Tag: roman catholicism

Is the Papacy Biblical? A Look at Matthew 16

Is the Papacy Biblical? A Look at Matthew 16

Pope Francis’ recent death is an opportunity for bible-believing Christians to consider what we ought to believe about the papacy. The goal is not to dance on a dead man’s grave, but to think about who oversees Christ’s church. Is the papacy a legitimate institution? Does it have biblical warrant?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (“CCC”) says that:

  1. Peter is the rock of the church, which is built upon him (CCC, Art(s). 881, 552).
  2. Peter has the “keys” and therefore governs the church (CCC, Art(s). 553, 881).
  3. Peter is the shepherd of the church, and priests and bishops have derivative authority under Peter.
  4. Peter is the source and foundation of the unity of the church—he has full, supreme, and universal power (CCC, Art. 882).
  5. According to the first Vatican council (Vatican I, 1869-70, Session 4), if you do not agree with Rome’s teaching about Peter, you are damned to hell.

This is all false and cannot be defended from scripture. Rome’s argument, both in the CCC and at Vatican I, centers on Matthew 16:18 and some supporting citations. My argument here focuses on the Matthew 16 passage. If you want to read more about Rome’s grave and terrible errors about the gospel, I recommend (a) James White, The Roman Catholic Controversy (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1996), and (b) Tyler Robbins, “How Rome Distorts the Gospel—Atonement Misunderstood.”

Now—on to the papacy!

In Matthew 16:18-19, Jesus gives us two pairs of images: (a) the rock and the gates, and (b) the keys and the bonds. What do they mean? Oracles from “the Greek” won’t help you here—your bible translation is just fine. Whatever these images mean, they must make the best sense of what the passage is taking about in context.

Context—what are we talking about here?

Jesus asks his disciples who people say the Son of Man is (Mt 16:13). He refers to himself as the mysterious figure from Daniel’s famous vision (Dan 7:13-14). Public opinion says that Jesus is a prophet of some sort (Mt 16:14). Now, Jesus asks the disciples who they think he is (Mt 16:15). Peter answers: “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God” (Mt 16:17).

The “Messiah” is the chosen and anointed one, the special divine envoy (“Son of the living God”) who will make all God’s covenant promises come true. He is God’s promise-keeper. He makes God known to us (Jn 1:18). Jesus agrees and tells Peter that his Father in heaven has revealed this precious truth (i.e., his confession about Jesus’ identity) to him.

So, as we move on to consider the first pair of images, we must get this right—this conversation is about Jesus’ identity and what it means. Any interpretation that takes a hard turn off this road to something completely different is wrong.

Imagery 1—The Rock and the Gates

Jesus says: “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” (Mt 16:18). Here we have our first pair of images.

  1. What are gates for? To keep people in or out.
  2. What is Christ’s church build on? A rock.
  3. Because Hades’ gates cannot prevail against the rock, these gates are imprisoning folks inside, and the rock smashes this gate open to set them free.

So, whatever “the rock” is …

  1. The entire family of God is built on it,
  2. and the rock is so strong, and so powerful,
  3. that Satan’s kingdom can’t withstand it!
  4. so it’s a pretty tough rock— divinely tough!

You have three options:

  1. The rock is Peter—the pope.

Rome places great stock in a Greek wordplay that Jesus uses here: “And I tell you that you are Peter (Πέτρος—petros), and on this rock (πέτρᾳ—petra) I will build my church …” This is a weak argument. Unless context suggests otherwise (and remember, the context is Jesus’ identity and what it means), there is no need to see this as anything other than a playful wordplay.

For example, my first name is Mark. Yet my parents have called me Tyler all my life, so I have no idea why they bothered to name me Mark. A similar wordplay would be if someone told me: “Your name is Mark, and mark my words that …” That is all this need be. Peter has nothing to do with this conversation—they’re talking about Jesus’ identity.

  1. The Rock is Jesus.

When he says, “and upon this rock,” he points to himself. This is weak and desperate. The pronoun translated “this” refers to something nearby in the context. This position rightly rejects Peter as the rock (because it is out of context), and to make Jesus himself “this rock,” they must make him point to himself. There is a simpler way—one that doesn’t require us to pantomime while explaining it.

  1. The rock is Peter’s confession of Jesus’ identity and what it means—his faith and trust in the Messiah.

Option 3 is the right option.[1] Christ’s church family is built on the confession that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of the living God. You cannot be a Christian (and a member of the worldwide Jesus family) unless you trust and confess the truth about him. Again, remember the context of this passage—this whole conversation is about who Jesus is and why it matters. It is not about a disciple who Jesus is going to call “satan” in four verses. It is not about the disciple who Paul rebuked to his face in Antioch (Gal 2:11-14). It is not about the guy to whom nobody in the scripture gives special authority.

But the conversation certainly is about Jesus, the Messiah, the Son of God. This explains why the rock is so strong, and so powerful, and why the gates of Hades can’t prevail against the church—because it’s divinely tough.

The completed imagery of rock + gates is this:

  1. The rock is the confession that Jesus is the divine promise-keeper and Son of God.
  2. The gates are to Satan’s kingdom, and they can no longer imprison those who believe in the rock.
  3. Jesus (the rock) smashes these gates open—remember the divine rock which smashes the statue of pagan empires (which are really different flavors of Babylon, Satan’s kingdom) at Daniel 2:34-35, 44.

Peter cannot smash these gates open. Yet, this is what the “rock + gates” imagery would have us believe. Your safety, security, and anchor is Jesus. It wasn’t John Paul II. It wasn’t Benedict. It wasn’t Francis. It is not Leo. It’s the Messiah, the Son of the living God—just like the old song says— “On Christ the solid rock I stand. All other ground is sinking sand.”

Imagery 2—The Keys and the Bonds

Jesus continued: “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” (Mt 16:19).

  1. What are keys for? To control access. To let you in or out.
  2. What do bonds do? They confine you. Imprison you.

We know that Jesus has the keys of life and death (Rev 1:18), the keys that lock people into that future, or let them out to embrace a better one tomorrow.

So, whatever the keys are,

  1. They let you into the kingdom of heaven,
  2. and untie or unchain you from the bonds that you’re in,
  3. which means this is a divine power.

You have two options to understand what this means:

  1. Peter has exclusive power to govern the church (the keys), and to absolve people’s sins by a sacred power—the bonds (CCC, Art(s). 553, 881, 1592).

This makes no sense of the “key” imagery. Keys are about access (Rev 1:18, 9:1, 20:1), not governance. Scripture never says to go to Peter—or anyone else—to have your sins absolved. Nor does Peter later claim this right for himself in his two New Testament letters. Instead, the bible tells us that God forgives sins—even David knew this (Ps 51:1-2).

  1. Peter (and every other Christian) offers “the key” to freedom by preaching rescue (“the bonds”) through complete forgiveness of sins.

Option 2 is the correct one.  Again, this entire conversation is about who Jesus is and why it matters. The keys don’t belong to Peter when Jesus speaks—he says he will give them to Peter (future-tense). Later, Jesus clarifies that the entire church has the keys—he even repeats the very same words (Mt 18:18).

The “key + bonds” imagery tells us this:

  1. Jesus’ family,
  2. organized into big and small Jesus communities around the world called “churches,”
  3. are his hands and feet that offer the key to spiritual freedom,
  4. by preaching liberation, forgiveness, and reconciliation.
  5. and we untie the shackles or bonds by accepting people into the brotherhood of the faithful upon a credible profession of faith (see Acts 2:41).

Jesus, through his communities around the world, unlocks the gate to death and hades and lets his people out, just like the song says— “my chains are gone, I’ve been set free, My God, my Savior has ransomed me!”

Peter was a good guy. Peter was an important guy. Peter is a star (not the star) of Acts 1-11. But Peter was just a guy.

Jesus leads his church. Not by one old man in Rome, but by Word + Spirit in his churches around the world, under qualified leaders, through you, and me, and us. And together we build Jesus’ family—just like Peter himself told us. Jesus is the “living stone” (a synonym for “rock”) to whom we come to be built up into the spiritual household of the faithful (1 Pet 2:4-5).

Your leader is not an old man in a white robe who sits in a building financed over 500 years ago by extorting money from millions of peasants with stories of fraudulent “indulgences” that can buy them time off a purgatory that doesn’t exist, and who represents a false “gospel” that has no perfect peace—that doesn’t make you holy and perfect forever (Heb 10:10, 14). Instead, thank God (literally) that the confession and trust in Jesus is your rock. Jesus is your anchor. Jesus smashes open Hades’ gates. Jesus has the keys and loans them to his churches. Jesus, through his communities across the world, unlocks the door to death and Hades to let his people out of darkness and into the marvelous light.

[1] Many conservative Protestant scholars today believe that Peter is the rock. They often comment that Protestants only object to this interpretation because of what Rome does with the passage. See John Broadus’ wonderful commentary on the Gospel of Matthew for a representative example of this line of thinking: https://tinyurl.com/4my9e7y3.

I believe this is wrong, and I have not found the arguments convincing. The context strongly supports Option 3, and it is the best antecedent for the pronoun in ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν. This is not an academic article, so I will leave the matter here!

How Rome Distorts the Gospel: Atonement Misunderstood

How Rome Distorts the Gospel: Atonement Misunderstood

This article argues that the Roman Catholic Church (“Rome”) is wrong about the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement. In fact, she is so incorrect that her teaching on this matter is grave error that distorts the gospel.

By “Christ’s atonement,” we mean the action by which Christ’s vicarious death reconciles us to God and restores fellowship with him. The dispute here is about the sufficiency of this atonement. Did Christ atone for the consequences of all our sins? Is his atonement permanent or conditional?

Some issues are “in-house” debates—things Christians disagree about “inside the family.” But, some matters are serious enough that they rise to another level because they present two different versions of the Christian faith. The sufficiency of Christ’s atonement is one of those issues. If Christ’s sacrifice does not fully purify, fully reconcile, fully satisfy divine justice for his people once for all and forever, then that means Christ does not “save forever those who come to God through him,” (Heb 7:25, NASB). The word “forever” at Hebrews 7:25 means for all time,[1]or perhaps completely and absolutely.[2] Because Jesus is a priest forever, the rescue he gives his people is total, complete, and forever.

NOTE: This article is a significant abridgement of a larger essay which you can read here. You can consult the larger article for extended discussions of each point.

The bottom line

Rome teaches that Christ’s atonement (a) does not make full satisfaction[3] for all his people’s sins, and so (b) does not make believers holy and perfect forever. Instead, Rome teaches that when a believer commits sins after baptism, a stain affixes which makes her unholy (though still in a state of grace if she has not committed mortal sin), and so she herself must make satisfaction to God for the temporal consequences of these sins. We make this satisfaction to God “through the merits of Christ.”[4]

In other words, a believer’s purity before God is conditional—it depends on our actions. For the temporal consequences of these sins, we can either pay God now by way of the sacrament of penance,[5] or we can pay him later by suffering in purgatory to make satisfaction for our sins.

On the contrary, Hebrews 6:13-10:22 teaches that Jesus is the great high priest who made one single, all-sufficient sacrifice that makes each believer holy and perfect forever. As part of the journey of progressive holiness, God does discipline believers who commit sins, but a believer’s legal purity before God is perfect and complete forever at the time of salvation.[6]

Zooming out to the bigger picture, Rome is wrong because, compared to the old covenant system, her false teaching presents us with a new covenant that isn’t better than the old one. Both consist of a sacrificial liturgy and a band of priests offering repeated sacrifices with temporary atoning effect. Therefore, Rome’s teaching on the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement is a lateral move, not a promotion, and that’s why it’s incorrect. Because the argument from Hebrews 6:13-10:22 is that the new covenant has a better high priest, who brings believers a better hope, built on better promises, who makes a better atonement for his people, Rome’s teaching about the atonement is wrong.

Different sources and methods

However, we have a roadblock to overcome. Roman Catholics and Protestants don’t answer religious questions the same way because they have different authorities.

  • Rome teaches that there is a “living transmission” from the Holy Spirit, called tradition (Catechism of the Catholic Church, “CCC,” Art. 78), that exists alongside scripture as a complementary vessel of divine revelation.
  • Protestants generally hold to what one writer has called suprema scriptura, which means “the Bible as the supreme or highest channel of religious authority.”[7] Under scripture’s authority, in an interpretive dialogue, are church tradition, reason, and personal religious experience in the divine-human encounter.[8]

The issue of authority deserves serious discussion,[9] but we will leave that for another time. For now, it’s enough to say that because Rome teaches that both scripture and tradition flow from “the same divine well-spring” (CCC, Art. 80), her teaching must find scriptural support.[10] In the matter of Christ’s atonement, it does not. I urge Roman Catholics to see if scripture squares with their church’s tradition. If it doesn’t, then you should leave Rome.

Why Rome is wrong

God has revealed his truth in revelation, and grave error is false teaching that leads people away from that revelation. Rome’s understanding of Christ’s atonement is grave error because it contradicts scriptural teaching and negatively affects your understanding of salvation and the gospel.[11] It teaches that Christ’s atonement does not fully purify believers and make them holy and perfect forever at the moment of salvation. Specifically:

  1. Rome falsely teaches that there are “temporal consequences” from sins that Christ’s sacrifice does not fully fix—debts of temporal punishment still remain for sins committed after baptism.[12] The truth is that, in the new and better covenant relationship with God by faith in Christ which began at Pentecost, God promises: “I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more,” (Heb 8:12).
  • Rome wrongly teaches that, after death, believers may need to be cleansed and purified from the temporal consequences of sins to have the holiness necessary to enter heaven. The truth is that scripture says believers have already been reconciled to God and have peace with him, because he has declared them righteous (i.e., justified) by means of faith in Jesus (Rom 5:1, 10). His “once for all” sacrifice makes us holy already (Heb 10:10).[13]
  • Rome falsely teaches a fictitious system of penance to restore the state of grace ex opere operato as a so-called “second plank of salvation,”and teaches a non-existent treasury of merit from which priests and bishops may apply merit to remit temporal punishment for sins. The truth is that “by one sacrifice [Jesus] has made perfect forever those who are being made holy,” (Heb 10:14). This means this elaborate system is un-biblical and blasphemous to the sufficiency of Christ’s work.

Eight principles from Hebrews 6:13 to 10:22

Principle 1 (Hebrews 6:13-20): Because Jesus is a different and better priest who represents his people forever, he’ll always keep the “anchor of hope” fastened to God for those he reconciles. This suggests Christ’s atonement is effective for his people forever and always.

Principle 2 (Hebrews 7:1-3): Jesus is the king of righteousness, the king of peace, and is the “Son of God” because he shares the same nature and attributes as Yahweh—just like Melchisedec. This is why he is a better priest, and therefore the new covenant relationship with God is better, too. This suggests Christ’s atonement is also better.

Principle 3 (Hebrews 7:18-19, 10:19-22): The old covenant law never made anybody perfect—it never permanently purified or cleansed believers. So, God repealed it and cleared the way for a better hope, by which every believer draws near to God. This better hope is Jesus’ better priesthood, triggered by Jesus’ better sacrifice.

Principle 4 (Heb 7:11-17, 20-28): Because Jesus is a priest forever, he rescues his people completely and permanently, and this means he always intercedes for and protects his people. Jesus’ sacrifice was “once for all” and “forever,” and its atonement needs no re-application. It’s a permanent marker, not a pencil.

Principle 5 (Hebrews 8): The old covenant is obsolete because the better covenant has come, backed by a better priest, based on a better sacrifice, bringing better promises, securing a better arrangement for God’s relationship with his people.

Principle 6 (Hebrews 9:1-15): Jesus’ sacrifice is the concrete reality to which the old covenant sacrifices pointed. He’s set his people free from sins, has already paid the full ransom price to our kidnapper Satan, and the liberation he achieves for believers is everlasting and forever.

Principle 7 (Hebrews 9:16-28): Jesus’ “once for all” sacrifice has already invalidated, annulled, and repealed the power of sin for those who trust in him. He does not repeat or re-apply his sacrifice, or it would not be “better.” It is better because it is forever.

Principle 8 (Hebrews 10:1-18): Jesus’ sacrifice has already made believers holy once for all and forever, and it has already made us perfect forever. Therefore, he will never, ever consider our sins again, and sacrifice for sins is no longer necessary. It is all finished.

The new covenant isn’t a lateral move

In the job world, a “lateral move” is one where you get a new job, but the pay and duties are similar. It isn’t a demotion, but it isn’t a promotion either. The new covenant isn’t like that. It isn’t a lateral move. It’s better.

Yet, Rome believes that Christ’s atonement is essentially a lateral move from the old covenant because it teaches (a) the conditional purification of the believer, (b) resulting in potential temporal consequences for sin which Christ’s sacrifice did not cover, (c) requiring the probable need to suffer in purgatory to satisfy and atone for these temporal punishments, and (d) the existence of indulgences which waive the temporal punishment of our sins by debiting a so-called treasury of merit.

But the bible is a story that moves forward.

  1. It begins with creation in Genesis 1-2,
  2. catalogs the fall in Genesis 3,
  3. and then to the divine rescue through Christ the king that God promised throughout the old covenant, foreshadowed in the temple liturgy and sacrifices, and fulfilled in the story of Jesus in the Gospels,
  4. and finally, it concludes with the defeat of evil and the restoration of all things in Revelation 18-22.

But Rome says that Christ’s atonement does not make satisfaction for his people’s sins once for all and forever—so where is better hope by which we draw near to God (Heb 7:18)? Rome’s system offers a new covenant that’s stuck in neutral—one that is not better than the old covenant. Her story has run aground and hasn’t moved forward. Rome has exchanged a flat Diet Coke for a stale Pepsi. It’s a lateral move, not a promotion.

Hebrews 6:13-10:22 vaporizes all this. Rome offers nothing “new” or “better” in terms of practical effects. It isn’t a promotion, and that’s the bottom-line reason why it’s false, and so Rome’s teaching about the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement fails.

The truth is that: “when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool. For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy,” (Heb 10:14).

[1] BDAG, s.v., “παντελής,” sense 2, 754; see RSV, NRSV, NASB.

[2] LSJ, s.v., “παντελής,” 1300; see NET, KJV, NIV, NEB, REB, CSB, CEB.

[3] This means “[r]eparation or compensation for a wrong or a debt incurred,” (Millard J. Erickson, The Concise Dictionary of Christian Theology, rev. ed. (Wheaton: Crossway, 2001), s.v., “satisfaction,” 176).

[4] Tanner (ed.) “Trent,” Session 14, canon 13, in Decrees, 2:713.

[5] In fact, Rome says, if we believe that our penitential works are nothing more than the faith by which we grasp that Christ has already made satisfaction for our sins, then we’re damned to hell (Tanner (ed.) “Trent,” Session 14, canon 12, in Decrees, 2:713).

[6] Augustus H. Strong’s definition of “sanctification” captures the Protestant interpretation very well: “Sanctification is that continuous operation of the Holy Spirit, by which the holy disposition imparted in regeneration is maintained and strengthened.” Strong explained: “Salvation is something past, something present, and something future; a past fact, justification; a present process, sanctification; a future consummation, redemption and glory,” (Systematic Theology (Old Tappan: Revell, 1907), 869). Emphases added.

[7] James Leo Garrett Jr., Systematic Theology: Biblical, Historical, and Evangelical, Fourth Edition., vol. 1 (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2014), 206.

[8] Garret, Systematic, 2.206; Thomas Oden, Life in the Spirit: Systematic Theology, vol. 1 (San Francisco: HarperOne, 1987), 330-44.

[9] For example, Bishop James Gibbons wrote: “… the Church is the divinely appointed Custodian and Interpreter of the Bible. For, her office of infallible Guide were superfluous, if each individual could interpret the Bible for himself … God never intended the Bible to be the Christian’s rule of faith, independently of the living authority of the Church,” (Faith of Our Fathers, 10th rev. ed. (New York: John Murphy & Co., 1879), 94). 

[10] One doctor of the church declared: “Holy Scripture is in such sort the rule of the Christian faith that we are obliged by every kind of obligation to believe most exactly all that it contains, and not to believe anything which may be ever so little contrary to it,” (Francis de Sales, The Catholic Controversy, in Library of Francis de Sales, vol. III, 3rd ed., trans. by Canon Mackey (London: Burns & Oats, Limited, 1909), 88 (Part II, Article 1, Ch. 1).

[11] “The concept of heresy is grounded in the conviction that there exists one revealed truth, and other opinions are intentional distortions or denials of that truth. Absent such conviction, ‘heresy’ becomes little more than bigoted persecution. But the Christian belief in revealed truth means that heresy becomes not merely another opinion, but false teaching that leads people away from God’s revelation” (Daniel J. Treier and Walter Elwell (eds.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2017), s.v. “heresy,” 377-78).

Millard Erickson offers up this definition: “A belief or teaching that contradicts Scripture and Christian theology,” (Concise Dictionary, s.v. “heresy,” 88).

[12] Norman P. Tanner, S.J. (ed)., “Trent,” Session 6, Canon 30, in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 2 (Washington, D.C., Georgetown University Press, 1990), 2:681.

[13] The verb is present tense-form, and it can be rendered as “are being made holy” or “have been made holy.” Either way, Jesus’ once-for-all sacrifice is the means by which (διὰ τῆς προσφορᾶς) the holiness happens.