Has the Creator of the Universe Designed the Universe to Deceive Most of Mankind?

If we conclude to most men having one, or several, or many false beliefs over a long time period we may conclude most of mankind has been deceived by the universe and thereby in some manner the universe was created for men to be deceived. If we examine say theism, we note several major theistic religions with broadly competing truth claims, and within the same theistic religion, we find many competing denominations with diverse beliefs. For example, the monotheism of Christianity is diverse from the monotheism of Islam and that of Judaism. And within those three religions, there are many denominations with conflicting truth claims. 

If one group of men in any of these denominations of the monotheistic religions has the truth, then all other men have been deceived, including all men who are not included in any monotheistic religion. Alternatively, there are no true denominations as all may be false, and other men in another belief system may have the truth and then all men in monotheistic religions have been deceived. If so most men have been deceived.

As the major belief systems of the world have existed for many centuries, there is strong evidence that most men have been deceived for long time periods. If the universe has been created, the creator has then in some manner permitted the universe to exist and thereby deceive many men. If the Christian God made the universe, He has done so, knowing that most men will be deceived by the universe. As Christianity teaches that God cannot sin, then the creation of the universe is not itself the cause of sin, but an occasion for God to draw a good out of the evil. 

Therefore the deception of most men is occasioned by God for a large defect of deception as an occasion for a greater good which can be caused by only God alone. One such good may be the large deception permits many men to have an excuse for the many sins committed out of ignorance and thereby reduce man's culpability at the final judgment.

The Theism - Atheism Question as a Question of Two fearful Outcomes.

If atheism is true then man is all alone in the universe which is full of suffering and death. Such a universe is a fearful place for man to exist and die, along with the prospect that human life is ultimately futile. Such an existence is in accord with fear of existing for no reason without relief from the prospect of suffering and death and the accompanying injustices in the world.

If theism is true and God exists, man lives along with a giant God who watches our every move and choses to remain silent and largely remains hidden from most or many men. Such a God is beyond the control of men and cannot be stopped from acting. Men should then live in fear of the God who owns the universe and may justly judge man at any time.

Either way, there is good reason for man to fear if God does or does not exist.

The History of Atheism and Theism Points to the Catholic Doctrine of Original Sin.

Atheism says there is no god and yet atheism has many unresolvable problems and contradictions. One such contradiction is - Atheism says God, which is existence, does not exist.

Theism says there is a god, or gods. The multiple versions of theism make the many versions of theism false with only one version of theism true. 

The many errors on the issue of atheism and theism indicate that man collectively has trouble in knowing the truth concerning the existence of God. Such a problem is strong evidence for original sin which teaches that man has a wound of ignorance concerning the things of God and finds it difficult to know the truth and live the truth.

The Multiple Mysteries of Human Nature.

Human nature contains several mysteries or secrets concerning the existence and purpose of the human race. 

1) If man is composed of an immortal soul and a body and when man dies, he will continue to exist forever without a body and then man's existence is dominated as a life of a pure spirit. Such a life is outside sequential time as a measure of accidental change of bodies. Therefore the separated soul continues to live in time similar to that of the angels, called aeveternity, or if the soul sees God face to face, then eternity. The continued existence of the man without a body is a mystery concerning 1) the current union of body and soul and 2) the ongoing life of man with a separation of body and soul. 

2) If man is composed of an immortal soul and a body and when man dies he will continue to exist for a time without a body until the general resurrection. The general resurrection of man to restore man back to his integral nature is a mystery of the ongoing existence of man who is dependent upon the power and wisdom of God to cause the reunion of body and soul. Man then has his life here and now, then dies and lives another life in the spirit realm, and then lives a third life when reunited as body and soul. Each state of life is then a mystery in itself and a mystery in relation to the other states of life.

3) If man is only a material substance,  man ceases to exist at death and man's existence is only a temporal event without any permanent and lasting value. The existence of man and the universe is then a mystery of futility, whilst the universe continues to exist. All things then exist for no reason, when in fact if nothing existed, the negation would also serve the same futile purpose. The futile universe of the materialist is a universe with the equivalent value of a pure negation of all things. Such a universe containing the materialist man is a mystery.

The entire big picture of man as a creature with incomplete substantial parts of body and soul is also a mystery, for the entire show need not exist apart from the will of God that causes all things to exist and God's providence that causes all events to occur in accord with His plan.

Economics as Strong Evidence for the Existence of God.

Economic theory teaches that man has an infinite appetite, and yet man exists in a world of finite resources. The economic theory is stated to account for the condition of man that seems to be a contradiction. For man wants everything, but can only ever have so much. Such an economic theory is strong evidence for God, for only God is the infinite good who can satisfy man's natural appetite for the infinite good.

Economic theory is strong evidence for the existence of God.

The Modern Problem of Divorce Caused by the Wound of Original Sin and the Prior Denial of the True Spouse.

Modernity is marked by the proliferation of divorce, caused by unhappiness between the spouses. The two spouses that once loved each other, separated after love is lost. The loss of love between the spouses is caused in part through the wound of original sin, which causes men and women to seek fulfilment in a spouse as the object of happiness. But by seeking for the spouse that makes one happy, the man or woman has assumed a need for a spouse that is not proved for within the single human person. For example, the man seeks for a woman, for the man sees something lacking in himself and something fulfilling in the woman. By the man seeing something lacking in himself is assuming that lack can best be provided for through the woman. And yet the woman is only a human spouse of finite good, and even if a perfect woman, she cannot ever fill the void existing within the man.

The secular man, living in the modern age assumes there is no other spouse he can engage other than a human spouse, as the men then enters into marriage without any expectation for engagement from any other source of fulfilment than the female spouse. And when the female spouse fails to deliver the legitimate needs of the man (and vice versa), the man begins to move away from the female and the female away from the male spouse. Such a motion of spouses away from each other is in part caused by the assumption that there is no other spouse in the secular based marriage.

And yet divine revelation has provided a great truth that God is the truth spouse of all men and woman and is always present within every marriage. If the assumption that there is only one human spouse for the modern man is a false assumption, corrected by the truth of the existence of the divine spouse, modern marriages have a chance to survive and produce lasting fulfilment for both spouses. For the divine spouse will always act to heal and provide peace between the spouses whilst causing a release of pressure on the spouses to provide something that cannot be provided - fulfilment as through the infinite goodness of God.

In short, the assumption that God is irrelevant to modern secular marriages is an assumption based upon the wound of ignorance caused by original sin. Original sin is then a major contributor to the break up of many modern marriages, along with the consequent actual sins of the spouses against each other.

An Irony of Unbelief which Affirms Original Sin in Practice but Denies Original Sin in Theory.

The man who is an unbeliever does not believe there is a God, and does not believe Jesus was God, nor does he believe the Catholic church is the one true church instituted by God. But according to the Catholic faith, all men suffer from the wound of ignorance which entails an ignorance of God and God's will for mankind. By the unbeliever not believing in God and God's will as manifested through the Catholic church, the unbeliever is participating in the disorder of original sin as known and taught by God through the Catholic church. 

By participating in the consequences of original sin, the unbeliever is acting in accordance with the truth of the Catholic church which says the following about man, which are all true of unbelievers.

1) Man is ignorant of who God is and what God wants from man.

2) Man is prone to sin and prone to love creatures more than God.

3) Man is prone to suffering and death.

4) Man is prone to unbelief.

The above truths of unbelievers provide the unbeliever with an excuse with regard to not believing in the Catholic faith whilst the unbeliever denies one or more of the truths of the Catholic faith. Because the Catholic faith is the true faith, the existence of many unbelievers is expected and occurs on a regular basis. 

The irony of unbelief is the unbeliever denies the very reality which causes him to be an unbeliever, by denying the wounds of original sin, whilst living with those same wounds on a daily basis. Consequent to the irony, original sin is both a cause for belief as evidence for the one true faith, and a cause for unbelief as an intrinsic wound in all men.

The Problem of Atheism's Negation as the Creator God of Atheism.

Atheism denies the existence of God. And consequently, some atheists hold that the universe came into existence by itself as from nothing. As nothing is a negation of being, a negation is the cause of the universe for the atheist. Contrarily, the theist thinks God, which is infinite being caused the universe to come into existence. Therefore the atheist has equated a negation of being with the infinite being of God. Consequently, the god of atheism is a negation in opposition to an infinite being of theism, but which acts with the same power as an infinite being of theism.

Atheism says a negation created the universe, whilst also holding the position that the infinite being did not create a universe.

The Problem of Atheism's Accounting for Creatures as through the Existence of More Creatures.

Some atheists hold to the existence of a series of creatures to account for the existence of another creature, say a tree stump. For the tree stump exists, but does not necessarily exist and may in fact not exist at all. The atheist is then assuming an insufficiency in the tree stump, and provides a cause for the insufficiency in the tree stump as through other creatures. But because the insufficiency is intrinsic to the nature of creatures, more creatures will never provide a solution to the problem of the insufficiency in creatures, but will only ever make the problem worse. For an empty bucket that must be filled with water cannot be filled with anything else than water. So too a creature that has a lack of an account of being, cannot have an account of being from another creature as the source of the lack of being. For just as only water can provide for the lack of water in the bucket, only being can provide for the lack of being in the creature. 

The being that causes the being of a creature is God and never another creature. For a creature cannot cause being as the being of another creature, but can only act as an extrinsic efficient cause of another creature.

The Problem of Atheism's Inferred God and the Consequent Falsity of Atheism.

The atheist claims there is no god and yet atheism always concludes to theism. For if the atheist claims naturalism, naturalism is the supreme being and therefore god. If naturalism is denied and natures exist as through an infinite regress of causes, the causes are god. If the series is denied the absurdity of natures disconnected from any explanation is god. If the absurdity is denied, the atheist is god. If the atheist is denied, the denial of god by the atheist is god. If the denial of the divinity of the denial is denied, the denial is god and so on. Whenever an atheist asserts or denies anything, a god is always inferred and atheism is always false.

The Problem of the Generation of Children as a Miraculous Act of God Contrary to the Enlightenment's Denial of Miracles.

The person is defined philosophically as -  An act of being which is incommunicable. The person exists and is, therefore, an act of being. For being is to exist. Furthermore, the person is incommunicable, for a person owns everything which it has. For example, Peter owns his arms, legs, eye, heart, thoughts, willing and actions. Each of these parts can be communicated to another. Such as an idea. Peter can have an idea, which is known to him and is, therefore, Peter's idea. Peter can then also express the idea to another and thereby communicates the idea to another. Likewise, Peter can give every other part of himself to another. For example, Peter can give all of his actions to another as to an employer.

However, there is something Peter cannot communicate, or give to another. That which cannot be communicated to another is Peter's person. Peter is the name we give to the person, which is that which cannot be given to another. When Peter gives, it is Peter, and not another person that gives. Peter then cannot give something of himself that is Peter, for there is not a person, prior to the person of Peter, by which Peter can be given to another. Peter, then is the name given to the personhood of the rational substance, which is fundamentally incommunicable.

Also, anything the person owns cannot become and thereby communicate the essence of the person to any of the attributes of the person. Peter's hand cannot become the person of Peter, nor can any part of Peter become the person of Peter. For parts of Peter are parts which participate in the Person of Peter as the owner of all of the parts. The parts are then always ontologically subject and subordinated to the ontological reality of the person, that is Peter. The being of the person is then ontologically prior to and of a distinct nature to the being of all of the parts which are subject to the person. Peter as a person has the being of the person, which is ontologically prior to the being of Peter's hand, arm, leg, and his soul.

If we posit Peter was generated as the son of James and Sally, they act as Peter's parents to cause Peter's body through conception, and generation. However, because the person of Peter is not Peter's body, but rather, a being that owns Peter's body, the person of Peter is not caused by Peter's parents. For the parents are only physical causes of Peter's body and cannot be ontological causes of the existence of Peter's body, or soul, or Peter's person. All the being of Peter is caused by being itself, which is God, who is the universal cause of all creatures being.

But the being of Peter's person is a being that is caused by God as through an act of divine power to change the person of Peter as a potential person into an actual person as through a divine act of eduction. But for the divine power to act to cause Peter's person, God must act as the principal cause to raise the potency of matter to the act of being of the person. But as the act to be of the person is a special being, distinct from the being of Peter's body and soul, the being of the person is a very special being which -

1) owns the being and all physical attributes of Peter.

2) is a being that is unique and cannot be repeated, for the person is incommunicable.

As the being of the person is unique, the divine act to cause the being of the person, must also be co-natural to the uniqueness of the act of the person. Such as divine act may well be a miracle, whereby God as the principal agent acts with secondary causes, such as Peter's being of his body and soul, and the physical causes of Peters body to cause the being of Peter's person. For a miracle is a divine act whereby the obediential potency of the secondary cause is used by the principal cause to raise the secondary cause to act beyond its natural power. As Peter's being of his soul and body all have natural acts which cannot cause the being of the person, the divine act to actualise the obediential potency within Peter's body and soul uses Peter's body and soul as secondary causes to enact the being of the person of Peter.

In short, because the being of the person cannot be caused by Peter's body, or soul, or the being of Peter, the divine act within Peter to cause the being of Peter's person is an act beyond the nature of Peter's attributes. Such a divine act is equivalent to a miracle to cause the existence of the personhood of every child ever born as a divine act to actualise and obediential potency within the human generation process.

Now if we contrast the above argument of the person as caused by a miraculous power of God, to the enlightenment philosophy of David Hume, we note Hume denied the existence of miracles, whilst at the same time having the existence of his own person as caused through a divine miracle. Consequently, whenever a philosopher denies the existence of miracles he must also deny the proper account of the existence of the human person as a product of a divine, miraculous act. As the enlightenment, in general, denies the existence of miracles, the enlightenment has no proper account for the existence of human persons and is thereby an inhuman philosophy.

Some Comment on the Multiple Mysteries Associated with Damnation and Glorification.

The damned are those who have died in the state of mortal sin. And mortal sin is to suffer the loss of the theological virtue of charity. To have no charity within the soul is to love a creature more than God, who is goodness itself. Or, in other words, damnation is to love a creature more than the saviour. But for the damned to love a creature more than the saviour, requires that the saviour not act to save the sinner from mortal sin before the sinner's death. As the saviour has an infinite power and can save all mankind, any damned are permitted to be damned by the saviour who permits the sinner to continue in mortal sin until death. The damned are in hell because - 

1) The damned have committed mortal sin by their own free will and lost the virtue of charity.

2) The damned are permitted by the divine saviour to remain in mortal sin until death.

Consequently, the damned are in hell in part, because the divine saviour has chosen not to save the sinner by infusing grace into the soul of the man in the state of mortal sin.

The glorified are in heaven because they died in the state of sanctifying grace. In other words, the saviour caused grace to be infused into the souls of men who were previously in a state of original or mortal sin. Consequently, the glorified are in heaven in part, because the divine saviour chose to save the sinner by infusing grace into the soul of the men before death and maintaining men in the state of grace until death.

The reprobate are damned by the consequent permissive will of the saviour to permit the evil of mortal sin to continue unto the death of the sinner. The saints are also glorified by either the antecedent will whereby the saviour wills the salvation of all men prior to mortal sin committed my sinners, or the consequent active will of the saviour, whereby the saviour acts to infuse grace into the sinners soul after mortal sin and preserve the regenerated man in the state of grace unto death . 

As the consequent permissive and active will of the saviour is always in accord with the divine wisdom, the will to permit mortal sin and damnation and the will to act to save and glorify are both in accord with the divine wisdom. Therefore the divine wisdom produces the following diverse outcomes in human history -

1) God actively wills all men to be saved.

2) God permissively wills that some men freely sin and are damned. By God permitting the damnation of some men, God does not actively will to save some men after committing mortal sin.

3) God actively wills that some men either stay in the state of grace after baptismal regeneration or are restored to the state of grace after mortal sin, before death.

Points 1)-3) are mysteries in themselves and mysteries in relation to the other mysteries, which involve God applying the divine power in different ways to different, individual men. Consequently, there are the following mysteries involved in damnation and glorification -

1) God's universal willing the salvation of all men.

2) God's consequent permissive will with regard to permitting some men to commit mortal sin.

3) God's consequent active will with regard to saving some men after committing mortal sin.

4) 1) in relation to 2)

5) 1) in relation to 3)

6) 2) in relation to 3)

7) 1, 2 and 3 in relation to divine wisdom.

7) 1, 2, 3 in relation to the free will of men and divine wisdom.

1) involves the mystery of God's universal love for all men to will that all men be placed into the state of grace and thereby be saved. Point 2) involves the mystery of God permitting sin and permitting damnation, contrary to point 1). For if some men are damned, then damnation occurs contrary to Gods universal active antecedent will to save all men.

Point 3) involves the mystery of God permitting sin and then acting to save some men from sin, contrary to 1) and 2). For God is the prime mover and can prevent men from entering into temptation and thereby prevent men from participating in an occasion of sin. Also, God does save men after sin, contrary to His permissive will to allow other sinners to be damned.

The two mutually exclusive outcomes of damnation and glorification are both in accord with the multiple mysteries of God's will associated with divine wisdom and men freely choosing to sin, or freely choosing to practice virtue. The damned are in hell, in part because they have sinned and have not been saved by the saviour through an act of grace. The glorified are in heaven because the saviour has acted to save through grace, and the elect have acted with grace to merit eternal life.

The human drama is jam packed with divine mysteries.

Some Unresolvable Problems with Atheism.

Atheism says there is no God, but monotheism says God is being. Therefore when atheism says there is no God, there is no being. Therefore atheism concludes to non being, which is a negation. there are several consequences to atheism as follows -

1) Atheism concludes to the non being of God who is being. Therefore atheism concludes to the contradiction that non being is being.

2) Atheism concludes to the non being, or the negation of God. But monotheism concludes to God as the supreme being. Atheism then concludes to the negation of the supreme being. Therefore according to atheism, the supreme being is non being.

3) Atheism concludes to the non being of God. But monotheism concludes to God as the universal cause of the being of all creatures. Atheism then concludes to the non being of God as the universal cause of the creatures being. Therefore atheism implies the universal non cause of being of all creatures. Therefore according to atheism, the non being of the non existent God is the universal cause of the being of creatures. Therefore atheism concludes to non being causes being.

4) Atheism concludes to the non-being of God. But the atheist exists and thereby has being. The atheist is then greater than the God of monotheism and the atheist is, therefore, a god unto himself.

5) Atheism concludes to the non-being of God. But monotheism concludes to God as being as the universal cause of being. If atheism is true, then negation is the cause of being. Therefore the universe exists in accord with the principle of something from nothing. As the principle is false, atheism is false.

6) Atheism concludes to the non-being of God. As atheism cannot account for the existence of any creature, atheism can only be possibly true of all that exists is negated. Or in other words, atheism may be true if all is negation. But if all is negation, the truth of atheism is also negated and therefore atheism is false. So if something exists atheism is false, and if all is negated, atheism is false.

7) Atheism concludes to the non-being of God. But creatures and the universe exist. Therefore some creatures are supreme and then a form of polytheism is possibly true, or a creature is supreme and a form of monotheism is possibly true. If anything exists, there is a supreme being and a form of theism is true and atheism is false. As something does exist, atheism is false.

Some Problems when Atheism and Naturalism are Combined.

Atheism is the belief that there is no God. Naturalism is the belief that there is only nature, and consequently no preter-nature and no super-nature. Some hold to both atheism and naturalism. If so, we have the following problems –

Problem 1) - The Problem of Atheisms Denial and Affirmation of a Supreme Being.

Naturalism says there is only nature. And yet the existence of nature is the existence of something, without anything else existing. Consequent to naturalism, the supreme being is nature itself, or perhaps one or many natural things. But atheism says there is no supreme being, for atheism opposes theism, which says God is the supreme being. So, atheism requires there be no supreme being, and naturalism concludes to nature or natural things, or a natural thing as the supreme being. Atheism quite often affirms the existence of the universe, or at least the man as the knower of the universe, and thereby affirms the existence of at least one natural thing. But by affirming the existence of a natural thing, atheism is affirming the existence of nature. And where nature exists, there is a supreme being.

Conclusion - Atheism denies the existence of a supreme being in opposition to theism. Atheism affirms the existence of a supreme being in affirming naturalism. Therefore atheism both denies and affirms the existence of a supreme being.

Further problems to come in due course. Updated 1 November 2018.

Problem 2) - The Problem of atheism's affirmation of naturalism, evolutionism and the accompanied quasi monism as a form of theism. 

Atheists deny the existence of God and quite often affirm the existence of evolution and naturalism. If evolution is affirmed with naturalism, the universe emerged from only natural causes in accordance with more from less. As there is only one universe, for being is analogous and not equivocal as required of a multi universe worldview, then all that exist is as one tree of existence, whereby all apparently distinct substances are really only one giant substance of the universe. All that exists is really only a small part of the universe and a manifestation of the one universe that is self-contained. But what is self-contained is an organism in which all things live. And the universe as one organism is a form of quasi-monism. And as monism is a form of theism, then quasi monism is also theistic. Therefore if the atheism believes in naturalism and evolutionism, the atheist is a closet quasi-monist and thereby a closet theist.

An Argument from Reason for the General Resurrection as Caused by the Power of God.

According to Aristotle and St Thomas Aquinas, man is a composite of body and soul, whereby the soul is the substantial form of the human body. The soul is immaterial and will continue to exist after death as an incomplete substance, whilst the body returns back to dust. From the nature of man which has the intellective power to know the natures of bodies and the power of the will to appetise that which is known, man is naturally both a knower and a lover. Through the acts of knowledge and love, man comes to perfection and thereby attains happiness. The nature of man is then ordered towards the attainment of happiness as the natural end of his actions.

As man's actions of knowledge to attain truth and love to attain the good are accomplished as acts ordered towards ends. Man's acts have a teleology towards proximate ends, which in turn are ordered towards intermediate ends, which are ordered (subordinated) to an ultimate end. The ultimate end of human acts is the ultimate good, which alone is the cause of perfect human happiness. Man then has a natural tendency to always acts towards the ultimate end to obtains happiness.

If we look at nature we see a similar pattern of teleology of acts towards the good. The seed has a teleology towards the tree, whereby the seed grows into the tree. And the tree has a teleology towards the fruit, whereby the tree produces fruit. Nature has a teleology of acts ordered towards ends that are good and the good is, as a normative rule attained, as from natural tendencies within natural substances, which efficaciously act for natural goods, as natural ends. Nature then has a tendency towards acting for the good, as through actions from integral substances. For it is the integral seed that becomes the tree, and the integral tree which becomes the fruit. 

Similarly, man as an integral nature of body and soul also acts for ends and thereby has a natural tendency to act for the ultimate end and attain happiness. And yet at death, man's soul is separated from his body and his soul continues to exist without the body. The human soul is then able to act for the ultimate good and attain happiness without the use of the human body. But such a happiness of the separated soul is imperfect, for the separated soul is an incomplete substance acting without the body. And as an incomplete substance, the human soul is not acting as man with an integral nature. As such, if the human soul is reunited to the body, the soul could again act with the body as through an integral nature to attain the ultimate end of man as the ultimate good attained by man, as man, and not just as the soul of man.

The nature of natural substances (such as a tree) which exist as integral substances and then act efficaciously for the good, infers man, as an integral substance composed of a union of physical body and immaterial soul, should also act efficaciously act for the good, and thereby attain the end of man as happiness. And such a combination of man acting in accord with -

1) The general law of nature, whereby natural substances are integral whole substances.

and 

2) The specific law of nature, whereby each substance exists and acts in accord with the nature of the metaphysical parts of the substance to attain to the natural end of the substance.

Infers after man's death, the metaphysical parts of man as the human, 1) immaterial soul should be reunited to the 2) human body again, so that man can act in accord with the general law of nature, and act as an integral whole of nature, to attain the ultimate end of man, which is the attainment of the good as man's happiness. Or again, from the nature of substances acting efficaciously for the good, and man having an immortal, immaterial soul, the soul should be reunited with the body after death. The universal law of integral substances, and the nature of man point to the fittingness of the general resurrection of man, whereby all men are again an integral composite of body and soul acting for the good.

From reason alone, we can see the fittingness of the general resurrection. And yet the fittingness of the general resurrection does not of itself prove the general resurrection will necessarily occur. And yet, one may posit the reunion of body and soul after death as through the power of God, which is known to currently operate to keep all creatures in existence. For creatures only have being, as the fundamental perfection, as the act to be. The creatures act to be is caused by God as the universal cause of all being. As all of the universe is then caused to be by God himself, God is the universal act of power that keeps all things existing. The power of God manifest within the universe acts co-naturally with all creatures, for creatures to act for ends. 

God's power acts with creatures for creatures to act efficaciously for ends to attain to the good. God as the author of being is the good and is the ultimate term of all of creatures actions. God as the ultimate good never acts to keep creatures from attaining the ends and the goods to which creatures are ordered. For God is the prime orderer of all creatures and is the prime cause of all efficacious actions of all creatures. And as man is a creature, God also acts co-naturally with man, for man to attain to the good, as man. So when God instituted the nature of man, it is fitting that God provides the power to restore man back to his original nature as a composite of body and soul for man to attain to the good and happiness.

The power of God that currently keeps all things in existence is a sure source to provide the act of power required to reunited man's body and soul when God determines that the divine work be accomplished at the general resurrection. Any deficiency of power within the nature of man as through death and the separation of body and soul is accounted for by God as the author of man, who always institutes a creature with a nature that does not have any natural impediement within the created order to frustrate man's attainment of happiness. For if man could never attain to human happiness as man, God would have instituted man with a nature that is frustrated by the very order of the universe created by God. 

God would then have placed a contradiction within the created order to have man ordered towards the good, as man, and yet create the universe with death, to prevent man from attaining the good. Such a contradiction within the created order infers the God of creation is not a  real God, but a false God of frustration and illusion. Evidently, the true God does not create to frustrate, but to bring created natures to their ultimate tterm in the good. Therefore, because God always acts with natures, and man needs to act as an integral whole of body and soul, and God is both infinitely good and powerful, God will act with the nature of man to bring about the general resurrection of the dead at a time dictated by God.

Conclusion - From reason alone we expect God to act with power at a time and place to cause the general resurrection of man. The ressurected man will then act as an integral whole to attain to that end of man as the good. Of course, God is the good of the universe, and by acting to resurrect man, God is acting to permit man to act for Him, to thereby grant man the ability to give glory to God. 

Objection 1) We see natures such as tree exist and then die. We should expect the natures only attain to a natural good until death and then those natures continue as dead, unto corruption and remain as such. The norm is that God acts with natures, which are composites of body and soul as real parts of a nature for the nature to continue until corruption at death.

Answer 1) Natures are composed of parts, as body and soul and God does act with natures that are composed, and which subsequently, naturally decompose. Yet the nature of plants and animals is to have a material soul united with a body and not an immaterial soul united to a body, as occurs in the nature of man. God then acts with animals and plants to have them continue in corruption and need not resurrect animals and plants. But contrarily, because man has a contrary, immaterial soul, God will then act with the nature of the immaterial soul which always retains its transendental relation to the human body, to reunite man's body and soul to allow man to attain to man's ultimate end as the good. Also as man alone has an end beyond the natural goods of this world, God also acts with man to resurrect him and thereby permit man to attain to God.

Objection 2) Man can attain to happiness without the body as through contemplation of the good after death. Therefore there is no need of the general resurrection at the end of time.

Answer 2) Man can contemplate the good after death, but his happiness after death without the body is incomplete. As man's happiness is only complete when man acts with an integral nature, God will act to ensure man acts as man to contemplate the good and thereby obtain happiness.

Objection 3) The general resurrection is an act of God against the nature of man which has parts, which have an accompanying tendency to fall apart. When man falls apart, God should always comply with the nature of man to permit man to continue as a separated soul and not use any power as an act of violence against the natural corruption of man.

Answer 3) God does always act with nature, and as such, God will act with nature for man to achieve his ultimate end as man. For man is naturally composed of parts, which have a tendency to fall apart. And yet those parts have a natural tendency to come together again. For the soul is the substantial form of the body, which is to be a transcendental relation to the body. The soul is from its very nature ordered to be the first form of the particular body, rather than exist alone and without the body. The natural structuring of the soul as a form of the body infers God will act with the nature of the soul to bring about a reunion of body and soul. What seems to be an act of God that is violent, to reunited the body and soul after a nautral corruption of the man, is in fact an act of God that occurs to restore the fullness of nature to man.

A Response to Mike Whinger on His Catholicism Video - Refuting Catholic Authority.

The following is a partial response to Mike Winger's presentation which attempts to refute some doctrinal teachings of the Roman Catholic church.

Refuting Catholic Authority

Mike - I am practising foolishness here when I read the bible and tell you what I think it means.

JM - Public revelation is not subject to the lack of authority of private interpretation of individual believers. Divine revelation given through scripture and tradition is co-natural with a divinely instituted authority in the church that can trace its origin from Christ and the apostles. Public revelation is guarded, protected and taught by the church as a function granted to the church from Christ when Christ promised the apostles the powers to bind and loose. 

Mike is correct to say he is practising foolishness by reading and privately interpreting the sacred texts. Who does Mike think he is? What authority does Mike have to interpret the text and bind believers to his understanding of the text? Mike has no authority at all, nor does any individual believer. If Mike thinks he has the authority to interpret the texts and bind believers to his understanding of the text, Mike must -

1) Prove he has the authority to interpret the text as a teaching revealed by God.

2) Prove he has the authority to bind others to his understanding of the text.

Mike cannot do either of the above two proofs, so his assumption of reading and interpreting the text is nothing more than an empty guessing game without any authority.

Mike - No one has ever claimed the bible is developing.

JM - The biblical canon is now set as taught by local and Ecumenical councils as a process of use and development by the OT and NT churches. The entire canon was finalised at the Councils of Florence, Trent and Vatican I, which reaffirmed prior local councils of Hippo and Carthage along with the scriptures use in the Eucharistic liturgy. The canon of scripture emerged and was defined as through a process of development.

The doctrines of biblical inspiration, inerrancy and infallibility are doctrines found within an oral tradition that requires the magisterium of the church to define. Mike's assumption of the canon of scripture is largely dependent upon a tradition of development and an authority in the church which Mike denies. As such Mike, like all other Protestants, does not have any means to determine the canon of the scriptures.

Mike - The only source of clear teaching from God is from the Vatican. That's a strong claim.

JM - Mike doesn't make any strong claims with regard to the authority of his interpretations. And yet Mike thinks he can overturn 2000 years of church history with multiple church fathers, doctors of the church and church councils with his own understanding of the church fathers and the biblical text. Mike only assumes he can do such a thing, when in fact Mike is acting against the nature of divine revelation by reducing a revelation from the creator of the universe down to his small, errant and private understanding of a text. 

Mike has reduced public revelation down to a form of quasi-solipsism whereby Mike and the book and his understanding of the book is all that is needed. It’s as though God has forgotten to speak to humanity through the church for 2,000 years and only now, when Mike ordains to tell humanity the meaning of the text, is divine revelation finally understood.

Mike - The tradition which develops can only refer to altering beliefs which come out from the Roman Catholic church. Which has happened a lot.

JM - The RCC makes a distinction concerning doctrinal development whereby later doctrines are not novel inventions but are organically connected to earlier doctrines from Christ and the apostles. The traditions that develop include, but are not restricted to the canon of the bible, the doctrines of the Trinity, and the Incarnation and all of the Marian doctrines. Mike buys into most of the canon, the Trinity and the Incarnation doctrines, which were thrashed out over time by the church. And yet Mike denies the development of doctrine and thinks these and other Christian doctrines are simply derived from the sacred text through private interpretation. 

Nothing could be further from the truth. Mike's understanding of Christianity is at best very ahistorical and truncated. Mike selectively ignores traditions he does not agree with, such as the Marian doctrines, but embraces other traditions, such as the inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility of the scriptures, the Trinity and the Incarnation. Mike has reduced authority and revelation down to his own private authority and his own understanding of revelation. 

Later (in another video) Mike will claim he knows what the gospel is, and he will go to the scriptures to claim faith alone in Christ alone by grace alone is the gospel. Mikes later claim is itself a self-authority based claim that is, in fact, only a private misreading of the text. Even if we grant part of Mikes later claim that the gospel is faith in Christ alone we may respond and ask the question, which Christ are we to believe in? Are we to believe in the Lutheran Christ, the Calvinist Christ, the Monophysite Christ, the Monothelite Christ, the Donatist Christ, the Arian Christ, or any number of other Christs found in church history derived from various groups of believers.

Mike - The Catholic church claims total unimpeachable authority over all Christian belief. But the bible doesn't say that.

JM - The bible has much to say about authority in the OT and NT, along with the witness of church history and church councils. The authority to teach was given to the Pharisees who sit on Moses chair (Matt 23:1-3) and a similar authority is given to Peter and his successors who sit on the chair of Peter (Matt 16:16-19, 18:18). Such an authority to bind and loose is found in the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 which made a decision on circumcision.

Mike - Sacred tradition only means the traditions the church endorses. They don't endorse every early church father writing. Only certain ones they select. They control which ones they select.

JM - The church fathers are only binding with regard to the unanimous consent of the fathers. Individual statements of the fathers are not binding. The fathers are a solid and normative authority of doctrine and practice which bear witness to the activity of the Holy Spirit in church history. 

The so-called traditions within the church fathers rejected by the Magisterium of the Catholic church are traditions that cannot be traced back to Christ and the apostles. The Church does not teach everything the fathers said was true, but that the fathers are a normative witness of the gospel which acts in union with the sacred deposit of the faith. So, of course, the church selects which traditions are true and of the faith, because the church has the right to exercise her authority to do so in matters of faith and morals.

Mike does a similar thing without any authority to do so. He selects which fathers he wants to follow, or rejects all of the church fathers and follows his own traditions within his own denomination, based upon his own doctrines of sola scriptora and private interpretation of the text. Mike proclaims the Catholic church is wrong to select traditions from the fathers, then Mike proceeds to select and reject traditions of the same church fathers using his own method.

Mike - If the bible supported Rome I would be Catholic.

JM - The bible and church history in the documents which contain doctrines and practice, along with many public miracles is thoroughly Catholic. Mike must ignore virtually all of church history and the power of God displayed in the miracles and reduce divine revelation down to his understanding of a text. Mike's approach is virtually a method based on pride (probably, for pride is unavoidable in his system), some knowledge, and ignorance and misunderstandings and faulty reasoning.

Mike - You can hold them to the scripture and they will say it doesn't mean what you think it means.

JM - Mikes statement only reveals how simplistic his understanding of the Catholic faith is. Mike thinks he can easily reduce the Catholic faith and the divine wisdom of Christ down to competing denominations who have variant interpretations of the same text. Apparently, according to Mike, Christ in His infinite wisdom has given humanity a text without any authority within the church that can be found in church history, to tell us the doctrinal content of divine revelation. Mikes understanding of Christianity reduces Jesus Christ, who is all holy and all knowing and all powerful, down to an imbecile, who foresaw the current problems of private interpretation but did not provide any sure means to resolve the problem of competing understandings of the same text.

Of course, by reducing Mikes version of Jesus Christ down to an incompetent pedagogue shows Mikes Jesus Christ is not the real Jesus Christ, but only a fabrication of Mike's understanding, or his denomination. Mike's version of Jesus Christ is a Baptist, who competes with other versions of the historical Jesus Christ, such as the Anglican, Pentecostal, Seventh Day Adventist etc versions of Jesus Christ. Not one of these versions of Jesus Christ is the real Jesus, for all of the versions of Jesus come to the same conclusion. Jesus gave us a system that does not work, therefore Jesus was incompetent. And of course, such a conclusion, which is unavoidable within Protestantism is to make God into a sinner.

The Roman Catholic church alone has the solution to the ongoing problems within Protestantism. For private interpretation of a text was never meant to be the means by which Christians obtain certitude about Christian doctrine. Certitude of doctrine is tied directly into historical based claims of authority. If there is no authority, then there is fundamentally little to no certitude about doctrine. Mikes Baptist denomination is merely one of many groups that hold to doctrines that are not demonstrated from the text, nor from church history.

We can also respond to Mikes claim concerning Catholics saying the scripture passages don't mean what Mike thinks those passages mean by noting that many Protestant Christians would also do the same thing against Mikes understanding of the same texts. The 30,000 denominations within Protestantism all say yes and no to Mikes version of Christianity using a similar method to Mike. Mike is not only competing with Catholic tradition, history, church councils, doctors and mystics, Mike is also competing with 30,000 other Protestant denominations all of whom say the passages don't mean what Mike thinks those passages mean.

Mike rejects Catholic authority and the witness of church history and 30,000 other Protestant denominations and then must make his own bold stand which everyone else rejects. Mikes position is absurd to say the least, but that's what happens when a man holds to two false doctrines of sola scriptora and private interpretation as the sources of authority within his denomination.

Mike - This is flat out circular reasoning. Rome says we alone can interpret the bible. How did you get this authority? The bible gave us that authority. I don't see that in the bible, where is it? We know the bible gave us that authority and we interpret it that way and we alone can interpret and teach the bible.

JM - Mikes argument is false for several reasons. Firstly, Mike previously quoted from the Vatican II document, Dei Verbum, which says in part -

[Start] 10. Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2, 42, Greek text), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort. (7) 

But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, (8) has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, (9) whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.

It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God's most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.

By uniting sacred tradition with the scriptures to the teaching authority of the church, that all three parts acts as the total deposit of faith. The church instituted by Christ may then refer back to both tradition and scripture as sources of truth to verify the church's claims of authority. But for the church to refer back to another source only means one part of divine revelation may refer to other parts to affirm a part. There is nothing within the Catholic method that is circular or self-referencing. For example, the church may refer to tradition as recorded within the early church fathers to establish apostolic succession and the important role of the Papacy. The church may also refer to the scriptures for the same reason. In doing so, the church is only referring to truths revealed by God as understood by the church. [End]

To claim the Roman Catholic church uses circular reasoning is also to ignore the organic union of the early church to the church of later centuries. St Pauls teaches the church is the body of Christ (1 Cor 12:12–14 and Eph 4:1–16), which infers the organic union of the church over time. The early church that came from Christ and the apostles is the same organic body of the later centuries. The early church knew and understood Christian doctrines from oral tradition and later some of those doctrines were written down and some were discussed between believers. The establishment of the church by Christ and the associated early oral traditions were the foundation of the gospel. The subsequent actions of the church, which is organically united over time, as found in the fathers and the NT scriptures, and church councils are also the gospel as from the same, one church. The organic union of the church is one strong guarantee that the church can refer back to the sources of oral tradition and written tradition without circular referencing. For all parts of the gospel are united to the one church, which has an organic union throughout history.

In summary, 1) Christ teaches the apostles the gospel as an oral tradition. 2) The church is instituted by Christ through His divine words and works. 3) Oral tradition is united to the church as a body of knowledge from Christ. 4) Written tradition is united to the church as a body of knowledge from Christ. 5) Oral and Written traditions are united to each other as through the church. And then the church can at any time in history refer back to oral and written tradition without self-referencing or circularity of reasoning.

Secondly, the church's authority to interpret the bible is not primarily based upon the truths written in scripture. For the church was instituted first by Jesus using the divine word and work, which included the priesthood, the Papacy, and the seven sacraments with the church having the authority to bind and loose on matters of faith and morals. The institution of the church, with her powers and sacraments, occurred first within the Christ event, then the church lived the gospel based upon oral preaching and teaching from Christ and the apostles, and then many of the divinely revealed truths were written down in the New Testament. Later the letters and books of the bible were canonised by the church as known to have authority as a received tradition from Christ.

Only after the biblical canon is finalised does the church then return to the text to refer to some truths to verify the church's authority to bind and loose on matters of faith and morals. The church's reference to the bible assumes an authority already existing within the church from Christ, to then permit the church to use the sources of divine revelation to verify what is already known within the church for the good of believers and unbelievers.

Thirdly, Mikes argument assumes the Catholic church functions like his own denomination which must refer to the bible to establish its own belief system. Mikes argument is only a projection of Protestantism into the Catholic faith, which of course is a false projection.

Mike - Surely Rome gives a better case for their authority than that? No, they don't. It's just an authority claim.

JM - Mikes conclusion is false, based upon his own argument which is inconsistent with his own prior quotation from Dei Verbum. Mike and his audience already know the Catholic church teaches an organic union of the church with oral tradition and written tradition. Mike now ignores everything he previously read from Dei Verbum and thinks his audience will do the same. We are now expected to embrace Mikes invented version of Catholic authority, even when everyone just heard him speak about Catholic tradition in union with church authority.

Its because the gospel as written and as spoken is organically united to the church which has an authority that any removal of church authority is a deformation of the gospel itself. The gospel includes the authority of the church to bind and loose and thereby make decisions on faith and morals. Mike must ignore the union of the gospel with the church to claim the Catholic Church's claims to authority are circular. Mike is in error to make such a claim.

Mike - Why is it then that there are only six or seven biblical passages that the Catholic church has ever interpreted, ever?

JM - Again, Mikes claim is false. The Catholic church's Magisterium's role is to teach Christian doctrine as the interpretation of the Word of God. The church does a very good job at teaching Christian doctrine and does often refer to the biblical text for doctrine. One example shall suffice to show Mikes claim above is false. When inspecting the Catechism of the Catholic Church as promulgated by Pope John Paul II, the text uses approximately 2,700 texts from the Old and New Testaments in association with the teaching of Christian doctrine. The one document is enough to answer Mikes claim of the church only interpreting 6 or 7 passages.

Mike - Roman Catholic apologists can rarely say with conviction what the bible means. Because they cannot interpret it and the church hasn't done it. The bible is a big mystery to Roman Catholics. They say the text could mean this and that and as long as the text supports the doctrine they have done their job.

JM - No Mike, Roman Catholic apologists can often say what the bible means because the apologist has access to the scriptures, the church and tradition which you reject. The sacred deposit is all encompassing and includes several meanings to the one text within the bible. For example, Matt 16:19-21 may be understood to have Jesus, Peter and Peter's confession as the rock, all of which are compatible with Catholic doctrine. How do we know this? Because the church and tradition use the same text in different ways to extract contrary truths from the sacred deposit.

It is Mike who has the problem that he doesn't really know what the text means. For Mike doesn't have access to the church, or tradition which he rejects. Mike only has access to a false tradition of private interpretation and sola scriptora to contrive his own version of Christianity. It's Mike and his denomination against the Christian world and Mike's going to teach us everything about the errors of the Catholic faith and provide for us a wooden, and truncated reading of a selection of texts to derive his own version of Christianity. Is Mike joking? Is he for real?

Mike - One of the problems of Roman Catholic authority is that it evolves over time. It's not a consistent theology but has changed over time. This is why at Vatican I when Papal authority was codified a lot of Catholic theologians left the church.

JM - Roman Catholic authority develops over time and does not evolve. Evolution is a fiction invented by unbelievers to account for all of the design in the universe as through a process of more from less. Perhaps Mike's claim that Catholic theology is not consistent is only his claim because he must have it that way to then allow him to continue as a Protestant minister.

Mike - Only a long time after the apostles did anything like the Papacy appear. The Roman Catholicism of today is very different to the Roman Catholicism of the 11th century or the 7th century.

JM - There is early church witness to apostolic succession which includes successors from St Peter. The early witness to succession provides strong support for the Papacy as the succession from St Peter as head of the apostles established through the reception of the keys of the kingdom.

The Roman Catholicism of today is an organic development of the same faith encountered throughout church history and is not the inconsistent mix of doctrines as claimed by Mike. In fact, it is Protestantism which is the inconsistent and eclectic mixture of doctrines with its many denominations which come and then cease to exist. Mikes Protestantism bears no witness to Mike acting as a substitute for the Pope and bishops at church councils.

Mike - The Roman Catholic church is an additional source and only they can interpret the bible. They need to show evidence for these claims. To test Catholic claims, the Catholic church has to show why I [Mike] need you. Isn't the bible enough?

JM - The bible isn't self-authenticating and isn't able to determine its own limits with regard to the canon. Furthermore, the bible does not interpret itself and cannot bind anyone to anything it says. The bible alone has no authority, for the bible alone is only ever another human text written by men that happens to be understood by some as being written by God. However, the bible plus the authority of the Catholic church enables believers within the church to know with certitude which books were written by God and which were not. 

The bible nowhere teaches that it is enough. The bible does teach that it is profitable that the man of God may be perfect for every good work, but never teaches formal sufficiency (2 Tim 3:15-16). How could the bible ever teach formal sufficiency of the text when there are moral questions and problems that did not exist at the time the bible was authored, which require new solutions? For example, IVF, and cloning require a Christian response which is not based only upon the bible, but upon the bible, tradition and reason. The bible is only materially sufficient and not formally sufficient for Christian doctrine.

Mike - Why do we need the Catholic church, and why isn't the Holy Spirit good enough to provide anything lacking there?

JM - 30,000 Protestant denominations show the Holy Spirit is not enough for Christians to come to a united agreement about the meaning of the text. Mike affirms the action of the Holy Spirit in his own life and perhaps in the lives of other Christians, but denies the same action of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Catholic church. Mike needs to prove his claims of the action of the Holy Spirit in some Christians lives and not in others.

Mike also presumes the Holy Spirit does actually act in the lives of Christians as Mikes thinks and not as the Catholic church teaches. Why should we believe Mikes understanding of the action of the Holy Spirit within his own life and his denomination, rather than the teaching of the catholic church? Mike presumes too much in his understanding of the Holy Spirit's role in the life of Protestant Christians which is not evidenced by church history. For church history bears witness to doctrinal anarchy within Protestantism and doctrinal consistency, clarity and development within the Catholic church.

Mike is also a product of a ministry formation which taught him how to understand the bible. Mike is then assuming he must have undergone a formation through the church to understand the text acting along with the power of the Holy spirit. A similar principle of the union of the church and the Holy Spirit operates in the Roman Catholic church.

Mike - They alone are the only source for understanding these things.

JM - Correct, because Jesus only instituted one church with the powers to bind and loose. Mike doesn't have access to that power because his denomination is only a recent invention that goes back perhaps only about 400-500 or even less and has no claim to any authentic authority.

Mike - They say the bible is not enough by referring to 2 Tim 3:16. Yet the bible says the man of God is sufficiently equipped for every good work. Is this not a claim for the sufficiency of the scriptures?

JM - The bible passage in 2 Tim 3:16 only says the scriptures are profitable and the text does not say the text alone is enough to sufficiently equip the man of God. The scriptures are only sufficient as being profitable and not the sufficiency Mike requires of the text to the exclusion of tradition and the authority of the church.

Mike - Using John 21:25 the Bible denies that it is the complete rule of faith. Do I need to know everything Jesus said to serve Jesus? I don't think so. We don't need to have all knowledge, only what God said here is what you need.

JM - Mike assumes he only needs what God said in the text, but Mike doesn't provide any argument for his contention. Mike assumes everything he needs from Jesus is in the text and that's all he needs. What then are the words of the prayers said over the Christian in James 5 to receive the forgiveness of sin? How does Mike apply James 5 in his own ministry when Mike doesn't know what those words are? Mike cannot fulfil James 5 and thereby cannot follow Jesus to have sins forgiven and yet Mike claims all he needs is the text to follow Jesus.

Mike - Catholics have to show Roman Catholic tradition is needed. What if just the indwelling of the Holy could supply anything I might lack by just reading the bible? Why do I have to go to the Roman Catholic church?

JM - The church has the authority to bind and loose and propose doctrines with clear content for belief. Mike needs the church to stop him from making so many mistakes on faith and morals and thereby enter into the fullness of the gospel. Mike doesn't understand what the church is. He seems to think the Roman Catholic church is an invention in the 6th century when the Papacy was invented by men.

In fact, the Roman Catholic church is the new covenant Israel of God as the kingdom of priests instituted by Christ through the New Exodus. And as the church is the new Israel of God, the sacred texts are written by the church, for the church and not for anyone else outside the church. Mike is only a separated brethren who does not have any rational bases for believing the texts were written by God, because Mike denies the only authority that can propose any texts as authored by God in the Catholic church as the new Israel of God.

Mike - 2 Thess 2:15 stand fast to the traditions taught by word or epistle. This applies only to Paul and his company. 

JM - Mike has read into 2 Thess 2:15 what he wants to see to reduce tradition down to sola scriptora. Mike merely claims tradition is only binding on the people Paul taught. If Mikes understanding is correct, we have a very peculiar situation arise. According to Mikes spin on 2 Thes 2:15, there are apostolic traditions binding only on some Christians who were subject to Pauls oral teaching and those same traditions are not binding on the rest of the church. And in 2 Thess 2:15 Paul is referring to the gospel taught in 2 Thess 2:14. So for Mikes claim to stand the gospel taught by Paul only applies to Christians who heard Paul speak. Pauls gospel is not the gospel of John, or Matthew, or Mark or any of the other apostles.

Mikes version of 2 Thess 2:15 reduces the gospel down to an eclectic sum of divergent apostolic traditions that are only binding on a select few believers which the rest of the church may ignore. Mikes understanding of 2 Thess 2:15 is of course false.

Mike - [2 Thess 2:15] It's too keep them from embracing anything from what they had already been taught. . . and the word tradition here does not mean Roman Catholic church tradition. It actually means what Paul wrote or what he said to them.

JM - Mikes claim that tradition is not referring to Roman Catholic tradition is not evidenced and is therefore only a self-serving statement.

Mike - The later traditions such as the Marian doctrines, Papal infallibility, indulgences . . . none of those things are included in what Paul taught.

JM - How does Mike know that? Was Mike there when Paul spoke to the Christians at Thessalonica? No. Mike is only making a highly speculative statement, when in fact Mike has no clue what those traditions are without reference to church history and how the early church understood and practised the gospel.

We may surmise from Pauls authority as an apostle, that from authority within the church, the traditions that are known to be apostolic are known as through the authority structure within the church of history. That church of history was Catholic and not Baptist, nor Lutheran, nor Calvinist. Therefore, when the same church authority in succession from the apostles declares traditions such as those denunciated by Mike above, then those traditions are authoritative. The authority presumed by Mike in Paul is an authority that can easily be used against Mikes objections to Catholic traditions.

Mike - We have church teachings and none [of the Catholic traditions] are in the early church writings.

JM - Mikes claim is disputable, simply because the early church had many Catholic distinctives such as the Catholic Eucharist, the Catholic understanding of tradition as a binding source of revelation, succession from the apostles through the bishops and Popes, the seven sacraments, heaven, hell and purgatory, . . . etc. These and many other Catholic distinctives give credence to the Catholic claims that the doctrines derived from tradition are all found within the early church, even if some of those traditions were never written down.

Mike - This isn't a difference between scripture and tradition but an exhortation not to depart from what was already given. And the things that were recorded in the new Testament. And I trust the Lord to keep what we need there [in the NT].

JM - Mike has attempted to reduce tradition and scripture down to the NT for the early church. Yet the NT was not canonised until the 5th century and confirmed at ecumenical councils several centuries after that. The NT was not functioning when Paul wrote 2 Thess 2:15 so tradition as oral preaching can only be equated with the NT by an anachronistic reading of 2 Thess 2:15 which is a gross error.

Furthermore, we could also note when Paul speaks of the binding nature of scripture, at the time of Paul's letter, the only scriptures that were settled upon was the OT canon and perhaps some of Paul's letters. The rest of the NT text probably was not written at the time Paul wrote his letter to the Thessalonians. So when Paul binds believers he is doing so predominantly to the gospel preaching as an oral tradition and the old testament canon, along with the OT beliefs and authority found in Israel. 

2 Thess 2:15 is most certainly not reducible down to any version of sola scriptora. In fact, that text is strong evidence for the Catholic position of the binding nature of tradition from the apostles, the OT scriptures and the binding nature of the Catholic magisterium derived from Christ ad the apostles. For Paul as an apostle has the authority to preach and bind the church on matters of faith and morals.

Mike - Jude 1:3 . . . the faith given once for all delivered to the saints . . . there is no room for further doctrine later. There is no expectation for anything else other than don't leave this [the faith from the apostles]. So, 2 Thess 2:15 is a record to hold to the record of the scriptures which Paul taught.

JM - So if all of the doctrines are found in the early church are in scripture we should see the canon of scripture, inspiration, infallibility and inerrancy of scripture, private interpretation, the hermeneutical method, sola scriptora, faith alone, grace alone, Christ alone, glory of God alone, the altar call, all of the doctrines associated with the Incarnation (such as two wills of Christ) and the Trinity and many other Protestant distinctives written down in the scriptures. And yet either these doctrines do not exist, or are not found explicitly within the text. 

Church history bears witness to many controversies over the nature of Christ and the resolution to the doctrinal problems required access to apostolic tradition and the exercise of the church authority within Councils. Mikes understanding of Christianity is ahistorical and truncated. He seems to think that all he need do is go to the text and interpret the text to come up with all the doctrines one must believe to follow Christ. And yet nobody else in church history was consistently able to do this. Mike has oversimplified the statement and intended meaning of the text in Jude 1:3 and applied his misunderstanding to 2 Thess 2:15.

Furthermore, Mike has trapped himself, because he has assumed the text of Jude 1:3 is scripture and that text along with the entire NT canon came to be known as the inspired word of God as through a process of doctrinal development. For the NT text was written part by part over a period of time, based upon oral tradition and eyewitness reports of the events that occurred in Christ's life. Only after the process of writing out the NT gospels and letters and after the church had received the texts and used those texts within the Eucharistic liturgy, was the full canon of scripture defined in the 5th century at the local councils of Hippo and Carthage and later ratified at the Councils of Florence and Trent several centuries later.

Mike also assumes Jude 1:3 means there is no room for doctrinal development within the deposit of faith. And yet Jude 1:3 must be understood within the same deposit of faith which grew and developed from the initial revelation at creation, through to the revelations granted to Abraham, Moses, David and the later prophets, and then through Christ and the apostles. The nature of divine revelation as a whole indicates an ongoing growth in understanding of the content of the deposit of the faith.

The final revelation granted to humanity through Christ and the apostles does not conclude to Mikes contention of no development of doctrine. For no development means there are at least the following problems -

1) No doctrinal development is against the nature of divine revelation as recorded in the OT and NT, which is itself subject to doctrinal development. The claim of no doctrinal development is in contradiction to the nature of divine revelation.

2) No doctrinal development infers all the relationships between all of the doctrines must have been clearly revealed by God and no investigation is required to understand those relationships. Of course, if there are say 500 doctrines revealed by God and all of those doctrines are part of the same whole, the doctrines are all related to each other. The union of doctrine indicates much is to be developed to show the relationships of one to the many, and several to the many. The nature of divine revelation as a unified body of doctrine indicates there is much development expected.

3) No doctrinal development infers all the relationships between all of the doctrines must have been clearly revealed by God and there is nothing implied by any doctrine. Of course, such a position is always impossible from the nature of human language when anything said will always have several implications other than what is explicit. For example, the truth of the Trinity as three persons implies whenever one person acts, the three persons act, and yet the Incarnation of the Word is seemingly only one person acting. The union of the three divine persons and the Incarnation implies many associated mysteries which can be investigated to deepen our understanding about the nature of God and the Incarnation.

4) There is much within the sacred deposit that indicates doctrinal development such as the parable of the church as a seed that grows into a tree (Mark 4:26-29) and the Holy Spirit who will bring the church into all truth, (John 16:13) and the promise from Christ that the church has the power to bind and loose (Matt 16:19-21, 18;18).

5) There is the witness of church history that doctrines develop. For example, the doctrines associated with the Trinity and the Incarnation bear witness to doctrinal development. The Councils of Nicea and Chalcedon bear witness to the doctrinal development on the Incarnation.

6) The church fathers taught doctrinal development as an early witness to the nature of divine revelation. The witness of Christian faith in the early church demonstrates the church understood Christian doctrines develop. Such an early witness is a strong testimony to the action of the Holy Spirit within the church who acted to teach the development of doctrine.

7) Jude 1:3 is a statement made in only one letter at a time when the canon had not been formed. Jude 1:3 was only accepted into the canon as part of an organic process of the development of doctrine whereby the church used the letters and gospels in her worship and later formally recognised and defined the canon of scripture. Mikes assertion that Jude 1:3 infers no doctrinal development contradicts the process of development used to determine that Jude 1:3 is inspired scripture.

Mike - Matthew 23:1-3 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples,

 2 "The experts in the law and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat.

 3 Therefore pay attention to what they tell you and do it. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they teach.

Moses seat is not a phrase in the Old Testament. Its a later tradition where they said we are the scribes and Pharisees. We sit in Moses seat and we have Moses authority. And Jesus endorses their authority and therefore the . . . Roman Catholic church is sitting in Peter's seat and therefore you should be doing what the Roman Catholics church says.

Jesus is actually instructing them to follow the Mosaic law, thats what he [Jesus] meant by Moses seat. They are the ones speaking teaching the law. Jesus is actually instructing them to follow the Mosaic law from these people. But do not follow the traditions they had added to it. And Jesus then rebuts the Pharisees in Matt 23. This is what the Catholic church is likening themselves to. If the parallel is between the Catholic church and the Pharisees, then woe to you. For the Catholic church has added all of these traditions. Follow the scriptures, but not all of the extra stuff they teach as the extra commandments of God.

Jesus constantly taught against all of the traditions added to the bible. . . How can this be good for Roman Catholic claims?

JM - Mike has reduced the teaching from Moses seat to a version of sola scriptora, whereby the Pharisees only get it right when they teach from the Old Testament. Mike is yet again reading into the scriptures his own false version of sola scriptora. The Pharisees no doubt did teach from the Old Testament, but they also had the authority to bind the faithful in their teaching. And that authority as the chair of the Moses is a tradition not found in the Old Testament. The existence of the oral tradition and the binding authority of the chair of Moses is consistent with Catholic claims of a fulfilment of that Mosaic authority in the New Testament. If there is no fulfilment in the New Testament, then Christ did not fulfil the law and prophets and was a failed Messiah.

Mike misses the point about Jesus condemning the traditions invented by the Pharisees in Matthew 23. Those condemned traditions were false traditions invented by the Pharisees. And yet the chair of Moses and the binding authority of the chair are two oral traditions from God through Moses that Jesus recognises as normative and binding. Any corruption associated with the chair of Moses and the power associated with the chair, does not invalidate the oral traditions associated with the chair of Moses, nor the binding teaching of the Pharisees.

The existence and exercise of the powers of the chair of Moses is a strong witness to the binding nature of oral tradition in the Old Testament and the fulfilment of the Mosaic chair in the New Testament chair of Peter. For Peter as head of the apostles is the vicar of Christ who was given the keys of the kingdom and the powers to bind and loose. St Peter's chair is then a fulfilment of the Mosaic chair, which is not found in Protestantism, but only in Catholicism.

Mike - The Catholic church has to show it is the only source for understanding and interpreting the bible. Their argument is this - how would you know what the bible is, without the Roman Catholic church? You wouldn't even have a bible if it wasn't for us.

This is not how the canon was formed. And the Roman Catholic church had nothing to do with it. The bishop of Rome at the Council of Nicea wasn't involved because there wasn't anything at the time. The Catholic church didn't exist at that time.

JM - Yes Mike, without the Roman Catholic church you would not have the bible. For there is no other way to determine the canon of the bible without an external authority from God to recognise the canon. The fulfilment of the chair of Moses in the chair of St Peter was the authority used to determine the bible along with tradition and the Eucharistic liturgy. 

Any other method used by Protestants to determine the canon of scripture is illogical. Any appeal to any truth within the text to define the canon is circular. Any appeal to a witness outside the canon is inconsistent with the doctrine of sola scriptora which restricts divine authority to the text alone. (Note - Any appeal to any OT or NT text used to support sola scriptora is false, for the texts were written at the time when oral preaching was a normative means to know the OT and NT gospel).

Mikes claim that the Papacy and the Roman Catholic church did not exist at the time of the Council of Nicea is false as evidenced by church history of the Popes. Mikes understanding of history with regard to the church is in many ways false.

Mike - You have so many denominations . . . There actually over 200 denominations in Catholicism. The Roman Catholic authority has caused these divisions, such as the first great schism and the second great schism . . .

JM - Mikes claims of over 200 denominations in Catholicism is a vacuous claim for which he provides no evidence. Mike refers to the first schism which was a spilt between the Catholic West and the Orthodox East. The Split did not cause any denominationalism, but only a schism over the nature and office of the Papacy. Mikes understanding of the schism is not well stated and possibly not well understood.

Mike - The Roman Catholic church recognised the canon. But recognising is not the same as making something. Recognising a certain author does not give you an authority over them [the books written].

JM - Mike offers a naturalistic understanding of the biblical text, whereby a human author is recognised by another human reader. And the human reader doesn't have any authority over the text written. And such an example only shows how inadequate Mikes understanding of the nature of inspiration of a text really is. Inspiration is a supernatural character derived from the third person of the Trinity being the principal author of the text. The supernatural action of the Holy Spirit to write the text is beyond any man's ability to discern. For man can only naturally discern and recognise a naturally written text as having a natural authority. 

Now, because the scriptures were written by the Holy Spirit, a divinely instituted authority that does have the ability to recognise a supernatural action of God is required to define the canon of the scriptures along with the definition of inspiration, inerrancy and infallibility. That authority can only be found in the church instituted by Christ and perpetuated throughout history as the Roman Catholic church. 

Mike has no means to determine the canon of scripture, let alone define what inspiration is. For if Mike attempts to define inspiration as the Holy Spirit is the principal author of a text, Mike must prove that his definition is true without that truth being dependent upon the defined canon. Of course, the inspiration of the text must be known apart from the text as an external witness to the text which thereby avoids the logical error or self-referencing.

And of course, because Mike cannot define inspiration, nor prove the text is inerrant or infallible, we can never know what Mike really believes about the text he calls scripture. For all we know, Mikes version of inspiration is a naturalistic version that reduces the action of the Holy Spirit, (or any of the three persons of the Trinity) down to only a divine guide, or a divine suggestion, that permits multiple errors within the text. Mikes version of inspiration may reduce the text down to something similar to a pagan fiction that contains some moral truths that help Christians make good choices in life. This is only one of many possible outcomes Mikes false system is open too. And even if Mike choses not to beleive in one definition of inspiration over any other definition, it is only his private choice of definition which is not binding on anyone. Mikes belief system is fundamentally flawed in many ways, and it is a price he has to pay throughout his life because he fails to embrace the one true faith as found in history, and as from Christ and the apostles - The Roman Catholic faith.

Mike - Bottom line is, I don't think God would give us scriptures and then let them get lost and confused. I think God guaranteed the right scriptures would stay [together].

JM - Where is this process Mike thinks must have happened as taught in scripture? It doesn't exist. So Mikes opinion is his outside the text which he thinks contains all Chrisitan doctrine from Christ. So Mike holds to at least one man-made tradition not found in the text against his own version of sola scriptora. And furthermore, for all we know God could have written no texts at all. He could have written some texts, or many texts and have some of those texts relevant for only a time, which were later lost. Mike's need does not prove anything other than maybe Mike is naive in the extreme to think God would and would not do something because Mike wants it to be that way.

For Mike to affirm God even wrote any text at all is a burden of proof that is way beyond any individual believer to bear. For a private opinion of a believer is incompatible with the nature of divine revelation as an act of God for all of humanity. And God would not make the believer bear that intolerable burden. Yet Mikes denial of a church with the authority to define the canon must be thrust upon a fallible man (or men) who made the decision at some time in church history. 

Where else is Mike to turn to, to define the canon? Himself? I hope not. Then, who else? The church of history? He has already excluded that by denying the role of the Catholic church. If Mike wants to evoke God as the sole player in determining the canon then Mike must show how his version of the definition of the text is established by God's own actions without human agency. How could Mike possibly do that when Mike wasn't there when the canon was defined? And as Mike wasn't there, how does Mike know when and how the canon was defined? He doesn't know with any certitude at all.

Mike - Galatians 1:8-9 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed.

This verse destroys any church authority over the scriptures. (Mike then points to a piece of paper to infer the written gospel is the measure of the gospel compared to preaching). If I show up and say I have a fuller gospel for you now. You can compare what I say to what I wrote earlier. Its the writing and the gospel that has the authority and not the messenger. Now if Paul did not have authority to add or change the scriptures and the Galatians were told to use the previous revelations of God (the scriptures of the NT) to judge anybody including him or an angel would say. Should we not be using the bible to judge the Roman church?

JM - Galatians 1:8-9 firstly refers to the oral preaching given first (Gal 1:8), which cannot be contradicted by subsequent preaching. The scriptures of the NT do not play any role in Pauls argument. Again, Mike assumes the NT plays a role as the judge of the gospel, when in fact Mikes position is historically anachronistic. For St Pauls letter to the Galatians was not known by the church as scripture when the Galatians received the letter. Initially, St Paul's letters were only publically known as letters, and only later after a process of doctrinal development took place, was St Paul's letters formally recognised as inspired texts.

Even if we assume the early church believed St Paul's letters were inspired (the process of development of the canon still took place anyway), and Mikes understanding of Gal 1:8-9 is only a poor eisegesis of the text that avoids the two references to the gospel known through preaching and no reference to the gospel being known through the scriptures.

Also if Mike holds to sola scriptora, then he must hold to the oral preaching of the apostles is currently no longer binding on modern believers. As such, Mike has to explain how the initial believers in the early church knew with certitude that the apostles were teaching the gospel orally when there was no universally recognised inspired NT texts, or at best, only part of the NT was available to a select number of Christian communities over a period of several decades. 

How does Mike know the apostolic, oral preaching was 1) correct but different to the written text, or 2) same as the written text, or 3) similar, but different to the written text? Mike must assume the apostolic, oral preaching was the word of God, which was pretty much identical to the written text of the NT. Can Mike demonstrate this is true within his version of Christianity? No. Can Mike speculate that the apostolic oral preaching is one or more variation of the written text from the apostles (and vice versa), yes he can, because there is more than one outcome available with regard to the relationships of the oral preaching to the written texts.

Mike can quote from Gal 1:8-9 and make an argument, and yet his argument that assumes sola scriptora, also implies one or more relationships to apostolic preaching which is not detailed within the NT texts. Mike is then unable to verify with any certitude the nature, content and truth value of the apostolic preaching (which Paul calls the gospel) which Mike thinks he is currently not required to believe in. For all Mike knows, the apostolic preaching contained several, or many errors and Pauls letters also contain several, or many errors and the gospel as the early church had it, and as Protestants later think they have, is a gospel that contains several, or many errors.

Pauls statement in Gal 1:8-9 sounds very stern and compelling, and yet if we don’t not know of any church authority to verify the oral preaching and the letters of Paul as the inerrant word of God, then all we are left with is a gospel as a result of speculative reasoning, which may contain many errors. St Paul’s warning in Gal 1:8-9, then also becomes an empty statement that may itself contain errors. For Paul may himself be in error about the value of oral preaching and therefore of the content of the gospel. Indeed, many of Pauls oral preaching is not recorded and perhaps on many occasions, Paul made errors about the content of the gospel. If so, then Paul’s written gospel may also be in error as well. Who is to prove otherwise? Can Mike? No. But that is a problem with Mikes version of Christianity which is largely without an early church authority to bind and loose to doctrine.

  

Mikes gospel is a fallible gospel, subject many possible and unknown errors, even if Mike does not admit such errors exist. For Mike cannot locate any authority to bind and loose with any specific action within the church beyond what is recorded in Acts.

Mike - Almost all of the NT is written to just Christians. There is an assumption there that the church understands what God is writing to the church.

JM - Mike thinks he has evidence for sola scriptora by assuming the church knows what God is writing to the church. Yet Mike never tells us how he knows this assumption is true for sure, nor does he provide any evidence from the scriptures itself that the church new all of the gospels and letters were written by God. The fact is Mike has no evidence from the NT scriptures that any of the texts were written by God at all. He may appeal to 2 Peter 3:15-16 to affirm Pauls letters are scripture. But in doing so, Mike must assume Peters letter is, in fact, true, when in fact Peter may be in error about the nature of inspiration, the extent of inspiration and Paul as the author of all of the so-called Pauline corpus of letters. 

Furthermore, by citing 2 Peter 3:15-16, Mike still must assume the church is in line with Peter's letter and not any other opinion. And even then, Mike must also establish his contention with the church believing God had communicated through all of the other non-Pauline letters and gospels. And even then, Mike must come up with some argument as to how the church formalised the canon in church history, to solidify and make certain one group of definitions of inspiration and the canon over several other possible outcomes. Mikes position seems very easy to believe but is in fact very difficult to establish.

Mike - It was up to people to test other people by the word of God. Not up to the leadership to judge the word of God for the people. If Paul doesn't have the authority over the scriptures to tell us what it means then how does the Roman Catholic church have that authority? I dont think so.

JM - Mike has assumed sola scriptora at the time of St Paul writing Galatians when Paul expressly states in Gal 1:8-9 that oral preaching was the normative means of proclaiming the gospel. The gospel preached by the apostles is the gospel preached by the authority within the church, to believers. Subsequently, the gospel was also written down, part by part in the gospels and in letters for the church. But even then, almost all of the authors of the NT were from the apostles as church leaders such as Matthew, Mark, John, Paul, Peter, James and Jude, with the exception of Luke.

Again, Mikes position is both a poor eisegesis of Gal 1:8-9 and an ahistorical, and anachronistic version of what occurred in the early church. For Mike to maintain any version of sola scriptora, he must always misuse multiple NT verses to argue for sola scriptora when -

1) Every verse in the NT was written at a time when oral preaching was normative, binding and considered to be the word of God (1 Peter 1:25). No verse of the NT can then be used as evidence for sola scriptora, when the scriptures were written in the context of oral preaching.

2) Every verse in the NT was written prior to the canonisation of the NT. To assume any NT text was known as scripture in the early church and then argue for sola scriptora is unhistorical. No verse of the NT can then be used as evidence for sola scriptora, when the binding nature of the church authority is required to determine the inspiration of a text and the NT canon.

In short, the nature of the NT is against sola scriptora, so all NT verses are against sola scriptora. 

Mike - They claim the [Roman] church began in the gospels.

JM - False Mike. The church teaches it began from Christ and the apostles who existed and acted prior to the existence of the gospels. Christ instituted the church when He was on Earth through his word and work, and only later the gospels were written some decades after Pentecost.

Mike - They say Peter was the very first Pope with a similar authority to what the Pope has. Peter lived and ruled in Rome, running the church from Rome. . . They [the RCC] claim to have authority over the whole world. And Peters successor gained all of Peter's authority which is the authority of Christ on Earth.

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the official councils, Vatican I, Vatican II, Trent are infallible. Like equal with the bible.

In Vatican I they came up with a new teaching - Peter was made Pope in Matthew 16. Peter is the rock of Matthew 16. Peter is the bishop of Rome. Nobody else has the keys of heaven and Peter is the chief of the apostles. And it all happened in Matthew 16 and this has always been the view of the church. If anyone disagrees it is anathema. 

[Start] We therefore teach and declare that, according to the testimony of the Gospel, the primacy of jurisdiction over the universal Church of God was immediately and directly promised and given to Blessed Peter the Apostle by Christ the Lord. 

For it was to Simon alone, to whom he had already said, "You shall be called Cephas" (John 1:42), that the Lord, after the confession made by him, saying, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God", addressed these solemn words: "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father, who is in heaven. And I say to you, that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound, even in heaven. And whatever you shall release on earth shall be released, even in heaven." (Mt 16:16-19). 

And it was upon Simon alone that Jesus, after His Resurrection, bestowed the jurisdiction of Chief Pastor and Ruler over all His fold, by the words: "Feed my lambs. Feed my sheep." (John 21:15-17). 

At open variance with this clear doctrine of Holy Scripture, as it has ever been understood by the Catholic Church, are the perverse opinions of those who, while they distort the form of government established by Christ the Lord in His Church, deny that Peter, in his single person, preferably to all the other Apostles, whether taken separately or together, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction; or of those who assert that the same primacy was not bestowed immediately and directly upon Blessed Peter himself, but upon the Church, and through the Church on Peter as her Minister. 

If anyone, therefore, shall say that Blessed Peter the Apostle was not appointed the Prince of all the Apostles and the visible Head of the whole Church Militant; or that the same, directly and immediately, received from the same, Our Lord Jesus Christ, a primacy of honor only, and not of true and proper jurisdiction; let him be anathema. (First dogmatic constitution on the church ofchrist - On the institution of the apostolic primacy in blessed Peter.) [End]

Nowhere do we see that the church has always known this. Is it true that the church has always known that Peter received Papal authority in Matthew 16?

Matt 16:15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" 16 Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 19 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 shall be loosed in heaven." 

Is Peter the rock? Probably not. You are Peter and on this rock. You are Peter and then there's this. If He [Jesus] was speaking of Peter as the rock He would have said you are Peter and on you, you are the rock, and on you I will build this church. But He [Jesus] says on this rock I will build my church.

JM - Yes Peter is the rock as Jesus promised Simon the son of John that he would be Peter (John 1:42). Jesus is also the rock (Mat 21:42, et al), and Peters confession is the rock. Many passages in scripture have some ambiguity in them as part of Gods pedagogue for believers to see the depth of what is being stated.

Mikes contention that Jesus would have said Peter is the rock in another way ignores the deliberate ambiguity in the text which allows for an interplay of the meaning of rock between Jesus, Peter and Peter's confession. Mike cannot have Peter as the rock in Matt 16, for if Peter is the rock then Mike must change his allegiance from his Baptist faith to the RCC.

Mike - The context before and after is about Peters confession of who Jesus is. The confession seems to be rock. The confession laid by the apostles that Christ is the son of the living God.

JM - the confession of faith is important and does play a role in the context of the passage. But the context also includes the giving of the keys as a fulfilment of the Isaiah 22:22 whereby the Davidic kingdom had a chief minister who ruled over the kingdom. Peter is the new chief minister of the new Davidic kingdom.

The problem with the interpretation of Peter's confession as the rock is the man who made the confession is promised to be the rock (John 1:42) and therefore Peter's confession is the rock, because the confession came from the man who is was the rock. For when Jesus promises Simon he will be Peter, Jesus as God fulfills his promise and made Simon the rock. As Simon is Peter, and Peter makes the confession, the confession is based upon Jesus promise to Simon who becomes Peter. The rock as Peter's confession infers both Peter as the rock and Jesus as the rock. Each understanding of the rock infers the other versions of the rock in the same passage. 

To narrow the rock to only Peter's confession is to do an injustice to the passage. This is why there is a divergence of understanding of the same passage within the church fathers. For the fathers saw the rock in diverse and complementary ways as Jesus, Simon-Peter and the confession of Peter.

The recent Catechism of the Catholic church provides some evidence for diverse understandings of rock in Matt 16.

[Start] 424 Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church.

552 Simon Peter holds the first place in the college of the Twelve; Jesus entrusted a unique mission to him. Through a revelation from the Father, Peter had confessed: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Our Lord then declared to him: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it." Christ, the living Stone, thus assures his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death. Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakable rock of the Church. His mission will be to keep this faith from every lapse and to strengthen his brothers in it. (Catechism of the Catholic Church) [End]

Mike - In the greek, you are Peter (petros), which means small rock, and on this Petra, as a different word for rock, which is something you can build on. Now these are two different words and they actually contradict the idea that you are petros and on this petros I shall build my church. Again its [the passage] does not seem to refer to Peter.

JM - Jesus doesn't refer to Simon in the feminine form of Peter, by using Petra, but uses the masculine Petros. Peter is the rock as petros on whom Jesus builds the church. And because Jesus builds the church as the Son of the living God, Jesus is also the rock. There is no contradiction regarding Petros and Petra in relation to the Catholic understanding of the passage as Mike claims.

Mike - The Catholic theologian runs to the Aramaic where they claim Jesus was speaking Aramaic. And Matthew wrote the text in Aramaic originally. Which we don't know to be true to be honest. And they will say Jesus said you are cephas and on this cephas I shall build my church. Here is the problem. Even in Aramaic, there are ways of saying the same thing that don't involve saying Peters name twice. Jesus could have been more clear but he wasn't.

JM - The Aramaic was used by Matthew so we should include the Aramaic in the defense of the meaning of the passage. Mike may be correct to claim Jesus could have been more clear, but Jesus was apparently less clear for a reason. That reason is suggestive that attributing rock to only Peter's confession is a forced understanding of the text.

Mike - Bottom line, its at least not clear that Peter is the rock. And he is not later referred to and the rock is Jesus in the scriptures. And that has also been a common understanding of Matt 16.

JM - In a few short sentences, Mike has moved from claiming a contradiction to now stating the passage is not clear. What is Mike to do with the passage? If the passage is not clear, then maybe the Catholic understanding of the passage is correct after all and Mike must move away from his Baptist faith to the RCC.

Mike - Now the Roman Catholic Church says everybody has known this except some perverted people with their perverted teachings. There is a French Roman Catholic theologian who surveyed the early church fathers (in general). He found 17 citations where the rock referred to Peter. None of them said Peter refers to the Pope. 16 Fathers said the rock was Christ. 8 identified the rock as all of the disciples. And 44 that identified the confession as Jesus as the Son of the living God. This is by far the most popular understanding of the passage in Matt 16. 80% of the time the fathers disagreed with the Roman Catholic position that has always been believed. We have a provably wrong infallible statement from a Council on an essential thing about the authority of the church.

JM - The church fathers had diverse understandings of the same passage which infers there is a deliberate ambiguity within the passage to have the rock attributed to Simon as Peter, to Peter's confession and to Jesus. After all, the apostles are the foundation stone along with Jesus in Eph 2:19-20. The affirmation of the rock as Jesus or Peter's confession does not infer that Peter was not also the rock. For the church fathers to affirm one version of the rock as Jesus, or Peter's confession does not deny the third option of Peter as the rock. Therefore the church fathers who taught that Jesus and Peter's confession was the rock are in conformity with Peter as the rock.

Furthermore, Mike will say later that Peter was given the keys and has the power to bind and loose along with the apostles. If so, then Peter and the apostles all act together as the foundation stone of the church and therefore Peter as the rock in Matt 16:15-20 is a viable understanding of the passage. To deny Peter is the rock and affirm the keys and the powers to bind and loose is to deny the same authority within the church stated in two diverse manners. For if Peter and the apostles have the authority to bind and loose, and are the foundation stone of the church (Eph 2:19-20), then Peter is the rock in Matt 16. For authority infers stone and rock, and vice versa. Therefore to affirm one is to affirm the other and to deny one is to deny the other. The Catholic approach to the text of Matt 16 is more consistent approach, to affirm Peter as both the rock and he who has authority given to him by Jesus (as through the power of the keys), who is also the rock.

Mike - Did the apostles consider Peter as head of the church? No. Later Peter is rebuked by Jesus, who calls him Satan. He doesn't turn into this Papacy type mode. Plus in Luke 22, Jesus is on his way to the garden of Gethsemane and the disciples discuss which one is the greatest. The apostles did not think Peter is the one. Also in Matt 18, Jesus uses the same terms what you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and this time he uses the plural and refers to all of the disciples. Is what was given to Peter just for Peter? No, clearly the keys are for believers in general, or at least the apostles and not just Peter.

JM - There are strong reasons to infer Peter was the vicar of Christ on Earth as noted by several Catholic apologists. Peter is almost always listed first, inferring Peter had an office above the other apostles. Peter was also the first to make a decision at a church council in Acts 15.

Other evidence is found in - Top 20 Biblical Evidences for the Primacy of St. Peter by Dave Armstrong.

[Start] 1. Matthew 16:18 (RSV) And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church; and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.

The rock (Greek, petra) is St. Peter himself, not his faith. Jesus is the Architect who “builds.” Today, the overwhelming consensus of biblical commentators of all stripes favors this traditional Catholic understanding. St. Peter is the foundation-stone of the Church, making him head and superior of the family, but not founder of the Church; administrator, but not Lord of the Church.

2. Matthew 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven...

The “power of the keys” (according to many Bible commentators) has to do with ecclesiastical discipline and administrative authority with regard to the requirements of the faith, as in Isaiah 22:22 (cf. Is 9:6; Job 12:14; Rev 3:7). This entails the use of excommunication, absolution, imposition of penances and legislative powers. In the Old Testament a steward, or prime minister is a man who is “over a house” (Gen 41:40; 43:19; 44:4; 1 Ki 4:6; 16:9; 18:3; 2 Ki 10:5; 15:5; 18:18; Is 22:15, 20-21).

3. Matthew 16:19 . . . whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

“Binding” and “loosing” were originally technical rabbinical terms, which meant to “forbid” and “permit” with reference to the interpretation of the law, and secondarily to “condemn” or “acquit.” Thus, St. Peter (and by logical extension, future popes) is given the authority to determine binding rules for the Church's doctrine and life. “Binding and loosing” represent the legislative and judicial powers of the papacy and the bishops (Mt 18:17-18; Jn 20:23), and the power to absolve. St. Peter, however, is the only apostle who receives these powers by name and in a singular sense, making him pre-eminent.

4. Peter alone among the apostles receives a new, solemnly conferred name, Rock, (Jn 1:42; Mt 16:18).

5. St. Peter's name occurs first in all lists of apostles (Mt 10:2; Mk 3:16; Lk 6:14; Acts 1:13). Matthew even calls him the “first” (10:2). Judas Iscariot is invariably mentioned last. This means something.

6. Christ teaches from Peter's boat, and a miraculous catch of fish follows (Lk 5:1-11): perhaps a metaphor for the pope as a “fisher of men” (cf. Mt 4:19).

7. Peter was the first apostle to enter the empty tomb of the risen Jesus (Jn 20:6).

8. St. Peter is specified by an angel as the leader and representative of the apostles (Mt 16:7: “tell his disciples and Peter . . .”).

9. Peter is regarded by Jesus as the Chief Shepherd after Himself (Jn 21:15-17: “Feed my lambs . . . Tend my sheep . . . feed my sheep.”), singularly by name, and over the universal Church, even though others have a similar but subordinate role (e.g., Acts 20:28; 1 Pet 5:1-2).

10. Peter alone among the apostles is mentioned by name as having been prayed for by Jesus Christ in order that his “faith may not fail” (Lk 22:32).

11. Peter alone among the apostles is exhorted by Jesus to “strengthen” the Christian “brethren” (Lk 22:32).

12. St. Peter is the first to speak (and only one recorded) after Pentecost, so he was the first Christian to “preach the gospel” in the Church era (Acts 2:14-36).

13. Peter works the first miracle of the Church Age, healing a lame man (Acts 3:6-12).

14. Peter is regarded by the common people as the leader of Christianity (Acts 5:15: “as Peter came by at least his shadow might fall on some of them.”).

15. Peter was the first traveling missionary, and first to exercise the “visitation of the churches” (Acts 9:32-38, 43). Paul's missionary journeys begin in Acts 13:2.

16. Cornelius is told by an angel to seek out St. Peter for instruction in Christianity: (Acts 10:21-22) And Peter went down to the men and said, “I am the one you are looking for; what is the reason for your coming?” [22] And they said, “Cornelius, a centurion, an upright and God-fearing man, who is well spoken of by the whole Jewish nation, was directed by a holy angel to send for you to come to his house, and to hear what you have to say.”

17. Peter is the first to receive the Gentiles into the fellowship of the Christian Catholic Church, after a revelation from God (Acts 10:9-48).

18. Peter presides over and is pre-eminent in the first Church-wide council of Christianity (Acts 15:7-11).

19. Paul distinguishes the Lord's post-Resurrection appearances to St. Peter from those to other apostles (1 Cor 15:4-8). The two disciples on the road to Emmaus do the same (Lk 24:34), even though they themselves had just seen the risen Jesus within the previous hour (Lk 24:33).

20. St. Peter's name is mentioned more often than all the other disciples put together: 191 times (162 as Peter or Simon Peter, 23 as Simon, and 6 as Cephas). John is next in frequency with only 48 appearances. [End]

Mike - In Acts 15, Peter does not seem to be the one in charge. James seems to be making the final decision. Why? I don't know. I don't think James was the Pope. If James had lived in Rome, they would have thought James was the first Pope and Acts 15 proves it. They are committed to Peter having to be the first guy in Rome. Catholics have been duped into thinking these ideas are true. They have been raised on the idea that mother church has all of the authority and whatever the church says is true.

JM - Peter is in charge at the Council of Jerusalem for Peter makes the decision which is binding on the church. James as bishop of Jerusalem follows upon Peters decision and makes a statement about how Peters decision is to be carried out. Both Peter and James act together to enforce the decision made at the council.

Conclusion - Mikes attempt to undermine Catholic authority has failed. Mike has shown that his own understanding of church history, the meaning of several scriptural passages, use of logic, and the method of argumentation are in several instances shown to be false. Mike is very far from providing any strong support for his position that the Catholic church is not what she claims to be - the church instituted by Christ to bring salvation to man.