I too have spent some time reading the debate, and I see it differently. Although Barry labors hard to develop the notion that Mt. 16:18 speaks to a spiritual “church” only, he simply cannot do so without ignoring the context of the verse. While it is interesting to see Barry create an argument made by pulling pieces from hither and yon, the context of the language cannot be ignored without a significant loss of impact. It is quite clear that Jesus is speaking of founding a visible earthly Church upon Peter (the “Rock”). In a way, Barry’s argument awkwardly backs into the Protestant argument that the “Rock” is not Peter, but a confessional faith in Jesus Christ. While faith in Jesus is certainly necessary for salvation, that is not the point that Jesus is making when He re-names Simon bar Johah as the Rock. Rather, Jesus is declaring His intent to use Peter as his earthly representative with the powers of binding and loosing. Barry’s strained interpretation fails to address this context and in the end I found the argument less impressive than you did.
While I can see your point that the Matthew verse is open for interpretation and could on its face be viewed perhaps from a Catholic perspective, I find it equally as open for an alternate interpretation.
That is why I tossed in the reference to the verse in Revelations. My own process of scripture study is very resistant to single verse interpretations and I like to gather all of the verses that reflect upon a concept. Sometimes this is not readily done but where possible it is a viable process of discovering the truth of the scriptures. This is actually predicated upon a Jewish method of scripture interpretation - not the Greek philosophers approach to a logic priority and self determined analysis.
If you will note the use of the same imagery in Matthew and Revelations the two do tie together. As well if you get Christ’s flavor of reference. He never seems to side with a religious organization as the priority of his salvation. It is always about protecting and providing salvation to those who are true believers in his being the Son of God and the provider of salvation. Thus a Catholic who was genuine and true in their love of God could reap the blessing of Christ’s salvation as could a member of the LDS church. That is not to say we agree on the ends of how that process will be achieved but my point is to remove that my team, their team mentality of men and grasp the theme of the scriptures. Never, ever do I see in scripture any sense of identifying with a particular brand of dogma and instead I note quite the opposite:
Mark 9:38
38And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.
39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.
Thus as I gauge a sense of Christ’s attitude towards such things I begin to build a case of evidence that allows me to consider all sides, all interpretations, all potentials until I can build a body of evidence where the preponderance tends to point to a probable conclusion. This I can present to the Lord and seek further inspiration to understand.
In this case I am convinced that Christ’s has far less concern for the religious organization itself and more the hearts of his children. This applies even in the LDS church as many members tend to identify with the wagon over the wagon master.
Bottom line I think that is what I perceive Barry’s effort to be. He wants to break away from dogma and gather the resources to illustrate where the dogma departs from the scriptures and early interpretations of scripture that in his perceptions are discounted and not given their merit of consideration.
In the end, it does come down to the question of whether there was a Total Apostasy. There is no historical warrant for such a conclusion. While one could argue that there were periods of Church history in which apostasy by some did occur. It simply is not the case, even from a purely historical point of view, that there was a total apostasy. Barry’s response to this lack of evidence is clever - redefine the Total Apostasy to something less than a total apostasy. Again, I found that argument lacking. You can’t have a partial total apostasy.
Granted, the nature of the apostasy is the focus of this discussion. However, when I think through your statement, I have to consider the implications of what you have stated. First let me say how refreshing it is that you are objective enough just to acknowledge the potential for the discussion in terms of a partial apostasy. Very refreshing because as you state, there are some pretty valid points in the historical record that bear scrutiny. For me that means we again have to examine the implications of the scriptures. Even during the times of the apostles lives, the saints were wandering off the correct path. How did the apostles attempt to correct that documented tendency? They made a constant effort of praising good effort and correcting, chastising, instructing, reproving and pushing them back onto the path from whence they had wandered. The commentary in the New Testament has inferences of what was occurring as the number of corrective efforts was reducing due to the attrition of Apostlic guides.
3 John 1:9
9 I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not.
10 Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church.
If we maintain that Matthew 16 is speaking of the church that was to be succored by Christ’s selection of Peter (Petra), is John here referencing that same church which will no longer receive him as one of its servants? Who later redeems this church with corrective instruction? This is before the end of the First Century and clearly by this time we’ve lost several apostles. Is this Gaius, that John speaks with, one of the four scriptural references of which two are mentioned as from Corinth or Rome?
So, let’s examine your observation that a possible partial apostasy might be argued for.
The scripture may not be clear in all respects to some that there is indeed an apostasy pending, but if we consider Johns Epistle and Diotrephes rejection of the servants of Christ we have to wonder what Apostle finally got back to correct the damage that Diotrephes had done in his partial apostasy? Or does it continue to full apostasy which it appears nigh unto even in John’s treatment of conditions therein. In other words, if we admit to a partial apostasy and the pattern has always been the apostles correct the errant behaviors, who can we trust is able to fill their shoes if they themselves could not find men to fill them? Can we with any more surety build a case that authority was given to the Bishops to continue the work in the absence of the Apostles? I’ve not been able to thus far.
My point is that when we consider these things we have to answer the questions that can be found. On this subject there are many inferences that when taken as a whole bear consideration. We do not have to agree. We can each develop some rational that favors our perspective but that is not my point. As we develop our rational the lynch pin or our argument cannot be that we simply ignore the possibilities.
In the debate between Steve and Barry, it appears to me that Steve’s approach is to sidestep the implications that are being questioned. I can’t see that he appeals to the body of scripture to sustain any other of the early father’s observations in a way that actually point blank takes the challenge of the message and is convincing. Barry to me seems to be tossing out points to open the debate while Steve avoids the points of the Debate by stepping back into the safe points of dogma.
