Roman Catholics use Matthew 16:18 and 19 to prove the church was built upon Peter and thereby establishing the office of the papacy:
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
We have already done an analysis of the above verses in a previous article. What we will discuss here is the hypocrisy of the arguments used by Roman Catholics in defending their (mis)interpretation of the above passage.
First, despite the fact that the manuscript of the book of Matthew was in Greek, Roman Catholics argue that Jesus spoke in Aramaic and could have stated that, "You are Kepha and upon this Kepha I will build my church." Unfortunately, up to now Roman Catholics do not have any evidence for an Aramaic original. The hypocrisy comes in Luke 1:28 when they prefer the Greek rendering "kecharitomene". They argue that it is in the perfect tense of a participle which started in the past and continues up to the present; so that Mary was "full of grace" aka, immaculate conception (though modern scholarship translate it as highly favored) .
Imagine, Roman Catholics exert so much effort to determine (or rather speculate) the Aramaic original for Matthew 16:18-19 but would not do the same procedure in Luke 1:28. Yes, the author Luke was Greek but the angel and Mary could have also spoken in Aramaic prior to the enscripturation of the event. So why not exert extra effort to determine the Aramaic original of Luke 1:28 to strongly affirm Mary is really sinless?
Another hypocritical argument is when Roman Catholics cricitize sola scriptura or scripture alone. When Evangelicals refer to 2nd Timothy 3:16-17, Roman Catholics are quick to point that it does not say scripture alone as there is no word alone or only. The same argument is applied when Evangelicals defend sola fide or faith alone using Ephesians 2:8-9. Roman Catholics argue that they don't see in the verse the that sinners are saved by faith alone. Despite the fact that the Bible does not point to us any authoritative source that is God-inspired other than Scriptures and no other means of being saved than faith alone, Roman Catholics demand an actual reading to include the word alone or only in the verses used by Evangelicals to prove sola scriptura and sola fide.
So where does the hypocrisy comes in? Well, Roman Catholics defend the papacy by arguing that in Matthew 16:18-19 that the keys were given to Peter alone. However, Christ did not say, "To you alone, I will give the keys...". We don't see the words alone and only that is attached to Peter in the passage. But Roman Catholics will be quick to respond, "but the Bible does not point us to any other person who were handed the keys." Well now, isn't that the same reasoning Evangelicals use to defend sola scriptura and sola fide which you are simply dismissing unless we show you that the words only or alone? Therefore, we could also dismiss their argument that there is no one else who were handed the keys.
The reality is, the keys were also entrusted to other apostles. In Matthew 18:18 the other apostles were also given the ability to bind and loose. Although no keys were mentioned there, it is implied (and common sense will tell us) that the other apostles also have the keys so that they can bind and loose.
It's not surprising that one could bend the rules to justify a doctrine. As the saying goes, whatever serves mother church.
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
We have already done an analysis of the above verses in a previous article. What we will discuss here is the hypocrisy of the arguments used by Roman Catholics in defending their (mis)interpretation of the above passage.
First, despite the fact that the manuscript of the book of Matthew was in Greek, Roman Catholics argue that Jesus spoke in Aramaic and could have stated that, "You are Kepha and upon this Kepha I will build my church." Unfortunately, up to now Roman Catholics do not have any evidence for an Aramaic original. The hypocrisy comes in Luke 1:28 when they prefer the Greek rendering "kecharitomene". They argue that it is in the perfect tense of a participle which started in the past and continues up to the present; so that Mary was "full of grace" aka, immaculate conception (though modern scholarship translate it as highly favored) .
Imagine, Roman Catholics exert so much effort to determine (or rather speculate) the Aramaic original for Matthew 16:18-19 but would not do the same procedure in Luke 1:28. Yes, the author Luke was Greek but the angel and Mary could have also spoken in Aramaic prior to the enscripturation of the event. So why not exert extra effort to determine the Aramaic original of Luke 1:28 to strongly affirm Mary is really sinless?
Another hypocritical argument is when Roman Catholics cricitize sola scriptura or scripture alone. When Evangelicals refer to 2nd Timothy 3:16-17, Roman Catholics are quick to point that it does not say scripture alone as there is no word alone or only. The same argument is applied when Evangelicals defend sola fide or faith alone using Ephesians 2:8-9. Roman Catholics argue that they don't see in the verse the that sinners are saved by faith alone. Despite the fact that the Bible does not point to us any authoritative source that is God-inspired other than Scriptures and no other means of being saved than faith alone, Roman Catholics demand an actual reading to include the word alone or only in the verses used by Evangelicals to prove sola scriptura and sola fide.
So where does the hypocrisy comes in? Well, Roman Catholics defend the papacy by arguing that in Matthew 16:18-19 that the keys were given to Peter alone. However, Christ did not say, "To you alone, I will give the keys...". We don't see the words alone and only that is attached to Peter in the passage. But Roman Catholics will be quick to respond, "but the Bible does not point us to any other person who were handed the keys." Well now, isn't that the same reasoning Evangelicals use to defend sola scriptura and sola fide which you are simply dismissing unless we show you that the words only or alone? Therefore, we could also dismiss their argument that there is no one else who were handed the keys.
The reality is, the keys were also entrusted to other apostles. In Matthew 18:18 the other apostles were also given the ability to bind and loose. Although no keys were mentioned there, it is implied (and common sense will tell us) that the other apostles also have the keys so that they can bind and loose.
It's not surprising that one could bend the rules to justify a doctrine. As the saying goes, whatever serves mother church.
It should be, "whatever saves mother church", haha.
ReplyDeleteGreat post!
We can consider that, thanks.
ReplyDelete