Gnrhead responded has responded with a video on YouTube to my BLOG post responding to his original video. Watch it and then read my rebuttal.
Gnrhead opened up saying,
“I’m going to treat his BLOG response to me in hopefully a scholarly fashion.”
Well readers—don’t get your hopes up—he took a moment to contrast some other responses he has gotten with mine which I do appreciate because at least it shows that I’m serious in my responses and my goals are not to attack people but rather to speak the truth in love.
I also appreciate that he acknowledged my BLOG by saying, “I recommend that you pass on by and check him out, anyone who watches my videos; it’s a good BLOG, he’s got some good stuff there”—thanks for the shout out Gnrhead!
However, this marks the end of my positive feedback concerning his video response to my presentation. He quotes me as saying that his level of argumentation was pathetic and then begins to go on a tangent about my belief in Sola Scriptura. As you just saw, he said:
I also appreciate that he acknowledged my BLOG by saying, “I recommend that you pass on by and check him out, anyone who watches my videos; it’s a good BLOG, he’s got some good stuff there”—thanks for the shout out Gnrhead!
However, this marks the end of my positive feedback concerning his video response to my presentation. He quotes me as saying that his level of argumentation was pathetic and then begins to go on a tangent about my belief in Sola Scriptura. As you just saw, he said:
“Someone that believes in Sola Scriptura… and my level of argumentation is pathetic.”
Well, yes, it was in fact pathetic—it had the capacity to move me to a contemptuous pity (See Webster’s Dictionary). I said what I meant, and I meant what I said—but what does my belief in Sola Scriptura have to do with his level of argumentation?—nothing! Let’s say that I believed in little purple three-headed Martians that ran a commune in North Dakota where they produced environment friendly alternative fuels out of corn husks and baby powder—what does this have to do with the arguments that Gnrhead made in defense of the papacy? Does the fact that Elvis Presley liked peanut butter and banana sandwiches somehow change because Lisa Marie Presley married Michael Jackson? One has to wonder what his purpose was in even making such a comment.
He continues by saying:
He continues by saying:
“You believe in something that is not even five hundred years old, created by a man who had no problem with polygamy, who was an anti-Semite, and who had no problem with murdering a [unintelligible] who had no problem with murdering individuals; umm, the doctrine that he created in Sola Scriptura and I’m the pathetic one.”
The genetic fallacy just jumps out with an extended hand saying, ‘pleased to meet you, I’ve come to attack with illogic.’ All Gnrhead has done is tried to discredit a doctrine based on some perceived faults in its founder. He doesn’t explicitly name the culprit and truthfully according to many of the RC internet apologists I have spoken with, this description would fit just about any reformer—but I’m quite sure he had the arch-heretic Luther in mind during this mini-tirade. But obviously we know that a doctrine or belief is not necessarily false because of the imperfections of its founder (or in this case one of its advocates as I would certainly reject that Luther created the doctrine).
But then notice the misunderstanding on his part in thinking that I somehow called him pathetic. This is not the case at all as I pride myself on not resorting to ad hominem arguments in my debates/dialogues/refutations, etc. and to call him such in the context of my response to his video would be an ad hominem attack. Remember, as he noted in his opening, I called his argumentation pathetic and I stand by that comment. But I don’t know Gnrhead personally at all and certainly not enough to attack his character by calling him pathetic.
He continued:
But then notice the misunderstanding on his part in thinking that I somehow called him pathetic. This is not the case at all as I pride myself on not resorting to ad hominem arguments in my debates/dialogues/refutations, etc. and to call him such in the context of my response to his video would be an ad hominem attack. Remember, as he noted in his opening, I called his argumentation pathetic and I stand by that comment. But I don’t know Gnrhead personally at all and certainly not enough to attack his character by calling him pathetic.
He continued:
“Before he even addresses the passages I’ve listed he attempts to say that Matthew chapter 16 verse 18 is no support for the Papacy even though, uh, even though every single early Church father agrees that Peter was the rock.”
Well, in context I was simply reiterating what Gnrhead had said in his opening to his defense of the papacy video. The person to whom he was responding asked for support other than Matthew 16:18 which I don’t feel is support for the papacy in the first place. As far as Peter being the rock to which Jesus referred is concerned, who argued otherwise? It wasn’t me as I believe that this is a tenable explanation of the passage. Unlike most Protestants I actually reject the notions that the rock was Jesus or Peter’s confession. The grammar and syntax of the passage can (but do not necessarily) support Peter as the rock in question.
But there is another tenable explanation and that is the actual place where they stood as being the rock that Jesus spoke of. The noun petra is in the dative case if we are using the 5 case system, but if we favor the 8 case system then it would be locative. The events of Matthew 16:13-20 took place in Caesarea Phillipi and it is well established that this was a center for pagan worship in the Greco-Roman world. In fact, Caesarea Phillipi “was first known by the name Panion, meaning ‘sanctuary of Pan’ a pagan god associated with fields and herds.”[1] It was here that “a profusion of rocks was scattered along the river bank. Idols were nestled in the niches of a high rock wall dedicated to Pan.”[2] This sets the stage for Jesus’ comments that he would establish his Church, a Church that was never to be destroyed—in the midst of paganism Jesus’ Church would prevail, not the gates of Hades.
Now concerning this idea of unanimous agreement on the interpretation of Peter as the rock among Patristic sources, I’d have to disagree (Eusebius of Caesarea and Augustine come to mind), but it isn’t really germane to the discussion of the papacy because even I am willing to entertain that Peter is the rock but I do not believe this to be a proof of the papacy.
Gnrhead then denied that he treated the verb poimaine as a noun when he said:
But there is another tenable explanation and that is the actual place where they stood as being the rock that Jesus spoke of. The noun petra is in the dative case if we are using the 5 case system, but if we favor the 8 case system then it would be locative. The events of Matthew 16:13-20 took place in Caesarea Phillipi and it is well established that this was a center for pagan worship in the Greco-Roman world. In fact, Caesarea Phillipi “was first known by the name Panion, meaning ‘sanctuary of Pan’ a pagan god associated with fields and herds.”[1] It was here that “a profusion of rocks was scattered along the river bank. Idols were nestled in the niches of a high rock wall dedicated to Pan.”[2] This sets the stage for Jesus’ comments that he would establish his Church, a Church that was never to be destroyed—in the midst of paganism Jesus’ Church would prevail, not the gates of Hades.
Now concerning this idea of unanimous agreement on the interpretation of Peter as the rock among Patristic sources, I’d have to disagree (Eusebius of Caesarea and Augustine come to mind), but it isn’t really germane to the discussion of the papacy because even I am willing to entertain that Peter is the rock but I do not believe this to be a proof of the papacy.
Gnrhead then denied that he treated the verb poimaine as a noun when he said:
“But if you do read this guy’s BLOG, if you read further on you’ll see this guy says that I acknowledge uh, the word in John chapter 21 verses 15 to 17 of poy-me-nah-oh as a verb, He says that umm, I later treat it as a noun, umm, which I never once ever say that it is a noun, Maybe he misunderstood me or maybe you don’t like the fact that I use the lexical form of the word, oh well…”
OK, I’d ask that everyone watch Gnrhead’s original video again and then read my original response. Yes, he originally acknowledges the word as a verb but then does in fact treat it as a noun when he says: “out of all the 12 apostles Christ could have easily told James, he could have told any of them that they would be a shepherd, uh a ‘poy-me-nah-oh’” and “The funny thing is, we don’t have a singular other Biblical passage in which Christ calls any other apostle a ‘poy-me-nah-oh’, a leader, a shepherd”
So no, I didn’t misunderstand him—I simply commented on his words as he spoke them. It was probably unintentional but that’s beside the point—notice that whether he meant to or not he did treat the word as a noun in saying that Christ could have called James or any of the other apostles a poimaine but didn’t. Well, you don’t call people verbs, you call them nouns. And for the record, I don’t particularly have a problem with him quoting the lexical form of verbs, but he represents himself as one versed in Greek. I simply commented on what I feel is pseudo-scholarship.
He then said:
So no, I didn’t misunderstand him—I simply commented on his words as he spoke them. It was probably unintentional but that’s beside the point—notice that whether he meant to or not he did treat the word as a noun in saying that Christ could have called James or any of the other apostles a poimaine but didn’t. Well, you don’t call people verbs, you call them nouns. And for the record, I don’t particularly have a problem with him quoting the lexical form of verbs, but he represents himself as one versed in Greek. I simply commented on what I feel is pseudo-scholarship.
He then said:
“Well the plain fact is, umm, that you go on by saying that my whole standard of argument is ridiculous cuz I reject Sola Scriptura, right; something that can’t even, cannot be even remotely found in the face of Scripture in Sola Scriptura is why I’m misled.”
This is a caricature of my argument for sure. In commenting on the standard he set up (namely that Jesus had to speak the same words to another apostle) I said that it was a ridiculous standard in that it forces us to ignore the remainder of the Word of God. I then said that this no doubt stems from his rejection of Sola Scriptura which leads to a low view of Scripture. I never once said that this is why he is misled.
I would imagine that any objective reader could see the same problem with his standard that I have—namely that it forces us to exclude evidence to the contrary. I liken this type of argument to the skeptic who demands proof of the historical Jesus but only allows that it be a secular reference from a hostile contemporary of Jesus who knew him personally yet didn’t have any vested religious interest in the man. Of course the standard is set so as not to be able to meet it!—which is entirely ridiculous. Or perhaps we can compare this argument to the Jehovah’s Witness who demands proof for the doctrine of the Trinity or the full deity of Christ by asking that you show them the word ‘Trinity’ in Scripture or a statement where Jesus utters the phrase ‘I am God Almighty’—again the standard is set so that it can never be met.
He continues by briefly summarizing my response and then says:
I would imagine that any objective reader could see the same problem with his standard that I have—namely that it forces us to exclude evidence to the contrary. I liken this type of argument to the skeptic who demands proof of the historical Jesus but only allows that it be a secular reference from a hostile contemporary of Jesus who knew him personally yet didn’t have any vested religious interest in the man. Of course the standard is set so as not to be able to meet it!—which is entirely ridiculous. Or perhaps we can compare this argument to the Jehovah’s Witness who demands proof for the doctrine of the Trinity or the full deity of Christ by asking that you show them the word ‘Trinity’ in Scripture or a statement where Jesus utters the phrase ‘I am God Almighty’—again the standard is set so that it can never be met.
He continues by briefly summarizing my response and then says:
“In other words this is what this guy is attempting to do; He’s using, throwing all these Biblical passage out there and saying oh look, the same Greek word is used in all these passages, ha ha, umm those passages you listed don’t support the papacy. That’s pretty much what he’s saying. Umm, the fact of the matter is that in my challenge, my challenge was that if anybody can show me any passage in which Christ uses those same terms, for any other apostle besides Peter and the fact that this guy goes and throws out all of these other irrelevant passages… you’re not even touching upon my challenge…”
As I stated originally and just above, the challenge is ridiculous—by exposing the faulty foundation of his standard which is one that forces the challenged to exclude all evidence to the contrary I then opened the door to prove his position wrong by using the entirety of Scripture. Now to say that those passages are irrelevant is to betray a severe lack of understanding of what was said in the first place. These passages are parallel to Jesus’ words in John 21:17 and they are entirely relevant as they show the same command being given to GROUPS of believers. And the one to whom Gnrhead believes Christ gave supreme authority then turns around and gives OTHERS the SAME COMMAND that Christ gave him! Was Peter fallibly commanding those dispersed Jews to shepherd the flock of God that was in their charge? Was his authority not so established so as to be able to in turn pass this same authority to a group of others? And I didn’t even bring up the fact that Peter declared himself a ‘fellow elder’ (Gk. sumpresbuteros).
Gnrhead continued:
Gnrhead continued:
“I mean he doesn’t even understand the impact of the fact that Christ not an apostle put Peter in charge of the flock, I don’t care if Paul or Peter or anyone else is using the exact, the exact same Greek word, I don’t care, they’re not Christ, Does that not penetrate in your skull? I mean they’re leaders in the Church and they had the right to put who they want in charge of course, but they’re not almighty God. So you fail in your attempt to try to debunk John chapter 21 verses 15-17 in which Christ tells Peter that he will be the shepherd, he will shepherd his flock. You can’t debunk that, you won’t be able to.”
Again, this comment stems from a decidedly low view of Scripture. He admits to not caring what the Scriptures declare concerning certain matters (especially when these declarations refute his position). It stands to reason that if Jesus is God Almighty (which of course he is) and all Scripture is God-Breathed then Jesus was involved with their composition. So are any words of Scripture less authoritative than the words in red? I think not—but let us not forget that John recorded Jesus’ words in the same manner that Paul recorded his own and Peter (allegedly) recorded his own—as being carried along by the Holy Spirit (2Pet. 1:21). These statements are as authoritative as John’s record of Jesus’ statements in John 21:17.
So this is what penetrates my skull—we have three NT writers, John, Paul, Peter(?) who are all writing that which is God-Breathed (i.e. Scripture). All three writers were carried along by the same Holy Spirit, yet Gnrhead for some reason feels that the writings of John are superior to the writings of Peter or Paul. Which gets me wondering why he would feel that the words of just a regular old disciple are somehow more authoritative than the words of the first Pope to whom Jesus gave all authority over the Church.
And merely stating that I have failed in my attempt is not the same as me actually failing. I’m not naïve—it’s not as if I expected to refute the guy’s position and then have him running from Rome with his arms up shouting ‘free at last, free at last, thank God almighty, I’m free at last!’ But I write with the reading audience in mind and pray that they will think critically through the issues and examine all of the evidence. To tell me that I can't debunk something that I already have is pointless, and I’ll leave it to the reader to decide whose position is in line with Scripture.
Again he summarizes my arguments in which I noted his reliance on a single word (stērison/stērixon) that he feels established his doctrine, to which he replied:
“Well let’s get real, I never said this very word itself established a doctrine. I use this passage to support the papacy, but never said this word established a doctrine. He complains that I give the lexical form of the verb and not its conjugated form in Scripture, well you get my point don’t you, it’s not like I’m using another word like hagios, or any other Greek word, I’m using a word that you understand. Once again this individual has his way with me by attempting to make me seem stupid of the Greek since I prefer using the lexical form at times. Get real man, you’re smoke screen attempts of disproving my passages by saying, ‘oh, well you use a lexical form of this Greek word’ is not gonna work, attack me in my preferences, it’s not going to make the passages cease to exist, or make every single church father that agreed with me cease to exist and agree with your ridiculous premise, it won’t happen palo-walo.”
His original video defending the papacy focused on exactly two Greek words which is clear to anyone who has seen it—if he didn’t feel that the words establish the doctrine then perhaps he should have went another route in his apologetic. Again, I didn’t ‘complain’ that he used the lexical form of the verb, I merely pointed it out. Yes! I understood the point being made, but again, as one who represents themselves as being competent in Greek grammar and syntax, it should show through in their presentations. It’s not as if he hasn’t told others to ‘learn Greek’ (to include me in an email).
I haven’t attempted to make him look stupid and if he feels that he looks stupid then he should look in the mirror for that. I simply pointed out what the facts support—the lexical form of these verbs was used. These are not smokescreen attempts to disprove the passages presented either as I disproved them with specific references to relevant parallel uses of the same verbs. Yes, the passages exist and no they don’t say what Gnrhead would like them to—too much is inferred on his part and then parallels are dismissed as irrelevant. As far as these constant appeals to unanimous consent among the early fathers, I’m going to need to see proof of this. I find that those who make these claims are not well versed in Patristic sources because if they had been they would realize that the fathers contradicted each other (as well as themselves) on many points and at many times, but this is to be expected from fallible men.
He then reads some more of my response, this time more fully and then responds:
I haven’t attempted to make him look stupid and if he feels that he looks stupid then he should look in the mirror for that. I simply pointed out what the facts support—the lexical form of these verbs was used. These are not smokescreen attempts to disprove the passages presented either as I disproved them with specific references to relevant parallel uses of the same verbs. Yes, the passages exist and no they don’t say what Gnrhead would like them to—too much is inferred on his part and then parallels are dismissed as irrelevant. As far as these constant appeals to unanimous consent among the early fathers, I’m going to need to see proof of this. I find that those who make these claims are not well versed in Patristic sources because if they had been they would realize that the fathers contradicted each other (as well as themselves) on many points and at many times, but this is to be expected from fallible men.
He then reads some more of my response, this time more fully and then responds:
“Again, Luke, the passage in Luke is not disproven, again he did not give a relevant passage in which Christ tells any apostle other than Peter to strengthen, to stand fast, to help establish, anyone else; he does not debunk any of the passages, instead he throws out a bunch of [ir]relevant passages, something protestants are very famous for doing.”
The problem is that the Luke passage does not establish anything let alone the papacy! The passage itself is not proven false but what Gnrhead has read into the passage has been. I’ve noted the ridiculousness of the standard and I reject it. Again, this kind of argumentation is pathetic and conjures up thoughts in my mind of a man standing before God and challenging him to make a square circle then when God doesn’t do it because it’s illogical and therefore impossible for him, the man charges God with being less than omnipotent. Believe it or not, this is fundamentally the same thing. Once again, because I allow the entirety of Scripture to speak and I esteem all of the Biblical writers’ words as God-Breathed I have no problem with seeing parallel passages as completely relevant.
And of course we all saw the closing to this video where I am said to have provided comical relief while Gnrhead enjoyed his cereal but that I still failed to meet the impossible standard of his challenge. But hey, before getting my F for failing at least I got a big E for effort. I’m going to have to have my parents hang that up on the fridge as it is sure to be my crowning achievement in life.
Now he seemed to get the impression from my saying that I found no merit in his arguments that I believe to be a “complete fool” but this isn’t the case at all. Like I said above, I don’t know the man at all, let alone well enough to call him a complete fool, nor do I wish to address his character—I’m content to deal with his arguments and address them for what they are, which from where I’m standing isn’t much. And my feelings haven’t changed with this video as he says that I didn’t touch upon anything that he asked me to. Well, the ludicrousness of the challenge has been noted, noted again, and then noted some more—how do you touch on the word ‘Trinity’ when the JW demands you to show it in the Bible? I don’t know what he does but I establish the fact that the word doesn’t need to be in the Bible for what the word describes to be Biblical. The same applies here. I don’t need to refute his position from passages that don’t exist, I can simply do it from the passages that do exist.
And finally I’m told to expect another video with quotes from the Church fathers that will make me look more pathetic than I look from my post. Notice how I was capable of attacking his position and argumentation but he couldn’t resist attacking me personally. I’ve come to expect no less from Gnrhead from the videos of his that I have previously seen.
And of course we all saw the closing to this video where I am said to have provided comical relief while Gnrhead enjoyed his cereal but that I still failed to meet the impossible standard of his challenge. But hey, before getting my F for failing at least I got a big E for effort. I’m going to have to have my parents hang that up on the fridge as it is sure to be my crowning achievement in life.
Now he seemed to get the impression from my saying that I found no merit in his arguments that I believe to be a “complete fool” but this isn’t the case at all. Like I said above, I don’t know the man at all, let alone well enough to call him a complete fool, nor do I wish to address his character—I’m content to deal with his arguments and address them for what they are, which from where I’m standing isn’t much. And my feelings haven’t changed with this video as he says that I didn’t touch upon anything that he asked me to. Well, the ludicrousness of the challenge has been noted, noted again, and then noted some more—how do you touch on the word ‘Trinity’ when the JW demands you to show it in the Bible? I don’t know what he does but I establish the fact that the word doesn’t need to be in the Bible for what the word describes to be Biblical. The same applies here. I don’t need to refute his position from passages that don’t exist, I can simply do it from the passages that do exist.
And finally I’m told to expect another video with quotes from the Church fathers that will make me look more pathetic than I look from my post. Notice how I was capable of attacking his position and argumentation but he couldn’t resist attacking me personally. I’ve come to expect no less from Gnrhead from the videos of his that I have previously seen.
Notes
___________________
[1] “Caesarea Phillip” in NIV Archeological Study Bible, Walter C. Kasier, Jr. Ed., (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), 1589.
[2] “The Geography of Palestine” in Illustrated Manners and Customs of the Bible, Packer, and M.C. Tenney, Eds., (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1980), 198.
