I was led to Mathew's gospel where it say in chapter 16:16-19:
Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."
I was told if we read this passage and then look for the church that fits this passage's description, then we would discover that the Roman Catholic church is the only church that fits. Since Rome is the only church that fits this passage, then we can know that her interpretation of the Bible is the only true interpretation. Therefore Rome is the true church.
Here is where you the reader must decide if the Roman Catholic apologist's interpretation in spiral or circular. When I asked how do we know Rome's interpretation of Matthew 16:18 is correct, I am simply refered to look at the Roman church and see how it fits their interpetation. When I asked if there were any other interpretations of Matt 16:18, I was told that all of the church fathers were in agreement with Rome's interpretation today. Sounds pretty good right?
Well, I don't accept their interpertation of Matt 16:18 and as it turns out, neither did ANY of the church fathers. In a book titled "The Matthew 16 Controversy", William Webster goes to all of the texts of the church fathers that interpret Matthew 16:18. None of them taught what Rome teaches today.
Hence, Rome expects their faithful followers to believe in her authority because she says so. Is this an epistemology that God calls us to accept. If God is truly speaking through Rome, then ought we not to follow? What about Utah or the Watch Tower or....
2 comments:
I feel sorry for you. Not only have you missed the boat, but you appearently also think that you are somehow in a position of authority over the rest of us.People who follow the teachings of catholic church do not do so because they are ignorant and are just doing as there told to do as you suggested in an earlier blog. They do so because they believe its what the bible dictates. who are you to tell them that they're wrong? If you don't like the catholic church then you don't have to go to one. Why do you feel it is your job to point out all of the "flaws" in a church that you don't belong to? .Only God knows the state of our souls and Someday we will all be judged by Him. That is God not howie!
"I feel sorry for you. Not only have you missed the boat, but you appearently also think that you are somehow in a position of authority over the rest of us."
Why do you say this? It was the Roman Catholic Apologists argument that I was dealing with. I specifically said, "Here is where you the reader must decide if the Roman Catholic apologist's interpretation in spiral or circular."
How is that being in authority over you?
"People who follow the teachings of catholic church do not do so because they are ignorant and are just doing as there told to do as you suggested in an earlier blog."
I never considered the Roman Catholic apologist ignorant. Why else would he be an apologist?
"If you don't like the catholic church then you don't have to go to one. Why do you feel it is your job to point out all of the "flaws" in a church that you don't belong to?"
So it is ok for the RC apologist to point out flaws in evangelicalism, but I can't do the same?
"who are you to tell them that they're wrong?"
Are you telling me I am wrong? If so, who are you to....... ;-)
"Only God knows the state of our souls and Someday we will all be judged by Him. That is God not howie!"
I have no idea what this means. What does this have to do with anything I said?
Are you saying I should not preach the Gospel because someone might be offended? Are you saying Peter was wrong for preaching the Gospel and exposing the sin of his kinsmen who killed the Christ? Was Peter to judgmental? If I teach what Peter taught, am I being judgmental like him?
I find your response just a little incoherent. It seems to be more emotional than anything of substance.
Post a Comment