Answering Alleged Evidences For The Existence Of A Papacy In The Early Church

• Discussion:

           -This article serves as a rebuttal to the claims of Trent Horn in regards to the question of whether the office of pope is biblical and historical. Each of the author's claims are cited in bold and followed with critical commentary:

           "But didn’t Peter refer to himself as a “fellow elder” and not as “pope” in 1 Peter 5:1? Yes, but in this passage Peter is demonstrating humility that he is encouraging other priests to practice. He wrote, “Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another” (5:5), so exalting his status would have contradicted his message. Besides, St. Paul often referred to himself as a mere deacon (see 1 Cor. 3:5, 2 Cor. 11:23) and even said he was “the very least of all the saints” (Eph. 3:8)—but that did not take away from his authority as an apostle. Likewise, Peter’s description of himself as an elder does not take away from his authority as being “first” among the apostles (Matt 10:2)."

           The above argument rests on a few questionable presuppositions: 1.) Peter described himself in the humblest of terms in order that he set a good moral example, not that he knew nothing in regards to having been bestowed papal authority, and 2.) Peter was addressing members of an ordained ministerial priesthood. Nothing in the context of 1 Peter 5 gives credence to either of these. Further, even granting that the apostle is setting forth a model for other elders to emulate, the text weakens the idea of Peter being first pope because it shows him putting himself on par with other elders in the church. He never indicates being in a superior position of authority. He never distinguished himself from other leaders in the church, and no one else is recorded as recognizing his special authority.

          "In regard to the authority of the Bishop of Rome as Peter’s successor, in the first century Clement of Rome (the fourth pope) intervened in a dispute in the Church of Corinth. He warned those who disobeyed him that they would “involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger,” thus demonstrating his authority over non-Roman Christians."

           Churches established by Peter and Paul were led by pluralities of elders called bishops (Acts 20:17, 28; 1 Peter 5:1-4). Every man in that position wielded that title without exception. There were originally two classes of leadership in congregations: bishops and deacons. Clement used the terms elder and bishop synonymously. The New World Encyclopedia has this excerpt, "The First Epistle of Clement does not claim internally to be written by Clement, but by an anonymous person acting on behalf of the Roman church to the church at Corinth...It may be that the writer is himself a presbyter or one of several bishops (overseers) who also acted as the church's secretary. If he were the reigning bishop, it seems likely that he would refer to himself as such or signed the letter by name."

          "St. Ignatius of Antioch referred to the Roman Church as the one that teaches other churches and “presides in love” over them. In fact, the writings of Pope Clement (A.D. 92-99) and Pope Soter (A.D. 167-174) were so popular that they were read in the Church alongside Scripture (Eusebius, Church History 4:23:9)."

           The above presented information shows us, not that Rome held a position of primacy, but it was honored amongst other churches. “Presiding in love” could reflect a form of moral or ethical leadership rather than administrative supremacy. Eastern Orthodox priest Andrew Stephen Damick notes regarding the use of Ignatius to support papal authority:

           "…the modern Roman Catholic vision of Church unity being defined by subjection to a worldwide bishop in Rome is not found in Ignatius’s writings. We saw how he described his friend Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna as “one who has God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ as his bishop” (To Polycarp, Salutation). He does not say that Polycarp has the bishop of Rome for his bishop nor even a regional Asian primate (i.e., a senior bishop in his area). Being a bishop, Polycarp’s bishop is God. With all that Ignatius has to say about the episcopacy and especially about unity, he had the perfect opportunity to insist on a worldwide pontificate for Rome’s bishop. Rome was certainly on his mind, since he was traveling there to be martyred as Peter and Paul had been before him. Yet in his six letters addressed to churches, it is only his letter to Rome in which he does not even mention their bishop (who was probably either St. Evaristus or St. Alexander I). In the other five letters to churches, the bishop is mentioned, and in three of them, the bishop is mentioned by name. When writing to the Roman Christians, he does mention Peter, but equally with Paul as both are apostles who could give them “orders,” while Ignatius himself would never presume to do that (Romans 4:3). In Ignatius’s writings, there is never any special role given to the Roman bishop or the Roman church, nor even to the Apostle Peter. And when he writes to Rome, he does not ask the Roman bishop to send a bishop to Antioch to replace him. Rather, he makes that request of Polycarp and his church in Smyrna (To Polycarp 7:2)."

           "In A.D. 190, Pope St. Victor I excommunicated an entire region of churches for refusing to celebrate Easter on its proper date. While St. Irenaeus thought this was not prudent, neither he nor anyone else denied that Victor had the authority to do this. Indeed, Irenaeus said, “it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church [Rome] on account of its preeminent authority” (Against Heresies, 3.3.2)."

           The West and certain Eastern churches claimed to have the correct date of Easter that was delivered from the apostles. If this episode of contradictory church tradition proves anything at all, it would only be that it is unreliable as a source of dogma. Thus, what we are left with is Scripture alone as our guide in matters of faith and morals. Moreover, Irenaeus did not say that churches should submit to Rome due to it being higher in authority, but come together as that church was reputed for being doctrinally orthodox. This was but a call for cohesion in belief. Consider this introductory excerpt from Philip Schaaf on the translation of Irenaeus' Against Heresies:

           "After the text has been settled, according to the best judgment which can be formed, the work of translation remains; and that is, in this case, a matter of no small difficulty. Irenæus, even in the original Greek, is often a very obscure writer. At times he expresses himself with remarkable clearness and terseness; but, upon the whole, his style is very involved and prolix. And the Latin version adds to these difficulties of the original, by being itself of the most barbarous character. In fact, it is often necessary to make a conjectural re-translation of it into Greek, in order to obtain some inkling of what the author wrote. Dodwell supposes this Latin version to have been made about the end of the fourth century; but as Tertullian seems to have used it, we must rather place it in the beginning of the third. Its author is unknown, but he was certainly little qualified for his task. We have endeavoured to give as close and accurate a translation of the work as possible, but there are not a few passages in which a guess can only be made as to the probable meaning."

           Consider translator footnote 3313 from that same version of Irenaeus' Against Heresies:

           "The Latin text of this difficult but important clause is, “Ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter potiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam.” Both the text and meaning have here given rise to much discussion. It is impossible to say with certainty of what words in the Greek original “potiorem principalitatem” may be the translation. We are far from sure that the rendering given above is correct, but we have been unable to think of anything better. [A most extraordinary confession. It would be hard to find a worse; but take the following from a candid Roman Catholic, which is better and more literal: “For to this Church, on account of more potent principality, it is necessary that every Church (that is, those who are on every side faithful) resort; in which Church ever, by those who are on every side, has been preserved that tradition which is from the apostles.” (Berington and Kirk, vol. i. p. 252.) Here it is obvious that the faith was kept at Rome, by those who resort there from all quarters. She was a mirror of the Catholic World, owing here orthodoxy to them; not the Sun, dispensing her own light to others, but the glass bringing their rays into a focus. See note at end of book iii.] A discussion of the subject may be in chap. xii. of Dr. Wordsworth’s St. Hippolytus and the Church of Rome."

           "Some people object that if Peter and his successors had special authority, why didn’t Christ say so when the apostles argued about “who was the greatest” (Luke 22:24)? The reason is that Christ did not want to contribute to their misunderstanding that one of them would be a privileged king. Jesus did say, however, that among the apostles there would be a “greatest” who would rule as a humble servant (Luke 22:26). That’s why since the sixth century popes have called themselves servus servorum Dei, or “servant of the servants of God.”

            If Peter had an exalted position over the other apostles, then why did Jesus not clear up confusion on this matter by pointing to him? He could have put that matter to rest easily. Trent Horn offers us nothing but smoke and mirrors here. The pope with his kingly attire and multitudes who bow down before him in adoration does not in the slightest resemble a "humble servant."

           "Pope Gregory I used the title in his dispute with the Patriarch of Constantinople John the Faster, who called himself the “Universal Bishop.” Gregory didn’t deny that one bishop had primacy over all the others, since in his twelfth epistle Gregory explcitly says Constaninople was subject to the authority of the pope. Instead, he denied that the pope was the bishop of every individual territory, since this would rob his brother bishops of their legitimate authority, even though they were still subject to him as Peter’s successor."

            That is absolutely untrue. Gregory emphatically denounced the title of universal bishop. He thought that such should be reserved for no one. The following excerpt has been taken from the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia as an example:

           "a proud and profane title ... I have however taken care to admonish earnestly the same my brother and fellow-bishop that, if he desires to have peace and concord with all, he must refrain from the appellation of a foolish title. ... the appellation of a frivolous name. But I beseech your imperial Piety to consider that some frivolous things are very harmless, and others exceedingly harmful. Is it not the case that, when Antichrist comes and calls himself God, it will be very frivolous, and yet exceedingly pernicious? If we regard the quantity of the language used, there are but a few syllables; but if the weight of the wrong, there is universal disaster. Now I confidently say that whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called, Universal Priest, is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others." (Gregory the Great, Book VII, Epistle XXXIII)

Does The Bible Support The Institution Of Slavery?

        "As for your male and female slaves whom you may have—you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you." (Leviticus 25:44)

         The fact that the Old Testament records historical atrocities, does not in and of itself suggest those events are endorsed by the God who inspired people to write them down. The biblical text simply describes how culture was rather than goes into a treatise on the morality of slavery.

         The inability to pay debts and provide for one's own needs was a common cause of going into slavery in the ancient world (Genesis 47:13-19). Others made reparations for stolen items (Exodus 22:3). Slaves were set free after six years of servitude (Exodus 21:2). These people were not to be abused or mistreated.

        God forbade the Jews from kidnapping people and selling them into slavery (Exodus 21:16; Deuteronomy 24:7). That was treated as a capital offence. The Apostle Paul also expressed condemnation of capturing people with the intent of selling them as he described people who do such as ungodly and sinful (1 Timothy 1:9-11).

        This type of slavery is distinguished from what took place in America or the African slave trade. It was not a matter of skin color. Slavery is a terrible thing, regardless. Moses did not express approval of slavery but regulated how it was to be done.

         The Apostle Paul exhorted slaves to obey their masters, not because he approved the institution of slavery, but that it was a means of serving God. Christianity is not a political movement designated to defeat government, but addresses the sinful condition of the human heart. We change the culture by converting souls to Christ.

The Uniqueness Of The Bible As Literature

"The Bible is primarily a religious book and as such it is unique in the world of literature. How could uninspired man write a book that commands all duty, forbids all sin, including the sin of hypocrisy and lying, denounces all human merit as insufficient for salvation, holds out as man's only hope faith in in the atoning death, physical resurrection, and present intercession of Christ, and condemns to hell for all eternity all who reject this one way of salvation and persist in sin?"

Henry Clarence Thiessen, Introduction to the New Testament, p. 85

Made In The Image And Likeness Of God

        "God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." (Genesis 1:27)

        God made man to be a reflection of His glory. He made us to be morally upright. He gave us reason and the ability to make our own choices. God created us to have communion with Him. Man was created with knowledge of his Creator. Animals have no such awareness and do not seek to worship a higher power.

        Mankind is the greatest of His creations. He has been given by God a conscience. With that comes the ability to make moral deliberations. Animals are not self-conscious like man. What follows from being made in the image and likeness of God is the responsibility to serve Him. Adam's fall was devastating due to him being designed to mirror the divine glory.

        The terms "image" and "likeness" are virtually synonymous. Both relate to the concept of resemblance. The idea of human life having indelible value finds its basis in having been fashioned in the image and likeness of God. It is this factor which distinguishes us from the animal kingdom. Men and women are different, but are equally created in His image. Adam Clarke once noted:

        "Gregory Nyssen has very properly observed that the superiority of man to all other parts of creation is seen in this, that all other creatures are represented as the effect of God's word, but man is represented as the work of God, according to plan and consideration: Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. See his Works, vol. i., p. 52, c. 3."

        God made man to represent Him on earth and to take care of creation. The earth was meant to be the domain of man (Psalm 115:16). This is comparable in certain respects to the ancient Near Eastern idea of statues of kings or deity representing their presence. The object of emphasis was not so much physical appearance as more so one's special rights or privileges. It is in that sense we are made in the image of God.

The Application Of Biblical Principles

"...we read in 1 Thessalonians 4:7, "For God did not call us to be impure, but to live a holy life." A principle that may be drawn from this statement, as well as Philippians 4:8, is that viewing pornographic literature or films is wrong. Obviously such media is not explicitly condemned in Scripture, but sexual purity in thought and action is a principle clearly seen in these and other passages. A personal application of this principle would be, I will not view pornographic literature or films."

Roy B. Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation, p. 288

Living A God Honoring Life

"It is one thing to read 2 Timothy 1:9, noting that God has "called us to a holy life," and to understand that holiness is a life of purity and godliness, made possible by the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit. But it is another thing to deal with sin in our lives so that we are in fact leading holy lives. It is one thing to study what the Scriptures say about the return of Christ in passages such as 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 and 1 Corinthians 15:51-56. But it is another thing to build on and move beyond those facts to the point of loving His appearing (2 Tim. 4:8), that is, longing for and anticipating His coming, and continuing steadfast in serving the Lord (1 Cor. 15:58)."

Roy B. Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation, p. 14

Correctly Handling The Word Of Truth

Observing what we see in the biblical text, we then should correctly handle it (2 Tim. 2:15). The participle “correctly handling” (incorrectly translated in the King James Version “rightly dividing”) translates the Greek word orthotomounta. This combines two words that meant “straight” (ortho) and “cut” (tomeo). One writer explains the meaning of this as follows:

Because Paul was a tentmaker, he may have been using an expression that tied in with his trade. When Paul made tents, he used certain patterns. In those days tents were made from the skins of animals in a patchwork sort of design. Every piece would have to be cut and fit together properly. Paul was simply saying, “If one doesn’t cut the pieces right, the whole won’t fit together properly.” It’s the same thing with Scripture. If one doesn’t interpret correctly the different parts, the whole message won’t come through correctly In Bible study and interpretation the Christian should cut it straight. He should be precise…and accurate.

Roy B. Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation, p. 12-13

Mormon Contradiction: Is There Salvation After Death Or Not?

        "Therefore, if that man repenteth not, and remaineth and dieth an enemy to God, the demands of divine justice do awaken his immortal soul to a lively sense of his own guilt, which doth cause him to shrink from the presence of the Lord, and doth fill his breast with guilt, and pain, and anguish, which is like an unquenchable fire, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever. And now I say unto you, that mercy hath no claim on that man; therefore his final doom is to endure a never-ending torment." (Mosiah 2:38-39)

        This teaching is consistent with historic Christian theology concerning the human soul and divine justice. The except in question says that there are no chances for salvation after death. Much of the distinguishing tenants of Mormonism, however, are found in other standard sources used to teach Mormon dogma. This has helped missionaries for that religion to draw in converts. In contrast, the Doctrine and Covenants affirms the idea of postmortem salvation:

        "And after this another angel shall sound, which is the second trump; and then cometh the redemption of those who are Christ’s at his coming; who have received their part in that prison which is prepared for them, that they might receive the gospel, and be judged according to men in the flesh." (section 88:99)

        This goes to highlight inconsistency in Mormon revelation. It disproves any claim that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. One cannot be both sentenced to an eternity in hell and be given a chance to receive the gospel, which is the message of salvation from sin. One is either sentenced to eternal condemnation by God or has not been given that verdict.

Examining Indulgences In Light Of Scripture

• Introduction:

          -Indulgences, a doctrine profoundly rooted in Roman Catholic theology, have sparked considerable debate over the centuries, especially regarding their alignment with Christ’s atoning work. The practice invites adherents to engage with the Church’s teachings on sin, forgiveness, and penance, positioning indulgences as a means to alleviate temporal punishment for sins that have already been forgiven. However, a nuanced exploration of the theological implications surrounding indulgences is crucial for a deep understanding of their significance and the challenges they present to core Christian doctrines.

• The Historical Context Of Indulgences:

          -To truly appreciate the modern understanding of indulgences, we must first explore their historical context. The doctrine originated in the early Middle Ages when the Roman Catholic Church began to link specific works of penance with the remission of temporal effects of sin. Initially, indulgences were tied closely to pilgrimages and acts of charity. Over time, however, this practice evolved into a more systematic approach where indulgences could be "sold," a practice that became notorious during the late medieval period.
          -This commercialization of indulgences led to widespread abuses, most notably exemplified by the sale of indulgences by clerics such as Johann Tetzel. His infamous slogan, “As soon as a coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs,” epitomized the problematic conflation of financial transaction with spiritual benefit. Such abuses fueled the Protestant Reformation, prompting Reformers like Martin Luther to challenge the legitimacy of indulgences. They argued that indulgences violated the sufficiency of God's grace in saving lost souls and the sufficiency of Christ's atonement to cover our sins.

• The Theological Underpinnings Of Indulgences:

          -According to the Roman Catholic Church, indulgences provide a necessary complement to the sacrament of confession. They are perceived as an application of the Church’s authority to draw upon the "treasury of merits" accumulated by Christ and the saints. The Roman Catholic Catechism states that indulgences are granted under certain prescribed conditions, including sincere contrition and a disposition to receive them (# 1471).

• The Nature Of Forgiveness: 

          -The premise of indulgences implies that while sins may be forgiven, the associated punishments require further rectification. This raises the question of Christ’s complete redemptive work. As expressed in Romans 8:1, “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” If believers are free from condemnation, the rationale for remaining temporal punishments becomes questionable. Is the satisfaction required beyond what Christ has already provided? This contradiction challenges the very foundation of justification and reconciliation as entirely fulfilled in Christ.

• The Role Of Faith Versus Works: 

          -Protestant doctrine emphasizes the principle of Sola Fide, justification through faith alone. Introducing the concept of indulgences, where certain works and conditions seemingly bear weight in the forgiveness of sins, complicates this principle. It suggests a transactional relationship with God, contrary to the understanding that grace is unmerited and cannot be earned. This dichotomy risks promoting a meritocratic system within salvation that undermines the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice.

• Repentance And Sanctification: 

          -The Roman Catholic view maintains that indulgences encourage genuine repentance and spiritual growth. Yet, critics argue that by focusing on the application of indulgences, this practice could engender complacency among believers. Instead of fostering true contrition and a transformative relationship with God, the practice may reduce sin and its consequences to a mere checklist of actions, marking off indulgences rather than nurturing deep spiritual renewal.

• Biblical Critique:

          -Many proponents of indulgences hinge their arguments on the authority of the Roman Catholic Church as the steward of grace, yet such claims must withstand biblical scrutiny. Romans 5:1-2 explicitly states that believers have peace with God through faith in Christ, emphasizing that this peace is not contingent on any additional acts. The assertion that temporal punishments must still be addressed after Christ’s atoning work contradicts the assurance found in Scripture that believers are wholly justified.
          -Hebrews 10:14 presents a powerful rebuttal regarding the completeness of Christ’s work. It says, "For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.” If believers are declared perfect and sanctified through the singular act of Christ, indulgences are made redundant because they imply a continued need for satisfaction beyond what has already been accomplished. In the context of Hebrews, this perfection is viewed as a positional standing before God, based on Christ's sufficient sacrifice. The term "perfect" in the New Testament often implies completeness or bringing to an end. The immediate context of Hebrews 10:14 speaks to the efficacy of Jesus Christ's single offering to complete the work of salvation for believers. Hebrews 10:14 uses the term "perfected" in a broader context of cleansing the conscience and providing full access to God through Jesus' sacrifice (Hebrews 10:19-22). This context emphasizes the sufficiency of Christ's atonement. The use of teteleiōken in other New Testament passages (e.g., Hebrews 7:19, 9:9) reinforces the idea of completeness or fulfillment. These passages focus on the efficacy of Christ's sacrifice compared to the inadequacy of the Old Covenant sacrifices. For example, in Hebrews 7:19, "for the law made nothing perfect; but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God." This usage clearly contrasts the ineffectiveness of the Law with the completeness brought by Christ's New Covenant. The term "perfect" in this context highlights the ultimate effectiveness of Christ's sacrifice, making any additional purification unnecessary. It is about the completed work of Christ. Hebrews 10:18 underscores this point: "And where these have been forgiven, sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary." This verse reaffirms the idea that Christ's sacrifice was once for all, effectively eliminating any need for further purification, including purgatory.

• The Implications Of Purgatory:

          -Central to indulgences is the dogma of purgatory, a state in which souls undergo purification before entering heaven. It has been a cornerstone of Catholic eschatology. The reliance on purgatory to justify indulgences reflects an underlying view of sin that can obscure the profound truth of Christ’s redemptive work.
          -If purgatory is necessary for the purification of souls, it raises critical questions regarding the efficacy of Christ’s atonement. The idea that purified merit can be transferred or drawn upon from the saints introduces a complexity that dilutes the singular authority of Christ as the sole mediator. 1 Timothy 2:5 states, “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” The theological implications of this assertion conflict with the belief in a treasury of merits that can be accessed or administered through Rome.

Mormon Contradiction: Is The Nature Of God Changeable Or Unchangeable?

        The Book of Mormon contains a number of passages describing God as having an unchangeable nature:

        "For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity." (Moroni 8:18)

        "Now, the decrees of God are unalterable; therefore, the way is prepared that whosoever will may walk therein and be saved." (Alma 41:8)

        These passages are so clear as to require minimal exposition. They communicate themes of the immutability of God. These are words that could come from the mouth of anyone who professes faith in Him. Taken by themselves, these statements may even hoodwink one into thinking that Mormonism is thoroughly consistent with traditional Christianity. 

        "For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and in him there is no variableness neither shadow of changing?" (Mormon 9:9)

        This text is of interest here, especially considering how Joseph Smith took the words describing Christ in Hebrews 13:8 and applied them to God the Father. The point is not that such a description of Him is incorrect, but the verbatim words from the biblical text have been inserted into the Book of Mormon. This is arguably an instance of plagiarism.

        Official Mormon doctrine, on the other hand, affirms that God is increasing in knowledge. Consider this excerpt from the Journal of Discourses, volume 6:

        "The mind or the intelligence which man possesses is coequal with God himself. I know that my testimony is true; hence, when I talk to these mourners, what have they lost? Their relatives and friends are only separated from their bodies for a short season: their spirits which existed with God have left the tabernacle of clay only for a little moment, as it were; and they now exist in a place where they converse together the same as we do on the earth....There never was a time when there were not spirits; for they are co-equal with our Father in heaven."

         If God can grow in terms of knowledge, then how can He be said to be unchangeable? If God is as man once was and man can become what God is, then He cannot have that trait applied to Him. Smith's teaching on this issue is muddled and contradictory.

         If God is able to increase in knowledge, then it follows that He can make mistakes. His judgments are liable to error. The Mormon conception of god is not a god in any meaningful sense of the term. The god of Mormonism has no power to save lost souls.