Does the Bible teach the
Doctrine of the Papacy?
Denying Closing Statement
Moses Flores
At the beginning of this debate I
defined very clearly what Rome
teaches about the offices of the Papacy from her own sources. It is asserted through such documents as Unam Sanctam
delivered in 1308 that any who do not accept the universal headship of the
Pope, the Bishop of Rome, over the Church are to be considered anathema. Vatican
I asserted that those who deny the doctrine of Papal Infallibility are to be
considered under the anathema of Rome. The “anathema” is to be placed under
condemnation, and outside of the realm of salvation as historically
understood. Thus, according to Roman
Catholic theology, though not brought out by my esteemed opponent, if you do not
believe in the “de fide” doctrines of the Papacy, you are not saved nor can you
be! The doctrines of the Papacy have
been placed on an essential level in order to be saved.
But what basis does Rome offer?
There were some grammatical considerations offered in the text of
Matthew 16:18-19, however, I think it has been sufficiently demonstrated that
there is no grammatical grounds for believing that Peter (Petros)
is the same Rock (Petra)
upon which Jesus would build His Church.
I have demonstrated that the kinds of rocks mentioned were significantly
different and have even offered quotation from Augustine to show this. I have also demonstrated that the
demonstrative pronoun tauth is used to distinguish one object from
another. Hence, when Jesus told Simon,
“You are Peter, a stone…” He proceeded to tell him essentially, “But on this
other Bedrock I will build my Church” (my paraphrase). Jesus was telling Peter and the other
apostles about the Rock. He was not proclaiming Peter or even them as
“the rock”.
Much has been said about the early
fathers and how they should be read and especially as a commentary on the
Bible. Unfortunately, there has been
little quotation from that at all from Mr. Rosado. In fact, in a tale of irony, the one who has
been quoting the most from the early Fathers has been myself. It has been demonstrated that there was no
unanimous consent of the Fathers on the meaning of “the Rock” in Matthew
16:18. Some believed that it was Peter,
but not in a “pro-Papal” sense as Rome
now understand it. Rather, they
understood Peter as the Rock in the sense of representing the unity of the
Bishops or the unity of the Church and even as a representative of all
believers. It has been demonstrated that
far more fathers believed that Peter’s Confession/Faith was the Rock or that
Christ was the Rock on which the Church was built. That is historically irrefutable.
For any Protestant readers, I would
encourage you to read the early fathers for yourselves and not to simply write
them off as “heretical” or even as “Roman Catholic”. Church historian Phillip Schaff
said of them that they are properly belong to the
Church as a whole and not either Roman Catholicism or Protestantism alone.
Why a Pope? Why does Rome assert that we need a Pope? For the most part, it says that the necessity
of the Pope is to function as the guide for the Church in making doctrinal
decisions and in matters pertaining to Church discipline and the absolution of
sins. But are those things that Christ
and the Holy Spirit do? Didn’t Jesus say
that the “Spirit of Truth” would guide us into all truth? Didn’t Jesus say to the apostles in matters
pertaining to Church discipline that when we gather to do those things that
“where two or three are gathered in His name, I will be with you” (cf. Matthew
18: 20)? And doesn’t Scripture uniformly
agree that only God can ultimately forgive sins?
I assert to you that the functions
of the Pope are those that belong respectively to particular members of the
Triune God; not to a man at all! I
further assert to you that believing in the Papacy is an act of blasphemy
against the Triune God and rejecting Him alone as the sovereign ruler of the
Church. Thus, like Israel in wanting a “king like the other nations
around them”, Rome
has rejected their God to rule them.
They have substituted God the Holy Spirit especially for a man whom it
is claimed to be given a superior gift of infallible doctrinal pronouncement. The Holy Spirit has already infallibly given
to us God’s infallible revelation in the Scriptures. Asserting that there needs to be an
infallible interpreter of the already claimed infallible Scriptures means that
the Scriptures are not really infallible at all! But this cannot be! The Word of God cannot err for from God
proceeds only truth unmixed with any error at all.
I further assert to you that that
God the Holy Spirit has come to be able to be with the entire Church at all
times and in all places to rule and govern.
When Jesus said that it was better if He left for then the Spirit would
not come, I think Jesus had in mind that He could be with us all rather than
confined to His human nature in only one place at one time. The Holy Spirit is the one to whom Christ and
the Father have given to guide the Church which is made up of fallible men, not
a Pope.
So when asked why I don’t believe in
the office of the Papacy I say because I believe the promises of God in the
Bible that through the Holy Spirit of God, God would guide us and through the
Scriptures with the work of the Holy Spirit, the man of God is complete and
thoroughly equipped for every good work (cf. II Tim. 3:16-17). We should look to God and His word to be our
guide and leader. “Thy Word” – not “thy
Pope” – “,is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my
path.”
I don’t believe in the office of the
Papacy because the Bible does not teach it anywhere! There is never a portion of Scripture where
Peter can be seen directing the Church and leading it to infallible decisions. Peter was a fallible man just like any other
sinner. He even made mistakes at Galatia to the
point of Paul confronting him about denying Christ! The Bible simply does not teach this office,
period.
But worse, to make this doctrine a
matter of salvation as Rome
does, I assert to you that the entire Gospel has been changed. Paul wrote in Galatians, “But even if we or
an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we
preached to you, let him be accursed (Gr. Anathema). As we have said before, so now I say again:
If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you have received,
let him be accursed” (Gal. 1:8-9). This
is a serious charge! Distorting the
purity of the Gospel – God’s only way of salvation – in any way, results in the
condemnation of God eternally. There is
no getting around the word meaning of “anathema” in the text at all.
So I ask the question, is the Gospel
as defined by Rome
which includes the de fide dogma of the Papacy the one and the same Gospel that
Paul preached to the Galatians? Was it
the same Gospel that saved two thousand men in the first hearing of the
Gospel? Scripture leads us to say
no. For where in Peter’s sermon on
Pentecost is believing in the office of the Papacy
necessary for salvation? If the Papacy
was so important, why didn’t Paul mention it to the Galatians? Why does he only mention the work of Christ
and believing in it alone for salvation?
The office of the Papacy, as dogmatically defined by Rome, radically changes the Gospel so that it
is no Gospel at all.
My friends, Mr. Rosado, on judgment
day, the Pope will not be there for us when we face Almighty God to account for
ourselves, to give an account for how we represented him, and what we did with
His Gospel. It will be us all alone with
God. And if we are not trusting in Jesus
Christ alone and His atoning work, and His perfect
obedience alone to count for us, then we are lost. For God does not accept
anything short of perfection which is found in Him alone.
My prayer is that these things will
be seriously contemplated. There is so
much more that could be said but space prohibits all from being said. Indeed, many more capable persons have
engaged in these topics and I owe to them a debt of gratitude for their labors
in this field. Men like Dr. James White,
William Webster, Eric
Svendsen, etc… I challenge any Roman Catholic to
listen to the arguments. This is not a
personal issue and I think that Mr. Rosado and I have shown that spirit in
these dialogues. It is not about Ben and
Moses; It is about more than that. We speak merely as representatives –
hopefully faithful ones – of things beyond us, indeed of things connected to
eternity.
I thank Mr. Rosado for his patience
thus far and for his excelling character in these discussion. Thanks so much Ben. I have certainly had to dig quite a bit to
respond to your arguments and I hope that they have been beneficial to all who
have heard them. God bless.
Moses Flores