I need some help battling popery!!

[M21195]

I'm engaged in a battle with catholics regarding the position of the pope. In regards to Matthew 16 and the Greek of the "small stone" Petra, Petros, etc... At that point a catholic will go to the "Jesus spoke Aramaic" card, So the distinction made, when Christ was talking to Peter, does not exist in the Aramaic language....

Whats a good way to deal with this?

 

[Fogetaboutit]

I heard this argument before, I usually point out that it doesn't matter which language Jesus spoke, the Gospel of Matthew was written and inspired in Greek. I usually point to all the places especially in the Old Testament where God is referred as the Rock of of our salvation, if God is the Rock it cannot be referring to Peter. If somebody need to do gramatical gymnastic to prove a doctrine his argument is pretty weak.

 

[sastark]

Perhaps this will be useful:

SOME THOUGHTS ON MATTHEW 16:18 by Pastor David Th. Stark

 

[M21195]

AWESOME!! Thanks!!

 

[Romans922]

every conversation with RC or Eastern Orthodox peron will come back always to Sola Scriptura. You must start there if you want to get anywhere.

 

[M21195]

every conversation with RC or Eastern Orthodox peron will come back always to Sola Scriptura. You must start there if you want to get anywhere.[/QUOTE

That's what I'm working on...They keep wanting to jump all over the place....Now I'm dismantling the pope with the help of Puritan Board and Monergism.com...

I'm keeping them out of the wire, and my ammo is in good supply!

 

[Fogetaboutit]

When debating popery I usually like to point out that the Pope to this day still hold to the title of the Roman Ceasars (Pontifex Maximus).

I would also suggest "The Two Babylons" by Alexander Hislop to help you in identifying the pagan roots of many of the RC practices. If they refuse to use Sola Scriptura as a principle you can at least make them think by exposing the root of their system of belief.

 

[CharlieJ]

Matt. 16:18 is irrelevant. For what it's worth, I think Peter is the rock, a position held by a number of Protestants, including Baptist John Broadus. The issue is not whether Peter had a unique role in founding the church, for it's clear that he did, but whether he was invested with an institutional power above all the other apostles and whether that power is passed down to a particular bishop who happens to hold the see of Rome. No matter one's interpretation of Matt. 16:18, one certainly can't deduce all that.

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Hi:

Jesus tells us the interpretation of "Peter" at John 1:42 where he says that "Peter" a piece of a rock, or, a small stone.

Blessings,

Rob

 

[nwink]

If they refuse to use Sola Scriptura as a principle you can at least make them think by exposing the root of their system of belief.

As Andrew pointed out above, every conversation with them *will* always come back to sola scriptura. What is the basis for their claim that the pope is the final authority in all matters? They appeal to Scripture (Matt 16:18), thus subconsciously recognizing Scripture as THE final authority.

 

[Fogetaboutit]

If they refuse to use Sola Scriptura as a principle you can at least make them think by exposing the root of their system of belief.

As Andrew pointed out above, every conversation with them *will* always come back to sola scriptura. What is the basis for their claim that the pope is the final authority in all matters? They appeal to Scripture (Matt 16:18), thus subconsciously recognizing Scripture as THE final authority.

Well most Roman Catholics will not deny the autority of scripture to an extent but they might deny it as the "sole" authority. When they go to scripture they look for "support" for their doctrine but not necessarily to "define" their doctrine since they believe the Pope can overide the authority of scriptures. This is why I like to point out that most of their doctrine are rooted in paganism which most of them would agree is not from God.

 

[J. Dean]

I always wonder what happens when one points out Peter was married.

 

[Mathetes]

Steve Hays provides some useful food for thought for our Romish friends:

5. From Peter to papacy—a bridge too far:

Mt 16:18 is the primary Petrine text. But a direct appeal to Mt 16:18 greatly obscures the number of steps that have to be interpolated in order to get us from Peter to the papacy. Let’s jot down just a few of these intervening steps:
a) The promise of Mt 16:18 has reference to "Peter."
b) The promise of Mt 16:18 has "exclusive" reference to Peter.
c) The promise of Mt 16:18 has reference to a Petrine "office."
d) This office is "perpetual"
e) Peter resided in "Rome"
f) Peter was the "bishop" of Rome
g) Peter was the "first" bishop of Rome
h) There was only "one" bishop at a time
i) Peter was not a bishop "anywhere else."
j) Peter "ordained" a successor
k) This ceremony "transferred" his official prerogatives to a successor.
l) The succession has remained "unbroken" up to the present day.

Lets go back and review each of these twelve separate steps:

(a) V18 may not even refer to Peter. "We can see that 'Petros' is not the "petra' on which Jesus will build his church…In accord with 7:24, which Matthew quotes here, the 'petra' consists of Jesus' teaching, i.e., the law of Christ. 'This rock' no longer poses the problem that 'this' is ill suits an address to Peter in which he is the rock. For that meaning the text would have read more naturally 'on you.' Instead, the demonstrative echoes 7:24; i.e., 'this rock' echoes 'these my words.' Only Matthew put the demonstrative with Jesus words, which the rock stood for in the following parable (7:24-27). His reusing it in 16:18 points away from Peter to those same words as the foundation of the church…Matthew's Jesus will build only on the firm bedrock of his law (cf. 5:19-20; 28:19), not on the loose stone Peter. Also, we no longer need to explain away the association of the church's foundation with Christ rather than Peter in Mt 21:42," R. Gundry, Matthew (Eerdmans 1994), 334.
(b) Is falsified by the power-sharing arrangement in Mt 18:17-18 & Jn 20:23.
(c) The conception of a Petrine office is borrowed from Roman bureaucratic categories (officium) and read back into this verse. The original promise is indexed to the person of Peter. There is no textual assertion or implication whatsoever to the effect that the promise is separable from the person of Peter.
(d) In 16:18, perpetuity is attributed to the Church, and not to a church office.
(e) There is some evidence that Peter paid a visit to Rome (cf. 1 Pet 5:13). There is some evidence that Peter also paid a visit to Corinth (cf. 1 Cor 1:12; 9:5).
(f) This commits a category mistake. An Apostle is not a bishop. Apostleship is a vocation, not an office, analogous to the prophetic calling. Or, if you prefer, it’s an extraordinary rather than ordinary office.
(g) The original Church of Rome was probably organized by Messianic Jews like Priscilla and Aquilla (cf. Acts 18:2; Rom 16:3). It wasn’t founded by Peter. Rather, it consisted of a number of house-churches (e.g. Rom 16; Hebrews) of Jewish or Gentile membership—or mixed company.
(h) NT polity was plural rather than monarchal. The Catholic claim is predicated on a strategic shift from a plurality of bishops (pastors/elders) presiding over a single (local) church—which was the NT model—to a single bishop presiding over a plurality of churches. And even after you go from (i) oligarchic to (ii) monarchal prelacy, you must then continue from monarchal prelacy to (iii) Roman primacy, from Roman primacy to (iv) papal primacy, and from papal primacy to (v) papal infallibility. So step (h) really breaks down into separate steps—none of which enjoys the slightest exegetical support.
(j) Peter also presided over the Diocese of Pontus-Bithynia (1 Pet 1:1). And according to tradition, Antioch was also a Petrine See (Apostolic Constitutions 7:46.).
(j)-(k) This suffers from at least three objections:
i) These assumptions are devoid of exegetical support. There is no internal warrant for the proposition that Peter ordained any successors.
ii) Even if he had, there is no exegetical evidence that the imposition of hands is identical with Holy Orders.
iii) Even if we went along with that identification, Popes are elected to papal office, they are not ordained to papal office. There is no separate or special sacrament of papal orders as over against priestly orders. If Peter ordained a candidate, that would just make him a pastor (or priest, if you prefer), not a Pope.
(l) This cannot be verified. What is more, events like the Great Schism falsify it in practice, if not in principle.

These are not petty objections. In order to get from Peter to the modern papacy you have to establish every exegetical and historical link in the chain. To my knowledge, I haven’t said anything here that a contemporary Catholic scholar or theologian would necessarily deny. They would simply fallback on a Newmanesque principle of dogmatic development to justify their position. But other issues aside, this admits that there is no straight-line deduction from Mt 16:18 to the papacy. What we have is, at best, a chain of possible inferences. It only takes one broken link anywhere up or down the line to destroy the argument. Moreover, only the very first link has any apparent hook in Mt 16:18. Except for (v), all the rest depend on tradition and dogma. Their traditional support is thin and equivocal while the dogmatic appeal is self-serving.

Triablogue: Back to Babylon-1

 

[KingofBashan]

John Owen deals with Matt. 16:18 in The Glory of Christ (vol 1 of his works).

 

[dudley]

I agree with brother Andrew Barnes position above.

every conversation with RC or Eastern Orthodox peron will come back always to Sola Scriptura. You must start there if you want to get anywhere.

This is a huge question. I am going to attempt to summarize this as succinctly as possible--I am an ex Roman catholic and I have completely renounced the pope, the papacy and Roman Catholicism openly on here and in many public forums. I am now an avowed Calvinist Presbyterian Reformed Protestant.

I agree with brother Andrew Barnes position above.
Sola Scriptura
According to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, there is no higher authority than the Bible--not tradition, not other people's opinion or beliefs. Therefore, the pope, as simply a human, cannot stand up against the authority of the Bible, as God-breathed
Sola Scriptura is supported by 2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Cor. 2:13, Romans 3:2 (among others), which shows that the Bible was divinely inspired. Because of this, we can trust the Bible to be the absolute truth (above all human knowledge).
Side note: Martin Luther wrote “a simple layman armed with Scripture is greater than the mightiest pope without it”
Priesthood of All Believers
The doctrine of the priesthood of all believers states that we are all priests and do not need to go to a human mediator in order to reach God.
1 Timothy 2:5 shows that there is only one mediator between God and man. This shows us that we don't need priests (or bishops, archbishops, or popes) to intercede for us.
Furthermore, Hebrews 4:14 (among others) shows that Jesus is our high priest. As such, we need no one else to offer prayers on behalf of the nation. The pope, by comparison, is attempting to act as High Priest, like the High Priest in Judaism--to go before God on behalf of all Christians.
Each of these has more support and many more arguments that can be used to dispute the papacy.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

If Peter were really the Pope in the way that Catholics view that position today, would Paul have dared to confront him in this way?

"11 Now when Peter[a] had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.

14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?[c] 15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16 knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified."-Galatians 2:11-16

I would point out that in light of this passage, there are only three possibilities;

1. The Word of God is not really inerrant and inspired and Paul was simply being a braggart.

2. The position of Pope has evolved into something far beyond what Christ and the apostles intended.

3. Peter was not the Pope because Christ never instituted such a position.

 

[ProtestantBankie]

Perhaps what Peter says would be a useful thing to read alongside
1 Peter 2
v4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men,
but chosen of God, and precious, - Christ
v5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy
priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by
Jesus Christ. - Peter and you and Me.

A further argument.

Peter couldn't have been Pope because he is in heaven.

 

[Mathetes]

If Peter were really the Pope in the way that Catholics view that position today, would Paul have dared to confront him in this way?

"11 Now when Peter[a] had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.

14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?[c] 15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16 knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified."-Galatians 2:11-16

I would point out that in light of this passage, there are only three possibilities;

1. The Word of God is not really inerrant and inspired and Paul was simply being a braggart.

2. The position of Pope has evolved into something far beyond what Christ and the apostles intended.

3. Peter was not the Pope because Christ never instituted such a position.

I think Roman Catholics would simply respond that the pope isn't impeccable, he's only infallible when speaking ex cathedra. Nevertheless, the fact is that no one tells the pope what to do. It sounds good on paper, but it doesn't happen in practice. Second of all, if the pope is going to call himself the "Vicar of Christ", then why shouldn't we expect him to be impeccable? If it's responded that he's only a man with a sinful nature, then it could also be said that he shouldn't go around calling himself the Vicar of Christ.

Perhaps what Peter says would be a useful thing to read alongside
1 Peter 2
v4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men,
but chosen of God, and precious, - Christ
v5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy
priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by
Jesus Christ. - Peter and you and Me.

A further argument.

Peter couldn't have been Pope because he is in heaven.

Peter also didn't think of himself as being greater than the other bishops/elders:

1 Peter 5:1-2

1 Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, 2 shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness;

 

[PointyHaired Calvinist]

Even IF Matthew wrote in Aramaic, I've heard it suggested that Petros = Kepha, and petra = minrah.

 

[A5pointer]

I would not bother with the argument or engage RCs about other issues we have with their practices ie saints, Mary, communion etc. Shift the conversation to "justification". Discuss faith alone. This will give you the opportunity to present the gospel. The only message that can change the heart. Seems counter productive to bother them about other issues unless they have a grasp on the gospel of faith alone. It is kind of like trying to win arguments with non believers about creation as if that will lead to a conversion.

 

[Somerset]

Brother Lyle - no useful advice from me, my attempts to try to communicate truth to RCs have left me feeling that I might as well have tried to teach the cat algebra. But iIwill be praying that the Lord gives you the words you need.

 

[M21195]

Brother Lyle - no useful advice from me, my attempts to try to communicate truth to RCs have left me feeling that I might as well have tried to teach the cat algebra. But iIwill be praying that the Lord gives you the words you need.