Prepared to Answer Gordon Ferguson Pt. 3

While this has been, so far, a negative review, I do want to say, to start off a critical look at chapter three, that I’m quite glad Ferguson recognizes, “Any leader in any group who says he is not tempted [to enjoy the limelight and praise] is either out of touch with his own heart or dishonest.” The famous Lord Acton dictum is, “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” So I am quite happy with the way this has started.

    The topic of the third chapter is about the supposed exaltation of man, and he starts with the Pope. Concerning Papal infallibility, he says, “This supposed doctrine of the Pope…did not even become official church doctrine until 1830 A.D.” It is clear from this that Ferguson does not know, or maybe it slipped his mind at this moment, how doctrine develops. What we are supposed to infer from this statement is that the Catholic Church did not believe this doctrine at some point in the past. It was therefore a creation out of nothing and nowhere, but most probably from proud men. Maybe Ferguson does not mean for his readers to infer this, but I have seen this tactic used elsewhere, and at least some readers will reach this conclusion. Let me clear this up.

    The development and establishment of doctrine is not a pronouncement of a new doctrine (the Catholic Church recognizes that there can be no new revelation after the death of the apostles). The development is usually the pronouncement or official declaration of a truth universally held by the church that needed to be clarified for whatever reason, that reason usually being, historically, to combat heresy. For example, the development of the Trinity and specifically the affirmation of the deity of Christ at the Council of Nicea. It was universally held (though they were eventually outnumbered) that Jesus was truly man and truly God. However, the Arians, those who believed that Jesus was not truly God but only similar to God, did not believe so. There was no official statement of the nature of Christ because the Church did not find it necessary or pressing, until the Arians began gaining influence. Now, what we can say is, “The deity of Christ did not even become official church doctrine until the Council of Nicea in the 300’s.” If a Jehovah’s Witness was to read that sentence, they might infer that the deity of Christ must have been, therefore, made up. All that shows is that they do not understand how doctrine develops. After Nicea, the Church had a clear and better understanding of what it has always believed. In the same way, the Catholic Church has always believed in the authority and infallibility of the Pope, yet it was not clearly defined until 1830 and this definition is quite needed since I still personally encounter wrong ideas from non-Catholics as to what Papal Infallibility means.

    In the same paragraph, there is a suggestion, though not pressed, that bowing down and kissing the ring of the Pope is an act of worship. This may be so, though it is a bit of a stretch. We still bow down to Emperors, Kings and Queens, though I never understood the kissing of the rings myself. No matter. Since it was not taken to be an act of worship for the monarchs, then I do not see why this would be a necessary inference in keeping this old custom. It may seem old and archaic to us, but it is simply a difference in culture. Now, this brings up the interesting question, What qualifies as worship?  At this current moment, I am not entirely sure, but I am willing to bet that there is a strong subjective element to it, and so would differ slightly from person to person, time to time, culture to culture. I am also willing to bet that sacrifice is a form of worship regardless of person, time or place. All sacrifices are worship, but not all worship may be sacrifice. But enough of that. Let us move on to the Pope.

    The first verse that is looked at used to defend the Papacy is John 21:15-17. Ferguson complains, “However…Peter was actually being censured more than commissioned.” I do not see any kind of censorship here. I do see nothing but a commission, which is that of feeding sheep. Ferguson recognizes that Peter is being re-established as the head apostle, yet also says, “But there is nothing here to signal the beginning of the papacy.” Ferguson is simply confused. The Pope IS the head apostle. That is what it means to be Pope. This is like saying, “George Washing was the first Commander in Chief, but there is nothing to suggest he was the first President of the United States.” To BE Commander in Chief means that you ARE the President of the United States. To BE the head apostle means that you ARE the Pope. Simply put, this is a contradiction on Ferguson’s part.

    Ferguson would like to move on, but there is a little more to this verse that he might have missed. After Peter denies Jesus three times, he reestablished his love three times. Talk about a repentance! Ferguson calls this a questioning of his love. It is not that, it is the re-establishment of his love. And then what does the Good Shepherd do? He tells Peter, not the shepherd, to feed his sheep. But more than that, we ought to realize that this is a fulfillment of an exchange that Jesus had with Peter. Jesus told Peter the night of his arrest, “Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you as wheat (if Peter had no real significance, why would Satan focus his attacks on Peter?). But I have prayed for you Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.” This is indeed a commission, and not a censorship. So what we see here is the establishment of the primacy of Peter and the responsibility and power that Peter will have. What power is that? That of unfailing faith. Jesus, being God, will never have a prayer fail. Because Jesus prayed that Peter would have unfailing faith (after the denials) it follows that Peter will unfailingly have unfailing faith. Here we see a glimpse of Papal Infallibility. 

   

    The second, and perhaps most important verse is Matthew 16:18-19. The typical “petra-petros” explanation is given, but then it seems Ferguson admits that such an explanation is implausible. Good. That saves time, and it shows some intellectual integrity on Ferguson’s part. But if such an explanation is not a good one, how then are we to understand it? “It seems best to understand that Peter’s role in the establishment of the church is expressed in two ways in this verse: a foundational role and an initiation role (with the keys to the kingdom)-both fulfilled in Acts 2 with the Jews and in Acts 10 with the Gentiles.”

    I am not sure what Ferguson means by a foundational and initiation role. He does not explain. Acts Two certainly seems to start the beginning of the Church, and Acts Ten does initiate the Gentiles into the Church. But I fail to see the connection here with the passage in Matthew 16. I do not see anything in Matthew 16 that talks about Jews and Gentiles and how to initiate them. So, what does Matthew 16 actually say? It reads, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

    We ought to recognize how Jesus addresses Peter. He begins with the phrase “Blessed are you.” This is the only time Jesus uses this phrase to bring attention to a specific person. Jesus uses it elsewhere to bring attention to groups of people, like “Blessed are the poor or meek, or the mourning, etc.” The only other time such a phrased is used is for Mary in Luke 1:42, though Jesus did not utter those words. But they do share something in common. The phrased is used for Mary to declare that Mary is the Mother of the Christ. Jesus uses the phrase to declare that Peter will be father of the Church. The phrase “Blessed are you” is so powerful, that any attempt to interpret Matthew 16 in any other way than the establishment, power and authority of the Papacy will diminish what is being communicated in both passages. If one wants to downplay what is happening in Matthew 16, then they must also downplay what is happening in Luke 1. Surely, that is unacceptable.

   

    After making it clear that what he is about to say is going to be profound, Jesus then gives four promises to Peter. First, Christ would build his church on Peter. Secondly, Hell would never overcome the church that is built on Peter (this implies that the church, so long as it exists, is built on whoever the current Peter is, also known as the Pope, so that the promise of protection from complete defeat will also continue). Thirdly, Peter will receive the keys to the kingdom of heaven and lastly, whatever Peter binds and looses on Earth will be bound and loosed in Heaven. Fortunately, Ferguson recognizes some these promises, so I do not need to go into each of them in detail.

    The first promise ought to have some practical application for us. Is what we are doing as a Church in accord with the rock that Jesus establishes? The rock is not an idea, but a person. If you tamper with the foundation, the church crumbles. If you are not with the foundation, you are not the Church. How do you know you are part of the one true church? You look for the rock and his successor.

    The second promise means that the falling away will never be complete. I sense this needs to be established because there is enough ambiguity in Ferguson’s first chapter on “The Falling Away” that one could come away with that conclusion. The church will never ever be completely defeated. Because of that, because the Church forever remains, then it follows that it will never be so corrupt that leaving it will be justified. This ought to smack down the mission of the Reformers like Martin Luther and John Calvin. In fact, the word Reformer might be a misnomer. To reform implies changing things within, but Luther did not stay with the Church, he left it completely. So reform, properly understood is okay, but breaking away, like Luther, is not.

    The third promise is perhaps the most telling. The keys of the kingdom of heaven are given to Peter. What does that mean? It could mean what Ferguson would like it to mean, that he opened up the opportunity to be Christians to the world. But how Ferguson draws that conclusion, he does not say. Why believe something without reason?

    The word “keys” is used twice in the Old Testament. So when Jesus uses the phrase to other Jews who understood the Old Testament, we should probably think to the Old Testament references. The Old Testament verse mostly likely being alluded to is Isaiah 22:22, which declares, “I will place on his shoulder the key to house of David; what he opens no one can shut and what she shuts no one can open.” It is parallel to, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” So because it is likely that Jesus was borrowing the words from Isaiah, the meaning of Isaiah can help us understand what Jesus was trying to communicate to Peter and to the apostles who were in earshot. In short, Eliakim is given an office, as referenced in verse nineteen. That office being vacant, the keys then symbolize power and authority over something, as employed in Revelation 1:18. The office of the House of David continues during David, after the reign of David, and whomever had it before Eliakim, during Eliakim, and so the inference is, after Eliakim as well. What this establishes is that the keys represent an office, and an office implies a succession, just like the office of Commander in Chief always has a successor. It is this imagery of the keys that Jesus lifts out of the Old Testament to lay onto Peter. Peter is being given an office. Therefore, the office that Peter has received as head Apostle, or Pope, will continue even after Peter has died. It has nothing, directly at least, to do with opening up the kingdom of heaven to the Jews and the Gentiles. That is the power that is given to him by the keys, sure, but that is derived from his God given office, the Papacy.

    Ferguson says that there is nothing in the writing of the early Church to indicate anything about a Pope or its successors. Irenaeus, in his “Against Heresies” does indicate Linus as the successor of Peter, then Anacletus and then Clement, the second, third and fourth Popes. I will not quibble though.

    Following the non-explanation of Matthew 16 by Ferguson, he goes on to give a ridiculously presumptuous argument as to who ought to have been Pope. Does Ferguson really want to risk putting his choices against God’s? Imagine that at the ordination of Peter in Matthew 16, one of the other Apostles piqued up, “Uh, excuse me, Jesus, Lord, sir, but, I mean, really? Peter? Honestly, wasn’t he just the fisherman? Don’t you think I can do a better job than him?” Imagine the spiritual beat down you would get from Jesus! Peter let his own position get to his head just a few verses later, and Jesus called him Satan! Yeah, Ferguson would have done a much better job than Jesus, I’m certain. But you know, G.K. Chesterton does sympathize with Ferguson’s concerns, but is not impressed. In “Heretics”, he says that a chain of Popes is only as strong as its weakest link, and God has a peculiar way of lifting up the undeserving to shame the presumptuous proud. Yes, maybe Peter is not the most attractive person to be Pope according to Ferguson. But so what?

    But in fact, the decision to make Peter the first Pope means that this is not men looking for exaltation, as Ferguson suggests. If one were to make up the line of Popes, Peter would be the last person to consider, and as Ferguson argued, one might expect to find Paul to be the first Pope. People want to find likely heroes. It is no coincidence that the people on Mt. Rushmore are all chiseled. Why is James Madison not on there? Because he was a small, weak and frail man. Nobody likes to see that. So if one wants to make up the line of Popes, one does not start with stupid and traitorous Peter. Therefore, it is probably not made up for the mere reason of exaltation.