I want to thank ASR for participating in this debate and I hope it's of some benefit to the reader. I've certainly learned from, and enjoyed the experience.
Over the course of this debate, ASR and I have been evaluating the probability that Jesus instituted the papacy in Matt. 16:18-19 given certain pieces of evidence.
ASR has proposed a number of such pieces which he believes makes it probable that Jesus instituted the papacy in Matt. 16:18-19 [this thesis is a.k.a. H1], including Peter’s name change, Jesus’ being the new and final Davidic King, and the early Church’s belief in Petrine primacy, etc.
My basic contention has been that H1 is improbable given the relevant evidence, and I’ve sought to demonstrate this in two ways:
First, I attempted to show that the arguments ASR adduced in favor of H1 fail. I did this by showing that his proposed evidence confirms H2 at least as well as H1, or that the proposed evidence shouldn’t be accepted as evidence in the first place. This leaves ASR without a case for H1, but doesn’t necessarily establish that H1 is improbable (i.e., or more importantly, less probable than H2).
Second, I proposed my Main Argument. This argument seeks to show that H1 is false. Since this argument is logically valid, the only way to avoid its conclusions [(4)-(5)] is to reject one of its premises [(1)-(3)].
Now, if my second method succeeded, I wouldn’t really need the first. As I said in a previous post, we can grant ASR’s proposed evidences for H1 and my Main Argument stands untouched. However, I wanted to cover all my bases.
ASR accepted premises (1) and (3) of my Main Argument, but rejected (2). If I could show that his objections to (2) fail, we’d have to conclude, based on the information provided in this debate alone, that the Main Argument succeeds and H1 is false.
Briefly I want to point out how his objections to (2) fail (note, I’ll almost completely be using material I’ve previously posted).
ASR’s Objections and My Responses:
His first objection to (2) was that “Luke did not have need to write the text of Matthew 16:18 in his Gospel, because he would later document and expand upon this doctrine through looking at his next text, the Acts of the Apostles.”
My second question to him implied a rhetorical rebuttal to this objection: why would Luke want to record the institution of the papacy only through descriptions of the papacy in action? Indeed, how could the descriptions of the papacy-in-action describe its institution? I believe ASR would concede that none of the texts in Acts which he believes describe the papacy-in-action explicitly or implicitly deal with Jesus’ institution of the papacy. So, I don’t think his first objection should be accepted.
His second objection to (2) was that “if we are to assume that if a title or a concept is not equally found in the Synoptic Gospels (such as comparing Matthew and Luke) in the same wording, then that particular instance of the terminology must not have been important to the early Christian communities.”
My fourth question addressed this objection, and ASR conceded by saying it is reasonable “to believe that Luke would've been interested in recording such an important ecclesiological event such as the institution of the very foundation of the Church if he was aware of it.” So, I don’t think this objection should be accepted. A fortiori, in conceding this it seems ASR accepts (2) and the debate is over.
His final objection is that the early Church overwhelmingly exhibits a belief in Petrine primacy, and this belief doesn’t make sense unless H1 is true. He cites 13 independent early Church sources (some twice etc.) to illustrate a belief in Petrine primacy.
This objection shouldn’t be accepted because H2 doesn’t imply the early Church wouldn’t believe that Peter was the rock or wouldn't believe in Petrine primacy. So if the early Church did believe these things, it couldn’t count against H2. As I stated earlier, H1 is not that Peter is the rock or that the NT/early Church clearly exhibits Petrine primacy. H1 will include a very particular understanding of Peter being the rock and Petrine primacy, but Peter’s being the rock and Petrine primacy can certainly exist apart from H1 (that is, on H2). So, these cannot be used as evidence for H1.
For instance, Clement of Alexandria speaks very highly of Peter in ASR's provided quote, but on the basis of texts other than Matt. 16! So, this quotation can’t illustrate a belief in Petrine primacy relevant to which interpretation of Matt. 16 is correct.
Interestingly, we both cited Tertullian’s On Modesty. How is that we could both cite the same text for two different ends? It’s because all ASR finds in the On Modesty citation is Tertullian saying Peter is the rock. However, as I showed, Tertullian is arguing against H1 here! In James White’s debate with Butler and Sungenis, the exact same thing happened. They both cited this text. Butler only cited it because it said Peter is the rock, White quoted it because Tertullian contradicts Rome. White calls such methodology (citing simply because it says Peter is the rock) the Peter Syndrome.
Sub-Conclusion:
No proposed objection to the Main Argument succeeds and the argument should be accepted as sound (logically valid with true premises).
Bayes’ Theorem:
The Main Argument concerns the probability that Jesus instituted the papacy in Matt. 16:18-19 given Lukan Silence.
Recall that Lukan Silence is the failure of Luke, in his parallel to Matt. 16:18, to record any element in Matt. 16:18-19 that Roman Catholics believe evidence H1. Let’s call this Lukan Silence, L, for simplicity.
So, symbolized, the probability the Main Argument is concerned with is:
P(H|L & K)
Given the Sub-Conclusion above, L supplies a fatal objection to H1: H1 has nearly no explanatory power over L at all. This makes for the following probability:
P(L|H1 & K) = 0.1 [This means the probability of Lukan Silence given H1 and our background knowledge is incredibly low]
However, it’s great for H2:
P(L|H2 & K) =0.8
Recall that to discover the posterior of these hypotheses given (L & K), we also need to calculate the following priors: P(H1|K), P(H2|K) and P(L|K).
Once we’ve got these numbers we can plug them into the following formula:
P(H|E & K) = P(H|K) * P(E|H & K) / P(E|K)
What is the prior probability of L? That is, how probable does our background knowledge make L? Well, as I've demonstrated, Luke was interested in compiling strong historical evidences to secure those sayings about Jesus’ life and teachings given to Theophilus. He probably traveled widely to interview witnesses and cross examines sources. So, L should only be surprising to us (given K), if we think Matt. 16:18-19 contains things Luke would've recorded if he could, given his historical/doctrinal interests. This may sound like Catholics would have to place L's prior very, very low; but, they also believe Luke was inspired! So, God Himself inspired L. Therefore, its prior will actually be very, very high for Catholics (and Christians in general).
Interestingly, it doesn’t really matter how you calculate H1’s and H2’s priors…H1’s posterior will almost certainly turn out to be improbable!
Because H1’s explanatory power of L is so incredibly low, the only way to get H1’s posterior > 0.5 is to drastically increase H1’s prior and substantially decrease L’s prior. Try it out and you’ll see what I mean.
The problem is that, L’s prior will almost certainly drop no lower than 0.2 (for those considering L on a purely historical basis!) and H1’s prior can raise no higher than 1. As noted, Catholics will have to assign a very high probability to L’s prior, probably something like 0.8! This makes for the following calculations:
1.0 * 0.1 / 0.8 = .12 !
Let’s drop L’s prior to 0.3 and see if that helps:
1.0 * 0.1 / 0.3 = .33!
(Note that giving H1 a prior of 1, and L a prior of < 0.4 is crazy lol)
H2’s posterior is quite high.
We can find out what H2’s prior is by subtracting H1’s from 1: P(~H|K) = 1 - P(H|K). H2 is just another way of saying ~H since it’s simply the denial of H1. There’s no way I’m giving H1 a prior of 1! In fact, for *me* it’s be extreeemely low. However, let’s give both priors a 0.5 to be fair. H2’s posterior still skyrockets:
0.5 * 0.8 / 0.4 = 1
You could tweak with L’s prior to try and save H1…raise it 0.8, you’ll still have a H2 posterior of 0.5, which is greater than H1. However, since H1 and H2 are mutually exclusive hypotheses, their probabilities must add up to 1. So, H2's will almost always be far, far greater than H1's.
So, I really can’t see a way the Catholic can get out of this.
Conclusion:
I feel quite confident that I've established my basic contention. The probability that Jesus instituted the papacy in Matt. 16:18-19 given Lukan Silence is incredibly low, such that it’s irrational to believe H1, given L.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
My Closing Statement
Closing Statement
I wish to thank Perplexity for carrying out this debate with me. I have learned some interesting things, developed some new skills, and generally enjoyed myself in this. If I have insulted or have been offensive to Perplexity or anyone in any way, I sincerely apologize.
There is no word limit to the closing statement, however I will try to keep this brief, and I will not bring any new information or arguments into this, as some sort of odd ‘parting shot’, which would be unfair to Perplexity. I still do believe that my first post in itself remains unaffected, due to the fact that the main topic of this essay was about whether Matthew 16 supports the Papacy. I assumed this would be an exegetical debate with regards to the text in question, though Perplexity has presented this ‘source criticism’ factor into this, which is a bit new to me. For orthodox Christianity, I will suppose that my Scriptural arguments towards the Papacy with regards to Matthew 16 (and other verses which have been mentioned before) should suffice if someone is ever to ask me or another Catholic where we find the Papacy in Scripture. If I can be honest, I do find that the playing field is slightly different for both Perplexity and myself, as we are working with two different presuppositions (the inspiration of Scripture, to be precise). Though now I consider it, (having put writing my post off again), I could have presented the support for the interpretation of Isaiah 22 which Perplexity asked for. I apologize, and I hope to present this either in a later blog post, or perhaps in a post on this thread. I do think that this debate would have changed dramatically if we were to agree upon Scriptural inspiration, but I digress. I propose that we must go to Matthew 16 itself to understand was Jesus was saying to Peter, and I believe this is what I have done.
I have presented what Scriptural evidence I have to support the claim that Matthew 16 supports the Papacy, and I have responded to the objections to the best of my ability. Again, I do thank Perplexity for giving me this opportunity, and I hope that all people “to the knowledge of the truth.” (1 Timothy 2:4). In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen.
I wish to thank Perplexity for carrying out this debate with me. I have learned some interesting things, developed some new skills, and generally enjoyed myself in this. If I have insulted or have been offensive to Perplexity or anyone in any way, I sincerely apologize.
There is no word limit to the closing statement, however I will try to keep this brief, and I will not bring any new information or arguments into this, as some sort of odd ‘parting shot’, which would be unfair to Perplexity. I still do believe that my first post in itself remains unaffected, due to the fact that the main topic of this essay was about whether Matthew 16 supports the Papacy. I assumed this would be an exegetical debate with regards to the text in question, though Perplexity has presented this ‘source criticism’ factor into this, which is a bit new to me. For orthodox Christianity, I will suppose that my Scriptural arguments towards the Papacy with regards to Matthew 16 (and other verses which have been mentioned before) should suffice if someone is ever to ask me or another Catholic where we find the Papacy in Scripture. If I can be honest, I do find that the playing field is slightly different for both Perplexity and myself, as we are working with two different presuppositions (the inspiration of Scripture, to be precise). Though now I consider it, (having put writing my post off again), I could have presented the support for the interpretation of Isaiah 22 which Perplexity asked for. I apologize, and I hope to present this either in a later blog post, or perhaps in a post on this thread. I do think that this debate would have changed dramatically if we were to agree upon Scriptural inspiration, but I digress. I propose that we must go to Matthew 16 itself to understand was Jesus was saying to Peter, and I believe this is what I have done.
I have presented what Scriptural evidence I have to support the claim that Matthew 16 supports the Papacy, and I have responded to the objections to the best of my ability. Again, I do thank Perplexity for giving me this opportunity, and I hope that all people “to the knowledge of the truth.” (1 Timothy 2:4). In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen.
Perplexity's response to my Questions.
1.
Really, the only way I think a theory of inspiration could affect my argument is if it discouraged source criticism. So, if the theory we adopted permitted source criticism (as the Catholic one does) the argument would be unaffected.
2.
Hmm, well, it could give you what Fr. Raymond Brown calls sensus plenior:
“The sensus plenior is that additional, deeper meaning, intended by God but not clearly intended by the human author, which is seen to exist in the words of a biblical text (or group of texts, or even a whole book) when they are studied in the light of further revelation or development in the understanding of revelation.” - Brown, Raymond Edward. The Sensus Plenior of Sacred Scripture. Baltimore: St. Mary's Univ., 1955., p. 92. Cf. Summa Theologica, P. 1, Q. 1, A. 10.
This could allow for a correlation between Is. 22 and Matt. 16. The problem would be in trying to show that your interpretation is in fact the sensus plenior, and that’s a particularly difficult thing to do. There doesn’t seem to be a principled methodology here.
3.
The Catholic interpretation is not that Peter is the rock per se; but that Jesus instituted the papacy (which includes a certain understanding of Peter being the rock). So, I don't think when a father says Peter is the rock (or something relevantly similar) he's thereby saying anything about the Bishop of Rome, necessarily. I would say for a lot of Church Fathers who say Peter is the rock, they derive this through their exegesis. Further, those Church fathers who claim Peter is the rock on the basis of Tradition are probably referring to older exegetes who said Peter is the rock. Tertullian is one of the earliest such exegetes of this text and he says Peter is the rock (although what he means by this contradicts the Catholic understanding). [I think the only earlier interpreter we know of is the opponent to which Tertullian is trying to refute. This person (or persons) thought Church’s akin to Peter derived his ‘power’. Tertullian was refuting this.] He doesn’t indicate he derived his understanding from Tradition, this is just the best he could make sense of the text. I’m of the position that the universal interpretation of the early Church is contrary to the Catholic interpretation so I don’t think we need posit the papacy to account for their understanding.
4.
I think Jesus gives Simon the title Peter to signify the change underwent by acquiring divinely-caused Faith. I think it's this kind of faith which Jesus refers to as the foundation upon which he will build his Church. Further, he promises that his Church (those who have the faith Peter has) will overcome death and rise to new life when he says the Gates of Hell won't overcome 'it'. Cf. Eph. 5:22-27. I think the keys were simply the power to bind and loose sins, given to all the Apostles later in the Gospel. I want to note something though. Like Augustine, I don't think there is any significant doctrinal content here such that people should understand this text in a certain way in order to assent to some binding, important meaning. It seems vague to me. And, I'm with a lot of scholars who don't think Jesus said these words in this context. I'm not sure why Matthew places them here.
I have noticed that it appears that you do not hold the Scriptures in the same sense as the average Christian would (inspired word of God). If I am wrong, please correct me. But working with this presupposition, my question is if we agreed that Scripture is inspired, does this affect your argument?
Really, the only way I think a theory of inspiration could affect my argument is if it discouraged source criticism. So, if the theory we adopted permitted source criticism (as the Catholic one does) the argument would be unaffected.
2.
Working with the same presupposition, my next question is, if we agreed that Scripture is inspired, how does it affect my argument?
“The sensus plenior is that additional, deeper meaning, intended by God but not clearly intended by the human author, which is seen to exist in the words of a biblical text (or group of texts, or even a whole book) when they are studied in the light of further revelation or development in the understanding of revelation.” - Brown, Raymond Edward. The Sensus Plenior of Sacred Scripture. Baltimore: St. Mary's Univ., 1955., p. 92. Cf. Summa Theologica, P. 1, Q. 1, A. 10.
This could allow for a correlation between Is. 22 and Matt. 16. The problem would be in trying to show that your interpretation is in fact the sensus plenior, and that’s a particularly difficult thing to do. There doesn’t seem to be a principled methodology here.
3.
There are many Church Fathers which speak about Peter as the Rock, as a major leader (if not the leader). If the early Church did not accept this understanding, what is the source of this idea of Peter as Leader and Rock? Where did it come from?
4.
Focusing on the primary text in question (Matthew 16), how would you interpret the meaning of what Jesus says to Peter?
My Response to Perplexity's Questions
Originally Posted by Perplexity
I believe that because I am not the only person who understands this text in the way that I do. If I may;"Simon Cephas answered and said, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’ Jesus answered and said unto him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah: flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee also, that you are Cephas, and on this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it" (The Diatesseron 23 [A.D. 170]).
Tertullian
"Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the Church would be built’ [Matt. 16:18] with the power of ‘loosing and binding in heaven and on earth’ [Matt. 16:19]?" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 22 [A.D. 200]).
"[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys" (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).
The Letter of Clement to James
"Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter" (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).
The Clementine Homilies
"[Simon Peter said to Simon Magus in Rome:] ‘For you now stand in direct opposition to me, who am a firm rock, the foundation of the Church’ [Matt. 16:18]" (Clementine Homilies 17:19 [A.D. 221]).
Origen
"Look at [Peter], the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church [Matt. 16:18]. And what does our Lord say to him? ‘Oh you of little faith,’ he says, ‘why do you doubt?’ [Matt. 14:31]" (Homilies on Exodus 5:4 [A.D. 248]).
Cyprian of Carthage
"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. . . . If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).
Originally Posted by Perplexity Originally Posted by Perplexity Originally Posted by PerplexityPerplexity's Cross-Examination Questions
Questions:
1. Supposing that Luke didn’t record your understanding of Matt. 16:18-19 because he would record the papacy throughout Acts, and that the early Church did believe in some kind of Papal primacy, why must we understand Matthew 16:18-19 as you do in order to account for the early Church’s belief in some kind of Papal primacy rather than just other texts like Acts, John 21 or Luke 22?
2. Supposing there is a significant difference between Jesus’ institution of the papacy in Matt. 16:18-19 and the papacy’s existence and activity functioning within the NT Church, why would Luke desire to record the former only through descriptions of the latter?
3. Do you know of any Christian in the first 700 years of Christianity that drew an analogy between Is. 22 and Matt. 16:18-19 as you have?
4. Granting that we shouldn't assume that "if a title or a concept is not equally found in the Synoptic Gospels (such as comparing Matthew and Luke) in the same wording, then that particular instance of the terminology must not have been important to the early Christian communities", is it reasonable to believe that Luke would've been interested in recording such an important ecclesiological event such as the institution of the very foundation of the Church if he was aware of it?
1. Supposing that Luke didn’t record your understanding of Matt. 16:18-19 because he would record the papacy throughout Acts, and that the early Church did believe in some kind of Papal primacy, why must we understand Matthew 16:18-19 as you do in order to account for the early Church’s belief in some kind of Papal primacy rather than just other texts like Acts, John 21 or Luke 22?
2. Supposing there is a significant difference between Jesus’ institution of the papacy in Matt. 16:18-19 and the papacy’s existence and activity functioning within the NT Church, why would Luke desire to record the former only through descriptions of the latter?
3. Do you know of any Christian in the first 700 years of Christianity that drew an analogy between Is. 22 and Matt. 16:18-19 as you have?
4. Granting that we shouldn't assume that "if a title or a concept is not equally found in the Synoptic Gospels (such as comparing Matthew and Luke) in the same wording, then that particular instance of the terminology must not have been important to the early Christian communities", is it reasonable to believe that Luke would've been interested in recording such an important ecclesiological event such as the institution of the very foundation of the Church if he was aware of it?
My Cross-Examination questions to Perplexity
These are my four questions:
- I have noticed that it appears that you do not hold the Scriptures in the same sense as the average Christian would (inspired word of God). If I am wrong, please correct me. But working with this presupposition, my question is if we agreed that Scripture is inspired, does this affect your argument?
- Working with the same presupposition, my next question is, if we agreed that Scripture is inspired, how does it affect my argument?
- There are many Church Fathers which speak about Peter as the Rock, as a major leader (if not the leader). If the early Church did not accept this understanding, what is the source of this idea of Peter as Leader and Rock? Where did it come from?
- Focusing on the primary text in question (Matthew 16), how would you interpret the meaning of what Jesus says to Peter?
Saturday, October 15, 2011
A bit about my current thoughts.
I've been thinking about quite a lot of stuff lately. For example, what do I do with regards to my life? Am I called to a vocation? What am I here to do?
I've been thinking about my ex. To be honest, I miss her. If it was possible, I would go back to her. But the way she's acted, she's burned a bridge. She's really hurt me to a point where I know that being with her will open up wounds which just won't ever heal if I stay with her, at least for the time being.
I'll post the rest of the debate posts in the next week or two.
I've fallen into mortal sin and I can't get up! :P But seriously, that's the truth. Please, pray for my soul, that I may reach to Confession and be free of sin, by the blood of Christ Jesus.
This is how I'll vent. I'll come up with a snazzy title for these useless posts sooner or later. I have no clue about where I'm going, or what I'll be doing. What I do know, is that I am grateful that I have my family, my friends. I am glad and honoured that people care about me, a wretched man. I just hope that I can have the courage to trust God with my life.
And this is my first installment. Dominus Vobiscum!
I've been thinking about my ex. To be honest, I miss her. If it was possible, I would go back to her. But the way she's acted, she's burned a bridge. She's really hurt me to a point where I know that being with her will open up wounds which just won't ever heal if I stay with her, at least for the time being.
I'll post the rest of the debate posts in the next week or two.
I've fallen into mortal sin and I can't get up! :P But seriously, that's the truth. Please, pray for my soul, that I may reach to Confession and be free of sin, by the blood of Christ Jesus.
This is how I'll vent. I'll come up with a snazzy title for these useless posts sooner or later. I have no clue about where I'm going, or what I'll be doing. What I do know, is that I am grateful that I have my family, my friends. I am glad and honoured that people care about me, a wretched man. I just hope that I can have the courage to trust God with my life.
And this is my first installment. Dominus Vobiscum!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)