A Conversation About Protestants and Catholics
November 1, 2007
A visitor to our blog has asked that we converse on some very specific issues reguarding the Protestant and Catholic faiths.
Most, if not all these issues, have been dealt with at great length and to our satisfaction by others. Therefore, in discussing these topics, we will make considerable use of these references.
The following are some of the questions/issues and our response along with any references to external sources. Again, in order to be a good stuard of the time God gives us, we will not replicate the work that others have laboured to provide to the Body of Christ.
Question #1
Here are the questions. I would like to stick to this discussion for awhile and then move to another topic that we are in disagreement about. Your comment on agreeing to disagree is precisely my point with some of these questions. In the assumed(cant be proved by scripture) sola scriptura belief system of Protestantism you can never get past two fallible men throwing scripture verses at each other. There is no higher authority to appeal to because the individual is ultimately the final authority, which i believe is unbiblical. That is why i continually ask, why i should believe Shane’s fallible interpretation of scripture over anyone elses? You are giving me your interpretation, which since you are not infallible could be wrong. Since you could be wrong, you could be wrong about the Catholic Church, which is why i wonder why your interpretation is better than anyone else’s???? Anyone with any belief can prove their beliefs from scripture, ie look at all the denominations is Protestantism. everyone of them is going by the bible alone. So why are you right and everyone else is wrong? Do you pray more than them? Do you have more schooling than them? Is the Holy Spirit speak in an audible voice to you? (you could answer these above question too, if you would please).
Answer #1
Yes, we without reservation admit to our fallibility and the fallibility of every man who has lived, is living, or will ever live this side of heaven. Jesus Christ was the only perfect man who ever did or will walk on the earth. Jesus was afterall God. ( Col. 1:19, Col. 2:9, Matt. 1:23 ).
To the issue of proving a point with scripture, everyone having possibly different interpretations, fallibility, who is right and who is wrong, etc. this is what we would say. First, be a Berean. In Acts 17:11 the writer of Acts commended those in the synagogue of the Greek city of Berea for being more fair minded than those in Thessalonica, because while they were eager to receive the Word, they also checked it against what the Apostle Paul taught them in order to see if his teaching was according to the Scriptures or not. We expect no less, truth can be found and it is the responsibility of each individual to seek and find the truth. The bible says if we seek God we will find Him (Acts 17:27, Jeremiah 29:13, Proverbs 8:17). We are also told in the Word that ‘knowing the truth will set us free’ (John 8:31-32).
Question #2
How do we view the following ideas: the primacy of Peter (the apostle of apostles), Papal succession all the way to Peter, and ‘the keys to the kingdom‘.
Answer #2 (Online Source)
Two thousand years ago Jesus said to Peter, “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 loose in heaven.” This reference to the “keys of the kingdom” is found only in Matthew 16:19, however the authority to “bind and loose” is given to all the disciples in Matthew 18:18. Many biblical scholars believe the “keys” are symbols representing the authority to govern and minister theocratic principles on earth. However, the interpretation of this verse has been the subject of debate for hundreds of years.
Within the Roman Catholic tradition, doctrines have developed that give the papacy authority to delegate the power to forgive or retain sins through a sacramental system of penance and absolution. The Catholic Encyclopedia states, “The power to confer or withhold forgiveness might well be viewed as the opening and shutting of the gates of heaven.” It was used both as “admission to” as well as “excommunication from” the kingdom. The power to “bind and loose” also gives the Popes authority to pronounce doctrinal judgments, making disciplinary decisions in the Church and even canonize saints. This authority and power prescribes what and who Catholics must believe and how and when they must worship.
The Vatican teaches that Peter’s keys have been handed down to his successors throughout the centuries. This has given credence to the papacy to govern the kingdom of God, which they believe, is the Roman Catholic Church. As a result, Peter and his successors are said to have special spiritual powers as Christ’s representative on earth.
Proponents of the Roman Catholic tradition point to history as supporting evidence for their interpretation of the keys of the kingdom. However, most of their historical support comes from tradition dating back only the fourth century.
An accurate historical and grammatical interpretation must consider the use of terms at the time of the writing of the original text. The concept of the kingdom and the keys must be understood from their usage in the first century. Peter and the disciples understood the kingdom to be the visible rule of Christ over the earth, not the spiritual rule of Christ over His invisible church. The king would rule from Jerusalem, free Israel from political bondage and destroy her enemies. After Israel rejected the offer of the kingdom, Christ began to teach about it from a different perspective. He taught that it would be a mystery, invisible, and progressive. It would be both present and future and could be entered only by regeneration. The kingdom would not be limited to the church, but would work through the church to proclaim the good news of God’s redemptive rule.
After the events of Pentecost, Christ’s teaching and the indwelling Holy Spirit, gave the disciples a clearer understanding of this kingdom. The real authority of the keys given by Christ is ultimately in the revelation of God’s principles from the Scriptures for His theocratic kingdom. Men of God were able to discern the correctness of doctrine and practice using the whole counsel of God (Acts 17:11). An example of this is found in Luke 11:52, where Jesus denounces the Pharisees for misrepresenting God and the Scriptures with a religion of their own making. As a result they were shutting the kingdom of heaven in men’s faces. “Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering.”
The ultimate power to open and close the gates of heaven is the Gospel, which “is the power of God for the salvation of all who believe” (Romans 1:16). Peter’s first proclamation of the Gospel on the Day of Pentecost, in Acts chapter 2, opened the door of the kingdom to thousands. Since then, the disciples, and all Christians who have succeeded them, have been opening and closing the doors of the kingdom with the Gospel. Those who hear it and believe it are forgiven (loosed) of their sin and enter the kingdom, while those who reject the Gospel remain unforgiven (bound) of their sins and can not enter the kingdom (John 3:36).
The contrast between the Catholic interpretation of the “keys of the kingdom” and the historical-grammatical interpretation is significant. One centers around the teachings of men and is based on tradition and reason, while the other centers around the Word of God and is based on His revealed will and reign.
Posted in Catholic, Catholicism, Protestant, Protestantism
content rss
November 4th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
I think this will work best if you would actually answer each of my questions. If you don’t understand what I am asking please ask me to explain it better. I thought numbering them would help but I guess not. I will try underlining them to make it easier for you. Actually I couldn’t figure out how to underline so I will bold my questions, so know which ones to answer.
I asked, “why should I believe Shane’s fallible interpretation of scripture over anyone else’s?
You wrote, “Yes, we without reservation admit to our fallibility and the fallibility of every man who has lived, is living, or will ever live this side of heaven. Jesus Christ was the only perfect man who ever did or will walk on the earth. Jesus was afterall God. ( Col. 1:19, Col. 2:9, Matt. 1:23 ).”
I think you are misunderstanding what Catholics mean by infallible or I am misunderstanding you. When the Catholic church says that she is infallible, we basically mean that she is free from teaching error regarding faith or morals in certain situations/times. This is not something the catholic church has earned or deserves, it is all gift. Gift from God to better Sheppard His church. Infallible does not mean impeccable, or being sinless or being perfect. So for you to admit your fallibility and then talk about not being perfect has nothing to do with the question I was asking you. You said that no “man who has lived, is living, or will ever live” is infallible. I just want to make sure I understand you correctly. If the Holy Spirit has never gave man the gift of infallibility than how could men like the apostle Paul or mark or peter write the scriptures? Didn’t God protect them from error to write His Scriptures? You do not believe the bible just fell from heaven one day do you? I assume you don’t, so if God was able to raise up these sinful men to do infallible things like writing the bible, then couldn’t God also raise other sinful men and fill them with the same Holy Spirit so He could make sure that His children would receive infallible interpretations of the Word, Yes or No?
First I agree that “truth can be found and it is the responsibility of each individual to seek and find the truth” and “if we seek God we will find Him” and “knowing the truth will set us free.”
With that said, lets pretend I was a good Jewish Berean and I eagerly accepted the oral teaching of the Apostle Paul and became a Christian. So after a couple years of growing in Christ, one of my Christian bothers and I had a disagreement about doctrine. Lets say we disagreed on if the new jewish converts had to be circumcised. After arguing for awhile I saw the apostle Paul down the street building a tent. So I went over there and asked him what I should do. From what I understand you saying, you believe Paul would say that I should just be a berean. I should open up my bible (which I wouldn’t have for a number of years later) and pray to the holy spirit so that I will just come to the right belief, correct? So back to the story. After hearing what Paul said, I wanted to make sure I understood him correctly, so I asked him what I should do if my brother still doesn’t agree with me. According you he should say, “just tell him to be a good berean” My question for you Is that really how Christ set up the authority in the Church, Yes or No?
Back to my original questions. “why i should believe Shane’s fallible interpretation of scripture over anyone else’s? You are giving me your interpretation, which since you are not infallible could be wrong. Since you could be wrong, you could be wrong about the Catholic Church, which is why i wonder why your interpretation is better than anyone else’s????” Since you are not answering this question, I will just assume that you are not just avoiding answering me, I will assume I haven’t been clear in my question. So try this: Would you agree that in reality you are not really relying on scripture alone, you are relying on your individual judgment, your fallible opinion, as to what Scripture says. It is your opinion of what Scripture says, which is the final authority, not Scripture itself. Do you agree or disagree, if disagree why is this not true?
Regarding your answer to question 2. I have no idea who asked that question, but it wasn’t me. The primacy of Peter has something to do with our conversation, but we are not there yet. We are talking about how you as a sola scriptura Christian view the church and issue of authority.
November 4th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
Phil,
I did answer your question about why you should accept my interpretation. I think my answer was clear an sufficient. By the way, I do understand the Catholic doctrine on infallibility and I do not accept it as biblical. The Pope is not infallible in areas of faith and morals. So again, don’t believe me, you will have to come to you own conclusion and I hope you come to the right ones. Use information available, yes, but you must come to your own understanding on issues.
November 5th, 2007 at 9:48 am
Shane,
I agree with you that it was a fair attempt at answering the questions. I don’t know if it was very clear because the questions weren’t very clear either.
I would disagree though with the advice that you give to follow your own understanding on the issues. It reminds me of a great problem that exists in our modern world today, of the “dictatorship of moral relativism”.
I would defer to Scripture on this one:
“Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding”
(Proverbs 3:5)
November 5th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
Brett,
I think you must know by now my position on Scripture. When I say “come to your own conclusion” I would not expect anyone to do that any other way than through the Scriptures with the help of the Holy Spirit. We need to keep in mind the following portion of scripture.