‘enlightened.’ All these things
indicate unity; and they allow no void interval, not even
the smallest (Homilies
on the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians,
Homily VIII.7, p. 47).
You
have not responded to the above only deny it.
Also
you did not respond to Theodoret (A.D. 393-466) who
was also clearly against the NOW Catholic view:
Theodoret
was the leading theologian of Antioch in the fifth century.
In interpreting the rock passage of Matthew 16 he shares the
opinion of the Eastern fathers, especially that of
Chrysostom. The ‘opinion unfavorable to the superiority
of St. Peter’ in the school of Antioch mentioned by
Winter in the above quote finds representative expression in
the following comments of Theodoret:
Let
no one then foolishly suppose that the Christ is any other
than the only begotten Son. Let us not imagine ourselves
wiser than the gift of the Spirit. Let us hear the words of
the great Peter, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the
living God.’ Let us hear the Lord Christ confirming this
confession, for ‘On this rock,’ He says, ‘I will build
my church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against
it.’ Wherefore too the wise Paul, most excellent master
builder of the churches, fixed no other foundation than
this. ‘I,’ he says, ‘as a wise master builder have
laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let
every man take heed how he buildeth thereon. For other
foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus
Christ.’ How then can they think of any other foundation,
when they are bidden not to fix a foundation, but to build
on that which is laid? The divine writer recognises Christ
as the foundation, and glories in this title (Theodoret,
Epistle 146, To John the Economus, p. 318).
You
did not respond to John of Damascus when he declared:
This
is that firm and immovable faith upon which, as upon the
rock whose surname you bear, the Church is founded. Against
this the gates of hell, the mouths of heretics, the machines
of demons—for they will attack—will not prevail. They
will take up arms but they will not conquer (Homily
on the Transfiguration, M.P.G., vol. 96, col. 554-555).
This
rock was Christ, the incarnate Word of God, the Lord,
for Paul clearly teaches us: ‘The rock was Christ’ (1
Cor. 10:4) (Homily
on the Transfiguration, M.P.G., vol. 96, col. 548
“The
Rock was Christ," not Peter he says.
Mark
Bonocore Wrote>> (387
A.D.), and St. Jerome (393 A.D.) whereas Augustine was not
ordained a bishop until 396 A.D. :-)
ED Wrote>> It
was at the end of his bishopric that he denied what Catholic
believes today. Again, I think that you are not reading the
citations that I provided.
Mark Bonocore
Wrote>> In
essence, I provided quotes from every pre-Augustinian father who
even **addresses the subject** of Matt 16:18! :-) Yet, can you
provide me with **even one** quote from a pre-Augustinian father
who denies that Peter is the Rock??? ...
ED
Wrote>> I have provided much
statements from pre Aug. Fathers who did not believe the way
Rome believes today. You equivocate, when you assert that they
all called him Rock. It is not that some called him rock BUT, as
I clearly pointed out esp. with Aug. they did not hold to the
view that Rome holds to today. The question is rather what did
they mean when they called him rock. You have not responded to
any of the citations that I have provided. .
Mark
Bonocore Wrote>> And,
remember, it cannot be one of the fathers listed above.I've
already given proof that they did believe that Peter was the
Rock, even if they spoke of other things as the Rock as well (as
do modern Catholics).
ED
Wrote>> Proof? You have not. Any one who reads the
Fathers objectively and in its context will see that they did
not teach as Rome does today. Just calling Peter “rock” does
not help your case. Again, I refer to the clear statements
above.
As Chrysostom declared: “For
He that hath built His church upon Peter’s confession….”
Mark Bonocore Wrote>>You
said: "I think that the answer is quite obvious because the
majority of Fathers of antiquity did not hold to such."
>>>>:-) Okay, then, Be my guest: NAME ONE. ;-)
...And quote him.
ED
Wrote>> I have already named several important
Fathers who do not hold to modern Roman dogma. I am not
asserting that every Father denied or did not teach that way
Rome teaches today, I am merely asserting that many important
Fathers did not hold to modern Catholic dogma, as many of
Catholic scholars recognized.
Mark
Bonocore Wrote>> You said: "One
question I have for you: what is your patristic source? I say
that because it is all too common for many Catholics to use
post-Augustine
sources to support their view."
>:-) That's because many Catholics do not have the primary
sources available to them. My "Patristic source" are
the actual writings of the fathers themselves, available online
at www.newadvent.com. I strongly suggest that you read them
yourself, rather than accepting the blatant lies put out by
so-called "apologists" like James White, Dave Hunt,
Bill Webster and other such disciples of Satan.
ED
Wrote>> Ad
hominem attacks do not help your case either.
Mark Bonocore
Wrote>> post-Augustine.>>>>First, not
to offend you, but you seem unfamiliar with many Catholic
apologists on the subject. Example, H. Burn-Murdock admits that,
b None of the
writings of the first two centuries describe St. Peter as a
bishop of Romeb (The Development of the Papacy, 130f.). In fact,
no one before Callistus used Matt. 16 to support the primacy of
RomebNO ONE. >>>>:-) Well, ... First, in regard
to St. Callistus, so what?
ED
Wrote>> "So what?" He was a Roman
Catholic bishop.
Mark
Bonocore Wrote>> No Bishop of Rome had to cite
Matt 16:18-19 before him. The reason that Callistus (in 217
A.D., while the Church was still an illegal, underground society
persecuted by the imperial Roman government) was the first Roman
bishop to call extensive attention to his own Papal authority,
and the roots of that authority, was because he had to contend
with the first **antipope** in the person of Hipploytus of Rome.
And, strangley enough, Hippolytus **also** affirmed that Peter
was Rome's first bishop. ;-)
ED
Wrote>>. That is incredibly naïve. In the
writings from the early Fathers, we have comments concerning
virtually every doctrine of Christendom and the regula
fidei and you provide this reason as to why the Petrine-Rock
doctrine was absent?
Mark Bonocore Wrote>> Yet, Callistus and
Hippolytus, while being the first Roman **bishops** (or, in
Hippolytus' case, a pretending bishop) who are recorded citing
Peter as the first Bishop of Rome, are **by no means** the first
fathers to call Peter Rome's first bishop. To cite just a few
examples ...1) Tertullian of Carthage (c. A.D. 197) speaks of
Peter apart from Paul as ordaining
Clement
as ***his successor*** (De Praescrip. Haer. xxxii.)
2)
The Poem Against Marcion (c. 200 A.D.) tells how "Peter bad
Linus to takehis place and sit on the chair whereon he himself
had sat." (III., 80). The word "chair"
(cathedra), in ecclesiastical language, always means one's
episcopal throne (i.e., the bishop's chair).
3)
Caius of Rome ...a Roman presbyter (214 A.D.) calls Pope Victor
the "thirteenth bishop of Rome after Peter." (Euseb.
H.E., V., 28).
4)
St. Hippolytus (225 A.D.) counts Peter as the "first bishop
of Rome."
(Dict.Christian
Biog., I., 577.).
ED
Wrote>> Conflicting Fathers does not help your
case. For both Eusebius (HC.,
III. ii), and Irenaeus (AH., III. iii. 3) state that
Linus was the first bishop.
Mark Bonocore Wrote>> Now, ... Can you
please return the favor and cite ONE CASE of ANYONE in the
ancient
Church ever denying that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome. :-)
I'll anxiously await your answer.
ED
Wrote>> First you are changing subjects you went
from asserting the Catholic doctrine of the Petrine-Rock to
first bishop. I do not wish to enter into another ‘my church
Fathers vs. your church Fathers’ debate.
Mark Bonocore Wrote>> When you can address
these points above, and of couse present me with the 40+ fathers
who supposedly deny that Peter was the Rock (or admit that you
were wrong about that), I will be more than happy to address the
rest of your email, which is brimming over with errors and false
conclusion s rooted in a failure to appreciate the true and
comprehensive history behind the quotes. This of course includes
the case of Pope Honorius.
ED
Wrote>> I
have already provided examples of important Fathers who did not
believe that way Rome believe today. You, my friend, have not
responded to ANY of them whatsoever INSTEAD you only deny it.
And in terms of the 40 Fathers, this came from an extensive work
from your own Archbishop of he Catholic Church which you have
not reasoned to.
The
typical apologetic from Catholics is to appeal to church
Fathers. Doctrine is not determined by the Church Fathers but by
the clear exegesis of the text. I asked you, “So
which Father is correct? Is this how you exegete Scripture? Do
you believe the majority or the most important Fathers?
You
have not provided any exegetical interaction for your
position, instead, as most, Catholics, you merely assert the
doctrine of the Fathers. Well what do you do when Fathers
contradict each other?, or as in this case, when the majority of
and most important Fathers were
against Catholic dogma?
I
will also ask of you again, to take me off of your website. Only
because I do not think it was fair of you to print a casual
exchange in which I had no knowledge that it was going to be
printed on your site. Plus, there were portions omitted from my
citations of Fathers, and omitted were particular comments that
I made were not in its whole.
Nor
was I, as a common courtesy, asked if it can be put it on. Every
honest dialogue that I had, I was always asked first, if I would
not mine if the exchange was printed and I always responded “Only
if the entire dialogue was printed.”
But
I was not asked nor informed. I feel that was unfair.
You
may print this and our last one concerning the Petrine-Rock
doctrine, but only if ALL is printed. That means all the
citations of Fathers.
Thank
you.
ED
Back
to the Top