No Roman Catholic can deal with 2 Peter 1:12-18 and 3:1

It seems that no Roman Catholic can deal with this:

I left this comment twice over at Jason Stellman's blog here. (below is an expanded version of the original.)

 If apostolic succession was there from the beginning in the way that Rome defines it; why does Peter (the suppossed first bishop of Rome and suppossed first “Pope”) not mention it in his second epistle, when he should have – in 2 Peter 1:12-18 and 3:1, when he speaks of
a. knowing that he is about to die;  (verses 12-16)
b. wanting to be diligent to leave something with the believers that will enable them to “stir up their sincere minds” and “remember the truth” when he is gone? (verses 12-16 and 3:1)

Seems Peter especially would have at least mentioned the other presbyters and/ or bishops (addendum to be clear as what I meant:  presbyters/elders who would have the charism of apostolic succession and infallible teaching and able to solve all disunity problems and interpretation differences, as Roman Catholics claim that has been passed down in all history, in an unbroken chain beginning with Peter) who would take his place when he is gone; and that they would able to help the believers be able to learn truth and be reminded of the truth; and be there to help solve disunity problems and differences of interpretation. Instead, he does no such thing.  (Addendum:  I didn't mean that there were no other presbyters or teachers or pastors; sorry for that lack of clarity.  There obviously were a college of presbyters/elders - 1 Peter 5:1-5)

This a clear proof that it is the writting (Scripture alone) 2 Peter 3:1 – "this is the second letter I am writing to you", by which I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder” – in other words, after I am gone (1:12-17), you will have something, somethng solid, a text, a writing, a Scripture, that you can read in order that you can stir up your minds in the truth - And that argument from 2 Peter 1:12-21 and 3:1, points to Sola Scriptura in principle.

I asked Jason Stellman, "how do you deal with that in 2 Peter?" and he and others don't seem to grasp the enormity of the supposed first Pope leaving out the teaching that his office would have successors, who would be able to teach the believers after he gets executed by Nero around 67 AD.  That is a major teaching to leave out, if it is true, it seems to me.  I think it is devasting to the whole Roman Catholic claim that Peter was the first Pope and that God intended the office of Peter in the bishop of the church in Rome to then to be succeeded by another infallible interpreter who would be able to shepherd and guide the church and give the infallible interpetation, and that that office would be passed down all through history.

Another Ironic thing about Jason Stellman's conversion testimony to Roman Catholicism

Jason Stellman, in the interview at Called to Communion, in his testimony about how he converted to Roman Catholicism, basically asserted that we should be able to find the Protestant paradigm for Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, and church authority in the early church.  He claims that there is no positive case for the Protestant paradigm in the early church after the apostle John died.  Yet, it seems that one of the earliest writings, 1 Clement, if not the earliest, (after the NT books) does indeed have the 3 principles that are closer to the Protestant paradigm than a Roman Catholic one.  I am not saying the early church is or was "Protestant"; that would be anachronistic.  It was neither Roman Catholic nor Protestant; but these three principles found in 1 Clement are closer to the Protestant way of doing things than any Roman Catholic paradigm.  We Protestants can "let the early be the early church" (Dr. White) and when they made mistakes, we confess that they are fallible men and not inspired apostles and their writings are not inspired, and yet, we have an infallible rule - the Scriptures, by which to judge them.  

See Part 3 of Dr. White's response.

At one point, Jason said basically something like, "Jesus would not have set it up with Sola Scriptura as a guiding principle, because Jesus is not stupid."  Yet, as Dr. White pointed out, it is ironic that he has already said that Professors Michael Horton and Steve Baugh were very smart; smarter than he is; and they knew their theology and church history and Greek and exegesis much better than he did.  Jason admitted this; but says that for Jesus to set up Sola Scriptura as a guide for the church is "stupid".  So how does Jason know whether he is being smart enough to know that he understands Jesus properly?  How does he know that Horton, Baugh, White are not correct, since they all believe that Jesus and the apostles did teach that principle.  Jesus' teaches principles in the Gospels of saying things like "thus it is written" and "you make the word of God void by your traditions", and "search the Scriptures" and "have you not read what God said to you?".   How does Jason know that his decision to rely upon his own mind and judgment and call Jesus and the apostles constantly pointing back to the Scriptures as something that is "stupid"? Jason also kept saying things like "He (Jesus) just woudda", "he just woudda" set it up the way that Roman Catholicism says.  "Just woulda" is not good enough; that is just Jason's own subjective personal decision.  He is using his own judgment and understanding of what "should be".   Jason gives no evidence of what he was arguing for, just his own decision, his own opinion - "It should have been this way".  Instead, something closer to the Protestant paradigm is there in the earliest times. 

Well, let's see - 

Earliest writing after the New Testament writings:  I Clement  (96 AD)  

1.  Each Local Church has a college of elders (presbyters)  (No Pope, not even a mono-episcopate yet)  1 Clement 42, 44 - elders and bishops are the same office.

Clement of Rome ( 96 AD) - Presbyters and Bishops are the same office – I Clement 44, confirming Acts 14:23; 20:17, 28; Titus 1:5-7; I Peter 5:1-4. Clement, with the Biblical passages, along with Philippians 1:1 (bishops and deacons), along with the Didache (15) (bishops and deacons), and with Jerome’s statement that a “A presbyter, therefore, is the same as a bishop” and that the bishops being appointed above the presbyters was “a custom, not by divine appointment” (Jerome, Commentary on Titus, PL 26:562-563, cited by James White in Perspectives on Church Government, Five Views of Church Polity, Broadman and Holman, 2004, p. 251-252) shows that the deepest and oldest history is that local churches had two offices 1. elders (overseers, who teach and shepherd the flock or do the work of pastors) and 2. deacons (servants, ministers); and that it was later that the office of bishop (episcopos/overseer) was separated out from and made above the college of plurality of elders for each church.

In I Clement 42, he shows that there are only 2 church offices, bishops (elders) and deacons.

In I Clement 44, he clearly shows that the bishop/overseer/episcopos is the same office as elder/presbyter.

The evidence in I Clement is that Clement himself is not a “pope”, as the Roman Catholics claim, but the moderator or secretary spokesman or “president”, in the words of Justin Martyr for the college of elders from the church at Rome. This is one church writing to another church.

“The Church of God which sojourns at Rome, to the Church of God sojourning at Corinth, to them that are called and sanctified by the will of God, through our Lord Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, from Almighty God through Jesus Christ, be multiplied.” ( I Clement preface before paragraph 1)

I Clement rebukes the Corinthian church for deposing the elders there who have served faithfully. (42-44, 47, 54) He calls what the Corinthians have done, by getting rid of the presbyters, “a detestable and unholy schism, so alien and strange to those chosen by God” (paragraph 1) The Corinthians got rid of their elders out of jealousy and arrogance, as the rebuke of jealousy and pride is a major theme of this letter: (paragraphs 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 9; 16; 43-44; 46; 54 ) He exhorts the Corinthians to humility and repentance. (1: 7-8 and 1:13; 48, 57)

“Therefore it is right and holy, brothers, that we should be obedient to God rather than follow those who in arrogance and unruliness have set themselves up as leaders in abominable jealousy.” (1:14 – Michael Holmes’ translation. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations of Their writings. Second Edition. J. B. Lightfoot and J. R. Harmer, editors and translators. Micheal Holmes, editor and reviser. Baker Books, 1992, p. 43.)

“It is disgraceful, dear friends, yes, utterly disgraceful and unworthy of your conduct in Christ, that it should be reported that the well-established and ancient church of the Corinthians, because of one or two persons, is rebelling against its presbyters.” (I Clement 47:6)

“Only let the flock of Christ be at peace with its duly appointed presbyters.” ( I Clement 54)

These are principles that Protestants would agree with - local church authority of a plurality or college of elders and another church encouraging them to follow that pattern and the Scriptures.

2.  Sola Scriptura in principle

Clement also exhorted the church of the Corinthians to go back to the Scriptures:

“Let us study the records of the things that have happened from the beginning. Why was our father Abraham blessed? Was it not because he attained righteousness and truth through faith?” (I Clement, 31)

He quotes from the epistle to the Hebrews in I Clement 36, several times, which shows the early church affirmed it as Scripture very early on; even though some others in other places struggled with accepting it as canonical.

In I Clement 45, he gives a good description of inspiration and inerrancy – “You have searched the Scriptures, which are true, which were given by the Holy Spirit; you know that nothing unrighteous or counterfeit is written in them. You will not find that righteous people have ever been thrust out by holy men.”

In I Clement 47, he again points them back to the Scriptures and says, “Take up the epistle of the blessed Paul the apostle. What did he write to you in the beginning of the gospel?  Truly he wrote to you in the Spirit about himself and Cephas and Apollos, because even then you had split into factions.”  If Peter was the first Pope, or if the illustration of Jason's about siding with Peter if there was a tie in voting with 6 apostles vs. 6 apostles on an issue, "they would side with Peter (Cephas)".  Well, if there was any truth to that "Peter principle" - why didn't Paul use it in 1 Corinthians to solve the disunity problem?  Instead Paul said, "do not go beyond what is written".  If that "Peter principle" was true, why didn't Clement use it in 1 Clement?  He didn't, instead he wrote, "Take up the epistle of Paul that he wrote to you, O Corinthians!"  Go back to the Scriptures  "do not go beyond what is written" - 1 Cor. 4:6 - that would solve the issue of the party spirit and schisms and splits and personality cults.  No pope or bishop or bishop of bishops or council is appealed to. 

When we read the Scriptures on this issue and indeed, when we take up the letter of I Corinthians, we find the solution to the problem there. Paul wrote in I Corinthians 4:6, in the same context of the divisions and disunity and factions (1 Corinthians 1:10-11; 3:1-10; 4:1-6), “Do not go beyond what is written.” Paul gives them the Scriptural solution and Clement points them back to the bible. No papal encyclical here. Here in 1 Corinthians, Paul actually uses a general principle of a kind of early form of Sola Scriptura, even though all the Scriptures have not been written yet. “Do not go beyond what is written” surely refers to his exhortations and instructions in the letter itself, in dealing with the factions in the church, since he says, “I have applied these things figuratively to Apollos and myself.” It shows that the final authority is Scripture, not what a bishop or future pope or council says.

Added later Tuesday morning (10:00am), Dec. 11: 

1 Corinthians 4:6 - after saying "do not exceed what is written", the inspired apostle gives the reason and purpose for the command to not go beyond Scripture:  "so that no one of you may become arrogant in behalf of one against another."  There it is.  Too bad Stephen, bishop of Rome in 258 AD did not read nor obey the Scriptures here.  Cyprian, Firmillian and 85 other bishops from all over had to rebuke Stephen for his arrogance in claiming to be "bishop of bishops".   This is something very clear in early church history that proves that the Papal doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church is wrong and Jason Stellman should have known this.  Too bad Pope Boniface VIII in 1302 did not read nor obey 1 Corinthians 4:6 when he said "It is necessary for every human creature to be submitted to the Roman Pontiff in order to be saved."  (Papal encyclical "Unam Sanctum") 

Many other times Clement says, "thus it is written" and quotes from the OT extensively (all of Psalm 51 and Isaiah 53), and some from the NT and has many allusions from the NT.  

There are a couple of unknown quotes(23:4 and 46:2), and a couple that seem to be from the Apocrypha book of Wisdom of Solomon, but even those 2 are similar to canonical passages (one (Wisdom of Solomon 2:24 at 1 Clement 3:4) is close to Romans 5:12 and the other (Wisdom of Solomon 12:12 at 1 Clement 27:5).  Even so, Clement is not infallible and so we don't have to justify the mistakes that early church fathers and writers made.  1 Clement 25 and the use of the legend of the Phoenix bird is indeed strange, but all this proves that 1 Clement is not canonical Scripture, and shows how the early church has mixtures of false ideas within it.   Clement is not infallible nor a Pope (there was no such office or idea in the early centuries); and it also shows the important of using Scripture to judge the early church writers and never accept them as infallible; as only the Scriptures are infallible. 

3.  Justification by Faith Alone

Clement also has an early statement on justification by faith apart from good works wrought by us within us. Mediate on these beautiful biblically based words - 

“All these, therefore, were highly honored, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.” I Clement 32

It is clear that one of the earliest, if not the earliest non-canonical early church writings, 1 Clement, has 3 principles that are closer to the Protestant paradigm of "doing church" than the Roman Catholic paradigm. 

The irony of Jason Stellman’s conversion to Roman Catholicism

It is ironic that Jason claims he was more into "systematics" and exegesis and systematic theology than church history; yet does not seem to use the principles of systematic theology, exegesis, and progressive revelation very well.  It is possible that Jason discussed Luke 1:67-79, Galatians 2:21; 3:21 somewhere else, but I did not find any evidence of that at the things I have read and listened to that relate to these issues.

I was following some of the com box discussions that Jason participated in at the Called to Communion web-site over the past couple of years.  I have taken the time to read Jason Stellman’s “I fought the Church, and the Church won” and listen to his testimony of why he became Roman Catholic and also listen to responses from Dr. White and Turrretinfan and also a Lutheran response here.   

(linked to by a comment in the com box at John Bugay's article here.)

Bryan Cross interviews Jason Stellman’s conversion to Roman Catholicism at “Called to Communion”.

Dr. White and Turretinfan are going through significant portions of his podcast: (Part 1)

Part 2.

I am looking forward to more of Dr. White and Turretinfan’s response.

Stellman basically says that Roman Catholicism is “biblically obvious, and historically compelling, and philosophically necessary”.  Personally, I don’t see anything Biblically obvious about Roman Catholicism at all; and it is not very compelling historically, if one takes the time to examine all the relevant data of church history. Notice I wrote “relevant data” – this means I am not claiming one has to know all the details of church history, but there is a certain minimum of basic overview and flow of early church history and relevant passages in the early church fathers that one should be familiar with.  It appears that Jason slept through church history or daydreamed or was blinded by his dismissal of church history when he should have been paying more attention.  It seems to me that when Jason admitted that he thought church history was boring in seminary; and he thought that the early church fathers were “stupid”, well, now we understand why he fell for the Roman Catholic argument for itself using history and philosophy.  

Stellman also claims Roman Catholicism is “philosophically necessary”.  This seems to be the starting point of all Roman Catholic apologetics that is winning Protestants and evangelicals, even though they will not always admit this. 

Philosophy is what Bryan Cross always seems to start with and he uses philosophy more than exegesis in his arguments for Rome.  It is only philosophically necessary, it seems, in their minds, if one puts that particular philosophy and presupposition first – that there is this compelling need for an infallible interpreter on this earth to solve all disunity and interpretive struggles that the church has all through history. (which even that presupposition and dogma does not accomplish anyway either.) 

They accuse us Protestants and evangelicals of “drawing a bulls eye target and then drawing a circle around it”, but that is exactly what they do in their defense of Rome.  That is not a “tu quoque”  argument because I don’t think Biblical Protestants do that anyway.  But Roman Catholic apologists do just that.

 That idea today in Roman Catholic apologetic methodology is first drawn as a target on paper and then the Roman Catholic apologist draws his circle around that presupposition and interprets everything in the past, both Biblically and in church history, in the light of that philosophy and dogma, which only appeared in the Middle ages and was only dogmatically declared by the Roman Catholic Church in the year 1870. 

I am amazed that Jason Stellman tossed and turned and lost sleep over Luke 1:6 about Zacharias and Elizabeth’s righteousness and that he claimed to be more into systematics than church history, when he doesn’t seem to apply principles of progressive revelation and systematics to Luke 1:6.  Did Jason also loose sleep over Noah in Genesis 6:8-9 or Job in Job 1:1 or Abraham in Genesis 26:5 ?

Or is the description of their righteousness the result of grace and faith in God and in His coming Messiah? (which is what doing systematics - putting Genesis 15:1-6 together with John 8:56-58, Romans 4:1-16, and Galatians chapters 2, 3, 4, and 5 would reasonably cause us to do.)

The statement about Abraham in Genesis 26:5 is the result of his faith in the Lord and the promised Messiah to come from his own seed, explicated for us in Genesis 15:1-6.  This faith comes before his good deeds in circumcision in Genesis 17 (and clearly explained by Paul in Romans 4) and before his obedience in Genesis 22 (which is what James means in James 2:14-26).  As the reformers said, “we are justified by faith alone, but that faith does not stay alone” – it results in good works and fruit and change and deeper levels of repentance.  But as Turretinfan and Dr. White pointed out, all this righteousness is still a relative righteousness – it means basically that “they were true believers, and their faith was demonstrated by their righteous lifestyle”.  Noah was righteous, but he was only righteous because he first received grace. (Genesis 6:8-9 – notice he first gets grace, then is able to walk before God in righteousness.)  Later, Noah gets drunk (Genesis 9:20-21), so even the OT is showing us that no one is righteous, not even one.”  (Psalm 14:1-3, Romans 3:9-23)  Lot is saved from Sodom and Gomorrah and is called “righteous” in 2 Peter 2:7-8; yet his daughter’s get him drunk and commit incest and fornication with him, gross sins.  So, even though they were relatively righteous compared to the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, they were not perfectly righteous in order to merit salvation.  Rather, Lot was a true believer, saved by grace, and justified by faith in the Lord.  (from 2 Peter 2:7-9, it seems that Lot was a true believer; but there is no evidence that his daughters were, given their behavior; but Scripture is otherwise silent about them, as far as I can tell.)  The Old testament constantly shows us that no one is perfectly righteous and that the sin nature is still deep within the heart, and comes out in sinful behavior even after God judges the world and wipes out the evil people in the flood; and the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. 

Job is also called “blameless” and “walking in the fear of God”.  (Job 1:1)  Does that mean he was justified by his own righteousness and goodness?  No, obviously – because the rest of Job is showing that he had an unrighteous attitude (showing he was not blamelessly righteous in that sense) in demanding that God has to come down and explain to him why he was made to suffer.  Job’s attitude was refined through suffering – that is sanctification.  The book of Job shows us that Job’s own righteousness did not justify him, but his faith in God and the hope of the resurrection seems to point to the Messiah to come, in Job 19:25-26; and his repentance in Job 42:1-6 was because he already was a true believer.      

Jason Stellman claims to have been more of a systematic theologian kind of guy; yet he gives no hint of actually doing systematics in the way he treats Luke 1:6, at least in the interview on the Called to Communion Podcast. 

Systematic theology is looking at the other relevant passages that would explain Luke 1:6 –

Does not proper systematic theology immediately bring to mind these very clear verses from Paul in teaching contexts about the nature of grace alone for salvation and faith alone for justification?

“I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.”

Galatians 2:21

This verse clearly shows us that Luke 1:6 does not mean that Zacharias and Elizabeth were righteous in themselves by keeping the law blamelessly and that that goodness would be counted as merit in order to get them into heaven.  The coming of the Messiah and His redemption was what all OT saints were looking forward to.  (Genesis 15:1-6; 12:3; 22:18; Galatians 3:6-8; 14-16)

“Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law. But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.”  Galatians 3:21-22

Galatians 3:21 shows us that the law was never given in order to give us life – that we could attain eternal life by obeying it’s commands. 

Why doesn’t Jason Stellman keep reading in Luke?  Why doesn’t he look at the context of Luke chapter 1 and follow the Scripture passage to Luke 1:67-79 and see that more is said about Zacharias’ faith, and his faith is clearly related to his son John the baptizer and his ministry to pointing to salvation, redemption, and the forgiveness of sins, and the ministry of pointing to the Messiah – to prepare the way of the Lord.  Notice the repetition of the word salvation and the whole Messianic implications of his prophesy.

Zacharias’ faith was in the Messiah to come:

Luke 1:67-79
And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Spirit, and prophesied, saying:  “Blessed be the Lord God of Israel,
For He has visited us and accomplished redemption for His people,
And has raised up a horn of salvation for us ;  

In the house of David His servant— 

As He spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from of old—

Salvation from our enemies,
 And from the hand of all who hate us;
To show mercy toward our fathers,
 And to remember His holy covenant, 

[see Genesis 12:1-3; 15:1-6; 22:18 and Galatians 3:6-8, 14-16]

          The oath which He swore to Abraham our father,

To grant us that we, being rescued from the hand of our enemies,
Might serve Him without fear,
In holiness and righteousness before Him all our days.
“And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Most High;
 

For you will go on before the Lord to prepare His ways; [allusion to Isaiah 40:3-5] 

To give to His people the knowledge of salvation
;   

By the forgiveness of their sins,

Because of the tender mercy of our God,
 With which the Sunrise from on high will visit us, 

[Jesus as the light of the world who would settle in Galilee of the Gentiles - see Isaiah 9:1, John 7:52 and John 8:12; see also Matthew 4:12-17 as to why Jesus settled in Nazareth]  

To shine upon those who sit in darkness and the shadow of death,
 

[quoting Isaiah 9:2, which points to the Messiah being the light of the world and the son who is given to us, the Mighty God, the prince of peace, the wonderful counselor.  See Isaiah 9:1-7. ]

To guide our feet into the way of peace.”  

[this alludes to the “prince of peace” in verse 6 of Isaiah 9 and Micah 5:2-5.] 

(Luke 1:67-79 with my emphasis and comments)

That Zacharias mentions salvation so much, and that John the baptizer’s ministry would give the people the knowledge of salvation, by the forgiveness of their sins, shows that in some way, Zacharias was the blessed man of Romans 4:7-8 and Psalm 32, being justified by faith alone, and that his deeds of obedience were the result of his faith. 

Isn't that a better example of understanding progressive revelation, the NT fulfillment of the OT, exegesis, and systematic theology?