Dunne - Pickup Discussion, Third Negative
Proposition: "The Roman Catholic Church today is the church established by Jesus Christ."
I have denied that hierarchical rule, as alleged by the affirmative, has the sanction of the "sacred authority." I have proved this in two ways:
1. By showing that his "hierarchical rule" is antithetical to "bishop rule," as defined in the New Testament, both as to fact and scope.
2. By showing that the inspired men affirmed that the scriptures, as the word of Christ, the absolute Monarch, would be the universal authority.
Therefore, I have proved the Roman Catholic Church is not the church established by Jesus. Christ.
Next, we come to consider the affirmative's discussion that the church is "monarchal." It is his reasoning that if an "ultimate authority" is essential to prevent anarchy in the local church the same is necessary in the universal church. This conclusion is false because it is based on a faulty premise. We have shown that no men ever ruled "in the forum of the human conscience." The prevention of anarchy is performed by teaching the word. Mr. Dunne also assumes the need of an organization for the universal church.
The Apostle Paul affirms there is "one faith" (Eph. 4:5) and all Christians are to keep it. The same thing that is the ultimate authority in the local church is the ultimate authority in the universal church; the word of the King.
We use an inspired illustration. Paul charged both Timothy and Titus with the responsibility of appointing bishops. He gave each of them the qualifications and duties. They were prepared to perform this task with divine authority. (Titus 2:15) Why ? Because they were following an inspired pattern. They had no authority to append the qualifications or extend an addendum to the duties. That is, they could not further legislate. They merely taught what had been legislated. If, in this manner, they could make bishops in Ephesus and Crete, why cannot we make identical bishops in Phoenix or Denver, providing we use the same pattern? If this can be done in the realm of government why not in every other phase of Christianity?
Christ is not only the Monarch over things "invisible" but also over things "visible." (Col. 1:15-20) Paul says he is "the only Sovereign." (1 Tim. 6:15) He also declares that he "is the head of the church," (Col. 1:18) and "he is the head of all things to the church." (Eph. 19-23) He has no substitute monarch on earth.
Mr. Dunne sees the ultimate authority in Peter and his successors, as the monarch over the church visible. This type of power Christ definitely taught against. "But Jesus said: `You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. Not so is it among you. On the contrary, whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant'." (Matt. 20:20-25)
In proving the supremacy of Peter, Matthew 16:15-19 is advanced. Notice carefully verse 18. "And I say to thee, thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." The entire aim in this passage is to give divine acclamation to Christ, not to Peter. (v. 13) Christ did not say "thou art Peter and upon thee I will build my church." But rather he said, "thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church." The pronouns are of different gender and person and therefore, could not possibly refer to the same antecedent. - The Greek word for Peter, "Petros," means "a stone"; the word for rock, "Petra," means "a large rock." The church was founded on "Petra," rock, not on "Petros," a small stone.
But the advocates of the Petrine theory tell us the Lord probably spoke this in Aramaic, which language does not recognize the difference between "Petros" and "Petra." For the sake of argument let us grant that this supposition is true. Matthew, an apostle, a man with "full authority," was present on this occasion. He wrote his infallible account of it in Greek, a most accurate and exacting language. And his divine interpretation of the speech was as we have described above. Now, if the Christ did not make the distinction cited above, then the Holy Spirit, who was to guide the apostles into all truth, led Matthew to speak erroneously. Certainly this could not be. This point conclusively proves our argument that the authority is in the "word."
The notion that Peter was the foundation of the church never occurred to any of the inspired writers; not one of them. Yet this is by no means the last time this figure is used. "For other foundations no one can lay but that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus." (1 Cor. 3:11) "You are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets with Christ Jesus himself as the chief corner stone." (Eph. 2:20)
Speaking to all the apostles in Matthew 18 the Lord gave all of them the identical charge as He did Peter in Matthew 16. "... Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven." Here there is equal responsibility. Mr. Dunne says that Matthew 16:19 is proof that Christ promised "Peter supreme authority." But identically the same thing is said to all apostles in Matthew 18:18. On this passage Mr. Dunne says it proves Christ gave all the apostles "full" and "coactive authority." Here is another contradiction in argumentation. The same passage cannot possibly teach the "supreme authority" of Peter and "full coactive authority" of all the apostles.
Mr. Dunne claims Peter as the monarch over the church. But he says, that this unlimited authority is "naturally a delegated authority." How can this be? Is it possible for a monarch to have unlimited and ultimate power and yet that authority be delegated. Of course not. If Peter's authority was delegated he is not the ultimate authority. If he is the ultimate authority, his authority cannot be delegated; it is primary. Since Mr. Dunne has already admitted the church of Christ has at its head a Monarch with "ultimate authority," and since he has said the head of the Roman Catholic Church has delegated authority, therefore, by his own admission the Roman Catholic Church is not the church established by Christ.
The affirmative is guilty of garbling the text when he says that Christ promised the Gates of Hell would not prevail over the universal church, but may prevail over "particular churches." Christ did not say this. He said "the gates of hell" would not prevail over the establishment of the church. He had just said he would build His church. And then He says nothing will interfere with that. There is no need for that, since he has guaranteed the permanency of the "incorruptible seed," which makes Christians. (1 Peter 1:19-25)
Then, the allegory of John 21 is produced. The affirmative maintains that "even considered in isolation from the text of Matthew their meaning is clear." This being true why did not Peter or one of the apostles ever intimate one time that Peter was the "chief shepherd." In fact, Peter declares in 1 Peter 5:4 that Christ is the "chief Shepherd." In this same passage Peter assigns equal responsibility of feeding to every bishop.
The affirmative says: "There are many clues scattered throughout the Gospel narratives which confirm ...the primacy of Peter's position ...." The clues are:
1. "Peter is named first in the lists of the apostles." This allegation is untrue. When naming the "pillars" of the Jerusalem church Paul named James first. By Mr. Dunne's reasoning this would prove James to be the chief pillar. (Gal. 2:9)
2. "Peter presides over the apostolic college." But it is James who makes the final decision in this matter. If anyone presided it surely would have been him and not Peter. "After these had finished speaking, James made this answer, saying ... Therefore my judgment . . . ." (Acts 15:13-19)
3. "He visits the particular churches." But Paul said he had the care of "all the churches." (2 Cor. 11:28)
4. Can these scriptures be construed to be "clues" of Peter's primacy?
(a) "I, your fellow-presbyter." (1 Peter 5:1)
(b) "But when Cephas came to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was deserving of blame." The original language says Peter was guilty of "hypocrisy." He was leading men from the truth.
(c) "For I regard myself as nowise inferior to the great apostles." (2 Cor. 11:5)
(d) "The apostles sent Peter and John." (Acts 8:14) Peculiar language for one who is a monarch to be sent by his subjects.
(e) Of the twenty-nine persons that Paul saluted in the Roman letter not one of them was Peter.
(f) In addressing the Roman letter Paul said: "To all God's beloved who are in Rome, called to be saints." (Rom. 1:7) If this were the residence of the church's "ultimate authority," certainly Paul committed umbrage by not even mentioning him or even paying his respects to his authority.
In presenting corrobative evidence from Tradition the affirmative must produce unanimity among the Fathers. So, says the "Trentine Creed." Mr. Dunne did not give documentation on this point. Having sufficient material in our possession on this point to prove that these men did not believe that Peter was the "ultimate authority," we simply deny the affirmative's assertion.
If in his rebuttal he cares to document his statements we will be glad to notice them.
I have proved from the scriptures that the church established by Christ is not ruled "hierarchally" or "monarchally," as alleged by the affirmative. Since the affirmative maintains that the RC is governed "hierarchally" and "monarchally," therefore I conclude, the Roman Catholic Church is not the church established by Jesus Christ.