Universalism and Particular Redemption

[Mark Quayle]

Let me clear up your misconceptions. Catholics believe that the worship due God is for God and for God alone. We do not "adore" the pope, popes are sinners, and some have been quite the sinners. This has been so from the beginning, our first pope denied Our Lord three times. As to forgiving sins, read John 20 21-23: Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”
Recall that the only other time the God breathed on man was in Genesis 2:7. As to that portion of Acts, it shows us that the sacrament of Baptism, which is the initiation into Christ's Church, is for all.

Acts 8:26-40 shows a man finding out about Christ by the power of the Word of God, not by authority of the Church.

As for the Pope adoration, perhaps by policy you are right, but by practice, the teeming masses, hoping for a glimpse of the man in full dress, adds up to adoration, even worship, for many if not most. And I see no attempt to discourage the practice. Do you honestly believe that he thinks they are only there because he is popular, while he waves at them?

So, you don't believe that the church has the power to forgive sins. That's good to know. As far as I know, the redeemed Elect have only the right to claim forgiveness on behalf of those who sinned against them (as in "The Lord's Prayer"). The forgiveness of sin is the purview of only God himself, and it is by the transfer of penalty onto the Son. No doubt we also have the ability to beg God's forgiveness and mercy towards a loved one, or anyone we think of and care about, but we are ignorant of God's purposes.

But becoming a church official lends nobody special powers. And Christ is our priest. We need no other intermediary between God and man.

 

[Valletta]

Acts 8:26-40 shows a man finding out about Christ by the power of the Word of God, not by authority of the Church.

As for the Pope adoration, perhaps by policy you are right, but by practice, the teeming masses, hoping for a glimpse of the man in full dress, adds up to adoration, even worship, for many if not most. And I see no attempt to discourage the practice. Do you honestly believe that he thinks they are only there because he is popular, while he waves at them?

So, you don't believe that the church has the power to forgive sins. That's good to know. As far as I know, the redeemed Elect have only the right to claim forgiveness on behalf of those who sinned against them (as in "The Lord's Prayer"). The forgiveness of sin is the purview of only God himself, and it is by the transfer of penalty onto the Son. No doubt we also have the ability to beg God's forgiveness and mercy towards a loved one, or anyone we think of and care about, but we are ignorant of God's purposes.

But becoming a church official lends nobody special powers. And Christ is our priest. We need no other intermediary between God and man.

I try not to judge the actions of others. Certainly people have respect for the position of pope, many too came out to hear our first pope speak and they were probably excited to hear the one on whom Jesus built His Church.

As I provided before, John 20 21-23 says: Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”
The forgiveness comes from God, God chooses to work through priests to let people know their sins have been forgiven.

 

[Valletta]

So, you don't believe that the church has the power to forgive sins.

“[The bishop conducting the ordination of the new bishop shall pray:] God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. . . . Pour forth now that power which comes from you, from your royal Spirit, which you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, and which he bestowed upon his holy apostles . . . and grant this your servant, whom you have chosen for the episcopate, [the power] to feed your holy flock and to serve without blame as your high priest, ministering night and day to propitiate unceasingly before your face and to offer to you the gifts of your holy Church, and by the Spirit of the high priesthood to have the authority to forgive sins, in accord with your command” (Hippolytus, Apostolic Tradition 3 [A.D. 215]).

 

[fhansen]

And it is not independent interpretation that we hold for an anchor,

That's what you'd like to believe, not the reality. You necessarily interpret when you read the bible-and sincere and often well-schooled people come up with very plausible understandings that are contradictory to other plausible understandings by other sincere and equally erudite people-on significant matters. Many folks like to say that the bible is perfectly perspicuous and that they understand it with no problem, but they fool themselves in many cases. So, for example, we have the situation where the ancient church taught baptismal regeneration: that God provided that as a simple means by which we effect and experience our cleansing, death, new birth while publicly professing our faith in response to Christ’s command. But it can still be argued either way going by Scripture alone.

I don't recall you saying WHY you consider the church to be what you must answer to, rather than to Christ.

When I answer to one I answer to the other as long as the teachings are in unison, which is what the church teaches is the case, of course. For myself I rejected Catholic teahcings early on in favor of Reformed teachings, becoming quite anti-Catholic in the process. But later, between experience and study: Scripture, history, councils, theologians, etc found myself agreeing with the RCC on the most basic and important teachings.

 

[Mark Quayle]

That's what you'd like to believe, not the reality. You necessarily interpret when you read the bible-and sincere and often well-schooled people come up with very plausible understandings that are contradictory to other plausible understandings by other sincere and equally erudite people-on significant matters.

Why do you go here? I didn't say otherwise. I'm saying that the Scripture is the authority and not the interpretation of it. This is why interpretation HAS to be buffered (for lack of a better word immediately available to my weak mind) by scripture. Kind of like science, while there are certain facts we can know (and usually are in common across most of Christian denominations) ALL of it is in need of correction and refinement. Our understanding certainly is. And THAT is my point.

Many folks like to say that the bible is perfectly perspicuous and that they understand it with no problem, but they fool themselves in many cases. So, for example, we have the situation where the ancient church taught baptismal regeneration: that God provided that as a simple means by which we effect and experience our cleansing, death, new birth while publicly professing our faith in response to Christ’s command. But it can still be argued either way going by Scripture alone.

This is superfluous to the point.

When I answer to one I answer to the other as long as the teachings are in unison, which is what the church teaches is the case, of course.

Here you have contradicted yourself, the teachings of the one are never quite the teachings of scripture, according to your first paragraph. They are not in unison. We do continue to try to improve, to understand, a bit like how they claim science does.

For myself I rejected Catholic teahcings early on in favor of Reformed teachings, becoming quite anti-Catholic in the process. But later, between experience and study: Scripture, history, councils, theologians, etc found myself agreeing with the RCC on the most basic and important teachings.

Not all? Why Catholic, then? (It's only a dig. I call myself Reformed so people know a bit about what I think before they read what I say, but I am reformed only in that reformed theology agrees with me in many ways, and fits my theology better than any other.)

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

I think the terms that you might be looking for is the permissive will of God and the prescriptive will of God. There is no competition between satan and God, God created satan and God is all powerful.

Actually God did not create satan, He created a being who rebelled and wanted to be like God who fell from heaven and was cast our from his rebellion and became satan. Everything God created was good and satan is the absence of everything good.

 

[disciple Clint]

Actually God did not create satan, He created a being who rebelled and wanted to be like God who fell from heaven and was cast our from his rebellion and became satan. Everything God created was good and satan is the absence of everything good.

OK I am with you on that to some degree but satan is a created being, he was not created evil, but he along with everything else was created by God. We are all God's creation.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

OK I am with you on that to some degree but satan is a created being, he was not created evil, but he along with everything else was created by God. We are all God's creation.

Agreed !

 

[fhansen]

Why do you go here?

IF your anchor is Scripture alone, sans Tradition, then you’ll have a problem. That's why I went there.

I'm saying that the Scripture is the authority and not the interpretation of it.

And, um, how does that help? It seems like a distinction without a difference at the end of the day. The RCC teaches that Scripture is inerrant on matters pertaining to our salvation and yet that we must understand the intention of its authors or else its inerrant revelation can’t really do us much good.

Why do you go here? I didn't say otherwise. I'm saying that the Scripture is the authority and not the interpretation of it. This is why interpretation HAS to be buffered (for lack of a better word immediately available to my weak mind) by scripture.

So we go to Scripture to test our understanding of Scripture. Then I guess we must repeat, going to Scripture again to test that last understanding of Scripture??!! Again, we necessarily go by whatever our latest interpretation is.

ALL of it is in need of correction and refinement. Our understanding certainly is. And THAT is my point.

The problem is that, while bible scholarship is always a good thing, Scriptural interpretation is not simply a matter of "may the best exegete win", as if anyone with the right educational background and intellectual acumen should be able to just pick up the book at any time and necessarily understand the full-true gospel apart from the historical understanding of the church that received it. There's naturally a sort of familial historical legacy that informs us when we can't otherwise have certainty about just what the family believed and did in the past. Yes, doctrine and dogma can develop as we develop, growing in our understanding of the light shed 2000+ years ago, but they don't reverse course, they're simply better known and explicated.

This is superfluous to the point.

It's actually totally to the point. In the example there is major disagreement on a matter of soteriology within the Christian world, among other such disagreements and resulting divisions. And it’s a matter of where one draws the line, and who has the authority to do so anyway; can we even agree on where the line should be drawn? Where is agreement found, and is it enough or sufficient? The doctrines of Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura are already divisive and confusion-causing as it is IMO.

Here you have contradicted yourself, the teachings of the one are never quite the teachings of scripture, according to your first paragraph. They are not in unison.

No, my first paragraph only acknowledges that, going by Scripture alone, plausible conflicts occur, not that the church's teachings, which aren't derived from Scripture alone, are in conflict with Scripture. Many of the opinions derived from Scripture alone can be correct or incorrect.

Not all? Why Catholic, then? (It's only a dig. I call myself Reformed so people know a bit about what I think before they read what I say, but I am reformed only in that reformed theology agrees with me in many ways, and fits my theology better than any other.)

Not all because I haven't studied the peripherals as much as the basic core teachings, especially regarding justification, what it means and takes to be saved. Other than that; we're all human, limited in our understanding, and we go with the best we have and know at any given point in time as your statement here implies as well. The bottom line to me: the Reformers threw the doctrinal baby out with the bath water. But also bottom-line: we all know that God cannot be mocked, that what we choose to do, every day, counts- towards where we end up. We should never presume salvation.

 

[Mark Quayle]

So we go to Scripture to test our understanding of Scripture. Then I guess we must repeat, going to Scripture again to test that last understanding of Scripture??!! Again, we necessarily go by whatever our latest interpretation is.

You miss my point. It is a bit like looking at a distant galaxy with a multitude of telescopes and other instruments. You see an anomaly with one, it means nothing if the others disagree. Scripture governs interpretation, and no interpretation brings complete understanding. There are always more devices (passages) with which to see the distant galaxy. No final decision needs to be made.

The problem is that, while bible scholarship is always a good thing, Scriptural interpretation is not simply a matter of "may the best exegete win", as if anyone with the right educational background and intellectual acumen should be able to just pick up the book at any time and necessarily understand the full-true gospel apart from the historical understanding of the church that received it. There's naturally a sort of familial historical legacy that informs us when we can't otherwise have certainty about just what the family believed and did in the past. Yes, doctrine and dogma can develop as we develop, growing in our understanding of the light shed 2000+ years ago, but they don't reverse course, they're simply better known and explicated.

No exegete has it quite right. Some better than others. The best admit there is more to it than what they have said.

It's actually totally to the point. In the example there is major disagreement on a matter of soteriology within the Christian world, among other such disagreements and resulting divisions. And it’s a matter of where one draws the line, and who has the authority to do so anyway; can we even agree on where the line should be drawn? Where is agreement found, and is it enough or sufficient? The doctrines of Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura are already divisive and confusion-causing as it is IMO.

And therein lies the problem. You assume the RCC (or whatever denomination/ division) is a final authority. They are nowhere nearly so. It is impossible for them to have it all figured out. I say nobody does, but all must refer back to scripture to govern our thoughts, conclusions, etc.

No, my first paragraph only acknowledges that, going by Scripture alone, plausible conflicts occur, not that the church's teachings, which aren't derived from Scripture alone, are in conflict with Scripture. Many of the opinions derived from Scripture alone can be correct or incorrect.

Of course. So what? Why do we need a final decision about any of it?

Take just for a simple example, the question of who/what is God. While there is much that reason and philosophy, and conversation among the redeemed can do to help others among the redeemed to think and understand, there is no final statement. And still, of course, all our thoughts and readings from scripture must be governed by other scripture.

Not all because I haven't studied the peripherals as much as the basic core teachings, especially regarding justification, what it means and takes to be saved. Other than that; we're all human, limited in our understanding, and we go with the best we have and know at any given point in time as your statement here implies as well. The bottom line to me: the Reformers threw the doctrinal baby out with the bath water. But also bottom-line: we all know that God cannot be mocked, that what we choose to do, every day, counts- towards where we end up. We should never presume salvation.

Exactly HOW did the Reformers throw out the doctrinal baby? Simply by rejecting the doctrinal authority of the RCC?

And yes, we should never presume salvation if we sin, yet his Spirit witnesses to our spirit that we are the children of God. But even better than the feeling of eternal security, we have the promise (not to mention the sure logic) that God will accomplish everything he set out to do, And he is very satisfied with that! (And I get to watch!)

 

[fhansen]

You miss my point. It is a bit like looking at a distant galaxy with a multitude of telescopes and other instruments. You see an anomaly with one, it means nothing if the others disagree. Scripture governs interpretation, and no interpretation brings complete understanding. There are always more devices (passages) with which to see the distant galaxy. No final decision needs to be made.

Ok, so we don't need to know the faith that Jesus came to reveal after all. Ok, great. I think I'd read your post here again-I'm not sure that you got your point. And Scripture governs interpretation? That's a little vague, or something, since Scripture is the material being interpreted. I mean the truth is that Scripture isn't perspicous and is often vague and seemingly even ambigous or contradictory, in fact.

And therein lies the problem. You assume the RCC (or whatever denomination/ division) is a final authority. They are nowhere nearly so. It is impossible for them to have it all figured out. I say nobody does, but all must refer back to scripture to govern our thoughts, conclusions, etc.

It's not a matter of having it all figured out. Its a matter of knowing God's will, by His revelation to the fullest extent we can and as He desires for us. And for that we need both Scripture and Tradition, along with the guidance of His Church by the Holy Spirit. Fairly simple.

No exegete has it quite right. Some better than others. The best admit there is more to it than what they have said.

Good, we cannot rely strictly on exegesis, on exegeting the bible alone, IOW.

Of course. So what? Why do we need a final decision about any of it?

Um, so we know God's will for man?? We admit that Scripture often can't give us clear answers on some teachings so we draw our line further back in the sand now and say we don't need to know?

Take just for a simple example, the question of who/what is God. While there is much that reason and philosophy, and conversation among the redeemed can do to help others among the redeemed to think and understand, there is no final statement. And still, of course, all our thoughts and readings from scripture must be governed by other scripture.

So, how about we stick with things that should be and are intended to be more immediately and easily knowable, such as what does God require of us in order to be saved? Faith, alone? Faith and Baptism? Faith, hope, and, love expressing themselves in a life worthy of a child of His? Are we OSAS? Does man's will play a meaningful role in his own salvation? Is Jesus God? Does that really matter?

Exactly HOW did the Reformers throw out the doctrinal baby? Simply by rejecting the doctrinal authority of the RCC?

No by coming up with bad theology.

And yes, we should never presume salvation if we sin, yet his Spirit witnesses to our spirit that we are the children of God. But even better than the feeling of eternal security, we have the promise (not to mention the sure logic) that God will accomplish everything he set out to do, And he is very satisfied with that! (And I get to watch!)

Yes, God predetermines that some will spend a wonderful eternity in heaven while others are tormented forever and ever according to your theology, I believe. But that, in itself, doesn't mean that we know with absolute certainty just where we'll end up watching from. Much surer evidence than the
Spirit bearing witness-since that's highly subjective- are the fruits that we should bear ourselves, in union with the Spirit.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Ok, so we don't need to know the faith that Jesus came to reveal after all. Ok, great. I think I'd read your post here again-I'm not sure that you got your point. And Scripture governs interpretation? That's a little vague, or something, since Scripture is the material being interpreted. I mean the truth is that Scripture isn't perspicous and is often vague and seemingly even ambigous or contradictory, in fact.
It's not a matter of having it all figured out. Its a matter of knowing God's will, by His revelation to the fullest extent we can and as He desires for us. And for that we need both Scripture and Tradition, along with the guidance of His Church by the Holy Spirit. Fairly simple.
Good, we cannot rely strictly on exegesis, on exegeting the bible alone, IOW.
Um, so we know God's will for man?? We admit that Scripture often can't give us clear answers on some teachings so we draw our line further back in the sand now and say we don't need to know?
So, how about we stick with things that should be and are intended to be more immediately and easily knowable, such as what does God require of us in order to be saved? Faith, alone? Faith and Baptism? Faith, hope, and, love expressing themselves in a life worthy of a child of His? Are we OSAS? Does man's will play a meaningful role in his own salvation? Is Jesus God? Does that really matter?
No by coming up with bad theology.
Yes, God predetermines that some will spend a wonderful eternity in heaven while others are tormented forever and ever according to your theology, I believe. But that, in itself, doesn't mean that we know with absolute certainty just where we'll end up watching from. Much surer evidence than the
Spirit bearing witness-since that's highly subjective- are the fruits that we should bear ourselves, in union with the Spirit.

That's quite a bit of misreading there, of what I am saying. I don't imply what you seem to find worthy of a sarcastic reply by way of inference. I could just as easily infer from what you say, supposing it to be your implications, that the Scripture does not deal with faith, nor with what Christ came to do, nor with knowing God's will, nor with sufficient clarity of most things that we don't know how to deal with what we DO understand, without the guidance of Mother Church.

I don't mean to disparage the Church, but it does not equal the Word of God in usefulness nor in authority. In fact, it has no rule over conscience.

My purpose here is not to be contentious, or I could go on for a long time with a tirade against what you say.

 

[fhansen]

That's quite a bit of misreading there, of what I am saying. I don't imply what you seem to find worthy of a sarcastic reply by way of inference. I could just as easily infer from what you say, supposing it to be your implications, that the Scripture does not deal with faith, nor with what Christ came to do, nor with knowing God's will, nor with sufficient clarity of most things that we don't know how to deal with what we DO understand, without the guidance of Mother Church.

I don't mean to disparage the Church, but it does not equal the Word of God in usefulness nor in authority. In fact, it has no rule over conscience.

My purpose here is not to be contentious, or I could go on for a long time with a tirade against what you say.

Im sorry if I was a bit snarky. I think it might be coming with age. The problem for me was that I finally had to admit that the Emperor, Sola Scriptura, has no clothes. When one realizes and acknowledges that it’s not the Word of God that their defending, but rather their understanding of what that Word means to tell us, then they see the issue clearly. You, when interpreting Scripture, play no role different than the Church does. And the Church, for its part, in the east and in the west, recognizes that the revealed Word of God is contained in both Scripture and Tradition.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Im sorry if I was a bit snarky. I think it might be coming with age. The problem for me was that I finally had to admit that the Emperor, Sola Scriptura, has no clothes. When one realizes and acknowledges that it’s not the Word of God that their defending, but rather their understanding of what that Word means to tell us, then they see the issue clearly. You, when interpreting Scripture, play no role different than the Church does. And the Church, for its part, in the east and in the west, recognizes that the revealed Word of God is contained in both Scripture and Tradition.

But you are accusing without understanding what you are accusing. (Not that I don't do the same —God help all of us!) But it sounds like at least you are admitting that Sola Scriptura could be valid, if in fact that IS what they are defending and not their understanding of what the Word means to them

One reformer I know considers it one of the tenets of Reformed Theology that we creatures are always to be improving our understanding of Scripture. We cannot understand the things that are true, except to some degree. It is easier to prove something wrong than to prove something else right. And, as I have been trying many times now to say, it is words that can be right, not understanding, and even that is if they are words that we get directly from the Bible —not our paraphrases nor arrangements of them.

 

[fhansen]

But you are accusing without understanding what you are accusing. (Not that I don't do the same —God help all of us!) But it sounds like at least you are admitting that Sola Scriptura could be valid, if in fact that IS what they are defending and not their understanding of what the Word means to them

One reformer I know considers it one of the tenets of Reformed Theology that we creatures are always to be improving our understanding of Scripture. We cannot understand the things that are true, except to some degree. It is easier to prove something wrong than to prove something else right. And, as I have been trying many times now to say, it is words that can be right, not understanding, and even that is if they are words that we get directly from the Bible —not our paraphrases nor arrangements of them.

Ok, and how am I "accusing without understanding what you are accusing"? The problem is that Scripture simply cannot serve as the Reformers intended it to serve: as the rule of faith, because while it may be-and is-perfectly right, we are the ones determining what it means to say, and we can be wrong. Scripture does not provide a voice independent of the reader so that it may speak for itself and settle controversies when they arise. The church has served that very purpose. Scripture is valid, Sola Scriptura is fallacious.

We can always grow in our knowledge of God and His will. We're inspired in that journey by Scripture, Tradition, and our experience with Him as the Holy Spirit lives and works in us. But the two "streams of revelation", as the church has called Scripture and Tradition, must be correctly understood in order for them to fully serve their purpose in any case, which is to know the will of God, particularly as it pertains to our salvation. To say that we're never quite fully "there" in our understanding can never be a justification for important disagreements, as that could make knowing the Christian faith a virtual free-for-all at the end of the day. Everyone draws the line somewhere as to what constitutes heresy, for example, and what does not.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Ok, and how am I "accusing without understanding what you are accusing"? The problem is that Scripture simply cannot serve as the Reformers intended it to serve: as the rule of faith, because while it may be-and is-perfectly right, we are the ones determining what it means to say. Scripture does not provide a voice independent of the reader so that it may speak for itself and settle controversies when they arise. The church has served that very purpose. Scripture is valid, Sola Scriptura is fallacious.

Because in essence, you are accusing Reformed of defending only what they think (or claim) scripture to say, and not actual Scripture.

Granted the Reformed do defend what they think Scripture teaches, including Sola Scriptura, but Sola Scriptura is the very precept that says Scripture trumps even all concepts and arrangements concerning scripture. (BTW, I don't see you commenting on what I said before, as to whether Sola Scriptura would be valid, were it to be Scripture we defended and not our precepts.) But you too —in fact, all humans— defend what they believe until something they see or hear or think of convinces them otherwise. Part of the reason for these forums is that very thing, to attempt to defend what one believes and to convince others of the worth of what one defends. It doesn't make absolute, anyone's understanding.

 

[Valletta]

Because in essence, you are accusing Reformed of defending only what they think (or claim) scripture to say, and not actual Scripture.

Granted the Reformed do defend what they think Scripture teaches, including Sola Scriptura, but Sola Scriptura is the very precept that says Scripture trumps even all concepts and arrangements concerning scripture. (BTW, I don't see you commenting on what I said before, as to whether Sola Scriptura would be valid, were it to be Scripture we defended and not our precepts.) But you too —in fact, all humans— defend what they believe until something they see or hear or think of convinces them otherwise. Part of the reason for these forums is that very thing, to attempt to defend what one believes and to convince others of the worth of what one defends. It doesn't make absolute, anyone's understanding.

Never did Jesus say he was turning over His authority to Holy Scripture. The idea of giving a book authority really caught on over a thousand years after Jesus walked on this Earth, from two Christians who listened to an Arab theologian tell of how the Kuran was the authority for Muslims.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Scripture shows Christ referring to the Bible as the authority by which to judge the doctrines and philosophy of others. In the New Testament and the Old, there are many verses showing the superiority of the uses of Scripture.

The Bible is not merely "a book", like any other.

But most astounding, is the notion that Christ would need to 'turn over' his authority, to Scripture.

There is at least one reason that both are referred to as the Word of God.

 

[Valletta]

Scripture shows Christ referring to the Bible as the authority by which to judge the doctrines and philosophy of others. In the New Testament and the Old, there are many verses showing the superiority of the uses of Scripture.

The Bible is not merely "a book", like any other.

But most astounding, is the notion that Christ would need to 'turn over' his authority, to Scripture.

There is at least one reason that both are referred to as the Word of God.

Scripture is not superior to Jesus. Jesus used a lot of the OT which had prefigured what was to come. And He also explained to groups of Jews how they had misused or misunderstood Holy Scripture. But never did He cede power to a future book, nor did he instruct his disciples to go forth and hand out Bibles. Instead Jesus renamed Simon as Rock and built His Church upon Rock.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Scripture is not superior to Jesus. Jesus used a lot of the OT which had prefigured what was to come. And He also explained to groups of Jews how they had misused or misunderstood Holy Scripture. But never did He cede power to a future book, nor did he instruct his disciples to go forth and hand out Bibles. Instead Jesus renamed Simon as Rock and built His Church upon Rock.

Of course Scripture is not superior to Jesus! Who was implying such a thing? But Scripture is superior to the rest of us. Nor have I implied that there is no need for preaching, teaching, exposition and interpretation.

As for the play on words with Simon as rock, as I expect you know, there is more than one way to take that. And there is more than one way to look at such things as Apostolic succession, and the need for intermediaries other than Christ.