i’m not expecting you to reply to all of them, i imagine this could lead to a lengthy debate which probably won’t be resolved (as has been the case with other people, mostly wiser than i am, for hundreds of years), i just feel that it should be noted that many (if not all of) the Catholic Church’s views are actually indeed grounded in scripture, a point that you often ignore (and in fact deny).

but one question is this - how does one believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, without believing in apostolic tradition? how can you be so sure that the Biblical canon you follow is the right one? the oft-quoted verse from 2 timothy (about ‘all scripture’) would have referred to the old testament at the point of writing - yes, perhaps it was written with knowledge of the compiled book that would follow, but how is this assumption made without the belief in apostolic succession? the same applies for revelation (22:18-19) which i sometimes hear being cited as supporting the completeness of the Bible. again i can believe it as referring to the (at that point) future complete volume that is now circulated, but i find this hard to accept without acceptance of apostolic succession.

my basic thought process is this - at one point in time the Bible did not exist as it does now, so obviously the exact canon of what is ‘profitable for doctrine’ had to be decided upon somewhere. the early churches had some differences in what exactly they’d considered to be scripture, with consensus coming about in approx the 4th-5th century (according to wikipedia, anyway).

so - if biblical canon was decided at one point (a few centuries after Jesus’s death) by church leaders, how do you accept this biblical canon without accepting the authority of those church leaders?

For all things, let’s look at Scripture because it is taught that “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” (2 Timothy 3:16, KJV).

First off, this is an incomplete quote as this is an incomplete sentence. In order to understand the TRUE meaning of the passage the quote should be:

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” - 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (KJV)

The next thing we need to determine meaning are the references this passage points to. According to your KJV they are:

2 Peter 1:20 (KJV) Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

2 Corinthians 2:17-18 (KJV) For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

2 Peter 3:16 (KJV) As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

With the references in place the meaning is clear: Scripture (the Bible) is not subject to private interpretation because it is only to be taught by men of God (ministers).

THIS is how you read the Bible. Take a passage, grab the references and read them as a WHOLE. If the references point to other scripture, grab them, too, and pretty soon Scripture Itself will lead you back to where you started.

The Roman Catholic Church claims that Matthew 16:18-19 firmly establishes Peter as Christ’s ordained leader of His Church. Let’s read that together now:

“And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” – Matthew 16:18-19 (KJV)

Let’s examine the verses in detail, shall we?

Fair enough. I’ll continue to use your KJV and the explanations that follow will come from your own well respected and highly educated Protestant scholars.

Matthew 16:18 (KJV) And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church;

The reference for this passage is:
John 1:42 (KJV) And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone (or Peter according to the footnotes).

(Note: In Syriac, the form of Aramaic which Jesus Christ spoke, there is no difference of genders, as there is in Latin, between petra, a rock, and Petrus, Peter; hence, in the original language, the allusion was both more natural and more simple.)

Matthew 16:18 (KJV) continued… and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

This section of the passage points to:
Isaiah 54:17 (KJV) No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of me, saith the LORD.

Matthew 16:19 (KJV) And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven:

The reference you’ll find is:
Isaiah 22:22 (KJV) And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

This is the core of the Catholic Church’s claim of the Primacy of Peter, and here’s what two Protestant scholars say:

(Bible de Vence) — Dr. Whitby, a learned Protestant divine, thus expounds this and the preceding verse: “As a suitable return to thy confession, I say also to thee, that thou art by name Peter, i.e. a rock; and upon thee, who art this rock, I will build my Church, and I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, the power of making laws to govern my Church.” (Tom. i, p. 143.)

Dr. Hammond, another Protestant divine, explains it in the same manner. And p. 92, he says: ” What is here meant by the keys, is best understood by Isaias xxii. 22, where they signified ruling the whole family or house of the king: and this being by Christ accommodated to the Church, denotes the power of governing it.”

As the royal son of David, Christ is the owner of the key of David, but this doesn’t mean He can’t give to Peter, as His “prime minister,” the keys to His heavenly Kingdom.

As you will see from Isaiah 22:20-23, Eliakim is made master of the palace, a post roughly equivalent to prime minister. As the king’s right-hand man, the master of the palace is given the “key of the House of David.”

Keys symbolize authority, so bestowing the key to the House of David upon Eliakim is equivalent to giving him, as the king’s duly appointed representative, authority over the kingdom.

Revelation 3:7 speaks of Jesus as “the holder of the key of David.” Some argue this means he fulfills the role Eliakim foreshadowed in Isaiah 22:20-23. They claim this excludes a prophetic application of this text to Peter by Christ in Matthew 16:18-19.

There’s a problem with this argument. In Isaiah 22 Eliakim is master of the palace–the king isn’t. Eliakim possesses the key of the kingdom not as its owner, but as one deputed to oversee the king’s affairs. If we apply this to Christ, then we must conclude He’s not the true Messianic King, merely His prime minister, the Messiah’s chief representative!

Although Jesus is called the “holder of the key of David” in Revelation 3:7, He doesn’t hold it as Eliakim did. As the son of David, Jesus is the heir to the throne of his ancestor (Luke 1:32-33). He really is the King, not the master of the king’s palace, as was Eliakim. As King, Jesus is free to bestow the keys of His Kingdom on whomever he wishes–without losing the authority those keys represent.

It’s the Catholic position that this is precisely what Jesus does in Matthew 16:18-19. Peter identifies Jesus as the Messiah, which means, among other things, acknowledging His Kingship. Christ then shows His Kingly authority by bestowing on Peter something only the King could give–the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven–thus making Peter the Messianic equivalent of Eliakim.

My Roman Catholic defense of the Primacy of Peter ends here. There is no need to proceed further. As for the rest of the scripture passages quoted above, be honest with yourself and gather all the references given. If you do this, you just may discover something you didn’t know before.

Paul excoriates the Corinthians for dividing into personality cults in 1 Corinthinans, chapter 3. If you read the whole chapter, you’ll see him mention cults based upon himself and Apollos in verses 4-6, and also Peter (”Cephas” in the KJV) in verse 22. Roman Catholicism remains stuck in the Copernican debate, thinking that “The Church” is the center of the Universe.

Another title the Pope dares to take upon himself is the Paraclete. That’s blasphemous on the RCC’s part and plain ignorant on the part of anybody who swallows it. Jesus specifically said that the Paraclete would be the Holy Spirit. By extension, every Spirit-indwelt believer has just as much right to call him- or herself a vicar of Christ to the world, just like Harmony said. I don’t think “representative” is too heavy because Paul called himself an ambassador.

Some go of their own accord to seek the Truth while others do not, and are content, and think it right, to just follow the traditions of the Church and their forebears.

Its sad to see that the RCC still continues to practice this use of Bible passages taken out of context by way of published Daily Prayers Books (i.e. Bible passages with the Church’s teaching based on that passage printed thereafter) or, for that matter, their Church missals. The lack of the Holy Bible being used as a main source of reference in Catholic Churches and that the RCC’s clergy are the only authoritative voice on how the Bible should be interpreted is why I disapprove of the RCC.

You made an excellent point there — about mentioning the verses preceding that proclamation of our Lord Jesus Christ that HE is the rock upon which the Church will be built.

Taking in its entirety, it gives us the real insight into why our Lord said what He said, and how He chose to put it.

I missed that totally, so thank you for bringing it up!

Shabbat Shalom, and God Bless!