Share on
Apologetics for the Masses - Issue #174
General Comments
I will be at St. Anthony’s parish in Wylie, Texas, tomorrow (Sept 10th) to give three talks (beginning at 9:00 AM, I believe). Hope to see some of you there.
Introduction
Below is the last of Mr. Thrasher’s comments for our debate on whether or not Peter was the first Pope. My comments are interspersed with his. This newsletter is longer than the previous ones in this debate, because my comments were not constrained by an artificial limit of a certain number of words.
Challenge/Response/Strategy
Thomas Thrasher:
Although John has previously acknowledged that “Campbellism” is a digression from the issue of this debate, he continues to employ the term, despite knowing that it is objectionable to me and that I reject it. He did not show one thing that I believe, teach, or practice that originated with Alexander Campbell! Entirely different is my reference to the church with which he is associated as the Roman Catholic Church. That term is not only not objectionable to him, he readily accepts it (it is even in his affirmative proposition!).
John Martignoni:
Actually, I did not “acknowledge that ‘Campbellism’ is a digression from the issue of this debate.” I acknowledged that it was a digression from answering his “other arguments,” (see 2nd affirmative). The issue of who founded his church was, however, most pertinent to the one particular historical argument I was making. So, “Campbellism,” is indeed most pertinent to this debate.
His statement about me not showing “one thing” that he believes or practices that “originated with Alexander Campbell” is a fine example of misdirection. I doubt any of the Campbells’ errors originated with them. As Scripture says, “There is nothing new under the sun.” The main error of the Campbells – the rejection of the authority of the Church founded by Jesus Christ, in favor of their own personal authority, particularly as it relates to Scripture, doctrines, and dogma – is ancient. I did not claim any beliefs, teachings, or practices of the Campbellite church of Christ originated with the Campbells. All I said is that they founded Thrasher’s particular denomination (I will present evidence, from the Campbellite church of Christ itself, below). The fact of the matter is, Thrasher actually does believe what the Campbells taught, he is just trying to be clever here with his wording.
Furthermore, who was it that actually did digress from the topic of the debate, and did so in his very first response? Why, Mr. Thrasher did of course. This is what he said just a few sentences into his first negative: “In fact, the Scriptures never mention many things associated with the Roman Catholic Church: Pope, Cardinal, Archbishop, Mass, Lent, Rosary, Purgatory, Extreme Unction, Holy Water, Limbo, Immaculate Conception, Assumption of Mary, and many other concepts.”
So, even if I had digressed from the topic of the debate, which I did not, it seems a bit disingenous of him to protest any digression from the topic since he started off his half of the debate with numerous digressions from the topic.
Thomas Thrasher:
John asserts, “It is historical fact that his Church of Christ was founded by the Campbells a couple hundred years ago, so I fail to see why calling his Church of Christ ‘Campbellite’ would be so insulting.” However, my friend’s “fact” is actually fiction! Alexander Campbell did not arrive in this country until 1810, and he did not preach his first sermon until 1811, yet (for example) the Bridgeport, Alabama church of Christ (not far from my home) was established in 1809. Alexander Campbell certainly did not “found” it!
John Martignoni:
First of all, Mr. Thrasher is focusing on Alexander Campbell alone. I stated that the “Campbells,” plural, founded his denomination. I will provide a quote below, from the website of a Campbellite church of Christ,which supports my contention regarding the founding of that denomination:
“In 1802 a similar movement among the Baptists in New England was led by Abner Jones and Elias Smith. They were concerned about ‘denominational names and creeds’ and decided to wear only the name Christian, taking the Bible as their only guide. In 1804, in the western frontier state of Kentucky, Barton W. Stone and several other Presbyterian preachers took similar action declaring that they would take the Bible as the "only sure guide to heaven." Thomas Campbell, and his illustrious son, Alexander Campbell, took similar steps in the year 1809 in what is now the state of West Virginia. They contended that nothing should be bound upon Christians as a matter of doctrine which is not as old as the New Testament. Although these four movements were completely independent in their beginnings eventually they became one strong restoration movement because of their common purpose and plea. These men did not advocate the starting of a new church, but rather a return to Christ’s church as described in the Bible.”
(http://church-of-christ.org/who.html#restore)
This site, from one of Mr. Thrasher’s own churches of Christ, disagrees with Mr. Thrasher as to the timing of when Alexander Campbell was here in the U.S. and mentions the year 1809 as when the Campbells started their work which is, coincidentally (?), the same year the Bridgeport church of Christ was supposedly founded. We don’t know for sure, though, that the Bridgeport church of Christ was actually founded in 1809, because nowhere does the Bible mention such a thing. And, it is obvious, from the aforementioned church of Christ website, that the Campbells played a key role, if not THE key role, in founding his denomination. Yet, Mr. Thrasher calls what I said, “Fiction!” I’m sorry if he gets upset when I use Campbellite church of Christ sources for my claims about the Campbellite church of Christ.
Thomas Thrasher:
My opponent evidently fits one of the categories cited by Vergilius Ferm (Encyclopedia of Religion), who observed that the term “Campbellite” is used “ignorantly by the non-church public … [and] viciously, as well as ignorantly, by the less enlightened sects—Obsolescent, with the general advance of religious intelligence”!
My friend adds, “The point I was making, is that he has no problem in saying bad things about the Catholic Church.” However, I have only expressed my belief that the Catholic Church is in error on certain doctrinal matters, as even my denial of his proposition indicates. John neglected to cite instances of my “saying bad things about the Catholic Church.” I have many Catholic friends whom I love, respect, and want to go to heaven, yet I am compelled by my love for the Lord to believe and teach His word (Romans 1:16; John 8:32; Acts 5:29; 1 Peter 4:11), even when His word differs from Catholic teaching.
John Martignoni:
You know, Mr. Thrasher has called me his “friend” throughout this debate. Yet, I wouldn’t know him if he bumped into me on the street. Every time he uses the word, I think of that line from the Princess Bride, “You know, you keep on using that word – I dunna think it means what you think it means.” Plus, in the paragraph above, he calls me – his friend – “ignorant,” “less enlightened,” and, basically, unintelligent. Well, as the old saying goes, “With friends like that, who needs enemies.”
Yet, after referring to me in those ways, he then tries to portray himself as victim, and act as if he is innocent of saying “bad things about the Catholic Church,” and then immediately afterwards says a bad thing about the Catholic Church – that Catholic teaching is contrary to “His word.” Or, that Catholics are, essentially, believers in heresy. Now, don’t get me wrong. I understand that, from his perspective, it is perfectly logical to say that Catholic teaching is heretical, and I take absolutely no offense at his implication, given what he believes. But, which is the greater offense, to say one’s denomination was founded by a certain man or men, or to say that one’s teachings and beliefs are contrary to the Word of God?
But, it doesn’t end there. Let’s look at a couple more quotes from Mr. Thrasher during this debate:
“It is unfortunate that John seems to have so little respect for God’s word.” Is saying that I have “little respect” for the Word of God simply an expression of his “belief that the Catholic Church is in error on certain doctrinal matters?” No, it’s a personal attack on me.
“The fundamental error of the doctrine of Papal authority is that it exalts a man to the place of God. Is saying that Catholics exalt a man, or men, in the place of God simply an expression of his “belief that the Catholic Church is in error on certain doctrinal matters?” No, it’s not. If, for the sake of argument, Thrasher is right and Peter was not the first head of the Church, does it necessarily follow that Catholics exalt a man (the Pope) in the place of God?! That we worship a man in the place of God?! No, it does not. This is an egregious offense against Catholic sensibilities, and betrays a monumental ignorance of Catholic teaching and practice, but I guess it’s okay for him to say that. But, God forbid, anyone say his denomination was founded by the Campbells. Again, I cannot help but feel the disingenousness of his words.
This folks, is the kind of hypocrisy and double standard and ignorance that you will have to quite often face when discussing the Catholic Faith with folks. Expect it, and don’t flinch in its face.
Thomas Thrasher:
My opponent brings up another off-topic issue: “The Bible actually commands that [instrumental, TNT] music be used in the worship of God (Ps 33:2–3)!” Note that John cited an Old Testament command! The Old Testament also commanded animal sacrifices: “And thou shalt offer every day a bullock for a sin offering for atonement” (Exodus 29:36). Does the Catholic Church do that, John?
My friend demands that I “show where God changed His mind and specifically prohibited the use of instrumental music in worship.” Although God does not change (Malachi 3:6), His law has (Hebrews 7:12)! We are to serve God according to the New Testament (Hebrews 8:6; 9:15; 10:9)! New Testament worship includes singing (Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16), but not playing on mechanical instruments. Such instruments would be an unauthorized addition (Revelation 22:18; 2 John 9).
John Martignoni:
God’s law has changed? Really?! So, we no longer need to keep the 10 Commandments because they are Old Testament laws? This is just nonsense. The requirements of the Mosaic Law (animal sacrifices, dietary restrictions, etc.) and the law of circumcision have not been changed, per se, as much as they have been fulfilled…perfected in Christ. Fulfilled in a way that the Jews neither expected nor comprehended, without the help of the Holy Spirit, that is. And, because of the fulfillment of the Mosaic Law in Christ, the outward signs of that Law, like animal sacrifices, are no longer necessary to perform. The outward signs of the Old Law have been superceded by the outward signs of the New Law – the Sacraments. To equate an ordinance of the Mosaic Law, that is specifically identified as such in Scripture, with what God says in one of the Psalms regarding the use of music in the worship of God, is ludicrous. The command to use music to worship God was not mentioned in the Mosaic Law God gave to the Israelites. Not to mention the fact that, as I pointed out, musical instruments are indeed used in the worship of God in Heaven and that is made clear to us in the New Testament!
And, we have a specific passage from Scripture (Acts 15) where the performance of the Mosaic Law rituals are essentially done away with. We have no such passage of Scripture where the command to use music in worship is done away with. So, the Scripture is silent on God supposedly changing His command about using music in worship, but does Mr. Thrasher “respect” that silence? Indeed not.
Thomas Thrasher:
John mentions “Wednesday night church meetings” again. However, he ignored my response based upon Matthew 18:20—“For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I [Jesus] in the midst of them.” Doesn’t that include Wednesday night?
John Martignoni:
Well, again, Mr. Thrasher misses the point. The question is not about whether Jesus is there when two or three gather in His name, the question is, where does the Bible say that this gathering should be on Wednesday nights? Why Wednesday, Mr. Thrasher? Why not Tuesday, or Monday, or Friday nights? Where does the Bible specifically mention Wednesday night? It doesn’t. The church of Christ argues vociferously with the 7th Day Adventists that the Bible is very clear and specific that Sunday, the 1st day of the week, is the day Christians should gather together, and they quote the Bible verses that say so; yet, when it comes to Wednesday church meeting, all of a sudden they have no passages to cite from Scripture that specifically mention Wednesday night. Hmmm….
Plus, Thrasher also pointed to Acts 5:42 as scriptural support for Wednesday night church meetings but, as I pointed out and to which he did not respond, Acts 5:42 talks about the Apostles teaching “every day,” not just on Wednesday, and that they met in the Temple and in their homes – nothing about a church building here. Now, there are those of you who may be saying, “C’mon, John, the Temple is basically the church building.” I would agree, but you have to remember who we are dealing with here. The folks from the church of Christ are Bible literalists (at least when it supports their beliefs to be). It says the Temple and private homes. It does not say “church building.” So, Mr. Thrasher, if you are going to use Acts 5:42 to support your Wednesday night church meetings, then why do you not meet on every day, as the Bible says, and why do you not meet in people’s homes, as the Bible says, rather than a church building?
Thomas Thrasher:
He again mentions “contraception”: “There is one contraceptive act in the Bible…. Onan ‘spilled his seed on the ground,’ to avoid fulfilling his levirate duty to his dead brother.” This text does not prove all contraception is wrong. In fact, John’s own statement demonstrates that it was Onan’s refusal to fulfill “his levirate duty” that involved disobedience to God (Genesis 38:9-10). Please read this text!
Even many Roman Catholics do not accept their Church’s prohibition against all contraception: “Ninety percent of [the theologians on the papal birth control commission] concluded that birth control was not intrinsically evil and that the teaching against contraception could be changed” (Patty Crowley, Papal Commission on Birth Control, 1966). “Contraception is not intrinsically evil” (Archbishop Cardinal Julius Doepfner, The Politics of Sex and Religion, 1985). “[Fr. Richard McCormick maintains that] there are many Jesuits who do not accept the thesis that every contraceptive act is morally wrong. I can vouch for the fact that very many bishops share the same conviction” (Thomas J. Gumbleton, auxiliary bishop of Detroit, America, November 20, 1993).
John Martignoni:
Again, my opponent, has not answered my argument. He makes a big deal about respecting the “silence of the Bible.” In essence, he adheres to the philosophy, “If the Bible doesn’t say it, we don’t believe it.” Thus, he says the Bible nowhere calls Peter, “Pope,” therefore, we are going against the Bible when we call Peter, or any man, by that title. Yet, as I pointed out, nowhere does the Bible ever mention that it’s okay to use contraception. The Bible is “silent” on that, according to Mr. Thrasher. So, here, in a nutshell, is the hypocrisy of their belief system: The Bible is silent on calling Peter, “Pope,” therefore we cannot call him that. But, the Bible is silent on the use of contraception, therefore, it’s okay to use it.
Furthermore, please do read the Bible as Mr. Thrasher suggests…would that he would follow his own advice. Because the Bible very clearly states, in Gen 38:9-10, that Onan was killed by God for what he did – spilling his seed on the ground (contracepting) – not for what he didn’t do – fulfill his levirate duty to his brother. And we may be absolutely sure of this fact, because in Deuteronomy 25, Scripture lays out the punishment for not fulfilling one’s levirate duty to his brother – it is public humiliation, not death. So, God inflicted the death penalty on Onan for his contraceptive act, period. Mr. Thrasher’s argument is utterly without merit.
Also, he again displays monumental ignorance of Catholic teaching and practice by quoting dissenters from the Church’s teaching as if they are somehow relevant when it comes to deciding exactly what the Church does or does not teach. And, to quote the statistics of how many Catholics contracept is absolutely irrelevant to the argument. But, that is what he is left with because he cannot respond directly to the merits of my argument, because he knows, either consciously or subconsciously, that he has no serious response.
To conclude this point, Mr. Thrasher’s argument from silence (which is his main argument in this debate) – that since Scripture nowhere calls Peter: “Pope,” or “Head of the Church,” or “Bishop of Rome” – means that Catholics are wrong to believe that he was, falls flat; since, as I have pointed out, Scripture is also silent on the acceptance of contraceptive use, yet he and all his fellows in the Campbellite church of Christ believe contraceptive use is perfectly in accord with Scripture. As God apparently said to Adam and Eve, and then later to Noah and his family, “Go forth and contracept, limiting the size of your families according to your own will.”
Thomas Thrasher:
My opponent said, “Mr. Thrasher’s whole argument [emphasis mine, TNT] about Peter not being the first Pope can be boiled down to: ‘The Bible nowhere specifically states that Peter was ‘Pope,’ or ‘Head of the Church,’ or ‘Bishop of Rome.’” Isn’t it strange that Peter was called an apostle (1 Peter 1:1) and an elder (1 Peter 5:1), but never any of the things John says Peter was!
· John never proved by the Bible that Peter was Bishop of Rome. In fact, Paul’s letter to the saints in Rome names numerous individuals (Romans 16:1-15), but never mentions Peter, whom John contends was Bishop of Rome!
· The Bible states that Jesus was the head of the church (Ephesians 1:22-23; 5:23), but never says that Peter was!
· The Bible nowhere says that Peter (nor anyone else) was the Pope!
However, John mischaracterizes this as my “whole argument.” Later in his speech he admitted the incorrectness of his earlier assertion when he claimed “the ‘silence’ argument is the bulk [my emphasis, TNT] of his argumentation.”
John Martignoni:
His last sentence above very clearly exposes Thrasher’s literalist approach to everything I say as well as his literalist approach to Scripture. (Literalist – no regard for what the author intended to say, just a hyper-absolute rendering of the words that are spoken or written.) The meaning of my words, in both instances, is that his primary argument, is an argument from silence. His constant mischaracterization of my positions, and apparently deliberate misinterpretation of my intent, would be offensive, were I one to take offense.
I never try to “prove” anything from the Bible and I stated such in my very first affirmative. Yet, he keeps talking about me not “proving” anything. I simply use the Bible to help build the case for a particular belief or practice, and I believe I showed ample evidence from the Bible alone to justify Catholic belief in this matter. One cannot “prove” anything from the Bible with someone like Thrasher, just as one cannot “prove” to a neo-Nazi that the Holocaust took place by showing them actual footage of the concentration camps. Some people are simply not open to the evidence right in front of their face.
Thomas Thrasher:
In my fourth speech alone, I offered at least 17 other items of evidence that Peter was not a Pope. Although I do not have space to repeat them here, I urge the reader to re-read them. John neglected to respond to these items of evidence! He had plenty of time to rehash instrumental music, Wednesday night meetings, contraception, and the authorship of Mark (all of which I had already discussed), but he chose not to reply to the evidence I offered against his proposition that Peter was the Pope!!!
John Martignoni:
I did not “reply to the evidence” he presented, because he actually presented no evidence. If you look at his “17 other items of evidence,” in his 4th negative (Issue #169), 9 of his 17 items are arguments from silence, a few of his arguments are the result of either not paying attention to what I actually said, or deliberately twisting what I actually said, and the rest are basically irrelevant to the topic – they are digressions from the debate.
Here are 4 examples of more arguments from silence among his 17 “other items”:
1) “The Bible provides no indication that Peter accepted titles such as Pope, Vicar of Christ, Bishop of Rome, Head of the Church (cf. 1 Peter 1:1; 2 Peter 1:1).” Argument from silence.
2) “Elders/Bishops were instructed to “shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers” (1 Peter 5:1-3), not the church universal.” So, since there is no mention of Peter being instructed to “shepherd the [entire] flock of God,” it can’t be true. Argument from silence. And, an argument which completely ignores the point that I repeatedly made, and which he never directly addressed, that Jesus Himself appointed Peter as the shepherd of His flock…His entire flock.
3) “The term “Holy Father” is never used of Peter. It is only used by Jesus in addressing God the Father (John 17:11).” Argument from silence.
4) “Peter said nothing about being a Pope or having any papal successors (Book of Acts; 1 Peter; 2 Peter).” Argument from silence.
Examples of him not paying attention to, or deliberately misrepresenting, my arguments:
1) “Peter’s name is not mentioned first in several passages (Galatians 2:9; 1 Corinthians 1:12; 3:22; 9:5), so, by John’s reasoning, Peter must not have been Pope!” What I very clearly stated, and even repeated after he missed it the first time, was that Peter’s name was mentioned first in any list of the “Twelve” (12) (XII) Apostles. Whenever there is a formal list of the Twelve, Peter’s name is always first. The passages he cites are not formal listings of the twelve apostles.
2) “The power to “bind and loose” was given to all the apostles (Matthew 18:18), not just Peter!” Indeed the power to bind and loose was given to all the Apostles, but it was given specifically to Peter as an individual; and, the main point I was making which he never once responded to, was the fact that Peter, and Peter alone, was given the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. Keys being a sign of very high authority.
Examples of his irrelevant arguments:
1) “Peter was a married man (1 Corinthians 9:5; Matthew 8:14). John, who was the last married Pope of whom you have knowledge?” Were we arguing whether or not the Pope could be married or whether or not Peter was the first head of the Church?
2) “Peter referred to himself as a fellow elder…” Peter was indeed a fellow elder…a fellow bishop. That has absolutely no relevance to whether or not Peter was the first head of the Church. Catholics admit Peter was a bishop. The President is a fellow citizen, yet he is still the President and he still has authority over us.
3) “Jesus condemned exalting one disciple above others: “But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren” (Matthew 23:8).” And, your point is? This says nothing about whether or not there are to be leaders in the Church. Mr. Thrasher, in his own congregation, has elders who have authority over him and the others in the congregation. Does that mean his denomination is exalting one disciple above the others because they have leaders in their church? That’s what he seems to be implying. Which means, that this is a ridiculous argument.
Thomas Thrasher:
Despite my detailed explanation of my position, my friend largely ignores my responses and insists that I prove that Mark wrote “the Gospel of Mark.” As I emphasized previously, I do not know for certain who wrote “Mark,” and, if God required that we know, He could have told us (as He did, for example, for the authorship of Romans, Galatians, James, and Jude). However, since John evidently thinks this is such an important issue, the following entry on the “Gospel of Mark” in Theopedia represents my view:
Strictly speaking, the work is anonymous, in that no claim of authorship is inherently made within the letter itself. However, there is evidence both in Scripture and in history to support John Mark … The internal evidence is corroborated by early attestations, including an ancient caption (“according to Mark”), and testimony by Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen. The nearly universal acceptance of Mark as the author of the gospel in light of the fact that he was neither an apostle nor a hero in the first century church lends credence to the validity of the traditional claim that John Mark wrote the gospel which bears his name.
John Martignoni:
He still does not respond to the logic of my argument. In truth, he can’t, because the logic of my argument totally destroys the illogic of his. The whole reason I asked him to tell me who wrote Mark, was to point out the hypocrisy of the core of his entire line of argumentation – the argument that nowhere does the Bible call Peter the “head of the Church,” therefore, that “proves” Peter was not the head of the Church. But, when I ask him to tell me why he believes Mark wrote Mark, which he does believe, and how he knows, from Scripture, that it is the inspired Word of God, what does he do? He punts! He has no clear answer. And here, he proves my argument for me by citing a non-scriptural source which basically states that we know Mark is inspired Scripture because of…tradition! Yet, Thrasher rejects tradition as a valid source for belief. Hypocrisy. Double standard. Logical inconsistency. All of the above.
Thomas Thrasher:
However, uninspired writers may be mistaken and their testimony is sometimes contradictory. Regardless of who wrote “Mark,” God promised to preserve His word, and I am convinced He has done that.
John Martignoni:
Circular reasoning. He assumes Mark is the Word of God and therefore, since God promised to preserve His word, the Gospel of Mark is the Word of God. Absolutely amazing.
Thomas Thrasher:
My opponent states that he “never claimed they [his historical sources] were inspired.” He also admits that “historical sources” are sometimes wrong, as I demonstrated by citing some of their disagreements and inconsistencies. That was exactly my point in response to his effort to uphold his proposition by citing statements of uninspired, fallible men.
John Martignoni:
He never once responded to any of my counter arguments on this…not once. The fact of the matter is, as I pointed out at least twice, the historical sources cited (including the ones he cited) are unanimous in their facts regarding Peter being the first Bishop of Rome and that he did indeed have successors. The only thing in dispute are the dates and the order of his first few successors. Yet, he ignores that. He also ignored my comments about how there were several books of the New Testament that were disputed, which would mean, by his reasoning, that they must not be books of the New Testament. Yet, he never responded to that. And, once again, nowhere does he say who it was who resolved the disputes about what is and is not inspired Scripture. There is a very good reason why he stays away from those points.
Thomas Thrasher:
John lists 14 items that he claims “Scripture tells us … about Peter and Peter alone.” However, not any one of these separately, nor all of them collectively, make Peter the Pope!
“Peter walked on water.” [And Peter began sinking (Matthew 14:30) and was rebuked by Jesus for his little faith (:31)]!
John Martignoni:
His comments are irrelevant to the point. Never do Catholics say that Peter didn’t make any mistakes or that he was sinless. The point being made is that Peter, and Peter alone among the Apostles, walked on water. The fact that he began sinking is also irrelevant…he walked on water!
Thomas Thrasher:
“Peter called for a replacement to Judas.” [However, the apostles (“they”), not only Peter, presented the names of two men (Acts 1:23) and the Lord made the choice of Matthias (:24)].
John Martignoni:
Again, his comments are irrelevant to the point. The Lord did indeed make the choice, but who, again, was it that called for a replacement? Peter! An act of authority which was not disputed nor voted upon.
Thomas Thrasher:
“Peter settled the issue at the Council of Jerusalem.” [Not true! Paul, Barnabas, and others from Antioch did not go to Peter to “settle” the issue; they went “unto the apostles and elders about this question” (Acts 15:2,4,6). Several men spoke, including Peter, Barnabas, and Paul; however, it was James who proposed the solution: “Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood” (:19-20). The apostles and elders accepted James’ conclusion (:22-25, 28-29).
John Martignoni:
Sorry, but Mr. Thrasher’s reading of Scripture leaves something to be desired. Peter did indeed settle the issue as to whether or not the Gentiles needed to be circumcised and to follow the Mosaic Law. It clearly states, in Acts 15:12, that after Peter spoke, “…all the assembly kept silence.” In other words, the matter was decided. James then proposed some specifics, but the decision had already been made by Peter.
Thomas Thrasher:
“Peter was appointed, by Jesus, as shepherd of Jesus’ flock.” [Peter was only one of many shepherds (1 Peter 5:1)].
John Martignoni:
Again, his comments are irrelevant to the point. Yes, Peter was only one of many shepherds. Just as the Pope today is one of many shepherds…no argument there. The point is, however, that Peter is the shepherd over Jesus’ entire flock, not just a particular part of the flock, as we see from Jesus Himself appointing Peter as shepherd (the fact of which, by the way, Mr. Thrasher did not dispute even once). No other shepherd was appointed, in person, by Jesus Himself. Jesus did not say to Peter, “Feed some of My lambs…tend some of My sheep…feed some of My sheep.” Jesus appointed Peter to care for His entire flock.
Thomas Thrasher:
“Jesus prayed specifically for Peter.” [Jesus prayed for all of the apostles (“they” and “them”—John 17:15-20)].
John Martignoni:
Again, his comments are irrelevant to the point. Jesus did indeed pray for all of the Apostles, just as He prayed for all of us (see John 17:20). No argument there. The point is, however, that right before the most crucial moment of Jesus’ life – His passion and crucifixion – which one Apostle did He pray for? Jesus states very clearly that Satan demanded all of the Apostles; yet, Jesus decides to pray for only one of them. Why? Because Peter was the chief of the Apostles and Jesus knew that he could rely on Peter to strengthen his brethren.
Thomas Thrasher:
“Peter spoke for the Apostles on the Day of Pentecost.” [All of the apostles spoke on Pentecost (Acts 2:4,7). All of the apostles were the Lord’s witnesses (2:32)].
John Martignoni:
Again, his comments are irrelevant to the point being made. All of the Apostles did indeed speak in tongues. No argument there. The point, however, is that only Peter addressed the crowds. Again, Peter as being shown in a position of leadership and authority vis-à-vis the other Apostles. Mr. Thrasher simply refuses to see the picture that Scripture so very clearly paints.
Thomas Thrasher:
“Peter received a special vision from God to bring the Gospel to the Gentiles.” [But when he went, he instructed them not to bow down to him (Acts 10:26) like people do to the Pope; Paul received a special vision to take the gospel to the Macedonians (Acts 16:9); Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles (Galatians 2:7-9)].
John Martignoni:
Once again, his comments are irrelevant to the point being made. Of the twelve Apostles, Peter is the one who receives a “special vision” about bringing the Gospel to the Gentiles. The point about people bowing to him is irrelevant – not just because the argument is not about how people should or should not greet the Pope, but because given the context, it is clear that the people were bowing down to Peter as if he were a god. Why else would he say, “Stand up, I too am a man?” We do not bow to the Pope, or to anyone else, as an act of worship, but as a simple act of courtesy. Does Mr. Thrasher wish to contend that folks at a square dance are worshipping one another when they bow to each other right before they start to dance?
Thomas Thrasher:
“Peter was given a special revelation about Jesus being the Messiah.” [Paul received a special vision about Jesus being Lord (Acts 9:3-5)].
John Martignoni:
Again, his comments are irrelevant to the point. The debate is not about Paul being the first head of the Church, the debate is about Peter being the first head of the Church. That Paul received a special revelation from God, is indeed evidence that he, too, held a special place within the early Church. Just as Peter receiving the revelation in Matt 16 is evidence of him holding a special place within the early Church, which is the point I was making.
Thomas Thrasher:
“Peter was given the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.” [The same text (Matthew 16:19) mentions the power to bind and loose, which Jesus gave to all of the apostles (Matthew 18:18)].
John Martignoni
His comments here are not only irrelevant, but also very illuminating. Not a single time did he respond to my comments about the keys…NOT ONCE! Something obviously tells him that he dare not go there. Not only did he not talk about the keys, but he pretty much ignored the significance of Jesus essentially quoting from Isaiah 22:20-22 at the time He gave Peter the keys of the Kingdom.
Thomas Thrasher:
“Jesus paid the temple tax for Himself and Peter only.” [The fact is that Peter was involved because “they that received tribute money came to Peter” (Matthew 17:24). That doesn’t make Peter a pope—even my opponent doesn’t believe Peter was pope when that occurred!
John Martignoni:
Once again, irrelevant comments. I never said that Jesus paying the temple tax for Peter made Peter the Pope. His attempts at misdirection have failed over and over again. The point is, that Jesus paying the tax for Peter and Jesus alone…not for any other of the Apostles…and doing it through a miraculous event that involved only Peter…is evidence that Peter held a special place among the Apostles. In fact, the fact that these folks who demanded the tax came to Peter, and not to any of the other disciples, also is evidence that Peter held a leadership position among the Apostles.
Thomas Thrasher:
“Paul comes to Peter to consult with him.” [Nothing is said about Peter’s being Pope! In fact, Paul said, “They who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me” (Galatians 2:6). Later, Paul rebuked Peter for his hypocrisy (:11-14)]
John Martignoni:
His argument from silence again. It is a well known fact, that the lesser authority comes to the greater authority, not the other way around. If Peter was not the head of the Church, why did Paul come to him? Mr. Thrasher has no answer.
Thomas Thrasher:
“Peter generally speaks for all the Apostles.” [Peter didn’t speak for Paul, Barnabas, and James in Acts 15. That Peter was an exceptional leader and often the chief speaker (e.g., Acts 2:14-40) doesn’t prove he was pope. At times Paul was called “the chief speaker” (Acts 14:12), but that doesn’t make him pope!]
John Martignoni:
Again, irrelevant comments. Paul was indeed the chief speaker…between him and Barnabbas. Context does not seem to mean a whole lot to Mr. Thrasher, judging by many of his comments. Plus, he once again, twists what I was saying. First point: In context, when I say, “the Apostles,” I am speaking of the Twelve – a fact that Thrasher ignores. Second point: I said Peter “GENERALLY” speaks for all of the Apostles. Generally does not mean “always,” as Mr. Thrasher is trying to make it mean. Third point: When I say that Peter generally speaks for all of the Apostles, in context, I am saying that he speaks for them on major decisions – appointing a replacement for Judas; addressing the crowds on Pentecost; and deciding the issue at the Council of Jerusalem, for example – I am not saying that the other Apostles never say anything, which seems to be the straw man argument that Thrasher is trying to knock down.
Thomas Thrasher:
“Peter spoke judgment upon Ananias and Sapphira.” [Paul spoke judgment upon Elymas (Acts 13:8-11), but that didn’t make Paul pope!].
John Martignoni:
Again, his comments are irrelevant to the point. The point made was that Peter was the obvious leader of the early Church, as he was the one who spoke judgment about Ananias and Sapphira. At that time, all the Apostles were together, and Ananias laid the proceeds of their sale at the “Apostles’ feet” – all of the Apostles. Yet, it was Peter who spoke the judgment upon Ananias and his wife. In Acts 13, there was only Paul and Barnabbas. So, the fact that Paul spoke judgment upon Elymas indicates that, of the two, Paul was clearly the one of higher authority, just as Peter speaking speaking judgment upon Ananias and Sapphira, when all of the Apostles were present, clearly indicates that Peter was the one of the higher authority. Plus, one key thing to note, Peter’s judgment (death) was much more severe than Paul’s (temporary blindness), which indicates a greater authority on Peter’s part.
Thomas Thrasher:
“Peter has his name changed to ‘Rock.’” [Cephas means “a stone” (John 1:42), but the “Rock was Christ” (1 Corinthians 10:4)! The name Cephas is used a few times (e.g., 1 Corinthians 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:5; Galatians 2:9), but these references never indicate that he was pope or that he held primacy over the other apostles.]
In my first speech, I pointed out that not only was Peter never called Pope, Bishop of Rome, or Head of the Church in the word of God, but “the Scriptures never mention many things associated with the Roman Catholic Church: Pope, Cardinal, Archbishop, Mass, Lent, Rosary, Purgatory, Extreme Unction, Holy Water, Limbo, Immaculate Conception, Assumption of Mary, and many other concepts.” In his four speeches since that time, John has never provided a single Bible passage that demonstrates the scripturalness of these concepts. One cannot “speak as the oracles of God” (1 Peter 4:11) in support of these doctrines!
John Martignoni:
This is really a tiresome argument. In Aramaic, Jesus said, “Thou are Kepha [rock] and upon this kepha [rock] I will build my Church.” When the Aramaic is translated into Greek, where the word for rock is petra, the word had to be slightly changed because “petra” is a feminine noun. So, according to the rules of Greek grammar, you cannot refer to Simon as “petra,” that would be like saying he was a girl named Petrina [remember the Johnny Cash song: A Boy Named Sue?]? So, petra had to have its gender changed in order to be applied to Peter. So, petra became petros. But, again, in the original language in which Jesus said this, Aramaic, what He said was, “Thou are Kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my Church.” Which clearly indicates that Peter is the rock to which Jesus was referring.
And, he goes on to admit that he was the one who first “digressed” from the topic of the debate by bringing in extraneous issues such as the Mass, Lent, the Rosary, Purgatory, Exstreme Unction, Holy Water, Limbo, the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption of Mary, and “many other concepts.” None of which this debate was about, yet he chastises me for never providing a single Bible passage in support of these digressions. Not to mention the fact that earlier in his response he chastised me for what he claimed was a digression from the topic of the debate (even though is wasn’t, as I mentioned above). Once again, he demonstrates the double standards he has employed throughout this debate and the disingenousness with which he has conducted this debate.
Thomas Thrasher:
Several times John has boasted, “I win the debate.” However, I have no desire for a personal victory, but a victory for truth over error! Furthermore, any decision concerning the merits of the arguments offered by John and me must be made by the individual reader. I lay no claim to achieving a victory over John in this debate; however, any reader who better understands God’s revealed truth is truly a winner!
“The truth shall make you free” (John 8:32).
John Martignoni:
As the church lady says, “Well, isn’t that special…” The fact of the matter is, he does have a desire for personal victory, because all of his beliefs – whether he will admit it or not – about the Bible, about Jesus, about doctrine and dogma, come from his own personal, fallible, non-authoritative, private interpretation of the Bible. He answers to no authority in these matters outside of Himself. It is Mr. Thrasher and his Bible, and he is trying to convince all who will listen, that his interpretation of the Bible is THE one and only correct interpretation of the Bible.
Plus, anyone who has read my materials over any length of time, know that I make absolutely no bones about the fact that the only reason I can claim to be right on anything pertaining to faith and morals, is because I only teach as true that which the Church founded by Jesus Christ teaches as true.
In Conclusion
I hope this debate has helped given you some ammunition in regard to questions and arguments you may hear on Peter and the papacy. I also hope it has shown you that when you enter into debate, dialogue, conversation, discussion, etc., about your faith, you will often be faced with responses from the person you are talking to that can be absolutely maddening – filled with illogic, circular reasoning, double standards, hypocrisy, a lack of common sense, and more – yet the person you are talking to will be seem absolutely blinded to what they are doing and how they are doing it. When that happens, I always tell people: Try it once, twice, three times, but if after three rounds you are getting nowhere, you are getting none of your questions answered and you keep getting responses that make no sense given the arguments you were making, then remove your sandals, shake off the dust, and move on.
How to be added to, or removed from, the list
If this newsletter was forwarded to you by a friend, and you would like to be added to our distribution list, all you have to do is go to www.biblechristiansociety.com and click on the “Newsletter” page to sign up. It will take you about 10 seconds.
$RemovalHTML$
Share this newsletter on:
