Thoughts on Infallibility (Article IIe): Peter and James

The Series Thus Far

• Article I
• Article IIa
• Article IIb
• Article IIc
• Interlude
• Article IId

Introduction

One of the most common arguments against the leadership of Peter is based around a passage in Galatians 2:

^{11 }And when Kephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he clearly was wrong.

^12 For, until some people came from James, ^he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to draw back and separated himself, because he was afraid of the circumcised.

^13 And the rest of the Jews ^(also) acted hypocritically along with him, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy.

^14 But when I saw that they were not on the right road in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Kephas in front of all, “If you, though a Jew, are living like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

The argument is that because Paul withstood Peter to his face and because people came from James that Peter withdrew from eating with the Gentiles, it means Peter could not have been the leader of the Apostles.  These verses are often used to interpret other passages (such as James role in Acts 15) to claim it was James, not Peter, who was head of the Church.

Other Christians who deny any Apostle had leadership of the Church still use this passage, while overlooking the claims to the primacy of James.

The Issue to Be Explored

In Article IIc and IId I pointed out things from the Gospels and Acts which demonstrated some of the Scriptural basis for Catholic belief in the primacy of Peter, showing Christ's promises and Peter's actions once Christ had ascended to Heaven.

It stands to reason that any person wishing to argue the Primacy of James within the Church is just as obligated as the Catholic to demonstrate his position from Scripture and the understanding of the early Christians.  The person who would argue that Catholics have to "stretch" the meaning of Scripture to justify their position must meet the same burden of proof that he or she puts on the Catholic.

So the question is: Does such evidence exist, or is it nothing more than the fallacy of the fictitious question arguing that a thing could have happened without demonstrating that it did happen?

Let us then look at the person of James, sometimes called James the Just or James, brother of the Lord.

Who was James?

This isn't a facetious question here.  Since there were at least two James in the Bible (some scholars claim three), we need to be clear on which James we are talking about.

We do know that it was not James, son of Zebedee (Matt 10:17) and brother of John (Mark 3:17), because he was killed by Herod in Acts 12:2, while the James in question was at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15.

So the question is whether he was the Apostle James, son of Alphaeus (Acts 1:13), which some Biblical scholars believe or whether James the Just was another person.  Personally I find it interesting to note that Luther did not believe that James, author of the Epistle of James, was an Apostle, and seems to have used this belief to justify his dislike of the Epistle of James.

The reason some scholars are not certain on this, is St. James the Lesser is identified as "Son of Alphaeus" while James who wrote the Epistle of James identifies himself as "a slave of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes in the dispersion" but not as an apostle as Paul and Peter both did.  I don't think it logically follows that his not identifying himself as an apostle proves he wasn't [That feels like an argument from silence to me].  I merely report this to show that the issue is not open and shut.  We aren't sure who this James was in relation to the Apostles.

And this is our first problem with the claim of James' primacy.  We're not even sure who he was.  We know who Peter was and who Paul was with no confusion, and have Scripture and Patristics speaking about them.  But James is mentioned so infrequently that one who wishes to argue James as the head of the Church needs to explain why nobody knows much about him.

What Did James Do?

Unlike Peter, who was the driving force of Acts 1-15, and Paul who was the driving force from Acts 16 on, James has a very small role in Acts, appearing in these situations:

• In Acts 12:17, Peter tells the people gathered in the home of Mary, Mother of John Mark, to notify James of God's delivering him from captivity.
• Acts 15:13ff has James propose a solution based on Peter's decree and Paul's testimony.
• In Acts 21:18, Paul visits James in Jerusalem and tells him of what he experienced on his travels.

That's it.  The other mentions of James in Acts was of James son of Zebedee.

So the problem with trying to make James the head of the Church is that Acts says nothing which can support it.  Now silence neither proves a thing nor disproves a thing.  It merely means there is nothing said on the subject, and thus it cannot be invoked as evidence.

Now some people might argue that mentions of James in the Epistles indicate a greater role, but I believe this is an example of begging the question: assuming as true what needs to be proven, AND arguing in a circle.  James being seen as the leader of the Church on the basis of Galatians 2 is assuming Peter is not the head of the Church when reading these verses.  But that is what the person who is claiming the primacy of James has to prove.

The only thing that Galatians 2 tells us was that Peter, James and John met with Paul and gave him the mission to the gentiles, and that Peter, wishing to avoid controversy with people from James, ate apart from Gentiles.

The Unavoidable Contradiction

To those who argue that Peter was acting this way because James was head of the Church, a contradiction comes into play here.

In Acts 15, James proposes the solution to the gentile Christians.  Peter, before the arrival of James' disciples, was doing what the Apostles had decided on.  Therefore, if Peter withdrew from eating with gentiles because he feared the authority of James, it means James was enforcing something contrary to what he allegedly "decreed" (if you accept the interpretation of the authority of James over the Church).

Could This Encounter Have Happened Before Acts 15?

Some might argue in response that perhaps this was before the Council of Jerusalem.  This is not entirely impossible.  After all, there are two cities called Antioch in the region, and one of them is in Galatia, but since Paul sailed to Antioch from Attalia in Acts 14:26,  it would have to be the Antioch in the province of Syria, since the one in Galatia is in the middle of Turkey, and one gets there from Attalia by going north by land. 

Indeed, when Paul travels from Antioch (where "they spent no little time with the disciples") to Jerusalem, he travels south through Phoenicia and Samaria, which indicates they are in Syria heading south, not in Galatia, where he would have to take a ship.

So geographically, it seems that when this issue arose over Gentiles needing to live as Jews, Paul was not in the Antioch of Galatia, but in the Antioch of Syria.  Therefore, prior to Acts 15, the incident in Galatians 2 could not have occurred.

There is another problem with arguing Galatians was written before Acts 15: if this be the case, and James had not yet "ruled" on the issue (which presupposes James led the Church), then Paul had no basis on which to withstand Peter to his face.

It is only if the issue of accepting Gentiles as Christians had already been settled, that Paul could have any basis for withstanding Peter to his face.

Galatians Assumes the Authority of Peter

However, once this is accepted we have to recognize that the one who settled the issue of admitting Gentiles as Christians was settled by Peter in Acts 10:48.  So the only reason Paul could object to Peter's actions would be if he was failing to practice what he himself had taught was acceptable.

Now, from a perspective of infallibility, if Peter was not infallible when commanding the gentiles be baptized, then he could have made an error then instead of in Galatians 2, which would make Paul in the wrong.  Only if one accepts the notion of God protecting Peter from error do we have the assurance that Peter did not make a mistake.

However, since infallibility does not mean sinlessness, Peter could indeed teach something infallibly and live in a way contrary to what he taught without contradicting the belief in infallibility.

Misunderstanding Authority, Infallibility and the Catholic Church

Now I have read some who challenge the Catholic position because "If Peter were Pope, Paul would not have opposed him."  Matthew Henry argues something similar in denying that Peter could have been head of the Church in Antioch based on Paul's reaction for example.  Such a view demonstrates a lack of knowledge of Catholic history and teaching.  Most notably, a lack of knowledge of St. Catherine of Sienna, who challenged the Pope strongly to leave Avignon and return to Rome (encouraging him to do what was right) in ways which are similar to Paul withstanding Peter to his face.

Believing the Pope has authority over the Church does not mean we believe he is sinless in his life, or is infallible in making decisions concerning civil government.  There can be and have been examples of sin in the lives of Popes, and saints have called on such Popes to live as they ought to live.

So this kind of argument does not disprove the Catholic claim.  It merely displays a lack of knowledge of what the Catholics claim.

Patristic Interpretations of Scripture and the Problems with Citing Eusebius

Since there is no Scriptural evidence to justify the primacy of James, some try to look for Patristic discussion of Scripture as evidence.  The problem is, there is no Patristic evidence for the claim either, though some try to make it work.  When one searches for Patristic writings to justify the primacy of James, usually they make reference to one statement from Eusebius which indicates James the Just was chosen bishop of Jerusalem by the Apostles.  This section reads as follows:

2 Then James, whom the ancients surnamed the Just on account of the excellence of his virtue, is recorded to have been the first to be made bishop of the church of Jerusalem. This James was called the brother of the Lord because he was known as a son of Joseph, and Joseph was supposed to be the father of Christ, because the Virgin, being betrothed to him, “was found with child by the Holy Ghost before they came together,” as the account of the holy Gospels shows.

3 But Clement in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes writes thus: “For they say that Peter and James and John after the ascension of our Saviour, as if also preferred by our Lord, strove not after honor, but chose James the Just bishop of Jerusalem.”

Schaff, P. (1997). The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Second Series Vol. I. Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine the Great, and Oration in Praise of Constantine. (104).

"Bishop of Jerusalem" is significant here.  Since this is distinguished from the Church itself, it seems to indicate a local leadership.  At any rate, it does not prove universal leadership over the Church.

Moreover, those who would cite this as rejection of Petrine authority have to deal with some other interesting claims of Eusebius, such as his denial that it was Peter who Paul rebuked in Galatians 2:

2 They say that Sosthenes also, who wrote to the Corinthians with Paul, was one of them. This is the account of Clement in the fifth book of his Hypotyposes, in which he also says that Cephas was one of the seventy disciples, a man who bore the same name as the apostle Peter, and the one concerning whom Paul says, “When Cephas came to Antioch I withstood him to his face.”  [Emphasis added]

Schaff, P. (1997). The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Second Series Vol. I. Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine the Great, and Oration in Praise of Constantine. (99).

So, to accept Eusebius (who cites Clement in both instances) as a source to reject the Primacy of Peter means to reject the main verse of Scripture which is used to deny the primacy of Peter: After all, if Cephas was a person distinct from Peter, then this verse cannot prove Peter was subject to James, and the argument collapses.

Likewise, if one wants to invoke Eusebius here, one must also accept Eusebius when (in speaking about the canon of Scripture) he says:

8 And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, ‘against which the gates of hell shall not prevail,’ has left one acknowledged epistle; perhaps also a second, but this is doubtful.  [Emphasis added]

Schaff, P. (1997). The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Second Series Vol. I. Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine the Great, and Oration in Praise of Constantine. (273).

Since Eusebius merely says that James was made bishop of Jerusalem (the reader is reminded that Paul appointed bishops and presbyters as well wherever they went), and acknowledges Peter as the rock Jesus will build His Church on, one who cites Eusebius against the Catholic claims are trapped into accepting that the rock in Matthew 16:18 was Peter as well, and thus is left with the obligation to explain how Peter could be the rock on which the Church was built but James led the Church.

(An aside for those who will ask.  At the time of Eusebius' writing, the canon of Scripture was not yet formalized and some doubted the canonicity of 2 Peter).  It was not until the Church defined the canon of Scripture in AD 381 that the issue was settled which books of the Bible were recognized officially.  While an important point in the issue of Bible and Church concerning authority, this is outside the scope of this article).

Quite simply, this selection of Eusebius does not justify a claim that James was the leader of the Church, and a reading which claims otherwise is based on the assumption that it could not be Peter.

On the other hand, the Catholic claim is not threatened by Eusebius, as we believe James was head of the local Church in Jerusalem, but not of the universal Church.

There is No Case for James

The problem with the case for James is it simply does not exist.  If we do not know whether James was an Apostle or not, If we do not know what he did outside of these verses, if the witness of the Early Christians do not attest to any actions of James in the history of the Church, then one cannot claim it is proven that James led the entire Church and Peter was subordinate to him.  There simply is no evidence for James being head of the Church, and any claim to do so is based on an attempt to reject the Catholic claim to Peter.

On the other hand, the Catholic claims for the primacy of Peter is backed by Scripture and patristic writings, so as it stands, the Catholic case remains standing against the challenges that it is unbiblical and the challenges that it was James who led the Church.

People may disagree with the Catholic teaching, and I understand this.  However, the counter theories also require evidence in their favor if they are to be considered credible.

These counter-theories however do not provide evidence.  They merely depend on a personal interpretation of the Bible that presupposes Peter could not be head of the Church.

Conclusion: The Dilemma Summed Up

Here is the dilemma which faces one who seeks to use this argument to deny the Catholic belief must face: Do you believe James was head of the Church or do you not?

If one believes that James was head of the Church, then it stands to reason that his teachings must be heeded.  Yet, the idea of faith alone goes directly against what James taught, when he said, "See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone," in James 2:24. 

Now I am not here to debate beliefs like Sola fide in this article.  Rather, I wish to show there is an inconsistency among some who claim James was head of the Church while asserting something which James specifically rejected. 

So if James was head of the Church, why do those who claim he and not Peter had leadership of the Church (and remember, that by accepting the premise that James decreed the decision in Acts 15, one accepts he had authority to do so) fail to keep his teaching against faith alone?

Yet if he did not have authority to lead the Church and impose this decision, then the case for James entirely collapses.  Either he had the authority to make the decision in Acts 15 or he did not.  If he did, it follows he had authority to bind in other areas.  If he did not, he had no authority to compel Peter or Paul in Galatians.

Beliefs have consequences.  If I believe Jesus gave Peter the authority to tend His sheep then it follows that I need to give heed to his successors.  If I do not believe this, any counterclaim I have may be judged based on how I act.  Do I act as if I believe it or not?

To invoke the idea of James being head of the Church requires us to look at the beliefs of the one who claims it.  From what I have found, the arguments used to make this claim compared to the beliefs of the individuals making it indicates that the one who uses the claim to James does not really believe it, but merely seeks to deny the Catholic claim about Peter.

For the Next Time

I think I've covered Peter enough for now.  I can now move on to Article III and look at the claims the Catholic Church makes about the authority and infallibility of the Pope.  I think it is important to look at this because the claims of the Church are so often misunderstood or misrepresented.

Thoughts on Infallibility (Article IId): Peter, Leadership in the Church and Acts

The Series So Far

• Article I
• Article IIa
• Article IIb
• Article IIc
• Interlude

Preliminary Warning

That Non-Catholics readers will probably disagree with Catholic belief in this area is expected.  However, please spare me comments that verse X:XX of the Book of Y "proves" me wrong.  The reader's personal interpretation of a Scriptural verse means nothing.  How the early Christians understood the Scripture is what matters if one wants to argue that the Catholic Church imposed the papacy later.

The Non-Catholic may disagree with this article.  However, the question is whether it can be established that their understanding of Scripture was believed in the early Church.

Introduction

As I pointed out before in this series, the challenge to show "Peter was the first Pope" made by some is the wrong question.  I wrote:

…asking the question “Was Peter the first Pope?” is the wrong way of framing the question. If one believes it, one looks for evidence to show the answer in the affirmative. If one does not believe it, one looks for evidence to disprove it.  Each side grows frustrated with the other side and assumes they are acting from ignorance or obstinacy.

A better question would be, “What was the role of Peter in the early Church?” This is a question which can be answered by the data of scripture and of history of the earliest Christians.

The challenge is made with the thought in mind to demand proof that Peter did the same things as Pope Benedict XVI does, with the belief that since Peter did not do certain things the current Pope does (this usually has to do with the trappings of the office) it means Peter was not the first Pope.

This sort of challenge demonstrates a lack of understanding of the Catholic belief.  The real question is, whether there is evidence of Peter displaying leadership over the Church.  If Peter was leader of the Church, then it seems that the differences certain people object to is nothing more than the difference of governing the Church when it was small (3,000 people) and governing the Church when it had a billion people.  Of Course the leadership of the Church must necessarily take different forms as the situation changes, but this does not change the fact of leadership existing.  Bill Gates may have run things differently when Microsoft was a small business than when it became a massive corporation, but it does not follow that the institution in 2010 was a different entity than what called itself Microsoft in 1975, and the current institution has no connection to the group of 1975.

Thus to argue that the Pope does X, but we see no mention of Peter doing X is entirely irrelevant to the point.  The question is, "did Peter display behavior which shows leadership of the Church as it existed at that time?"

In past articles (IIa-IIc) I have discussed Peter and the promises and actions made by Christ which indicates a role of primacy for Peter.  Obviously, in the consideration of Acts we will need to see whether the behavior of Peter and the behavior of the Apostles indicate a role of leadership for Peter as the Catholics believe.

The Fallacy of the Fictitious Question

Historian David Fischer has written about what he terms the fallacy of the fictitious question.  He describes this as: "an attempt to demonstrate by empirical method what might have happened in history as if in fact it actually had." 

Fischer uses an example of some historians using certain data from the 19th century to argue that railroads were not as important to the development of the United States as  previously thought, using data such as prices to ship by rail compared to by water.  Fischer points out that this data does not change the fact that railroads did become prominent in 19th century America.  In other words, the best theoretical case means nothing if it did not in fact happen this way.

It is an important distinction to make.  What might have been the case is worthless.  What was the case is what we are concerned with.  Many people have tried to argue for James as the head of the Church for example.  However, to argue that James could have been the head of the Church based on one passage in Acts 15 is not establishing that James was head of the Church. (I will look at this issue in Article IIe, the conclusion of Part II in this series).

Therefore, someone who asserts James as head of the Church to reject the Catholic claim of Peter is just as obligated to demonstrate a consistent portrayal of James' leadership to prove their assertion. 

The Fallacy of the Argument from Silence

The Argument from Silence is a fallacy that claims that since there is nothing against a certain interpretation, it must therefore be true, or alternately since there is nothing for a certain interpretation it must be false.

For example, the Bible Commentary by Matthew Henry offers this interpretation of the Apostles and the records:

When, upon the conversion of thousands, the church was divided into several societies, perhaps Peter and John presided in that which Luke associated with, and therefore he is more particular in recording what they said and did, as afterwards what Paul said and did when he attended him, both the one and the other being designed for specimens of what the other apostles did.

Henry, M. (1996, c1991). Matthew Henry's commentary on the whole Bible : Complete and unabridged in one volume (Ac 3:1). Peabody: Hendrickson.

Now, we don't have a record of most of what the other Apostles did.  We see John mentioned in passing, and James mentioned in Acts 15.  It would be an argument from silence to either argue that the others did the same things or that it means they did nothing.

All we know from Acts is what the author chose to emphasize, and that in believing Scripture is inspired, that what was included was important for us.

Argumentum ad numerum (Appeal to numbers) fallacy

The Argumentum ad numerum fallacy is also sometimes employed in Acts.  I've seen some people object to the Catholic belief in the primacy of Peter on the grounds that Acts (concerning Paul) and Paul's epistles fill up more of the Bible than Peter's role in Acts and Peter's epistles.  Mere volume is not proof of importance.  It is what role is presented that indicates authority or not.

Peter v. The Apostles?

It would be incorrect to assume Catholics believe that Peter's authority was in opposition to the Apostles.  So appeals to actions of the other Apostles does not demonstrate a case of disproving the Catholic claim.  Nor does a reference to the Apostles being in agreement mean that there was no head of the Church.  It merely means that the apostles were in agreement on how the Church should handle an issue

Jesus v. Peter?

Now, before one tries to make a Jesus v. Peter contrast, let me say this.  In a Church that believes that Jesus is risen and is Lord, of course any human leader of the Church will be subordinate to Christ.  We do believe the Pope must follow Christ and is not free to make teachings which go against Christ.

Now, as I pointed out in the "Preliminary Warning" section, I recognize non-Catholics do believe that Catholic teachings "contradict" the Bible.  However, the issue to establish this is whether the non-Catholic interpretation of the Bible can be shown to be held by Early Christians as opposed to a 16th century interpretation of the Bible.

Defining Leadership

Of course, we ought to define what it means to lead before continuing on.  Otherwise we can end up at cross purposes here. 

The definition of "leader" is: "the person who leads or commands a group, organization, or country."  "Lead" is defined as "be in charge or command of, cause to go with one by drawing them along."

So right now in this discussion, the question is whether Peter displayed behavior in Acts which demonstrated leadership.  Generally speaking, a leader has the role of guiding the group he leads, setting the policies, drawing the line where debate ends, establishing penalties for the people who break the rules of the group.

Peter's Acts in Acts

The question is, do we see Peter taking a role of leadership over the whole Church?  We do, in several examples from Acts 1 through Acts 15 (After Acts 15,  the emphasis is on Paul's missionary work).  Now, taking one of these instances alone might seem like a stretch to claim that Peter was head of the Church.  However, once viewed in totality, we can see that the actions of Peter do confirm the behavior of the leadership bestowed by Christ.

It certainly seems that Luke's writing indicated the reader of Acts (Theophilus and others) had an understanding about Peter's role within the Church and wished to speak of the actions of Peter, just as he would speak about Paul's missionary journeys later in the book.  This indicates Peter was important enough a person to write about.

Now, if the role of Peter is portrayed to be a role of leadership, then perhaps it is reasonable and Scriptural for Catholics to recognize the authority of Peter in the Church.  If one wishes to deny this, can evidence be found for an alternate interpretation which is not merely personal opinion?

Peter Decrees the Succession of Judas

In Acts 1, we see that Peter announces the office held by Judas as an apostle was to be replaced (1:15ff).  There is no mention of consultation with the apostles or the others present.  He simply decrees that another is to be appointed in the place of Judas.  The response is not whether they should do this.  Rather it is how to carry it out.

This is also something to consider in terms of infallibility.  Was Peter right to make this decision?  Did he make a lucky guess?  If he ought not to have made this decision (which indicates that the Church can appoint successors to the apostles), then we have an example of the Apostles teaching error right from day one.

Only if we believe Peter protected from error in matters of doctrine and moral teaching can we be assured he did not err here.

Peter Speaks for the Twelve

After Pentecost (Acts 2), it is Peter who speaks to the people of Jerusalem, telling them what they must do to be saved.  The author of Luke and Acts saw fit to record the actions and speech of Peter, and only mention the rest of the apostles in passing.

Here is the dilemma.  If one wants to downplay Peter's role, and one wants to appeal to Scripture alone, one has to answer why Luke saw fit to emphasize only Peter's role, while the rest of the apostles are mentioned merely in passing.  If one appeals to Scripture alone and cannot support the view from Scripture alone, this is a contradiction.

Peter Works the First Miracle in the Church… and Defends the Church against the Sanhedrin.

In Acts 3, we see Peter heal a crippled man.  This becomes the lead in to Peter again speaking before the crowds and then to the Sanhedrin.  Again Luke emphasizes the action of Peter, and again the one who would downplay this needs to ask why Luke is emphasizing Peter, and not giving John an equal role?  It should be noted that the crowd and the Sanhedrin look to Peter as the spokesman.

Peter Passes Judgment

There are two distinct stories here.  One involving Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5).  The other, Simon the Magician.  In the first case, Ananias and Sapphira have resolved to sell property and give the proceeds to the Church.  Then they keep part of the money, while pretending to give all of it.  Now, as Peter points out, the property was theirs.  When they sold it, the money was theirs to do with as they wished.  However, claiming to donate all of it, while holding back some of what they promised to give was their sin.

Peter proclaims their sin which they thought was secret, and both fall down dead.  What we see here is an example of what Jesus told Peter in Matthew 16: "whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."  God's action demonstrates Peter does have the power to pass judgment within the Church, and that judgment will be bound in Heaven.

In the second case, Simon Magus (Acts 8) tries to buy the authority to impose hands and call down the Holy Spirit.  Peter condemns his unworthy motives.  The result is that Simon the Magician asks Peter to pray for him that what he said will not happen to him.  This seems to be an odd reaction unless it was recognized that Peter spoke with authority in doing so.  Simon does not appear to believe that Peter merely lost his temper.  He recognizes that Peter speaks in deadly earnestness, and has the authority to call this down on him.

The Baptized Do Not Receive the Holy Spirit Until Peter Imposes Hands

Here is an interesting account which shows the difference between the ministry of the apostles and the ministry of the deacons.  Peter and John go to Samaria (Acts 8:15) to pray for the Holy Spirit to be bestowed on the people.

This demonstrates a view of a hierarchic Church, not a democratic Church.  The apostles have the authority do do this, the deacons do not.  Certainly for Peter to be able to bestow the Holy Spirit indicates that Peter is not acting contrary to God's will.

Peter Baptizes Gentiles

This one is a rather important incident.  After having a vision, Peter goes to the house of Cornelius and meets a God-fearing gentile who believes.  Peter makes the decision that Gentiles can be baptized.  Peter recognizes that God makes no distinction between circumcised and uncircumcised, and from this makes a decision which will affect the entire Church: In Acts 10:48, "He ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ."

The word Προσέταξέν (Prosetaxen) means to command, to give orders, to decree.  In this case, there is no ambiguity in the Greek text of the New Testament.  This is something done by one in authority, and it is obeyed.  This is strong evidence for showing Peter as leader in the Church.

In Acts 11, some believers did disagree (and in Acts 15, we will see this disagreement did not go away) and some challenged Peter on account of this.  However, this is revealing.  The fact that they were bothered, and spoke to him, indicates a recognition of his authority to make such a decision.  If Peter did not have the authority to give such a command, the circumcised believers simply could have ignored Peter's "opinion."

Instead, Peter demonstrates this ruling was not on a whim, but carried out based on what God willed.

We also have strong evidence for infallibility in this section.  If God did not protect Peter from error, it means Peter could have made a mistake and thus just because the Holy Spirit descended on the Gentiles did not mean God wanted them baptized.

Considering the possible differences between what God intended and what Peter did, the only assurance we can have that Christians do not have to be Jews first is if Peter was protected from error in what he decreed.

God Saw fit to Deliver Peter from Captivity

In Acts 12, Herod executes James the brother of John, one of the Twelve, and imprisons Peter with the intention to do likewise.  God delivers Peter from captivity through divine assistance.  Now I don't argue that this means James was less of a Christian than Peter.  We are not arguing about personal holiness here.

Rather it indicates that God had a purpose in keeping Peter alive.  God does not do things for an arbitrary reason.  We as Christians believe God is perfectly good and just, and does all things for a reason.

So the question for the person who seeks to downplay Peter is: Why did God choose to deliver Peter from the hands of Herod, but not people like James and Stephen?

Peter at the Council of Jerusalem

It is a common assumption among those who reject the Primacy of Peter that James and not Peter was the head of the Council in Acts 15 and it was James who made the decision on how to treat with the gentile believers.

This is not supported by the text, and is in fact a reading based on the a priori assumption that Peter could not be Pope and is searching for an alternate to permit this denial.

The facts of the case are as follows:

1. Certain Jewish Christians argue that one must be circumcised to be Christian.
2. Paul disputes this and is sent to Jerusalem by his congregation to inquire about this.
3. After some debate, Peter arises and tells them of what God revealed to him, and tells the members of the circumcision party they are wrong.
4. The assembly is silenced (The Greek Ἐσίγησεν [Esigēsen] indicates that they were stilled by Peter before Paul spoke)
5. The assembly (subdued) listens to Paul's presentation on what God has done among the Gentiles.
6. James voices agreement with Peter and suggests a pastoral solution based on what Peter has said.
7. The Apostles and presbyters send Paul with their instructions on how Gentile Christians are to behave, pointing out that the Circumcision party did not teach with the permission of the Church.

One of the common arguments in favor of James leading the Church is that he proposed the solution, with the word in 15:19 of κρίνω (krinō).  The problem is, unlike Peter's command (Prosetaxen) when he baptized Gentiles, krinō can be used for suggestions as well as judgments.

Claiming that James ruled the Church on the basis of this passage is to take the passage of Scripture further than can be justified.  Since James is agreeing with what Peter has said, which silenced the assembly of Apostles and presbyters, and with Paul said, proposing a solution in line with Peter's decree and Paul's testimony, it seems he is offering a pastoral solution which reflects the doctrinal decree of Peter and the testimony of Paul.

Those who disagree with this need to demonstrate why Luke placed such an emphasis on Peter in Acts, but mentions James (who was not an Apostle) only three times in Acts (12:17, 15:13 and 21:28), and why James is mentioned three times in Galatians and once in Jude, and is believed to be the author of the Epistle of James. 

Now I don't want this to be an appeal to numbers here.  Luke also thought it important to discuss Stephen (the first Martyr of the Church) and the deacon Philip.  I am not arguing more verses proves authority.  Rather I am pointing out whom Luke saw as most important in his account on the early Church.  It seems his main focus is on Peter and Paul, and while the description of Paul shows him in his activity as a missionary, the description of Peter demonstrates one who is leading the Church.

Conclusion

I believe in pointing out instances of Peter speaking and acting demonstrate examples of leadership compatible with what Catholics believe Jesus promised.  We have shown that Catholics are not ignorant of Scripture in believing that Peter was the leader of the Church.

Now, some will argue based on certain limited verses that Peter was not head of the Church, and will use these verses to claim that James led the Church.  Now, while I touched on this briefly in my discussion on Acts 15, I recognize this needs a deeper investigation, especially in light of the references made to Galatians, Peter and Paul opposing him to his face.

The consideration of James and Peter will be the topic of Article IIe, which will (I hope) be the end of Part II of this series.

Thoughts on Infallibility (Part IIc): Other Gospel Passages Involving Peter

As I make constant references to past articles in this series, here are the links for your convenience.

• Part I can be found here
• Part IIa can be found here
• Part IIb can be found here

Introduction

Now that we have discussed Matthew 16, there are other considerations from Scripture to look at about Peter.  Some of them show Peter has an important role.  Others we will look at because it they are commonly used by non-Catholics to challenge the belief in Peter being given headship over the Church established by Christ.

As this article is lengthy in itself, it will merely focus on the Gospel passages, especially those which seem to be misinterpreted or misrepresented when it comes to rejecting the Catholic belief.  Article IId will move on to Acts and the Epistles, where, once Christ has ascended, we see how the Church carries on His teachings through Peter.

The reader is reminded that the parts of article II are not independent, but is essentially a large article broken into parts (otherwise, it would be over 10,000 words in length)

Preliminary Remarks

Some readers may notice I am focusing more on authority rather than on infallibility in this article.  This is because infallibility is necessarily linked to authority which will be bound or loosed in Heaven.  If an error is bound or loosed in Heaven, it indicates that God's authority is behind this error.

Keep in mind that the Early Christians saw the Scriptures of the New Testament as authoritative because of the source (the Apostles, or in the case of Mark and Luke, because they were written by those who knew the Apostles).  Paul, Peter, James, Jude, John, Matthew… their writings were accepted as people who had encountered Christ personally and who taught with authority.  Mark was traditionally held to be written by one who knew Peter personally.  Luke was traditionally held to be one who knew Paul personally.

We recognize that these New Testament writings are inspired and inerrant.  However, we forget the fact that they were held to be important because of who was writing them.

So we have a link: The Apostles were believed to be teaching authentically what was handed to them by Jesus, and when they made decisions (the appointment of Matthias and the Council of Jerusalem), nobody questioned their right to do so.

If God Cannot Err, He Cannot Contradict Himself

At any rate, because of the fact that what Peter binds and looses will be bound and loosed in Heaven, we ought to add a ninth syllogism to consider.

Syllogism #9

1. [God] is [inerrant] (All [A] is [B])
2. No [contradictory claims] are [inerrant] (No [C] is [B])
3. Therefore no [contradictory claims] are from [God] (Therefore no [C] is [A])

Those who disagree with the Catholic understanding of infallibility often argue that since "it doesn't exist, there is no problem," but since we have Jesus' promise directed to Peter, we do have a problem.  Either God protects Peter and his successors from error when teaching or we do have the possibility of God binding and protecting error.  Since we do acknowledge that the Church was protected from error in the case of the canon of Scripture (See article I, syllogism #4), we can see it is not unreasonable for Catholics to believe God protects the Church in other areas in terms of things essential for salvation.

Part I: Do Certain Gospel Verses in Scripture Deny the Primacy of Peter?

(Please note that this article pertains to the Gospels alone.  Passages in Acts (Such as Acts 15) and the Epistles (such as Galatians 2) will come in Article IId.  I haven't overlooked these.  This separation is done to keep these articles from going on too long.)

Did Jesus Revoke His Promise?

So let's look at the allegation that certain passages revoke the promise made to Peter (and a promise was made, to Peter specifically in the second person) in Matthew 16.  I have come across some groups who claim that even if Jesus did make a promise to Peter, Peter's later actions in Scripture show that he lost the rights to this promise.

However, if we accept Syllogism #9, we can't accept this interpretation.  If Jesus, being God (See article IIb Syllogism #8) is inerrant, then for Him to revoke a promise He made would be to contradict Himself.  Was He wrong in making the promise?  Or wrong in revoking it?  Catholics don't believe Christ did revoke His promise to Peter, but those who do claim this need to recognize that a God who does not err does not make promises He is unwilling to keep.

Therefore we need to keep syllogism #9 in mind when looking at the argument against infallibility from Matthew 16:20-23, which reads:

^21 From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he ^must go to Jerusalem and suffer greatly from the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed and on the third day be raised.

^{22 }Then Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, “God forbid, Lord! No such thing shall ever happen to you.”

^23 He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do.”

Some have argued that this was a revocation of the promise made to Peter by Jesus (which indicates a promise was indeed made).  However, there are some problems with this.  The first is Syllogism #9 above.  If Jesus made a promise to bind and loose in Heaven what Peter bound and loosed on Earth, then the revocation of this would be a contradiction of this promise.

This is because either Jesus would have erred in making this promise to begin with, or He would have erred in revoking it.  Now, since we accept Jesus is God (See syllogism 8 in Article IIb) and that God cannot err (Syllogism 1 in Article I) it stands to reason that Jesus would not have made the poor judgment of making a promise to Peter and then needing to revoke it.

The second reason is even simpler.  The rebuke makes no mention of a revocation of the promise Christ made.  To claim there was a revocation is simply the insertion of a meaning into the text (eisegesis).  Therefore, these verses cannot be used as evidence to a claim that Christ did so.  The verses simply don't say what people who argue a revocation want them to say.

It seems more probable that the rebuke was over Peter's failure to understand the mission of the Messiah.  The human thinking was of a political messiah who was to right the wrongs in Israel.  God's thinking was of the salvation of the world from their sins.  What sounded horrible to Peter (the crucifixion) was perfectly understandable when one knew God's plan of salvation.

The only way one could try to use this passage against Peter would be if they wanted to claim Peter was making an official Church teaching (which I don't believe is the case).  However, unlike other verses where Peter does make decrees (such as in Acts), in this case, Peter spoke privately with Jesus ("took him aside").  So it seems, again, that this passage does not indicate what certain people claim about it.

Did Peter's Denial Mean The Revocation of Christ's Promise?

That Peter denied Jesus is attested to in all of the Scriptures (see Matt 26:34, Mark 14:30, Luke 22:34, John 13:38).  Peter promised to stay with Jesus even if it meant risking his life.  Jesus foretold that Peter would deny Him.  It turned out that Peter did exactly what Jesus had foretold.

The problem is, to claim that these verses mean Peter lost his right to the promise Peter made is eisegesis, putting a meaning into Scripture which is not present.  Indeed, we see in Luke 22:31-32, that Jesus had something to say to Peter:

^{31 }“Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you [second person plural] like wheat,

^32 but I have prayed that your own faith [second person singular] may not fail; and once you [second person singular] have turned back, you [second person singular] must strengthen your [second person singular] brothers.”

Now, remembering Syllogism #9, it follows that either Jesus contradicts Himself (if the promise to Peter is revoked when Peter denies Jesus) or else Jesus, knowing all the disciples would falter, and that when Peter turned back (the Greek indicates turning from doing wrong, repenting), he was to strengthen (establish, make firm) his brothers.

In other words, Peter has an assignment which anticipates his denial.  To strengthen his brethren once he has turned back.

When we get to John 21, we can see that despite Peter's denial, we have a scene with Jesus and Peter which is touching:

^{15 }When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.”

^16 He then said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.”

^17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” (Jesus) said to him, “Feed my sheep.

^{18 }Amen, amen, I say to you, when you were younger, you used to dress yourself and go where you wanted; but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.”

^19 He said this signifying by what kind of death he would glorify God. And when he had said this, he said to him, “Follow me.”

Peter is again given the mission to tend Jesus' lambs and sheep.  Given that we are the sheep of His flock, Peter's mission is one of looking after the flock.  It seems to be a necessary element of this commission that Peter must have authority over this flock.  Otherwise, how could Peter tend the sheep?

So it seems that Peter's personal sins did not take away from the task which God had called him to do.

What About The "Dispute over Authority" Verses?

Others point to the dispute among the Apostles as to who was the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven.  They argue that this means that the Apostles were not aware of the primacy of Peter  However, this is to miss the point of these readings.  This was not about authority over the Church on Earth, but over privileges when Christ came into power.  Like Peter in Matthew 16:21-23, they couldn't fully grasp the idea that Christ's kingdom was not a political kingdom on Earth.

The dispute among the Apostles seems to have been set off by James and John and their mother, who asked for a special favor in Matthew 20:

^{20 }Then the mother ^of the sons of Zebedee approached him with her sons and did him homage, wishing to ask him for something.

^21 He said to her, “What do you wish?” She answered him, “Command that these two sons of mine sit, one at your right and the other at your left, in your kingdom.”

^22 Jesus said in reply, “You do not know what you are asking. ^Can you drink the cup that I am going to drink?” They said to him, “We can.”

^23 He replied, “My cup you will indeed drink, but to sit at my right and at my left (, this) is not mine to give but is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.”

^24 When the ten heard this, they became indignant at the two brothers.

^25 But Jesus summoned them and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and the great ones make their authority over them felt.

^26 But it shall not be so among you. Rather, whoever wishes to be great among you shall be your servant;

^27 whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave.

^28 Just so, the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom ^for many.” (See also, Mark 10:35-44)

What we have here is not a denial of authority in the Church, but an insistence on what this authority is for.  James and John wanted special privileges when Jesus came in His glory.  Jesus made clear that the one who would lead would do so as service to the whole, and not as a  position of privilege.  The Catholic Church recognizes this, in one of the titles of the Pope, which is Servant of the Servants of God.  We see the Pope as having a ministry which looks out for the good of the Church in the role of the shepherd, and not as some sort of monarch living off of his subjects.  The fact that some have not lived up to this does not take away from the intent Christ has called those who would shepherd to observe.

Part II:The Relationship of Jesus and Peter in Scripture

The next section is to look at the relation of Christ to Peter in the Gospel accounts.  We have Matthew 16 which gives us the promise, but how did the actions in Scripture show this?  Some may not be too impressed by this section.  However, as I mentioned in Article IIb, we are looking at the Scriptures as data.  How was Peter involved in the ministry of Christ?  Do we see any prominence in Peter's actions among the twelve?

These are all things which make sense when one accepts the claim that Peter was made the head of the Church, but seem somewhat random if one rejects this.

First in the Lists

First we need to notice the prominence of Peter in all the lists of the Apostles.  While in all the lists, ten of them are given in various sequences, Peter is always placed first and Judas is always placed last.  Judas being placed last is pretty obvious.  As the betrayer of Christ, he would not be seen as equal to the others.  Yet Peter is always first.  Not James (which would seem likely if it was James who was head of the Church as some seek to argue).  Nor is it John, the Beloved Disciple.  James and John are considered important of course and play important roles in the Gospels… but are usually mentioned with Peter, with Peter mentioned first.

So the person who would deny the primacy of Peter would need to explain this curious fact, as to why all four Gospels mention Peter first.

Peter the Spokesman

We also need to recognize that when it came to the actions of the Apostles, it was mostly Peter who spoke for the Apostles (See Matt 15:15, 16:23, 18:21, 19:27, Luke 12:41, John 6:68 for example).  Now 18th century Protestant commentator Matthew Henry wrote:

Peter’s temper led him to be forward in speaking upon all such occasions, and sometimes he spoke well, sometimes amiss; in all companies there are found some warm, bold men, to whom a precedency of speech falls of course; Peter was such a one: yet we find other of the apostles sometimes speaking as the mouth of the rest; as John (Mk. 9:38), Thomas, Philip, and Jude, Jn. 14:5, 8, 22.

However, this isn't really the case.  It's inserting meaning which assumes the denial of the primacy of Peter and seeks to justify this assumption.  First, the invocation of Peter's personality is something Henry is putting into Scripture (eisegesis).  Second, the other cases indicate they were speaking for themselves, whereas Peter asks questions like "Do you intend this parable for us…?"

Peter the Second In Command

I always found this section striking from Matthew 17:

^{24 }When they came to Capernaum, the collectors of the temple tax ^approached Peter and said, “Doesn't your teacher pay the temple tax?”

^25 “Yes,” he said. ^When he came into the house, before he had time to speak, Jesus asked him, “What is your opinion, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth take tolls or census tax? From their subjects or from foreigners?”

^{26 }When he said, “From foreigners,” Jesus said to him, “Then the subjects are exempt.

^27 But that we may not offend them, ^go to the sea, drop in a hook, and take the first fish that comes up. Open its mouth and you will find a coin worth twice the temple tax. Give that to them for me and for you.”

^First of all, the collectors went to Peter, which seems to indicate that there was some purpose to approaching him, instead of Jesus, and instead of one of the others among the twelve.  Second, that Jesus had a miracle pay the tax not just for Jesus, but for Peter too.  However, not for the other eleven.  There seems to be the demonstration of a link between Jesus and Peter not necessarily present with the other eleven.

Now some have claimed it was because it was Peter's house that he was approached.  However, we need to consider something here.  All males 20 and older were obligated to pay the Temple Tax when enrolled in the census, as we see in Exodus 30:

^11 The LORD also said to Moses,

^12 “When you take a census of the Israelites who are to be registered, each one, as he is enrolled, shall give the LORD a forfeit for his life, so that no plague may come upon them for being registered.

^13 Everyone who enters the registered group must pay a half-shekel, according to the standard of the sanctuary shekel, twenty gerahs to the shekel. This payment of a half-shekel is a contribution to the LORD.

^14 Everyone of twenty years or more who enters the registered group must give this contribution to the LORD.

^15 The rich need not give more, nor shall the poor give less, than a half-shekel in this contribution to the LORD to pay the forfeit for their lives.

^16 When you receive this forfeit money from the Israelites, you shall donate it to the service of the meeting tent, that there it may be the Israelites’ reminder before the LORD, of the forfeit paid for their lives.”

So, all the twelve were obligated to pay, and about a month before Passover, there were moneychangers throughout Israel according to some sources who would exchange the foreign coins for the shekel (the tax seems to have been paid at the Temple, but since the shekel was not used for ordinary [civil] transactions (see Matt. 22:19), it appears it was a special coin for religious purposes and transactions [See John 2:15]). 

Jews who were residents and visitors both could make use of the service, so mere residency seems not to apply.  Yet the question was only asked about Jesus, and Jesus provided the coin needed to pay for Him and Peter. Remember, Peter's brother Andrew (Luke 6:14) and his partners in fishing James and John (Luke 5:10) also lived in the area (and thus would fit under the residence question), and some have alleged that it was James, not Peter, who was head of the Church in light of Acts 15.  Yet they did not go to James, a fellow Apostle and partner of Peter in the fishing enterprise.

So, the questions are: If one denies a special role for Peter, then why did the collectors go to Peter with the question?  Why did Jesus include Peter with Himself when it comes to paying the tax but not the other apostles?

Jesus' Visiting Peter after the Resurrection

Another interesting fact was shown in Luke 24:

^33 So they set out at once and returned to Jerusalem where they found gathered together the eleven and those with them

^34 who were saying, “The Lord has truly been raised and has appeared to Simon!”

^35 Then the two recounted what had taken place on the way and how he was made known to them in the breaking of the bread.

While we do not have an account of what Jesus said to Peter, I find it notable that Peter was one of the first (since we do not know whether Jesus appeared to Peter before, after or at the same time He was present with the two disciples) to see the risen Lord.

Taken by itself, perhaps one could shrug it off and say "Who knows what God was thinking?"  However, God does not act randomly, even if we may not be able to comprehend the mind of God.  When we consider what Jesus has said to Peter in Luke 22:31-32, it seems this is not merely a throwaway incident.

It is not enough to argue a possible alternate interpretation.  One could argue a possible alternate explanation with space aliens.  The issue is, on what basis is this alternate explanation held?

Conclusion

Each individual piece, taken in isolation could be given an alternate explanation.  However, when taken as a whole, it becomes much more like obstinacy to deny that Peter had a role given to him by Christ to tend His sheep, and strengthen his brethren.

In the next article (IId), I intend to look at the role of Peter in Acts and in the Epistles.  Jesus has ascended to Heaven.  How does Peter act then?

Hopefully, after IId, I will be done with Peter and Scripture, and ready to move on to what Christ had to say about His Church itself in Article III.

Thoughts on Infallibility (Part IIa): Preliminaries on Peter

Preliminaries to Looking at Peter

Before moving on to the examination of Scripture, I would like to discuss some elements of historical fallacies. To study an issue, one needs to remember that a question must be framed properly. If it is framed wrong, then a person may find evidence to appeal to their claim, but that doesn’t mean the framed question is accurate to begin with.

For example, asking the question “Was Peter the first Pope?” is the wrong way of framing the question. If one believes it, one looks for evidence to show the answer in the affirmative. If one does not believe it, one looks for evidence to disprove it.  Each side grows frustrated with the other side and assumes they are acting from ignorance or obstinacy.

A better question would be, “What was the role of Peter in the early Church?” This is a question which can be answered by the data of scripture and of history of the earliest Christians. We can look at it and see whether Peter played a significant role, a minor role, or something in between.  We can see whether the Patristic writings speak of Peter as insignificant or important for example.

Another thing to be aware of is the issue of irrelevant evidence. Take for example, the Biblical commentary of Matthew Henry (1662-1714), who wrote on Matthew 16:18-19:

(1.) Peter’s answer to this question, v. 16. To the former question concerning the opinion others had of Christ, several of the disciples answered, according as they had heard people talk; but to this Peter answers in the name of all the rest, they all consenting to it, and concurring in it. Peter’s temper led him to be forward in speaking upon all such occasions, and sometimes he spoke well, sometimes amiss; in all companies there are found some warm, bold men, to whom a precedency of speech falls of course; Peter was such a one: yet we find other of the apostles sometimes speaking as the mouth of the rest; as John (Mk. 9:38), Thomas, Philip, and Jude, Jn. 14:5, 8, 22. So that this is far from being a proof of such primacy and superiority of Peter above the rest of the apostles, as the church of Rome ascribes to him. They will needs advance him to be a judge, when the utmost they can make of him, is, that he was but foreman of the jury, to speak for the rest, and that only pro hâc vice—for this once; not the perpetual dictator or speaker of the house, only chairman upon this occasion.

Peter’s answer is short, but it is full, and true, and to the purpose; Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God. Here is a confession of the Christian faith, addressed to Christ, and so made an act of devotion. Here is a confession of the true God as the living God, in opposition to dumb and dead idols, and of Jesus Christ, whom he hath sent, whom to know is life eternal. This is the conclusion of the whole matter. (Matthew Henry's commentary on the whole Bible)

Now, that other apostles had a role in speaking on some issues is not denied. The question is whether or not his examples are relevant for this section of Scripture prove Peter was not the head of the Apostles. Henry’s examples do not answer the question, “What was the role of Peter?” Rather these examples seek to give a negative answer to the question “Was Peter Pope?” in the sense of the papacy at the time Henry knew it.

Third, we need to be aware of biased language. If I speak of “Idiot Protestants” and “Insightful Catholics” this could be considered a clue that my investigations in the matter were not entirely free of bias. (To put it mildly!) Now of course, I am a Catholic because I believe the Catholic teaching to be true. I know there are those outside the Catholic Church because they do not believe it to be true, and in such a dispute it is searching for the truth which matters, not the exchange of insults or ad hominems. However, we do need to be aware of “charged” language which does seek to take the reader to a conclusion based on the choice of words. Mentioning Peter’s temper and terms like “perpetual dictator” are terms calculated to create a negative view of primacy for Peter, and thus be predisposed to reject it.

In order to reduce the risk of bias (and let’s face it, Christians do have a vested interest in the truth about the primacy of Peter, and the result we believe is true is not agreed on by all Christians), we need to be aware of these issues, and seek to recognize how we are to keep them from hindering our search for the truth, and not assume that what we believe ought to be apparent to all.