Audio only:
In this episode Trent sits down with Suan Sonna to discuss the evidence for the early papacy and how to answer Protestant objections to it.
Welcome to the Counsel of Trent podcast, a production of Catholic Answers.
Trent Horn:
Hey, everyone. Welcome to the Counsel of Trent podcast. I’m your host, Catholic Answer’s apologist and speaker Trent Horn. And today we’re going to talk about the Petrine office. We’re going to talk about the papacy, but an important link in the argument for the Papacy, because I think there’s a lot of Protestants. And the reason I want to talk about this, I’ve seen people like Gavin Ortlund was recently on Cameron Bertuzzi’s channel talking about the case against the papacy. And then Joe Heschmeyer went on to do the case for the papacy. You definitely should check that out. So there’s a lot of back and forth, Gavin and others. And you have Jerry Walls and James White, and other Protestant apologists, who will argue that even if you do grant that Peter had a special role in the church. And by the way, everyone, it’s very easy to find Protestant historians who will recognize this.
Trent Horn:
J.N.D. Kelly, the Anglican scholar writes in his book Early Christian Doctrines, Peter was the undisputed leader of the early church. And I’ve cited other Protestants who believe this as well in my book, The Case for Catholicism. Where they will have trouble, and I think this is where Gavin and others have come forward. They’ll say, “Well, where does the Bible teach, where is the evidence that Peter had an office of leadership that would endure perpetually?” It’s one thing, Peter is the rock on which the church is built. It is another, however, to say that whatever authority was given to Peter in the early church, that authority continued with successors. So, that is what we’re going to talk about today. And to help us do that is one of the brightest people working on the papacy today, his name is Suan Sonna. He is an undergrad in philosophy at Kansas State University.
Trent Horn:
He’s done debates with Gavin Ortlund. He’s been on a lot of different shows. Done different writings on the papacy. A lot of great stuff. We’re going to talk about that. And then also, I’m going to ask Suan to talk a little bit about another argument for the papacy that he’s been working on, dealing with the typological elements that show that Peter is the new Joshua, and that leadership role he has in the church, and how that would tie into a Petrine office. So, a lot teed up there. Suan, welcome back to the show.
Suan Sonna:
Thanks for having me, Trent.
Trent Horn:
All right, well, let’s jump right into it then. So what are your thoughts just first on this objection and this idea that Protestant apologists will say, “Fine, I’ll give you Peter has some kind of authority, but it’s not enough to give you the papacy and it doesn’t continue on after him.” What are your thoughts about this distinction between Peter and a Petrine office?
Suan Sonna:
I think the place where I’d want to begin is by just saying that, if we at least can get our Protestant brothers and sisters to admit that Peter had a leadership role, then that’s incredible. Because there are a lot of people, at least not among Protestant scholarship, a lot of Protestant scholars will admit Peter is the rock of Matthew 16:18. They’ll admit that there is the Isaiah 22, Matthew 16:19 parallel. They’ll even admit a Petrine primacy. Right? But in terms of your mainstream everyday Protestant, they’ll say, “No, maybe Peter’s not the rock.” Or they might question Petrine primacy. Or they’ll say, “Oh Paul, was greater than Peter.” What have you.
Suan Sonna:
But if we begin by just having that agreement, I think that’s a really strong starting point. Now I think there are three ways that you can probably establish that Peter had a successional office. The first is that we need to talk about what kind of leadership did Peter have. So sure, Peter had leadership in the early church, but what exactly was that leadership modeled after? And so in my own work, I’ve done arguments on the Isaiah 22:22, Matthew 16:19 parallel. And now what’s interesting about that, let me just unpack that really quick.
Trent Horn:
Sure.
Suan Sonna:
The argument is that look, when Jesus in Matthew 16:19 gives Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven and whatever he binds on earth shall be bound in heaven. Whatever he loses on earth shall be loosed in heaven. That’s an illusion back to Isaiah 22:22, where God is installing a new prime minister or chief steward over Israel, Eliakim. And he’ll give him the key to the house of David and whatever he opens, no one will shut. Whatever he shuts, no one will open. Now we know with that office in the Old Testament, it was successional. You can actually identify who the chief stewards were in the Old Testament who had possessed that office.
Suan Sonna:
Eliakim was under King Hezekiah. You can find other names such as Jotham and others. So what we could say here is, “Okay, look, if we accept that Jesus is the foretold Davidic Messiah. He is the son of David, and as second Samuel chapter seven indicates, He’s going to rebuild David’s kingdom. If He installs Peter as this kind of prime minister, as the other sons of David had in their own kingdom, then Peter seems to be in a line of an intrinsically successional office of chief steward.” And so that’s one way where you can show at least, “Hey, I think there are good reasons to believe that this office is successional.” So that’s one place you can begin. Trent, do you have any thoughts?
Trent Horn:
Yeah, no, I would agree with that. And I think also we have to confront this, a burden of proof that I think arises in these situations, where it seems like everything is on Catholics to show without a doubt the scripture is talking about an office and with language of succession and with other things like that. And I don’t know, I’m going to try to articulate, I don’t know how well I’ll articulate this for you to run with? But I feel like there’s this double standard. And I think I’m going to talk about it in another episode in the podcast. I always schedule these things far out. So I don’t know if I have already talked about it, or I will talk about it? But my point is that there’s this skepticism like, “Oh, well sure it means leadership. And yeah, keys can be connected to Old Testament offices, but it doesn’t necessarily have to mean that.”
Trent Horn:
But I feel like, “Well, let’s just go back, and read through, historically gospels, to Acts, to the Epistles.” And like for me, if I was just trying to be real honest about this to say, “Okay, what authority does Jesus want for His church?” And so when I read through the gospels and if you try to do it with just really fresh eyes, take away your denominational eyes and you just try to read that. It seems very clear for me Jesus’s plan for the authority in His church… Well, first it’s not Scripture alone or even scripture itself. Like you just read the gospels, when He says, what does He promise to be the authority? He talks about sending the Holy Spirit. He doesn’t tell anyone to write anything down. He doesn’t talk about His Scripture being a future rule for people to consult.
Trent Horn:
I would say that, bluntly, it’s the apostles. You will sit on 12 thrones, judge the 12 tribes of Israel. The authority in the church is… So I’m not even saying apostolic succession here. I’m just saying what seems clear to me is, apostles. But then that seems to raise another question. It seems like, naturally then, if that is where authorities would… Now not denying Scripture as authority. It’s not like Scripture or the apostles, because we would believe Scripture has an authority. It’s just not the only one. I want to ask where does scripture or history teach Scripture is the only authority, the highest authority, the only authority, however you want to phrase it? Only infallible authority, we can get into that hole all of the time. But it seems like when I go through the gospels and then when we continue on it is the apostles, but then also people they lay hands on. Hebrews chapter six verses one through two. Timothy, Titus, Second Timothy 2:2. “What I have given to you for others and trust to those will entrust it to others.”
Trent Horn:
So it seems to me like, how should I phrase this? That it naturally seems to lead towards successive offices that the church is going to endure until Jesus returns. And to me, I don’t know if this is an elicit move or not, but I feel like it just appears. I don’t have to convince people it’s an office. It seems to appear to go in that direction what the text is talking about. Can you give me a good reason to think otherwise? And I think you’re giving a good reason, not even just that it appears, but we’re using the language of that, like with keys, modeling it after the Old Testament, the wazir, the overseer of the kingdom, the steward. But yeah. So go ahead and keep going.
Suan Sonna:
Well, and actually to bounce off of what you just said about the Old Testament and whether or not God ever operated His people with just Scripture alone. I mean, when we go back to the Book of Exodus, chapter 18 verse 26, or Deuteronomy 17, eight to 13. In Jewish tradition, this was one of the most important moments because in both of these passages, Moses is installing a judicial system to interpret and apply the Torah. And so even in the Old Testament, it wasn’t just the Scriptures alone, it was the Torah being protected by the institution, it having ministered throughout the land of Israel. And then as I mentioned before in other arguments, like I think it’s in Isaiah chapter one verses 26 to 27, where it talks about how God will restore the courts of Israel, the judges and counselors as they were in the beginning.
Suan Sonna:
And then you see Jesus using very Jewish terms like binding and loosing and giving this power to the apostles, just as the Moses of the Old Testament gave power to the judges and counselors of Israel to judge the people, apply the scriptures. I think you have a very mature sense that Jesus, wasn’t thinking about the church as just a loose association of persons or what have you. But He also had an institutional sense of the church as having organized offices and officials with the authority to interpret Scripture and discipline the community.
Suan Sonna:
And so I think that’s what you clearly see, for instance, in the gospel of Matthew and think actually, if we’re going to do what sounds, let’s say most probable, right? I mean, given this idea that Jesus has the sense that the church authorities are basically like a new Sanhedrin or the apostles are His rabbis or something like that. And then you have laying on of hands, which was used by Moses to ordain Joshua to be the head shepherd over Israel, right? Semikhah, the laying on of hands and the giving of the Spirit. It seems as if the early church very consciously modeled itself after the Old Testament authorities, which were very institutional, which did have an idea and notion of succession. And so I think that if that’s the case, then surely Peter had an office then-
Trent Horn:
Right. Well-
Suan Sonna:
… given that institutional background.
Trent Horn:
And think about this, like I would ask our Protestant friends, where does the Bible say, you can become a pastor of a church through the following way? That you declare yourself to be a pastor, and then lead people who choose to follow you. Because I mean, there’s obviously, there’s different ways that Protestants look at being a pastor, being a leader in the church, being an elder. It’s always hard to talk about the Protestant view, because there’s so many denominations.
Trent Horn:
But I think it’s very common, especially among American evangelicals that, well, you go to seminary, get an education, and you become an associate pastor in a church with a head pastor who likes you. And then maybe you take over that church. Or if you’re really good, you got a real good following, heck, maybe you could just start your own church. But the Bible, think about it, being a pastor is a super important thing. Here’s one thing, a double standard, Suan, I want to, I need to air my grievances, you can talk about. This idea that well-
Suan Sonna:
I’m here for you, Trent.
Trent Horn:
… I just want to be faithful to what the Bible teaches. I want to be faithful to that. And I don’t see anything in here in the Bible talking about that there’s going to be this office of the papacy, there’s going to be this supreme Petrine office with authority over the church. So I just don’t see that. So I’m not going to follow it. That is very hard for me to take seriously. Oh, I’m just trying to do what the Bible says about church offices and early church history. To take that from some Protestants who have a lower ecclesiology who would just have pastors, because the Bible makes it very clear. There’s a threefold office. There’s the deacons, the bishops, and the elders or priests.
Trent Horn:
Now these offices were somewhat interchangeable in the first century, but by the time you get to the second century, St. Ignatius of Antioch is very clear. He says, “You’re not a church if you do not have bishop, priests and deacons.” And so that’s very clear history. And then just the offices, at least there’s three, bishop, priests, and deacon, talking about them, but then no sense of that in certain Protestant denominations, nowhere near that. So that’s, it’s hard for me that, I just don’t see the evidence. If the evidence for those three offices don’t convince you, then the evidence of the Petrine office would never convince you. That’s what I have a hard time with.
Suan Sonna:
Yeah. I think I could see that from where you’re coming from.
Trent Horn:
In any case. So, let’s talk then about more evidence for the Petrine office, unless you want to talk about Peter is the new Joshua, because I find that super duper fascinating. I’ll let you run it what makes the most sense to you though.
Suan Sonna:
Yeah, well, I just wanted to mention a few other things.
Trent Horn:
Sure.
Suan Sonna:
So, so far just getting to the arguments about how do you get from Peter to a successional office? Right? I mentioned the typology. I mentioned how Jesus seems to have a mature conception of the church as having institutional authority that doesn’t detract from its spiritual reality or even the fact that the church is also united together in love. I don’t think that’s incompatible with an institutional reality.
Suan Sonna:
The third thing I’d mention are just A priori arguments, right? And so, whenever you’re discussing, let’s say even the doctrine of apostolic succession, it would be really nice if we had someone with the authority of Paul or somebody with authority who could really settle issues that come up later in the church. I mean, even though the apostles died in the first century or coming into the second century, we would really like to have that authority, we still need it in the church.
Suan Sonna:
And so it seems to make a lot of sense that you would have a plan of succession somehow to ensure that the people can still be protected and still have that authority protect them and ensure that they’re understanding of the scriptures and the sacred tradition is correct. And so, one could make the argument that look, one, it seems to make a lot of sense to have one guy at the top or at least to have a principle of unity with a certain head bishop, right? Or, if the bishops are all disputing each other, a guy who could break the tie. And not have it be the case that, for instance, if the guys just voted to break the tie, well, that just displaces the problem because then let’s say they, half the people vote for somebody else to break the tie.
Suan Sonna:
Or, if it’s something that the church constructs like, “Hey, we’re going to make you the head honcho.” The church can always change its mind and then move that guy out the way. It would make more sense for Jesus to already have a head honcho or head guy already to make sure that these types of situations can be broken and fixed. And just to talk a little bit about when I was researching the history of Islam. Mohamed, he didn’t have a plan for succession at all. He dies. And then they’re trying to figure out like, “Hey, how do we create a successional office?” And their whole thing was they needed to all be united so they can enter into paradise together. And then eventually, things splinter and fall apart. And it’s like, “Wow, okay, if this guy’s a prophet, he should have known that he was going to need something like a successional office to keep everything together.”
Suan Sonna:
And so when I look at the history of the early church and I look at Jesus Himself, especially when we look at things like Clement of Rome, it seems like Jesus really did have, I mean, obviously being the Lord incarnate, He knew what was going to happen. He knew what his church was going to need. And so, it makes a lot of sense to have not only a singular office, but to have this singular top tier office continue and endure until the end of time. And let me just mention one last thing, Trent.
Trent Horn:
Sure.
Suan Sonna:
So obviously, in the New Testament, we don’t really read about the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul, but we know with a great deal of historical confidence that Peter and Paul made it to Rome, and they were also martyred there. I mean, virtually the historical consensus is that that is simply the case. And I know that you’ve done a video on this as well, or like a short clip. But you described the overwhelming consensus.
Trent Horn:
Oh agree. And a great resource on that is Sean McDowell. He’s an evangelical scholar. The son of the very famous Christian apologist Josh McDowell has a good book called, based on his PhD dissertation called, The Fate of The Twelve Apostles. And he’s skeptical about half of them, but he lists four as being really rock solid. And those would be Peter, James. I forget if he includes Paul because he’s not part of the 12, but I think-
Suan Sonna:
He does.
Trent Horn:
… Yeah. I think he would include that Peter and Paul are part of the rock solid evidence they were martyred in Rome.
Suan Sonna:
And I think he even says the highest possible historical probability or something like that. He gives it a very high ranking. So look, there are things that we can know about the early church, even if they aren’t explicitly stated in Scripture. I mean, obviously John alludes to the fact that Jesus already told Peter that he was going to die in a certain way. So we know that at least about the martyrdom of Peter through John, to some extent. But I mean, the point that I’m making here is, look, it seems as if, let’s say just to use Aristotelian terms, in potency there’s this potential for a succession in the Petrine office. Right? And it seems quite reasonable to think that.
Suan Sonna:
Now history, I think, can show us if that actually, if that potential was actualized or not. And so I think when we look at the early history of the church, especially when we look at the succession lists of Irenaeus and Hegesippus, I think they’re quite clear that, yes, there was succession from Peter and that’s precisely the next place to talk about.
Trent Horn:
Well, let’s talk about that. Before we get there though, I think that this is where Protestants and Catholics will bump heads, where we have to resolve sola scriptura first. And you’ve brought this up that they’ll say, “Well, you know, I…” They’re looking at just the Acts of the apostles or the Epistles of Peter. And I’m just not seeing that there. But two points, one, we wouldn’t expect a lot of language about succession and what would happen until especially after the deaths of the apostles. If, and I believe this and many evangelicals who I would engage on the papacy would also believe this. Many of them believe that Acts was written before the deaths of Peter and Paul, because it doesn’t mention their deaths. It doesn’t mention the fall of Jerusalem. So if a large part of the New Testament, it makes sense if it’s written before we have this major transition period, we won’t get a lot of explicit discussion about how succession takes place or its necessity, but we will see it in the early church. And that’s what we do see.
Trent Horn:
Number two would be, I really think there needs to be evidential parity that if you have a Protestant saying, “Well, I just don’t see evidence of this either apostolic succession, or this unique Petrine office that this successor of Peter is going to have the authority in the church. I just don’t see that in the New Testament so I’m not going to believe it.” If that’s what you think, then I think you’ve got to dump sola scriptura. Because look, I’ll ask, where does the Bible say a 66 book canon of scripture, comprising closed divine revelation is the sole infallible rule of faith that it’s inherent, it’s infallible.
Trent Horn:
Where does it say that in Scripture? And if you applied the same skepticism towards the existence of the Petrine office or apostolic succession in Scripture, you would look in the New Testament and say, “Oh, well, they don’t ever talk about Scripture serving this role in the church or anything like that.” It’s an assumption. Whereas sola scriptura gets under the wire, even though the evidence is scant. Many Protestant apologists will say, “Well, it doesn’t have to be taught in Scripture.” Well, whoop de doo. I wish I could say this thing about the Petrine office. So I just wish there’s just some evidential parody there.
Trent Horn:
So I feel like you’re my apologetic therapist. I had to unload on you again of something I find frustrating. But take us in. I believe that we have to include, if we’re trying to figure out what was the intended authority for the church we should ask, what did the first post apostolic Christians think it was? That should inform our answer. And I bet you got a good one for us.
Suan Sonna:
Well, so going into the history then about the succession from Peter, what we learn is 20 years before Irenaeus writes, so Irenaeus is the Bishop of Lyon and he writes in 180 A.D. He gives out his long list of Petrine succession up to his time in his book, Against Heresies. But we learn from Eusebius in his book, Ecclesiastical History, or simply, History of the Church, that 20 years before Irenaeus, Hegesippus had traveled to Rome, learned about the succession from Peter there. And then eventually some scholars believe, and this is probably the case, that Irenaeus got his list from Hegesippus, but then Irenaeus includes the updated list in his own writings in Against Heresies. But the point is that, look, if Hegesippus gets his list in 160 A.D., and then Irenaeus in 180 A.D., both of these individuals are within living memory of the apostles.
Suan Sonna:
And this is significant, because if you look at the research of people like Craig S. Keener in his book, Christobiography, they’ll mentioned how living memory is considered one of the primary sources that historians use in order to get a good, reliable grasp of what were the original events. And so living memory concerns those people who either witnessed the original events, or knew those who knew those who witnessed the original events. And so, for instance, from Irenaeus, you have Polycarp from Polycarp, you have John. And so there, you have a line of living memory. And even what’s interesting, is that in Against Heresies, when Irenaeus gives out the list of all the bishops of Rome, what he then does is he mentions Polycarp to back up the credentials of the list. And yeah, Polycarp also traveled to Rome. He talked to the Bishop of Rome, Anicetus, and so on, so forth.
Suan Sonna:
And so there’s a question here in terms of how we’re going to view the evidence, right? So there’s what I call two, there’s two paradigms. So one paradigm is this, in terms of explanatory scope, we want to explain all the evidence. And so Irenaeus and Hegesippus are relevant data points that also need to be explained with all the other earlier sources that we have, like Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, and Shepherd of Hermas. But some people think, “Oh, well, no, we can’t trust Irenaeus and Hegesippus, because they contradict what the earlier sources like Clement, Ignatius, and Hermas say.” And now my argument is, well, I don’t think that we should just say that, oh, we can’t trust Irenaeus and Hegesippus. And I actually think that you can actually have a harmonization with all the sources together, such that Hermas, Ignatius and Clement don’t contradict the testimony of Irenaeus and Hegesippus. And if that’s the case, then we should try to find an explanation that doesn’t explain away the data, but explains the data.
Trent Horn:
I feel like sometimes some Protestant apologists will look at this and just say, “Oh yeah, well, Irenaeus has these lists, but he’s not reliable, or he’s just making this up.” And there’s this over skepticism that is not applied to the same things like when Paul gives testimonial evidence of the resurrection, for example, of all the resurrection witnesses or-
Suan Sonna:
Right.
Trent Horn:
… other things like this. Or I feel like if they take this attitude that, “Well, Irenaeus is writing too late to give us anything reliable about what happened 150 years earlier.” If you do that, I feel like you’re really going to end up destroying Old Testament historicity. And many of these evangelical scholars will talk about the lines of succession in the Davidic dynasties, or what happened with the patriarchs. But much of that was written centuries after the fact by chroniclers and others in the Old Testament. So if you’re going to have that skepticism about recording the succession of the Petrine office in the early church say, “Well, we can’t really know that really happened. That’s legend.” This or that. You’re going to throw away any of our reliable knowledge about the Old Testament covenant and its succession, I think.
Suan Sonna:
Well, there’s not much that I disagree with their Trent, if anything at all, but I guess I can, let’s just go to the sources themselves, right? So there’s Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, and Shepherd of Hermas. These are the three main pieces of evidence that people look at when determining, can we trust Irenaeus and Hegesippus? And what I want to argue is, look, none of these three sources, I think at least, entail that there wasn’t a monarchical episcopate or monarchical bishop in Rome. Right? The second is that there’s a more nuanced thesis that maybe you had multiple men in Rome who had the title, Bishop, because they were the head of their individual house churches. That doesn’t mean that there wasn’t one particular individual who was distinguished from the rest of those that were there.
Trent Horn:
Like how on the Supreme Court you have justices, and a chief justice.
Suan Sonna:
Yeah. That’s a great example. And then the third possibility is, basically what a lot of scholars are arguing, which is that, “Well, you just had Presbyteral collegial governance and there wasn’t one person above the other. It was just a bunch of federated house churches, and they were all equal in authority to each other.” So those are the three interpretive options that we have on the table.
Suan Sonna:
Now let’s go to Clement of Rome. So the reason why I placed Clement first is because there’s a rising trend in scholarship to argue that Clement was written before the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 70 A.D. And I’m not going to go into all the arguments, but there’s a really strong basis for believing this, especially since Clement talks about the temple in the present tense as if it’s still very much there and alive, and that wouldn’t make sense if it was destroyed.
Suan Sonna:
So in Clement’s letter, he talks about rebuking the Corinthian church for deposing their leadership. And he always speaks in the first person plural, we, right? Now, there’s a question here on if there was a monarchical bishop in Rome during this time, presumably it would be Linus, after Peter, if given Hegesippus and Irenaeus.
Trent Horn:
Right.
Suan Sonna:
Why does he speak in the first person plural? Why not just say, “Oh, and Linus has ruled.” But I mean, if you look at other papal documents like [foreign language 00:26:51] when Pope Pius XII declares a dogma on the assumption of Mary. He uses the first person plural, we, because he is speaking on behalf of the entire church. And so just because Clement uses the-
Trent Horn:
He uses the royal, we.
Suan Sonna:
… Right.
Trent Horn:
The big fancy pants where it’s not, it’s this whole kingdom, if you will. And that’s always the kingdom of God that he presides over. So yeah, I had never found this to be that strong of an objection, because that plural language is used up to the 20th century in papal documents.
Suan Sonna:
Right. And I mean, even in cases where you have a single author, and I mean, so people will talk about how Clement has written anonymously just as the gospel writers don’t identify themselves by name in their own writings, but you know that there was one author. And the tradition has preserved the authors of the four gospels and even the author of First Clement. And so regardless, you have one guy speaking on behalf of the entire church in Rome. Now what’s possible here is that Clement was writing on, given that this is pre 70 A.D., this is probably, if this is under the episcopate of Linus, right? Clement writing as the foreign secretary. But regardless, I just want to point out here that, just because he uses we and not I, or he doesn’t explicitly name Linus, to me, this doesn’t seem to be strictly incompatible with there being a monarchical bishop. Or even, for example, if you have just a group of bishops together, you don’t always have to identify who the head is if you’re speaking in unison.
Trent Horn:
Right. By that same logic, many of these evangelicals or critics of the papacy will deploy similar arguments when atheists say, “Well, Matthew didn’t write Matthew, because he doesn’t say, “I, Matthew, saw all these things.”” They’ll say, “Well, you know, in ancient genre and correspondence you could write in the third person and he doesn’t have to identify himself.” So they’re willing to allow like, “Well, yeah, Matthew wrote Matthew, even if it doesn’t really sound like what we’d expect.” But they won’t do that for Clement.
Suan Sonna:
Right. So what I just want to say here is that I don’t think the, we, necessarily shows anything much about the structure of the church in Rome. It just shows that the Roman church, and this is interesting, all right? The Roman church was able to speak with one voice, and have someone write on their behalf and rebuke another church. I mean, so for instance, most scholars believed at the time that the dating of First Clement should be 96 A.D. But given the fact now that we have strong arguments, that it happens before 70 A.D., this means that the development of the Roman church is actually 30 years faster than what scholars had originally anticipated. And so I think here we do have a stronger sense of the unity of the church in Rome and this idea that they could actually speak with one voice. And so I think that’s important. But that’s about all, I think that we can strongly infer from this particular passage.
Trent Horn:
And I think we have to remember, once again, we’re comparing different… But I think also what I brought to you about sola scriptura earlier that with burden of proof, we’re not going to compare, okay, the Catholic claim to the papacy, I guess you could also have this general apostolic succession, which would be the Orthodox claim. Or the Protestant claim to sola scriptura, what do we see in non-biblical documents? What do we see it affirming from the year 60, to let’s say, the year 120? And so it’s not just, you can’t say, “Oh, well I’m not getting the papacy out of this, therefore sola scriptura.” No, that’s not how it works. Of the three, what has the most affirmed, even if it’s not as high as you would like for it, what has the most evidence, the plurality, if you will.
Trent Horn:
And so far we’re getting with Clement, we’re definitely not getting sola scriptura, that’s for sure. We’re getting affirmation Scripture, it’s perfect, or it’s trustworthy. Not that it’s some kind of a sole authority, but we are getting something about the importance of First Clement, 44. I’m just going to read it for people. Well, maybe you can comment on this if there’s something relevant. Because prior to that, Clement talks about Moses knowing beforehand about dissension that would occur in Israel and what he did in relation to that. And then he says, “And our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife over the name of the Bishop’s office. And so having complete foreign knowledge, appointed people to provide a continuance as they fall asleep.” At least we got Apostolic succession more than sola scriptura. And then the question is, and then it’s also, it is consistent with one of those successive offices, Peter’s office, having a particular kind of authority. So it’s moving in that direction.
Suan Sonna:
Right. And some people will say, “Well, you can’t cite Clement of Rome, because Clement of Rome is not scripture.” Right? But then the interesting thing about that is, most Protestants who defend sola scriptura, they’ll say, “But I don’t believe in sola scriptura.” But if you say that we can’t use Clement, then you’re engaging in sola scriptura.
Trent Horn:
Right.
Suan Sonna:
And given how early Clement’s testimony is, especially given the fact that scholars don’t question that Clement personally knew Peter and Paul, I think Michael Licona in his book, The Resurrection of Jesus, A New Historiographical Approach. He defends that Clement probably knew the apostle Peter. He says it’s more probable than not. And most scholars will also say, given the unanimous consent of the early church, that for instance, in Philippians 4:3, Paul mentions a certain Clement.
Trent Horn:
Right.
Suan Sonna:
And then the early church fathers say, “This is Clement of Rome.” A lot of scholars are like, “Hey, well, since there’s a unanimity here, we’re not going to question it.” Right? And it’s like, “Well, but no, when it comes to the succession of the bishops in Rome, even though there’s nobody who challenges that there was succession from Peter in Rome.” There’re scholars who’re saying, “Well, I’m not too sure about that.” You know?
Trent Horn:
Right.
Suan Sonna:
So there’s something of a double standard again.
Trent Horn:
Right. Okay. So you want to take us through some of the other early first, second century documents or what they would show us?
Suan Sonna:
Yeah. I mean, so just to close out what I’m saying with Clement, I mean, some people have argued, “Well, but Clement speaks of bishops in the plural.” Right? And so, David Albert Jones in his response, was Peter the first Bishop of Rome, or was there a bishop of Rome in the first century? David Albert Jones in his paper in the New Blackfriars. What he says is, is, “Well, I mean, what makes sense of this, why he’s speaking of bishops in the plural is probably perhaps he’s defending bishops around the world and the office of the clergy itself. And so he speaks in the plural.” And then even mentions the fact that Clement models a succession of the bishops after the office of high priests.
Trent Horn:
Well, that makes sense because Clement is, the dispute in Corinth is about elders that were improperly deposed and the Corinthians not recognizing priestly and episcopal authority in their own church.
Suan Sonna:
Right. And so, what Albert Jones says is, “This is compatible with there being one monarchical bishop in Rome. This is also compatible with there perhaps being multiple men who had the name of bishop, but there was one who was distinguished from the rest.” And so, I think that…
Trent Horn:
Oh, sorry, I don’t want to lose my thought, but think about it, we still have that today. In many major metropolitan areas, we have a bishop and an auxiliary bishop.
Suan Sonna:
Yep.
Trent Horn:
There are multiple bishops, even within diocese today, you have that, because it can be complex to carry out the duties of being an overseer. But that doesn’t mean the bishop does not still have his authentic authority. And it’s just, well, it’s just all the priests are equal or anything like that.
Suan Sonna:
I mean, so once again, I just don’t think that you can really say anything definitive with Clement of Rome. When it comes to Ignatius of Antioch who’s writing about 110 to 115 A.D., he writes seven letters as he’s on his way to martyrdom in Rome. What’s interesting is that, in six of the seven letters, he mentions the names of certain presbyters and bishops that he’s in contact with. Now, what people will point out, especially Jerry Walls in his paper If Christ Be Not Raised, If Peter Be Not The First Pope is that there’s a strange silence when Ignatius is writing to those in the church in Rome. Now what we have to remember, and I think this is the most compelling argument, at least to show why this isn’t a particularly good objection is this, in the letter to the Trallians, right?
Suan Sonna:
Ignatius makes very clear that you need to have a bishop, presbyter, and deacon in order to have a church. He says that, “Apart from these, a gathering cannot be called a church.” All right? Now, if he calls the church in Rome a church, and he’s saying that the only way it can be called a church is if you have this threefold office, then it seems to me pretty clear then that if Ignatius is a man of reasonable intelligence and knows what he’s writing, then he’s very clearly saying that the church in Rome has a certain bishop and authority.
Suan Sonna:
And so given that argument, we then just need to make sense of why he doesn’t mention a particular bishop in Rome. I mean, one possibility that people have entertained is that, in order to avoid isolating the Bishop of Rome, so that he’s subject to persecution. I mean, if you know who the head bishop is and the Romans are persecuting the Christians, then you know who to kill now, because usually when you have groups being persecuted, they go after the leadership in order to disband the entire community, you don’t go after the people who are at the bottom, you go after the people at the top.
Trent Horn:
And he doesn’t greet anybody in Rome.
Suan Sonna:
Right.
Trent Horn:
He doesn’t mention the names of anyone. He doesn’t talk about priests or deacons being there either.
Suan Sonna:
Right. So does that mean that there weren’t any priests or deacons in Rome?
Trent Horn:
Right. No, it’s an unusual… the letter is completely different in tone from the others. And it’s a fun thing to do, look up the names of the cities where Ignatius writes and put little pins on a map, it’s basically a bunch of cities around Western Turkey, back then it would be Asia minor. All around. And here Ignatius is probably the head bishop of this region that he’s at the Sea of Antioch, a very important sea. He’s the successor of Peter who once held that sea. He can lecture everybody in this little region over here. And then he writes to the other church, hundreds of miles away across the sea to Rome and suddenly [inaudible 00:37:09]. This is not just another church in his backyard. This is him recognizing a church that is higher up. He’s used to being the higher up one. Now he’s writing to a church that’s higher up than him. And so the tone dramatically changes.
Suan Sonna:
And he asked permission from the church in Rome to not stop him from entering into the Colosseum to be eaten by the animals. So he’s asking basically for permission to die from the church in Rome, he’s like, “Don’t stop me. This is my destiny.” And so on, and so forth. And I mean, one thing that I just thought about recently too Trent is, when people make this argument about, well, this argument from silence, right? Like if a source has every reason to mention a particular person or event and they don’t, then that’s a strong reason to maybe, I don’t know, be suspicious of this source. Right? I mean, so let me give you an example, right? So with the gospel of Mark and the original ending, it ends with the women going away and not speaking, I don’t know if you have a stance on this particular issue? But it’s generally acknowledged that there’s that extended ending of Mark about handling snakes, and drinking poison and not being harmed.
Suan Sonna:
That wasn’t part of the original manuscript, right? So some people have this really strong question, why doesn’t Mark, which is based off of Peter’s testimony, mention the resurrection, when Peter has every reason to mention the resurrection. It’s the perfect climax and ending of the story. It’s like you could run this strong argument from silence. And one possibility that Mark doesn’t include that ending is because it was a generally known fact among the early Christians, for whom this story was circulating, that Jesus rose again from the dead. And so it’s kind of like [crosstalk 00:38:43].
Trent Horn:
Right. Well he includes the resurrection, but he doesn’t include the appearances.
Suan Sonna:
Oh yes, yes. The empty tomb, and the angel, and the women going away.
Trent Horn:
[crosstalk 00:38:49].
Suan Sonna:
But why not the appearances?
Trent Horn:
Why not the appearances? Yeah, no, I think that… And I’m working on this in my, I’m working on my book now, How Protestants Can Argue like Atheists, how they do sometimes. And the use of arguments from silence are dangerous. That when you apply them against Catholicism, they can equally be used to undermine Christianity. Because I think what they’ll say is, “Well, yeah, we get Irenaeus and others talking about succession and later people talking about the Petrine office enduring, but we don’t get earlier people talking about this. And so it’s suspicious. And so maybe the later people just made it up.” Well, that’s the same argument that’s made against the virgin birth that people will say, “Look, Matthew and Luke made up this story because we don’t…” And many, and I fall in this camp as well. And many people would say, Mark is the first gospel. A whole other episode we can talk about that.
Trent Horn:
But we’ll talk about there’s, let’s just take general scholarship. They’ll say is, “Look, Matthew and Luke are later talk about the virgin birth, but the earlier sources Mark, probably, and definitely Paul does not mention the virgin birth. So it’s weird. It’s weird. Why, don’t, this is a huge thing. God became a man, the incarnation. And yet Paul makes no mention of the virgin birth. And Mark doesn’t talk about Jesus being born of a virgin. If you read Mark’s gospel, it just sounds like he’s from any family in Nazareth or…” And so what we would say is, “Well, maybe it was widely known? Or it was not germane to what they were discussing. But from that, it doesn’t mean we should conclude that the story did not happen just because it’s only described in later sources.
Trent Horn:
If you want to make an argument from silence, you have to make incredibly strong evidence that we would not expect other sources to describe this. Similar with the massacre of the innocents in Bethlehem. Only Matthew records it. Skeptics will say no other gospel and Luke and Josephus don’t mention it. They don’t, but that it’s an accord with what we know about history, the background knowledge of Herod, of Herod the Great that one, for me, my advice to my Protestant friends would be, be careful. The philosopher Frederich Nietzsche once said, “Those who fight monsters must take steps to ensure they don’t become monsters.” And so sometimes it’s like, look, we’re so much trying to, I’m trying to refute this particular person using this argument. That can come back at the very thing that you believe. So, if that makes sense.
Suan Sonna:
So I’ll mention one last source and then I’ll-
Trent Horn:
Sure.
Suan Sonna:
… tie it all together. So then there’s the Shepherd of Hermas, right? And so the Shepherd of Hermas is, it’s kind of a difficult text to date because it has evidence of at least having first century sources, but then it’s not probably, there are other authors who contributed and then it’s not maybe completed until 120 A.D. or something around that range. But the Shepherd of Hermas does mention in a particular passage, that Clement is, there are two books that are to be written. One is to be given to Clement so that he can send it out to the other churches. And then you have Grapte who’s a particular woman who is to read the book to the widows and the orphans. And then the elders who are over the church in Rome are also to read that particular text as well.
Suan Sonna:
Now some people will say, “Well, the fact that it mentions that there are presbyters over the church in Rome, or who preside over the church in Rome is evidence of a collegial presbyter governance and not a monarchical bishop or one head guy.” And so once again, with this particular argument, I mean, I think there are ways you can make sense of it, right? So one is that we don’t know when exactly, what event Hermas is describing here or in what particular time. So for instance, if this is when Clement was Bishop of Rome, and Clement is going out, as let’s say, the monarchical bishop. Think about when Pope Francis goes out and travels to Argentina, right? And then he has to leave behind the auxiliary bishops to watch over the Roman diocese, even though he is the diocesan bishop, not the auxiliary bishop, obviously. That’s one possibility that you have here.
Suan Sonna:
The other possibility is that even if, I mean, well, I mean, and this is something that I wanted to mention with all three of these sources, right? So when you mention Clement, Ignatius, and Hermas, which is that in, what is it? It’s James Burtchaell’s book. Let me make sure I got the author right. Yes. James Burtchaell’s book From Synagogue to Church. What he points out is that the New Testament mentions that the synagogues in Jerusalem and elsewhere had this particular office called the synagogue ruler. All right? And so you have this person who was the head of the synagogue, but when you look at the writing of Philo and Josephus, they don’t mention the synagogue ruler. And when they talk about the synagogues, they just refer to the people in the synagogue leadership as just elders and notables in general.
Suan Sonna:
And so what often happens is that sometimes in sources, if you don’t, if you refer to the leadership as just a cluster or in general broad terms of the group name, that can actually hide whatever hierarchy is actually there. And so one possibility is that maybe Hermas is just highlighting Clement is the foreign ambassador, Grapte’s reading to the local people in the church. Right? But the fact that it mentions that there are multiple bishops, or excuse me, multiple elders over the church in Rome, that doesn’t tell us much, because that’s also compatible with there being, for instance, a synagogue ruler, but then he’s just lumped in with the rest of the people that are there.
Trent Horn:
Well, it’s like how we might say the Democrats in Congress did X, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a house majority leader, for example.
Suan Sonna:
Right.
Trent Horn:
Or a speaker of the house, even if we talk about them as a party. So this is interesting that if there are these ancient sources that talk about synagogues, having plurality, that you might have more than one rabbi, more than one elder within the rabbinic community, that doesn’t preclude there being a senior, so to speak, who would be above the others is what you’re saying. And that would apply to Christian-
Suan Sonna:
Right.
Trent Horn:
… communities as well.
Suan Sonna:
Right. I mean, and we know about the office of the synagogue ruler based on the New Testament and an inscription from a 70 A.D. or pre 70 A.D. Jerusalem synagogue. But this does not get mentioned at all in Philo and Josephus. And so it’s just interesting to point out that sometimes the authors won’t mention the authority structure, and you can’t just assume because they refer to the group or the authority in a cluster that means that everybody shared equal authority.
Trent Horn:
Oh, so like the idea, well, it’s Mark 5:22 that says that Jairus was the ruler of the synagogue in Capernaum. But you’re saying that other Jewish sources don’t mention the synagogue ruler, mentions plurality. And so if we didn’t have this reference in the New Testament, we might think it was a plurality when it isn’t. So we have to deal with the evidence we do have. Just because it doesn’t mention something, that that’s a silence. You got to get really strong silence to get a conclusion from it. Otherwise, it’s just the fact that 99% of ancient literature is gone. We don’t have it today.
Suan Sonna:
Now. I mean, there is a, another passage in Hermas where it talks about those bishops who had received widows and other people into their own homes, and these bishops acted in purity at all times. And there’s this question on, okay, now it sounds like Hermas is talking about multiple bishops being in Rome, rather than just one bishop. I mean, if you want to go down the monarchical route, what you could say is that he’s talking bishops in plural in terms of those bishops that succeeded Peter in their particular order. Right? And so obviously you had Linus, Cletus, Clement, right? And so maybe that’s what he means. To me, that seems a little strained.
Suan Sonna:
The second hypothesis is that, as I mentioned before, you did have multiple men with the name bishop in Rome. That doesn’t mean that there wasn’t one that was distinguished from the rest. And then the third is that, well, everybody was called a bishop and all the elders and presbyters, or all the presbyters or elders and bishops were interchangeable. On Michael Lofton’s show Reason and Theology, I deal with the question of whether there were two or three offices in the early church. I don’t have time to get into that whole argument here.
Suan Sonna:
But I think the most plausible candidate is the second interpretation that I’ve been proposing, which is this, when we look at Acts chapter 20, when Paul is talking to the elders in Ephesus, and then he talks about the bishops or overseers in Ephesus, I mean, he refers to them in the plural. And so I think, in this town, in Ephesus, I mean, in Ephesus, you had a plurality of bishops. Now what’s interesting is that then you eventually see Paul in first Timothy 4:14 talking about how he had personally chosen Timothy, in Second Timothy.
Suan Sonna:
And then finally the elders in the Ephesian church, accept him, ordain him and so on, so forth. And then in their later Christian tradition, you have Timothy being cited as the first bishop of Ephesus. What I think that’s implying there is that even though you could have multiple men over their individual house churches who are called bishop, if the apostle came to your town and picked a guy and ordained him, then he would get special attention. And he would have a special say. Especially if you meet in a group setting, right? And you have, let’s say the guy who was specifically hand chosen by an apostle. That would give him a certain level of authority and prestige in the rest of the group. And so I think what happens, what we know is that Peter ordains Clement, and then we learn from Irenaeus and Hegesippus that Peter and Paul both chose Linus to be the successor in the episcopate, right?
Suan Sonna:
What’s possible here is that even if you had a plurality of bishops, the fact that the apostles had chosen certain men to be distinct from the rest of the group is where the monarchical episcopate begins, and begins to grow from. And then eventually, it starts with Linus, and then eventually it goes to Clement. I think that this is probably the plausible way of thinking about how we have a succession list of bishops. And we can say that it’s singularly, these men who had this unique kind of successional authority. And now, I mean, I can go into more detail there. I went into a lot of detail with Reason and Theology, but yeah I hope that [crosstalk 00:49:05] point.
Trent Horn:
No, but I think that it might be helpful for our listeners. And I think different Catholics will take different views on this as to how much of a development is the office of bishop. I think everybody agrees that the offices of bishop, priest and deacon, or we’ll do Greeks, everybody’s neutral. Because Protestants will say, “It’s not a priest.” [foreign language 00:49:31]. Bishop priest, deacon. Somewhat interchangeable in the mid first century. By the time we get to Ignatius of Antioch, they are stratified and distinct that you follow the Bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, as Ignatius of Antioch says. So maybe you can outline-
Suan Sonna:
Sure.
Trent Horn:
… what variety of views would be acceptable, what you might lean more towards. Because you had people who might be very, “Oh there was a monarchical bishop, right at the very beginning. And we’re very strong on this.” Versus someone like, let’s say Francis Sullivan in his book from Apostles to Bishops where it’s much looser about how the office develops over time. But just because Catholics have a range of views about how the office develops, it does not follow that the promises of the church about Peter, what Vatican One teaches about the papacy, it doesn’t nullify them. And then, well, I’ll just put it at that. But my little tack onto that is, if Protestants are not tolerant of that, they’re going to lose scripture being their authority, because it seems very clear we do not have knowledge of the canon we understand today, the New Testament canon first, second, third, really not until the fourth century that their over skepticism towards this would undermine their own authority. But maybe you can talk about the different views you could have about the development of the office and how that doesn’t contradict the position we’re taking.
Suan Sonna:
I mean, so I’ll just give you what I think is the most plausible view on the relationship between elder, overseer, and deacon, right? I mean, so I think that it’s pretty clear, especially in Paul’s writings. I believe it’s in First Timothy, that you have the qualifications laid out for the office of overseer, and the office of deacon. I think these are the two most well-defined offices in the early church. Now let’s talk about elders and presbyters.
Suan Sonna:
So what’s interesting is that one thing to point out is in Old Testament Judaism, what you learn is that in local towns, you had elder males or patriarchs in a clan, and these elder males or senior men would have a kind of authority. Now it wasn’t an institutional authority. It was an authority where if they had a local dispute, they could go to the eldest male, have him look at it.
Suan Sonna:
If he can’t deal with the problem, then he sends the case to a Levi priest or to a judge. But you had this idea that, okay, the senior men in your town had a kind of authority too. They would maybe form a city council or something like that. Now, the other thing that we point out too, is that with the pre 70 A.D. Jerusalem synagogue inscription, it talks about how a particular, I think it’s Theodotus had contributed money, a great sum of money to building a synagogue. And then it mentions how him and the [foreign language 00:52:19] had all contributed to some extent. And so it’s interesting that this idea of at least a presbyter or elders, it could refer to not only specific offices, right? Like for instance, the members of the Sanhedrin, but it could also refer to those really important men who were donors and patrons of a certain church, or group, or synagogue.
Suan Sonna:
And so what I think occurs in the early church is, you have this general population group of people known as the elders or the presbyters. These are elder senior males who are in the churches that they are occupying. And from these elders you have [foreign language 00:52:58] selected. And so here’s kind of the argument, all bishops would have been elders, but not all elders would have been bishops. It’s possible that you could have had a bishop who was also a patron, or it’s possible that you had a guy in the early church who was an older male who was a patron, but didn’t necessarily have the office of bishop, but he was part of the, maybe like the parish council or something like that. And so I think the reason why this interpretation should be preferred is not only because the word elder is a very flexible one in the New Testament and even in the Old Testament.
Suan Sonna:
And then even second, there’s nothing that strictly entails that elder and presbyter in the New Testament have to be interchangeable one and the same, they could overlap and you could still have the same reading of the text. The third thing is that, if by Ignatius’s time you’re separating elder and bishop, this would be a severe kind of problem in the early church. If you have presbyter and a bishop being interchangeable, and then all of a sudden Ignatius is making them sound as if they’re three separate offices. I mean, I think Joe Heschmeyer makes this argument, this would be a big deal in the church. But also second, Ignatius just seems to assume that there already is a threefold distinction. Not that he’s saying, “Hey, you need to have this threefold office.”
Suan Sonna:
He’s saying, “No, we have this threefold office. Here’s the respect that is due to each of the levels of the hierarchy.” And so I think the best explanation for why Ignatius doesn’t have to propose it, but already assumes it is because as the church develops, you have obviously, the well-defined offices or more institutional offices of bishop and deacon, but you still have this idea of elder that can overlap with bishop, but it eventually becomes more defined by Ignatius’s time. So Ignatius is not inventing the threefold office, it’s actually an organic outgrowth from the New Testament church.
Trent Horn:
And so we can understand that. I think what a lot of Protestants will try to do is, and I’ve seen Mike Winger and others argue this they say, “Look, Vatican One teaches that papal office and authority over the church. It was always known throughout church history. And Peter would always have perpetual successors, but that the dogma of the papacy is refuted if it turns out immediately after the death of Peter, there were multiple presbyters overseeing the church of Rome, for example.” And you’re saying, “No, that doesn’t refute that at all. There can be a natural development where there is a successor amongst this plurality.” I don’t know if that’s what your [crosstalk 00:55:38] in summary.
Suan Sonna:
So let me just mention two things from there. One is about Vatican One. The other is about my, what needs to actually be true in order for the Catholic thesis to be maintained. Right?
Trent Horn:
Right.
Suan Sonna:
So when it comes to the first question about Vatican One. So I’ve seen people use this argument before. Well Vatican One says, “Indeed it was known in every age, the blessed apostles, Peter and Paul, or that Peter had chosen a successor. And that the successors of the Roman pontiffs would be, the leaders of the church until the end of time.” Right? I mean, it’s important to note that when Vatican One is citing that, they’re citing from The Council of Ephesus in 4:31. So this is not a claim that Vatican One is making of itself, it’s a claim that the earlier church had made about the status of the church in Rome.
Trent Horn:
It’s not a dogmatic pronouncement.
Suan Sonna:
Sure.
Trent Horn:
It’s a historical citation leading up to the pronouncement.
Suan Sonna:
Exactly. And then when it comes to that particular quote, it’s from Philip, the Roman Legate and The Council of Ephesus. And there, I mean, I think there’s room to say that there’s some exaggeration on his part, because obviously there was that dispute between Cyprian of Carthage and Pope Stephen. Now, from what I can tell Cyprian, didn’t dispute that Pope Stephen was the successor of Peter. I think the question was more, if he could use Matthew 16 to justify his authority. But then again, I just want to say there that, look, when you say like… Indeed, he was known in every age, and it makes it sounds like everybody had known it. I mean, think about how we use that exaggerated phrase all the time. For instance, I say, “Of course everybody knows that Bill Craig’s the best Christian debater and philosopher.” And that’s like, “Well, no, some people have their own picks. Some people might say Trent Horn is better.” Right?
Trent Horn:
Right.
Suan Sonna:
But-
Trent Horn:
Or in the early church, I mean, it doesn’t mean that when the apostle Thomas was in India, he would’ve known everything that was happening when the successions in the church of Rome, for example, or things like that. In every age, it’s just saying that this is something that has been continuous in church history. It didn’t just pop up in the Middle Ages or something like that. And once again, this is not a pronouncement of dogma. It is what the church says is citing a historical element leading up to it. And the church, it doesn’t teach that it’s always without error in making these historical arguments that lead up to dogmatic pronouncements. You can make a case of Second Isaiah that some of the history around the use of icons in the church, that was actually not correct, but that was not part of the pronouncement about the validity of venerating icons.
Suan Sonna:
… Right. I mean, and so, with this particular objection, what the objector is doing is having such a rigid reading of the particular text, that of course you can find a contradiction. I mean, and you can do the same thing with the gospels, right? I think in Luke’s gospel, Jesus says don’t leave Jerusalem, but then there’s an appearance in Galilee in the other gospels.
Trent Horn:
Right.
Suan Sonna:
And I remember Bart Ehrman and Michael Licona were debating this and Mike Licona thinks that there’s a compositional device being used, where there was probably an appearance in Jerusalem and Galilee, but Luke is just condensing the narrative. Right? And so if you want to be that rigid, then go ahead. But you got to wreak havoc on the New Testament too.
Trent Horn:
Right.
Suan Sonna:
Or even take Irenaeus when he talks about how Peter and Paul had founded the church in Rome, people think, “Well, there were Christians already before Peter and Paul arrived there. And so obviously Irenaeus is wrong that Peter and Paul didn’t found the church in Rome.” And to me, I also think that this is such a rigid reading of Irenaeus, that it isn’t fair to him. Because I mean, obviously, if he had access to the Book of Romans, which he did, he would already know seeing Paul’s letter that there were Christians already. And so when he says that they founded the church in Rome, he probably means something like they played a huge part in organizing the churches in Rome from not just being individual house churches, but able to speak with a unified voice so that Clement can write the letter eventually to Corinth.
Trent Horn:
It’s like they put their stamp, their official apostolic stamp on that to put it together.
Suan Sonna:
Right. And so to the second question then on what we actually have to affirm as Catholics, there’s a paper in, I believe it’s New Blackfriars in response to Father Francis Sullivan on his book. And the point that the scholar makes, and it’s Mark, and I forget his last name. But what he argues is, look, what we have to affirm as Catholics is that the apostles had willed that their successors would be in the office of bishop, right? Or that they had chosen the bishops to be their successors as the head shepherds over their local churches. This is compatible with there being a plurality of men with the office bishop, so long as the apostles had ordained certain men. What we can’t say is that the apostles were there in, let’s say the church in Rome, they didn’t ordain anybody or pick anyone to be their successors.
Suan Sonna:
Right? And then what happened is the church later just said, “You know what? We’re just going to say that Linus was ordained by Peter and Paul, or we’re just going to say that Clement was ordained by Peter and pretend as if there was some type of succession.” No, but I mean, if there really was, you had Peter and Paul saying, “Hey, we approve of these men. Or we want this man to be in charge.” That’s compatible with there being a monarchical episcopate, that’s compatible with there being multiple bishops, but one bishop is uniquely singled out for having this unique apostolic ordination as was with the case of Timothy in the church in Ephesus. So I just don’t, I don’t think that this objection is too disconcerting. Right? I think there are ways in which we can be nuanced and fair with the evidence and still maintain the Catholic dogmas.
Trent Horn:
And I would still want, once again, evidential parity. I would ask Protestants, “Okay. Tell me about Scripture. Did Christians know in every age what Scripture was and that they were to be held accountable to it?” And I think some of them would say, “Well, yeah.” And then if you press them, they’d say, “Well, I mean, there might have been communities in the early church that didn’t know Hebrews and Second and Third John were part of the canon. And, but they still had that general…” It’s like, “Oh, well now you’re allowed to make qualifications about what was known.” And, but there, I think it’s way sketchier. That if we only looked at the first and early second century evidence, we would have citations of canonical books, citations of non-canonical books. We would have things like Justin’s references to the memoirs of the apostles, but you would have no sense of the canon as we understand it today.
Trent Horn:
It’s like some Protestant apologist will say, “You can’t find Vatican One Catholicism in the early church documents.” Well, by that logic, you can’t find the Chicago statement on scripture and inerrancy in those documents either. There’s no way you can find a closed canon that’s inerrant, that’s the sole infallible rule of faith. But you can find more evidence for apostolic succession and for the unique authority of the Petrine office. So, I am torn, but I think I want to let you tie it up and I’m going to have you back to talk about Peter as the new Joshua. I want it to be its own little treat for people.
Suan Sonna:
Sure.
Trent Horn:
Because that’s a super fun discussion. But I think this is really relevant, because a lot of people are talking about the papacy right now. And I think it’s important for them to hear about this and a lot of great resources here. So feel free to tie it up. Other resources you want to send people too. But I find it very, very fascinating. And it’s so important. It’s the crux of our Catholic faith. It’s what makes us distinct as the papacy, and this is going to the foundations of it. So we got to be able to explain this stuff.
Suan Sonna:
So if I just had to summarize everything that I talked about, I just focused on, once again, what I started off with, with how do we know that Peter had an office to which successors could fill in the role? And I mentioned the argument from typology with Peter being something like a chief steward based off of the Old Testament, Davidic monarchy. I gave a priority A priori arguments for why you’d have a singular office or succession within that singular office. And then obviously, considering what the historical sources say that there was succession from Peter and Paul in the church in Rome, right? I mean, this is pretty clear.
Suan Sonna:
Now when we get into the evidence itself, what I looked at was, does Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, or Shepherd of Hermas, are these three sources strictly incompatible with what Hegesippus and Irenaeus say? And the answer is, no. And in fact they can be made sense of and harmonized with the text. And then also, look, you could have multiple models by which you still have unique Petrine succession. Maybe you have a monarchical bishop who is the one head bishop overall. Maybe you do have a body of bishops in the Roman church, but there’s one bishop who is distinguished for being chosen directly by Peter and Paul. I mean, just as in the case of Ephesus we learned in Acts 20 that they had multiple overseers, but then Timothy is selected by Paul, and the elders unanimously lay their hands upon Timothy in that early church setting. And I mean, and I didn’t get into all the other examples of mono episcopacy like in the Jerusalem church and elsewhere. But the point that I want to make here is, whenever people raise this argument against the claims of Petrine succession.
Suan Sonna:
I mean, the thing that the Catholic is going to do is find a harmonization to show that their conclusion does not necessarily follow, and that we can actually maintain the reliability of Hegesippus and Irenaeus. Now somebody might say, “Oh, well of course you’re going to do that as a Catholic because you’re ideologically driven and you’re just trying to save the claims of your church.” Well, think about when you watch Bart Ehrman debate an evangelical Christian, and Bart Ehrman points out a contradiction or difference between the gospels. And then he says, “Ah, ah, but if you try to find a harmonization, you’re just doing that because you’re ideologically driven and you already believe that the gospels are inspired and inherent. And so you can’t do that. You’re being ideologically driven. You’re not being objective.”
Suan Sonna:
And I’m saying, well, no, no, no. My personal historical epistemology is not that a source is guilty until proven innocent. It’s my same epistemology with testimony in general, which is that you start off trusting it until you’re given sufficient reason otherwise. And so when I look at the evidence of Irenaeus and Hegesippus, I say, all right, this is what they say. It seems quite early, it’s within living memory. I depend upon Irenaeus to know the author of the four gospels. He’s very important in other areas of establishing the early beliefs of the Christians. Right?
Suan Sonna:
And so, I mean, I have sufficient reason to trust him. You mentioned Clement, Ignatius and the Shepherd or Hermas, I can find a harmonization that doesn’t entail that Hegesippus and Irenaeus are flat-out wrong. And so if that’s my hermeneutic here, and it’s my hermeneutic with the gospels as well that most Christians would say, “Yeah. Let’s find a harmonization.” Then I would just ask, extend the courtesy to me then. And I think you have strong evidence that there was succession from Peter, because the earlier sources don’t definitively knock out that possibility you have multiple reasons for A priori arguments for thinking that there was succession. And so I’m just going to say here, Trent, this objection, doesn’t worry me. I think you can find a plausible explanation for what’s there in the sources.
Trent Horn:
And I’m going to steal this for my new book, How Protestants Act Like Atheists, because that is another one I didn’t have in the table of contents. I’ll give a hat tip to you in the final text.
Suan Sonna:
Sure.
Trent Horn:
Suan Sonna, you rock my friend. Thank you so much for being on the show today to walk us through this.
Suan Sonna:
Oh, of course. Trent, anytime.
Trent Horn:
All right, everyone be sure to go and check out Suan’s channel on YouTube, Intellectual Conservatism, as well as the other dialogues and debates he’s done on this subject. And thank you guys so much for supporting us here at the podcast. And hey, I hope you all have a very blessed day.
If you liked today’s episode become a premium subscriber at our Patreon page and get access to member-only content. For more information, visit trenthornpodcast.com.