Share on
Apologetics for the Masses - #280
Topic
Which Church Did Jesus Found? (cont'd)
Unsubscribe/Subscribe
If you did not sign up for this newsletter and you would like to be removed from our distribution list, just click on this link: http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/unsubscribe, then enter the email address that this newsletter comes to and click "Unsubscribe." 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 http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter and put your email address in the box at the top of the page. Either way, it will take you about 10 seconds.
General Comments
Hey folks,
A couple of things to follow up on last week's newsletter:
1) Some of you went online and searched out the original article from Mr. Michael Fackerell that I featured in the newsletter last week. That original posting at his website (which you can find here: http://www.christian-faith.com/which-church-did-jesus-christ-found/), was dated from 2007. It has a couple of paragraphs at the beginning that the copy I was given did not have, but those paragraphs made no substantive difference. Some of you have also tracked down his email (michael@christian-faith.com) and informed him that I was responding to his article. We'll see if he responds or not...
2) At the beginning of the article from Fackerell, he quotes a Bible verse and cites it as 1 Thes 2:15. That is an incorrect citation for the quote that he used. It actually came from 2 Thes 2:15. I didn't catch that when I copied it into my newsletter. Thanks to Bruce in Ontario, Canada for the heads up on that.
And, a reminder about my EWTN radio program this coming Monday afternoon. Feel free to call in to the program to ask a question. You can do so by calling 1-800-585-9396, which is toll free in the U.S. and Canada. From outside the U.S. or Canada, the number to call in the U.S. is: 1-205-271-2985. If you are calling from outside the U.S. or Canada, your calls get moved to the front of the line. I'm on 2:00 - 3:00 PM Central time (3:00 - 4:00 PM Eastern; 12:00 - 1:00 PM Pacific; 7:00 - 8:00 PM GMT). You can listen anywhere at www.ewtn.com/radio, by clicking on "Listen Live," or on the iHeart radio app - if you don't have Catholic radio in your area or if you don't have Sirius satellite radio.
Introduction
This is continuing my response to an article by Michael Fackerell that was sent to me by a Catholic who is a prisoner at a penal institution here in Alabama. He was wanting help with how to respond to it as a Protestant prisoner had given it to him as proof of the falsehood of Catholic teaching. To read the 1st part of the article, and my response to it, click here: http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/352-apologetics-for-the-masses-279
I will continue with the middle section of the article in this newsletter and then the final part of the article in the next newsletter. I will follow standard procedure and print all of his material first, and then comment on it paragraph by paragraph.
Challenge/Response/Strategy
Michael Fackerell Article
Which Church did Jesus Christ found? (cont'd)
The devil knows that a big lie can sometimes be far more convincing than a small one. Its my conviction that the above doctrine is a Big Lie, and is responsible indirectly for the eternal damnation of millions of souls. This teaching has done more to undermine the authority of the Holy Scriptures than any other I know of. The practical result is that even now the majority of Roman Catholics never bother to read their Bibles. This is because they feel that all they’ll ever need to know and receive from God will come through the teaching and ministry of their church, and not through personal study and consideration of the Scriptures.
Things change in the Roman Catholic Church. In times past, the Bible was forbidden to be translated into languages people could understand. The idea was to have power over people by keeping them ignorant of the Truth. Now many Roman Catholics are actually encouraged to also read their Bibles. So the Roman Catholic church changes over time. Many other examples of how it changes could be given. A lot of conservative Catholics are outraged at some of the statements of the current pope, Francis and there are entire Catholic websites devoted to the idea that the current Roman Catholic Church is apostate. Things keep changing, and most people’s memories are very short. Most people also do not care too much about what the truth is.
Let’s now get down to the issues.
What is the True Identity of the Rock upon which the church is built?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered
and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal [this] to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 “And I also say to you that you are Peter [Gk: petros – a boulder or stone], and upon this rock [Gk: petra – a large mass of rock] I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it. 19 “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (NASB).
I have heard of two major alternatives to the Roman Catholic identification of the Rock upon which Jesus would build his church. One is that Peter’s confession of Christ is the rock upon which the church is built. That is to say, by “this rock” Jesus meant the foundational revelation that Peter was the first man to confess, that “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.” The second alternative is that the Rock was Jesus himself, while Peter was the first stone to be built upon the rock of Christ in the church which Christ Himself is buliding. This latter interpretation makes more sense to me, because it is in perfect harmony with the tradition which the Scripture itself establishes concerning the spiritual meaning of the word “Rock”.
Allow Scripture to interpret Scripture
An important principle in evangelical thinking is to allow Scripture to interpret Scripture. Since “All Scripture is
inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” it follows that every interpretation of Scripture should be in harmony with the rest of Scripture. The Scriptures have a lot to say about who the rock is. For example:
1 Corinthians 10:4 “and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which
followed them; and the rock was Christ”.
Romans 9:33 just as it is written, “Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, And he who believes in Him will not be disappointed.”
Habakkuk 1:12 Art Thou not from everlasting, O Lord, my God, my Holy One? We will not die. Thou, O Lord, hast appointed them to judge; And Thou, O Rock , hast established them to correct.
Isaiah 26:4 “Trust in the Lord forever, For in God the Lord, [we have] an everlasting Rock .
Psalm 144:1 (of David.) Blessed be the Lord, my rock , Who trains my hands for war, [And] my fingers for battle;
Psalm 94:22 But the Lord has been my stronghold, And my God the rock of my refuge.
Not only is the Lord God Himself consistently portrayed as the rock throughout both the Old and New Testaments, but the Scriptures go so far as to say that only the Lord God is our rock.
Psalm 62:2 He only is my rock and my salvation, My stronghold; I shall not be greatly shaken.
Isaiah 44:8 ‘Do not tremble and do not be afraid; Have I not long since announced it to you and declared it? And you are My witnesses. Is there any God besides Me, Or is there any [other] Rock ? I know of none.’ ”
2 Samuel 22:32 “For who is God, besides the Lord? And who is a rock , besides our God?
The interpretation of the Lord God being our only true rock ties in nicely with the words of the apostle Paul, “For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus” (1 Corinthians 3:11). Truly then, Jesus is the foundation upon which the true church is built, not Peter.
Peter therefore, cannot be the primary rock on which Jesus will build his church. As we will see, Peter himself did not have the stability or the stature to be the foundation rock upon which the eternal church of Christ was to be built. Peter denied the Lord during the trial of Christ. And a few verses later in the Matthew 16 passage Jesus identifies Peter as being inspired by Satan (Matthew 16:23), while in Galatians 2:11 Paul reports an incident which revealed Peter’s ongoing tendency to weakness. According to Paul, Peter was in the wrong and stood condemned, and was not being straight forward about the truth of the gospel! This is hardly the image of a solid infallible rock upon which
all future generations of Christ church were to be built. Only Jesus Himself can carry that weight, and thank God, He does.
It seems to me that Roman Catholics have taken their conception of Peter as the rock upon which they build their entire system. Church history reveals the moral depths to which these so-called vicars of Christ have fallen. I’m not sure it is edifying to go into a full list of these things, but if it turns out to be important to some of my readers I may make the effort to document this on another web-page. In any case, it seems that common sense as well as the Bible itself would indicate that Jesus was not meaning that Peter was the rock upon which he would build his church. We can all freely acknowledge that Peter had a key role in the development of the early church and that he did have a great deal of spiritual authority from Christ. This is beyond dispute. But the Roman Catholic position goes far beyond this, and in so doing, gets our eyes of Christ and onto men, something which is never advisable for those wishing to build a solid and enduring relationship with God through Jesus Christ.
It is also interesting to note that Peter certainly did not fit into the current conception of a pope, since he had a mother-in-law, meaning he was married. Read Mark 1:30, which speaks of “Simon’s wife’s mother”. The topic of celibate priesthood is outside the scope of the current discussion, but it is another aberration from the plain teaching of Scripture (1 Timothy 3:2-4; 1 Timothy 4:2).
Incidentally, the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven were not given exclusively to Peter. The same authority of binding and loosing were given to all Jesus’ disciples in Matthew 18:18. All Jesus’ disciples have the authority to use his Name, and the truth is, Jesus never gave anyone the authority to abrogate (nullify) His own plain words and teachings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Fackerell Article
Which Church did Jesus Christ found? (cont'd)
The devil knows that a big lie can sometimes be far more convincing than a small one. Its my conviction that the above doctrine [he's referring to the doctrine that the Catholic Church is THE Church founded by Christ and that Peter is the rock upon which it was founded] is a Big Lie, and is responsible indirectly for the eternal damnation of millions of souls. This teaching has done more to undermine the authority of the Holy Scriptures than any other I know of. The practical result is that even now the majority of Roman Catholics never bother to read their Bibles. This is because they feel that all they’ll ever need to know and receive from God will come through the teaching and ministry of their church, and not through personal study and consideration of the Scriptures.
My Comments
Let's see, there are 1.2 billion or so Catholics on the planet, and Mr. Fackerell somehow knows that the "majority" of them "never bother to read their Bibles." He even knows how the majority of those 1.2 billion Catholics "feel" - "They feel that all they'll ever need to know and receive from God will come through the teaching and ministry of their church, and not through persona study and consideration of the Scriptures." Can he cite authoritative studies for either of these statements of his? Does he know a majority of the 1.2 billion Catholics on the planet? I would venture that he has very few, if any, Catholics in his immediate circle of friends and family that he can ask about such things. How many Catholics has he talked to who have ever said such a thing to him? I would wager none. Because even the poorly catechized Catholics that I know - and there are a lot of them out there - would never say such a thing.
Are there a great many Catholics who don't read the Bible as often as they should? Absolutely. But, could the same not be said for a great many Protestants? Are there a great many Catholics who rely heavily, if not solely, on their church for what they need to know and receive from God? You better believe it! But, doesn't the Bible tell us that we receive grace upon grace from "His fullness" (John 1:16)? Well, what is the "fullness of Christ"? It's the Church: "...and He has put all things under His feet and has made Him the head over all things for the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him Who fills all in all," (Eph 1:22-23). If the Church is the fullness of Christ, from which you receive grace upon grace, then why rely on anything else? That doesn't mean you shouldn't read or study the Bible - you should indeed - but you need to do so with the guidance of the Church.
Many Protestants, on the other hand, put more reliance on their own personal, fallible interpretations of Scripture than they do on the teachings of the Church founded by Jesus Christ - as Mr. Fackerell does. Which leads me to ask: Who would you rather rely upon: a Church that can historically trace its roots back to Jesus and the Apostles, or the private interpretation of each and every individual who can read? This is a question that the Michael Fackerell's of the world never consider, but they need to.
Finally, where in the Bible does it say that all you need "to know and receive from God" will come through your own "personal study and consideration of the Scriptures?" Mr. Fackerell is essentially saying that the church founded by Jesus Christ - whether you consider that church to be the Catholic Church or one of the "valid expressions" of that church that Mr. Fackerell mentions earlier in this article (see last week's newsletter) - is basically irrelevant when it comes to teaching the truth. According to what Fackerell says here, each person's individual, fallible, non-authoritative interpretation and understanding of the Scriptures, is more valid than the interpretation and understanding of the Scriptures made by the church founded by Jesus Christ! Pretty bold!
Actually, one more comment on this paragraph - notice how he says "it is my conviction..." His conviction! Well, it's my conviction that he's wrong. So, whose conviction has the greater weight...the greater authority? How would one decide between the two "convictions"? You see, everything Mr. Fackerell says in this article is his personal, fallible, man-made, non-authoritative, non-binding "conviction." It is NOT the Word of God.
Michael Fackerell
Things change in the Roman Catholic Church. In times past, the Bible was forbidden to be translated into languages people could understand. The idea was to have power over people by keeping them ignorant of the Truth. Now many Roman Catholics are actually encouraged to also read their Bibles. So the Roman Catholic church changes over time. Many other examples of how it changes could be given. A lot of conservative Catholics are outraged at some of the statements of the current pope, Francis and there are entire Catholic websites devoted to the idea that the current Roman Catholic Church is apostate. Things keep changing, and most people’s memories are very short. Most people also do not care too much about what the truth is.
My Comments
"In times past the Bible was forbidden to be translated into languages people could understand." That is an out and out false statement. Either Mr. Fackerell is deliberately lying, or he is exhibiting woeful ignorance of the truth. If you read the original preface to the King James Bible (http://www.dbts.edu/journals/1996_2/KJVPref.pdf) - which is in nowise Catholic friendly - you will see that it talks about how the Bible was translated into the "vulgar" languages (the native languages) of many nations beginning in the earliest centuries of Christianity and it attributes that, in a backhanded way, to the Catholic Church. It wasn't the Anglican church, nor the Lutheran church, nor the Evangelical church, nor the Baptist church, nor any non-denominational church doing those translations. It was the Catholic Church. Did the Church get to a point where it said any translation of the Bible into the vulgar languages had to be approved by the Church? Absolutely. Why was that? Because there were myriads of Bible translations out there that were filled with errors. That's why the Anglicans burned Bibles and that's why King James wanted an "Authorized" version of the Bible. The Catholic Church was merely practicing quality control measures, to ensure that the Bibles people were reading (the small minority that could read) were accurate.
Another thing, Mr. Fackerell obviously has no clue when it comes to doctrine vs. discipline - doctrine cannot change, discipline can. And I think it is a bit humorous that the evil Catholic Church once tried to hold power over people by forbidding the Bible to be translated into a language they could understand (according to him), but now it apparently holds power over people by "actually" encouraging them to read the Bible.
Michael Fackerell
Let’s now get down to the issues.
What is the True Identity of the Rock upon which the church is built?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered
and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal [this] to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 “And I also say to you that you are Peter [Gk: petros – a boulder or stone], and upon this rock [Gk: petra – a large mass of rock] I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it. 19 “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (NASB).
I have heard of two major alternatives to the Roman Catholic identification of the Rock upon which Jesus would build his church. One is that Peter’s confession of Christ is the rock upon which the church is built. That is to say, by “this rock” Jesus meant the foundational revelation that Peter was the first man to confess, that “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.” The second alternative is that the Rock was Jesus himself, while Peter was the first stone to be built upon the rock of Christ in the church which Christ Himself is buliding. This latter interpretation makes more sense to me, because it is in perfect harmony with the tradition which the Scripture itself establishes concerning the spiritual meaning of the word “Rock”.
My Comments
"This latter interpretation makes more sense to me..." In other words, he is infallibly declaring this "latter interpretation" to be the correct one, because it fits with Scripture - as he infallibly interprets it. And, if you disagree with his interpretation, then you are going to Hell. The fact is, though, these are not really "alternatives" to the "Roman Catholic identification of the Rock upon which Jesus would build his church." Yes, Jesus is the rock that the Church is built on. But, so is Peter. It is not either-or, it is both-and. Peter is the rock only because he is in Christ and it is Christ working in him and through him in a special way. And, it is because of Peter's profession of faith that Jesus declares him to be the rock. So, again, both of those "major alternatives" to the "Roman Catholic identification of the Rock," are not really alternatives, rather they are complementary positions to it.
Michael Fackerell
Allow Scripture to interpret Scripture
An important principle in evangelical thinking is to allow Scripture to interpret Scripture. Since “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” it follows that every interpretation of Scripture should be in harmony with the rest of Scripture. The Scriptures have a lot to say about who the rock is. For example:
1 Corinthians 10:4 “and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which
followed them; and the rock was Christ”.
Romans 9:33 just as it is written, “Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, And he who believes in Him will not be disappointed.”
Habakkuk 1:12 Art Thou not from everlasting, O Lord, my God, my Holy One? We will not die. Thou, O Lord, hast appointed them to judge; And Thou, O Rock , hast established them to correct.
Isaiah 26:4 “Trust in the Lord forever, For in God the Lord, [we have] an everlasting Rock .
Psalm 144:1 (of David.) Blessed be the Lord, my rock , Who trains my hands for war, [And] my fingers for battle;
Psalm 94:22 But the Lord has been my stronghold, And my God the rock of my refuge.
Not only is the Lord God Himself consistently portrayed as the rock throughout both the Old and New Testaments, but the Scriptures go so far as to say that only the Lord God is our rock.
Psalm 62:2 He only is my rock and my salvation, My stronghold; I shall not be greatly shaken.
Isaiah 44:8 ‘Do not tremble and do not be afraid; Have I not long since announced it to you and declared it? And you are My witnesses. Is there any God besides Me, Or is there any [other] Rock ? I know of none.’ ”
2 Samuel 22:32 “For who is God, besides the Lord? And who is a rock , besides our God?
The interpretation of the Lord God being our only true rock ties in nicely with the words of the apostle Paul, “For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus” (1 Corinthians 3:11). Truly then, Jesus is the foundation upon which the true church is built, not Peter.
My Comments
First thing I say is, that as a Catholic, I agree with every single one of the Scripture verses Mr. Fackerell cites above. However, I do not necessarily agree with his fallible interpretation of those verses.
"An important principle in evangelical thinking is to allow Scripture to interpret Scripture." Well, since Mr. Fackerell goes by the Bible alone, then this "important principle in evangelical thinking" must be somewhere spoken of in the Bible, right? Yet, I know of no verse in all of Scripture that says, "An important interpretive principle is to allow Scripture to interpret Scripture." Now, I'm not saying he's necessarily wrong, but what I am doing is pointing out that this "important principle" does not come from the Bible. It's from the perspective of common sense. It does indeed help to understand one verse of Scripture by taking it into context and comparing it with other verses that speak of similar ideas and concepts. However, there is the fact that there are plenty of Scripture verses where that "evangelical principle" might be a little difficult to apply, which is why 2 Peter 3:16 tells us there are things in Paul's letters, and throughout Scripture, that are difficult to understand. So, if your "important principle" of Scripture interpreting Scripture fails you in a particular instance, then to what authority, or what principle, do you turn to help you with your interpretation and understanding of the Bible? Mr. Fackerell has no answer for that.
"The interpretation of the Lord God being our only true rock ties in nicely with the words of the apostle Paul, “For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus” (1 Corinthians 3:11). Truly then, Jesus is the foundation upon which the true church is built, not Peter."
So, using Mr. Fackerell's interpretive methodology, when it says that there is "no other foundation" other than Christ Jesus, then that means - absolutely - only Jesus can be called our "foundation." But, it's a funny thing, in Ephesians 2:20, it talks upon the "household of God" - which is the Church (1 Tim 3:15) - as being built upon the "foundation" of the "apostles and prophets." But that can't be, at least, according to how Mr. Fackerell interprets the Bible. I mean the Bible says that Jesus is our "only" rock, so that means - absolutely - Peter can't be the rock in Matthew 16 upon which the church is built. The Bible says that we have "no other" foundation other than Jesus Christ, so that means - absolutely - the apostles and prophets can't be the foundation upon which the church is built. But Ephesians 2:20 says they are. Well, either Mr. Fackerell doesn't know how to properly interpret the Bible, or St. Paul must have gotten it wrong. How does Scripture interpret Scripture here?
Also, Scripture tells us we have only one Father and only one teacher (Matt 23:8-9). But, other people are called "father" in Scripture, even by Jesus Himself! "Father Abraham..." (Luke 16:24). Paul calls Abraham, "father" - Romans 4:12. First Stephen, and then Paul, call the Jewish religious authorities, "father" - Acts 7:2, 22:1. And, we see that other people are called teachers in the Bible - James 3:1; 1 Cor 12:28, for just two of many examples.
Scripture tells us that we have one judge - Jesus Christ (James 4:12 - but it also tells us that Jesus said the Apostles would be judges (Luke 22:30). How can this be? It can be because Michael Fackerell doesn't understand the principle of both-and. All he knows is the principle of either-or. So, again, yes, Jesus is the Rock. But so is Peter. That is not a contradiction, unless Mr. Fackerell wants us to believe that the Bible contradicts itself when it says one Father, but names other fathers; when it says one teacher, but names other teachers; when it says one foundation, but names other foundations; when it says one judge, but names other judges. None of these are contradictions, so why does it have to be a contradiction if the Bible says we have one rock, but it names another rock? It's not, at least, as long as you're interpreting Scripture with Scripture.
Michael Fackerell
Peter therefore, cannot be the primary rock on which Jesus will build his church. As we will see, Peter himself did not have the stability or the stature to be the foundation rock upon which the eternal church of Christ was to be built. Peter denied the Lord during the trial of Christ. And a few verses later in the Matthew 16 passage Jesus identifies Peter as being inspired by Satan (Matthew 16:23), while in Galatians 2:11 Paul reports an incident which revealed Peter’s ongoing tendency to weakness. According to Paul, Peter was in the wrong and stood condemned, and was not being straight forward about the truth of the gospel! This is hardly the image of a solid infallible rock upon which
all future generations of Christ church were to be built. Only Jesus Himself can carry that weight, and thank God, He does.
My Comments
Peter can indeed be the rock. See my comments immediately above to show the shallowness and illogic of Mr. Fackerell's way of interpreting the passages he cites. Jesus is indeed the "primary rock," just as He is the primary judge and the primary foundation and the primary teacher and the Father is the primary Father - but that does not exclude others from sharing in those aspects of God the Father and God the Son, as they are allowed by God to do.
Also, as most of you will recognize, Mr. Fackerell confuses infallibility - the inability to teach error in the areas of faith and morals to the entire Church - with impeccability - the inability to sin. Nowhere does the Church's doctrine on infallibility mean that Peter cannot make mistakes. Fackerell needs to better educate himself on matters pertaining to the Catholic faith, because he is misrepresenting what Catholics believe and teach. I doubt Christ would want any of his followers to misrepresent the beliefs of others.
Michael Fackerell
It seems to me that Roman Catholics have taken their conception of Peter as the rock upon which they build their entire system. Church history reveals the moral depths to which these so-called vicars of Christ have fallen. I’m not sure it is edifying to go into a full list of these things, but if it turns out to be important to some of my readers I may make the effort to document this on another web-page. In any case, it seems that common sense as well as the Bible itself would indicate that Jesus was not meaning that Peter was the rock upon which he would build his church. We can all freely acknowledge that Peter had a key role in the development of the early church and that he did have a great deal of spiritual authority from Christ. This is beyond dispute. But the Roman Catholic position goes far beyond this, and in so doing, gets our eyes off of Christ and onto men, something which is never advisable for those wishing to build a solid and enduring relationship with God through Jesus Christ.
My Comments
First of all, we Roman Catholics have not built our system. We simply followed the blueprint laid out by Jesus Christ Himself, as He taught it to the Apostles and other disciples. Our Church existed before a single page of the New Testament was written down. So some bishop didn't just come along one day and say, "Oh, look at Matthew 16:16-19, that means that Peter is the top dog and that his successors are also the top dogs," and then millions of Christians all over the ancient world said, "Oh, yeah, we've never heard that before but since we are not permitted to have the Bible (even though we can't read and each Bible costs the equivalent of a year or two's salary since they are all hand-copied), then we will just blindly follow what our Bishops tell us." And, all the other bishops went along with the idea and voted for the Bishop of Rome to be that one bishop in charge of everything. That is a ludicrous thing to propose, but that is essentially what folks like Fackerell believe happened.
Secondly, he states that the "Roman Catholic position" regarding Peter goes far beyond "acknowledg[ing] that Peter had a key role in the development of the early church and that he did have a great deal of spiritual authority from Christ." I disagree. How does it go far beyond those things? We don't make Peter a god. We don't say he was without sin. We don't say he could never make a mistake. All we say is that God prevented him from teaching error to the entire Church in the areas of faith and morals. So, how does Catholic belief go "far beyond" what he admitted was true about Peter? I mean, didn't Jesus say that whatever Peter binds on earth is bound in Heaven? Does Fackerell believe that means Peter could bind error on earth that would then be bound in Heaven? Apparently he does.
Notice also how he makes an appeal to common sense, rather than strictly to Scripture. Whose common sense? Well, his, of course. But, does it not make common sense that Jesus would use a sinful man to govern His Church in His absence? Furthermore, he said it "seems" the Bible itself was indicating Jesus did not mean that Peter was the rock upon whom He would build His church. Who does it "seem" that way to? To non-Catholics, of course - well, not all non-Catholics, as there are indeed Protestant scholars and theologians who admit that Peter was the rock being referred to in Matt 16. And, in what way does it "seem" like that? And is it wise to gamble your eternity on something that "seems" to be, at least in some man's private opinion?
Jesus, speaking in Aramaic, said, "Thou art Kepha [rock], and upon this kepha [rock] I will build My church." (Matt 16:18). Peter is Kepha...rock. His name means "rock." How can Fackerell say he is not the rock? Jesus changed Peter's name to a name that means "rock." Furthermore, Mr. Fackerell's interpretation of this passage makes it sound rather strange. Here is Fackerell's interpretation: "Blessed are YOU, Simon bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to YOU, but my Father Who is in Heaven. And I tell YOU, YOU are Peter and on Me I will build My church and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. I will give YOU the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, and whatever YOU bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatever YOU loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven." Fackerell has Jesus saying, "You, You, You, You, Me, You, You, You." Really?! Everything in this passage is pointing to Peter!
Also, in John 20, who does Jesus appoint to be the shepherd of His flock as He is shortly to ascend into Heaven? No one, right? No one was appointed to feed Jesus' lambs or to tend Jesus' sheep or feed Jesus' sheep. At least, according to Mr. Fackerell. It continually amazes me how much of the Bible - guys like Michael Fackerell purport to love so much - is overlooked or ignored by them.
Finally, his claim that the Catholic Church's teaching regarding Peter and the papacy gets our "eyes off of Christ and onto men" is about as false as a statement can be. Where does he get off saying something like that?! By what authority does he make such a claim? I would like him to answer that question: By whose authority do you say these things?
Michael Fackerell
It is also interesting to note that Peter certainly did not fit into the current conception of a pope, since he had a mother-in-law, meaning he was married. Read Mark 1:30, which speaks of “Simon’s wife’s mother”. The topic of celibate priesthood is outside the scope of the current discussion, but it is another aberration from the plain teaching of Scripture (1 Timothy 3:2-4; 1 Timothy 4:2).
My Comments
No, a celibate priesthood is not "another aberration from the plain teaching of Scripture." Has he never read Matt 19 where Jesus says that there are some who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven? Or, has he not read where Paul stated that those who wish to serve the Lord without distraction would be better off not to marry (1 Cor 7:32-33)? Jesus is the high priest, is He not? Was He not celibate? Once again we see the private, fallible interpretations of Scripture, of a sinful man, that are being put forth as if they are dogma. All of this is nothing more than Fackerell's fallible opinion.
Michael Fackerell
Incidentally, the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven were not given exclusively to Peter. The same authority of binding and loosing were given to all Jesus’ disciples in Matthew 18:18. All Jesus’ disciples have the authority to use his Name, and the truth is, Jesus never gave anyone the authority to abrogate (nullify) His own plain words and teachings.
My Comments
Actually, nowhere does the New Testament say that anyone other than Peter was given the full power of the keys. As an Individuall, Peter and Peter alone was given the keys. Yes, the other Apostles, in union with Peter, were also given the power to bind and loose, but nowhere does it say that individually any of the others were given the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, and nowhere does it say that the power to bind and loose is the sole power and authority represented by the keys, as Fackerell has interpreted Matt 18:18 to mean. He has made some pretty big non-scriptural assumptions here.
And he obviously is completely unaware of how Jesus is using the same language in Matt 16, that was used in Isaiah 22:20-24, which was talking about a single minister who was over the king's entire household. What is the King's household in the New Testament? The Church. In one of the paragraphs above, I find it ironic that Fackerell states that "Only Jesus Himself can carry that weight...", in relation to Peter as the rock upon which the Church was built; but here in Isaiah 22:24, it states: "And they will hang on him the whole weight of his father's house..." Thing is, this verse is talking about the king's steward - the prime minister, essentially - who is over the king's household. It's not talking about the king himself. Once again, Fackerell's interpretation seems to be lacking. He does not seem to be interpreting Scripture with Scripture.
Do you think maybe...just maybe...his interpretations were influenced, or prejudiced, by the beliefs he had already formed before he read this particular passage of the Bible? Maybe he is fitting the Bible to his beliefs, rather than fitting his beliefs to the Bible?
Closing Comments
I'm going to be in Tulsa this Wednesday night, speaking at Holy Family Cathedral. Since I'm traveling, I may not be able to get the next newsletter out this coming week, but I'm going to try my darndest. In the meantime, if any of you wish to send this newsletter to Mr. Fackerell, please feel free...
Donations
The Bible Christian Society is a non-profit organization that relies solely on your support to bring the truths of the Catholic Faith to tens of thousands of people throughout the U.S. and all around the world each year. If you would like to help us do what we do, you can donate online at: http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/donations, or send a check to: Bible Christian Society, PO Box 424, Pleasant Grove, AL 35127. Anything you can do is greatly appreciated!
Unsubscribe/Subscribe
If you did not sign up for this newsletter and you would like to be removed from our distribution list, just click on this link: http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/unsubscribe, then enter the email address that this newsletter comes to and click "Unsubscribe." 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 http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter and put your email address in the box at the top of the page. Either way, it will take you about 10 seconds.
Share this newsletter on:
