Human Tradition & Divine Revelation: 7 The Papacy in Romanism

Table of Contents

1 Recognizing Traditions in Christianity
2 Evaluating Traditions in Christianity
3 Traditions in Judaism
4 Traditions in the NT
5 Traditions of the Early Church Fathers
6 Traditions in Romanism
7 The Papacy in Romanism
8 Mariology in Romanism
Appendix A Detailed Contents

Chapter 13.7

The Papacy in Romanism

The Deification of Some Bad Men

Table of Topics

A) Defining Papal Authority

B) A History of Papal Authority

C) Evaluating Papal Authority

C.1) Lack of biblical support

C.2) Early Church Fathers did not believe in the supremacy or infallibility of the Roman bishop

C.3) The morality of many popes would disqualify them even for local church leadership

C.4) The Papacy has been corrected

C.5) The Papacy has been ineffective

C.6) Popes have condoned unbiblical heresy

C.7) Modern Romanist scholars are rejecting the primacy and/or infallibility of the Pope

Extras & Endnotes

Primary Points
  • The foundation of the extra-biblical traditions in Romanism is its belief that the Pope is Christ’s representative on Earth.
  • Papal infallibility is the state of being incapable of error in issues of doctrine and morals.

The process that led to a pope consisted of 1) The church in Rome became preeminent among all churches, and 2) The leader of the church in Rome became preeminent over others.

The Council of Chalcedon (451) placed the Bishop of Rome over all other centers of Church authority including Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem.

  • Pope Pius IX presiding over Vatican Council I proclaimed “I am Tradition.”
  • The foremost biblical support for a pope is Christ’s description of Peter as the “rock” on which to build His Church. In response, Jesus immediately called Peter “satan”, told all the disciples they had the same spiritual authority, and Peter was guilty of serious error in Galatia.
  • Peter’s foundational role in building the Church was in being instrumental in seeing both the first Jews and Gentiles become members of the Church.
  • All who have believed the Gospel possess the keys to the Kingdom.
  • While no biblical texts can be found to support the idea of a supreme Bishop of the church, several can be found that argue against it.
  • There is no convincing historical support for the claim that the bishop of Rome was considered to have more authority than other bishops.
  • While Rome is united organizationally, it is just as divided theologically as is Protestantism broadly understood.

A) Defining Papal Authority

The foundation of the plethora of extra-biblical traditions in Romanism [1] is its belief that the pope [2] is Christ’s representative on Earth, and therefore exercises divine authority. The view that the leader of the local church in Rome was the spiritual descendent of the Apostles, and particularly Peter, and that he subsequently exercises the authority of Christ Himself, has resulted in several similar traditions regarding authority in Romanism. One of these is a belief in papal infallibility, of which The Catechism of the Catholic Church describes as follows:

In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the Apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. . . “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful-who confirms his brethren in the faith-he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . .

The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor [the Pope], they exercise the supreme Magisterium [teaching authority],” above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine “for belief as being divinely revealed,” and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions “must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.”” [3]

Simply put, infallibility is the state of being incapable of error. Quite a claim for any human being in any dimension, particularly the spiritual and moral realm. Nonetheless, one of the decrees of Vatican I (1870) stated: “The Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra [lit.: “from the chair” or position of pope] has that infallibility, with which the Divine Redeemer endowed His church, in defining a doctrine of faith or morals.” [4]

B) A History of Papal Authority

While the process by which one man came to be recognized as having the authority of Christ is rather complicated, it can be divided into two distinct steps: 1) The local church in Rome became preeminent among all churches, and 2) The leader of the church in Rome became preeminent over other local church leaders.

The first step in arriving at papal authority occurred in the transition from regarding the universal Christian Church as the “catholic” church to the Roman Catholic Church. The word “catholic” is derived from the Greek word katholikos meaning “universal.” Church historian Kenneth Latourette writes concerning this term as related to the Christian Church:

The word Catholic as applied to the Church only gradually came into circulation. The earliest known use of the term is in the letter of Ignatius [c. A. D. 107] to the church in Smyrna. In this he declared that “wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” . . . By the end of the second century the word Catholic was increasingly applied to the Church and in a technical manner, meaning both universal and orthodox. [5]

However, as time went on, the universal Church came to be known as an extension of the local church in Rome, thus being dubbed the Roman Catholic Church. This in spite of the fact that the real spiritual epicenter of Christian authority was Jerusalem, it being the location of the first synod (cf. Acts 15). Nevertheless, there are several reasons that the weight of authority shifted to Rome. Along these lines, Dr. Latourette writes:

Well before the end of the second century the Church of Rome was occupying an outstanding place in the total Christian fellowship. This was to be expected. Being in the capital and chief city of the Empire, if it were at all strong it would naturally be regarded with deference by a religious community which was found principally within that Empire. . . .

Presumably, since “all roads led to Rome,” and the city was extraordinarily cosmopolitan and attracted representatives of most if not all of the many regions and races of the Empire, the Church of Rome would, through its members, have ties with many different portions of the realm. . . .

Although not founded by either, the Church of Rome, enjoyed the prestige of the presence of both Peter and Paul, and what appears to be dependable information declares that Rome was the scene of the martyrdom [of] both. [6]

Indeed, we have several hints from early Church history that the local church in Rome exercised some authority beyond its city limits. For example, even before the first century was ended, Clement of Rome (c. 95), one of the leaders of the local church there, [7] wrote a letter to the church in Corinth. Regarding this letter, Dr. Latourette observes: “It is evidence that the Church of Rome felt a responsibility for the peace of this sister church and that it believed that an expression of its concern would not be regarded at Corinth as an impertinence.” [8]

About a hundred years later, Irenaeus, Bishop of Gaul (c. 180), writes a much clearer statement concerning his opinion of the authority of the church in Rome: “[I]t is a matter of necessity that every church should agree with this church [in Rome], on account of its pre-eminent authority.” VIII-1c-4[9] This was illustrated when Victor, Bishop of Rome (c. 190) publicly rebuked the churches in Asia Minor for celebrating Easter on what he thought was the incorrect date.

About fifty years later, Stephen, Bishop of Rome (c. 255), in an argument with Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, cited for the first time the idea that he was in the spiritual lineage of the Apostle Peter and therefore superior to Cyprian.

About a hundred years later the Council of Sardica (c. 343) “decreed that if a Bishop were deposed, he might appeal his case to the Bishop of Rome, who should take steps to see that it was heard and a decision given.” [10]

Shortly afterwards, we have records that two bishops of Rome, Siricius (384-98) and Innocent (401-17), issued authoritative decrees modeled on Roman imperial ones, in which they ruled definitively on matters put to them by local churches.

By the middle of the fifth century, there were several more bold claims to Roman supremacy in the Church, the foremost being made by Leo I (died 461). Accordingly, Dr. Latourette remarks concerning Leo:

None of his predecessors had been as forceful or had exercised so great an influence. He insisted that by Christ’s decree Peter was the rock, the foundation, the doorkeeper of the kingdom of heaven, set to bind and loose, whose judgments retained their validity in heaven, and that through the Pope, as his successor, Peter continued to perform the assignment which had been entrusted to him. . . . He obtained from the Emperor Valentinian III an edict which commanded all to obey the Bishop of Rome on the ground that the latter held the primacy of St. Peter. [11]

Not surprisingly, one of the decrees of the Council of Chalcedon (451), which was assembled by Leo, explicitly placed the Bishop of Rome over the Bishop of Contantinople, essentially also promoting Rome over other traditional centers of Church authority including Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem. [12]

The view that the Bishop of Rome is the representative of Christ on Earth has been communicated in several different ways throughout Romanist history. Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) defended an addition to an ancient creed when he wrote, “The authority of the Roman Pontiff sufficed for this addition; by this authority too, all the ancient councils were confirmed.” [13]

Such a view was applied in a particularly alarming way by Pope Boniface VIII in 1302 when he decreed: “We declare, say, define and pronounce that it is essential to salvation that every human creature should subject himself to the Roman Pontiff.” [14]

Theology Professor Donald McKim relates:

[Romanist] Canon lawyers such as Johannes Andreae (d. 1348) could say, “The Pope is wonderful, for he holds the power of God on Earth; he is the vicar of him to whom the Earth and the fullness of the universe belong.” William de Amidanis said, “The Pope is like God.” Panormitanus wrote, “The Pope may do whatever God may do. . . . Whatever is done by the authority of the Pope is done by the authority of God. [15]

The supremacy of the pope was clearly communicated by Pope Pius IX who presided over Vatican Council I (1870), which reaffirmed a belief in the divine authority of extra-biblical Romanist tradition. In this very context, Pope Pius proclaimed “I am tradition.” [16]

About the same time, Cardinal John Henry Newman (1801–1890), a convert to Romanism from Anglicanism, wrote a defense of the doctrine of papal infallibility. As one reads it, one wonders what Cardinal Newman thought was God’s purpose for Scripture:

Supposing then it to be the Will of the Creator to interfere in human affairs, and to make provisions for retaining in the world knowledge of Himself, so definite and distinct as to be proof against the energy of human scepticism, in such a case,-I am far from saying that there was no other way,-but there is nothing to surprise the mind, if He should think fit to introduce a power into the world, invested with the prerogative of infallibility in religious matters.

Such a provision would be a direct, immediate, active, and prompt means of withstanding the difficulty; it would be an instrument suited to the need; and, when I find that this is the very claim of the Catholic Church, not only do I feel no difficulty in admitting the idea, but there is a fitness in it, which recommends it to my mind.

And thus I am brought to speak of the Church’s infallibility, as a provision, adapted by the mercy of the Creator, to preserve religion in the world, and to restrain the freedom of thought, which of course in itself is one of the greatest of our natural gifts, and to rescue its own suicidal excesses. . . . [A] power, possessed of infallibility in religious teaching, is happily adapted to be a working instrument, in the course of human affairs, for smiting hard and throwing back the immense energy of the aggressive, capricious, untrustworthy intellect. [17]

Many see an attempt at the Vatican II Council (1963-1965) to diminish the powers of the Pope and have them increasingly shared with the Council of Bishops. Accordingly, F. S. Piggin writes:

Vatican II also revived the collegiality of bishops, thus modifying monarchical governance of the church: “Together with its head, the Roman Pontiff, and never without its head, the episcopal order is the subject of supreme and full power over the universal church.” [18]

Even so, Dr. Piggin refers to, “the failure of post-Vatican II Catholicism to give a clear preeminence to the Bible.” [19] More specifically, J. Van Engen suggests that in spite of Vatican II reforms, the pope still holds the reigns of Romanism:

The triumph of papal primacy has . . . at least three noteworthy results. (1) In the continuing tug of war between papal and conciliar/episcopal authority, the pope has effectively gained the upper hand. He alone has the divinely given power to convoke councils and to authorize their decisions (something reaffirmed at Vatican Council II).

(2) Since the fourteenth century, and especially since the nineteenth, episcopal appointments have been removed from local clergy and laymen and reserved to Rome (which tends to preserve loyalty to the pope but also prevents churches from falling prey to local factions and national governments).

(3) In general, Rome’s approval is needed for all laws which govern the church’s institutions, liturgies which shape its worship, courts which enforce its discipline, orders which embody its religious life, and missions sent around the world-though there has been some decentralization in the immediate aftermath of Vatican Council II. [20]

The fact remains that there has been no official denial of the essential elements of divine papal power including the pope’s infallibility and his ability to introduce new doctrines by speaking ex cathedra (from the chair of St. Peter). Accordingly, Vatican II proclaimed:

This infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining a doctrine of faith and morals extends as far as extends the deposit of divine revelation, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded. This is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office. [21]

Accordingly, Robert Godfrey observes:

Rome usually tries to clarify its position by saying that its authority is Scripture, tradition, and church together. In fact, however, if you listen carefully, you will notice that the real authority for Rome is neither Scripture nor tradition, but the church. What is the Scripture, and what does it teach? Only the church can tell you. What is tradition, and what does it teach? Only the church can tell you.

As the Roman theologian John Eck said, “The Scriptures are not authentic, except by the authority of the church.” As Pope Pius IX said at the time of the First Vatican Council in 1870, “I am Tradition.” The overwhelming arrogance of such a statement is staggering. But it confirms our claim that, for Rome, the only real authority is the church: sola ecclesia. [22]

However, it must be recognized that ultimately, the source of authority in the Roman Church is not Scripture, Tradition, or the Church, but the Pope. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

By reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered. . . .

In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a “supernatural sense of faith” the People of God, under the guidance of the Church’s living Magisterium, unfailingly adheres to this faith. . .

It is this Magisterium’s task to preserve God’s people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church’s shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. . . .

The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful – who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine “for belief as being divinely revealed,” and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions “must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.” [23]

However, the definition of “tradition” is changing among some Catholic scholars. J. I. Packer explains:

The Roman Council of Trent spoke of unwritten apostolic traditions, passed on orally in the Church down the ages, as being a second source of doctrine alongside the Scriptures – a fact which embarrasses many modern Roman theologians, who prefer to work with a dynamic, ‘open-ended’ concept of tradition as the word of God in the hearts of the (Roman) faithful, constantly crystallizing out through the Spirit’s stimulus into consensus of opinion which is then at point after point infallibly recorded in successive papal definitions. [24]

Accordingly, no longer even being anchored in ancient tradition, the pope can produce “new traditions” as needed. Remarkably, as Donald McKim notes: “[S]ince its promulgation [papal infallibility] only two dogmas have been recognized as originating with a papal pronouncement, the Immaculate Conception (1854) and the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin (1950). [25] But even two extra-biblical, if not unbiblical dogmas are enough to undermine the authority of Scripture.

This more fluid conception of authoritative tradition both reinforces the power of the Roman pontiff and relieves Romanism of trying to explain the source and content of the unwritten oral traditions that are supposedly to exercise authority over the Christian’s life. Along these lines, James White further notes:

On the answer to this question [what is the Tradition] rests a new insight into [Romanist] Tradition that has been gaining momentum since the eighteenth century. Briefly stated, Tradition is coming to be identified more with the Church’s magisterium or teaching office . . . Together with the sources of revelation (Scripture and Tradition) God has given to his Church a living magisterium to elucidate and explain what is contained in the deposit of faith . . .

What is gained by taking such a view? The Roman apologist does not have to defend the idea of an inspired oral tradition, but he now has to defend the idea that the Roman magisterium herself is so divinely guided that she can “infallibly discern” what is, and what is not, revelation, and that no matter what the “degree of obscurity” with which such a divine truth may be cloaked! On the practical level, what this means is really worse than the traditional view: Rome can “find” whatever she wishes to find in “revelation,” and impose this alleged “truth” upon all believers, and that with the pain of the anathema.

She did just that with the Assumption of Mary, a doctrine utterly absent from Scripture and early church history. Yet, it is a belief that must be embraced de fide, and, in the words of Pope Pius IX, “if some should think in their hearts otherwise than what we have defined (which God forbid), they shall know and thoroughly understand that they are by their own judgment condemned, have made shipwreck concerning the faith, and fallen away from the unity of the Church; and, moreover, that they, by this very act, subject themselves to the penalties ordained by law, if, by word or writing, or any other external means, they dare to signify what they think in their hearts.” [26]

In essence, this pope has declared that anyone who denies that Mary was immediately after death “raised body and soul to the glory of heaven,” [27] is condemned to Hell. This papal decree has never been rescinded by Romanism.

C) Evaluating Papal Authority

C.1) Lack of biblical support

The foremost biblical support that the Roman Church has offered for its papal claims is Christ’s statement to Peter in Matthew 16:

When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” 14They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the Prophets.” 15“But what about you?” He asked.  “Who do you say I am?” 16Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

17Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by My Father in Heaven.  18And 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. 19I 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.” (Matt 16:13-19)

This, of course, is the Scripture on which the Roman Church has based its authorial claims on. John MacArthur explains:

[T]he Roman Catholic church has maintained that this passage teaches the church was built on the person of Peter, who became the first pope and bishop of Rome and from whom the Catholic papacy has since descended. Because of this supposed divinely ordained apostolic succession, the pope is considered to be the supreme and authoritative representative of Christ on Earth. When a pope speaks ex cathedra, that is, in his official capacity as head of the church, he is said to speak with divine authority equal to that of God in Scripture. [28]

There are several problems with interpreting and applying this passage in the way the Roman Catholic Church has. The first question is defining what Christ meant by “this rock.” J. Van Engen explains:

The most common Protestant view happens also to be that found in the earliest extant commentary on this text (by Origen), namely, that the “rock” upon which the church stands is Peter’s confession of faith. Those concentrating upon the “power of binding and loosing” in that text generally saw it conferred upon the entire episcopate of which Peter was but a symbol or spokesman (this in Cyprian, Augustine, and much of the Eastern Orthodox tradition). Modern exegesis has produced some surprising twists. Some Protestants say the rock clearly refers to Peter and only by extension to his faith, while liberal Protestants and Catholics claim that this is not an authentic saying of Jesus but rather reflects the coming of “early Catholicism” in the primitive church. [29]

John Calvin (1509–1564) adopted Origen’s view and defined the “rock” as the confession that Peter had made concerning Christ in the preceding verse, not the person Peter. [30] Others, including Lenski and J. Walvoord have suggested that Christ was referring to Himself as the rock. [31] But a face value interpretation of Christ’s statement indicates that Christ intended to make a pun and Peter (petros: “rock”) is the rock (petra: “rock”), or foundation on which the Church was to be built. As D. A. Carson points out: “[I]f it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken “rock” to be anything or anyone other than Peter.” [32] How are we then to interpret Peter’s position in the Church?

First of all, as for any spiritual superiority accorded to Peter because of the above pronouncement, we need only look four verses afterward where we read: “Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men”” (Matt 16:23). That’s an interesting description for the man who had supposedly just been crowned the first Pope.

Secondly, it is clear that Christ did not give Peter some sort of authorial superiority here either. As soon as Matthew 18 we see the disciples asking Christ who is the greatest in His Kingdom, a question that would have hardly been asked if they had thought Peter possessed that position. Obviously the debate continued among the disciples as James and John apparently thought it possible that they might sit at the right and left hand of Christ ruling with Him in His kingdom (cf. Matt 20:20-23; Mark 10:35-37). And neither does Christ reply that Peter already occupies that place.

Thirdly, Jesus told Peter in Matthew 16: “whatever you [singular [33]] bind on Earth will be bound in Heaven, and whatever you [singular] loose on Earth will be loosed in Heaven” (v. 19). But in Matthew 18 He tells all the disciples: “I tell you [plural [34]] the truth, whatever you [plural] bind on Earth will be bound in Heaven, and whatever you [plural] loose on Earth will be loosed in Heaven” (v. 18). Accordingly, Christ granted all of the disciples the same authority He had earlier given to Peter.

Likewise, John records that Christ told all the disciples: “If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven” (John 20:23). In other words, Peter had no more spiritual authority than the other disciples and Peter himself never claimed any superior authority. Accordingly, Calvin shared in his commentary on 1 Peter 5:1-2:

Since Peter calls himself in like manner a presbyter, it appears that it was a common name, which is still more evident from many other passages. Moreover, by this title he secured for himself more authority, as though he had said that he had a right to admonish pastors, because he was one of themselves, for there ought to be mutual liberty between colleagues. But if he had the right of primacy he would have claimed it; and this would have been most suitable on the present occasion. But though he was an Apostle, he yet knew that authority was by no means delegated to him over his colleagues, but that on the contrary he was joined with the rest in the participation of the same office. [35]

Likewise, Dr. MacArthur observes:

Although Peter recognized himself as an Apostle (see, e.g., 1 Pet. 1:1; 2 Pet. 1:1), he never claimed a superior title, rank, or privilege over the other Apostles. He even referred to himself as a “fellow elder” (1 Pet. 5:1) and as “a bond-servant” of Christ (2 Pet. 1:1). Far from claiming honor and homage for himself, he soberly warns his fellow elders to guard against lording it over those under their pastoral care (1 Pet. 5:3). The only glory he claimed for himself was that which is shared by all believers and which is yet “to be revealed . . . when the Chief Shepherd appears” (vv. 1, 4). [36]

Finally, if Peter is claimed as the first pope, we would certainly hope that the infallibility of the office has improved since its founder. For all the honor that Christ bestowed on him, it was Peter who denied the Lord three times. And even after receiving divine revelation that, “God does not show favoritism” (Acts 10:34), Peter tried to “force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs” (Gal 2:14), and was publicly rebuked by the Apostle Paul for doing so. [37]

So what did Christ mean by naming Peter as the “rock” upon which He would build the Church, and the one who was given “the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven”? Albert Barnes (1798–1870) explained it succinctly: “The whole meaning of the passage is this: “I will make you the honored instrument of making known my gospel first to Jews and Gentiles” [38] And that is precisely the privilege that we see played out in Peter’s life. As William Barclay (1907–1978) explained:

At Pentecost, Peter opened the door to three thousand [Jewish] souls (Acts 2:41). He opened the door to the Gentile centurion Cornelius, so that it was swinging on its hinges to admit the great Gentile world (Acts 10). Acts 15 tells how the Council of Jerusalem opened wide the door for the Gentiles, and how it was Peter’s witness which made that possible (Acts 15:14; Simeon is Peter). [39]

Peter’s privilege was nothing more, but nothing less than that! And Dr. Barclay added an application worth pondering:

Peter had made the great discovery [that Jesus was the Christ, cf. Matt 16:16]; and Peter was given the great privilege and the great responsibility. It is a discovery which everyone must make for himself; and, when he has made it, the same privilege and the same responsibility are laid upon him. [40]

Indeed, all who have believed the Gospel, possess the keys to the Kingdom in the Gospel. [41]

While no biblical texts can be found to support the idea of a supreme Bishop of the church, several can be found that argue against it. First, we notice the authority structure at the Jerusalem Council in the very early years of the Church. (cf. Acts 15:1-29) Luke makes it clear that it was James who presided over this first synod and articulated its final decision, not Peter (cf. Acts 15:13-21). And the Council’s conclusion was sent from “the Apostles and elders, your brothers” (v. 23) not an exalted Peter. If the first century Church had understood Christ’s appellation of Peter as the “rock” in the same way as Romanism, surely it would have been demonstrated here, and it is not.

A second biblical doctrine that argues against the Romanists idea of a pope is the fact that in the Bible a bishop was simply an elder, one of several other elders leading a local church. Thus, Paul wrote Titus:

For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders [presbuterous, “presbyters” plural] in every city as I directed you, namely, if any man is above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion. For the overseer [episkopon: “bishop”] must be above reproach as God’s steward . . . (Tit 1:5-7 NASB)

There is no doubt that in the NT the terms “elder,” “bishop,” and even “pastor,” are used synonymously to refer simply to a recognized leader of a local church. (cf. Acts 20:17, 28; 1 Peter 5:1-2 in the Greek text). The practice of setting a bishop over several churches was an invention of the post-apostolic Church without any biblical warrant at all. Then for Romanism to insist even beyond this that a bishop is to preside over the whole Church is especially out of biblical bounds.

As we have seen, the Romanist claim that there is divine authority apart from Scripture in the Church, is practically synonymous with the claim of papal divine authority. The primary biblical text used to support this view is 1 Timothy 3:15 where Paul writes: “the church of the living God, [is] the pillar [stylos] and foundation [hedraiōma: “support” [42]] of the truth.” Donald Guthrie explains:

The phrase the pillar and foundation of the truth has caused difficulties mainly because it appears to give greater eminence to the church than to the truth. The uniform New Testament teaching is that the church is grounded on the truth, not vice versa. [43]

The challenge is to avoid the Romanist misuse of the verse while affirming the fact that the effectiveness of the truth of God depends on the Church, for it is His chosen vehicle for receiving it, teaching it, protecting it, and spreading it. Simply put, our Romanist friends have gone too far to suppose from this verse that the Romanism, and particularly its pope, is divinely sanctioned to decide what the truth is. NT scholar John Stott seems to give the best interpretation of 1 Timothy 3:15:

Here then is the double responsibility of the church vis-a’-vis the truth. First, as its foundation it is to hold it firm, so that it does not collapse under the weight of false teaching. Secondly, as its pillar it is to hold it high, so that it is not hidden from the world. To hold the truth firm is the defence and confirmation of the gospel; to hold it high is the proclamation of the gospel. The church is called to both these ministries. [44]

In answer to the question does the Church depend on the truth or does the truth depend on the Church, Dr. Stott rightly says:

The church and the truth need each other. The church depends on the truth for its existence; the truth depends on the church for its defence and proclamation. [45]

There is, however, no indication here that the Church is a source of the truth apart from Scripture as Romanism claims.

C.2) Early Church Fathers did not believe in the supremacy or infallibility of the Roman bishop

As with many of its official traditions, Romanism bases them on the writings of the Church Fathers. However, as we demonstrated in a previous chapter, these writings are often contradictory, forcing Romanist to confine themselves to isolated proof texts. For example, we noted above the early and strong statement of Irenaeus (c. 180) that, “[I]t is a matter of necessity that every church should agree with this church [in Rome], on account of its pre-eminent authority.” VIII-1c-4 However, by no means did the opinion of Irenaeus reflect that of the majority of the churches in the second century. Finally, Irenaeus himself rebuked Victor, the bishop of Rome, for dictating the dating of Easter. [46]

There is no universal and convincing historical support for the claim that the bishop of Rome was originally considered to exercise more divine authority than other bishops. For example, while Clement of Rome in the first century attempts to encourage the Corinthian church, his letter does not contain the heavy-handedness that was characteristic of the later popes, nor does he hint that he assumes such authority, but instead, encourages them to read the epistles that Paul had sent them some forty years earlier. Although Romanism claims that Clement himself was an Apostle of Christ in succession from Peter, Clement claimed no such title and neither did he acknowledge any Apostles except the ones appointed by Christ personally. [47]

Along these lines, Keith Mathison comments:

Although Rome traces the origins of the papacy to the Apostle Peter, the historical evidence indicates that there was no monarchical bishop in Rome until sometime [after] A.D. 140. Instead of a single bishop, it appears that the Roman church was organized under a college of presbyters or presbyter-bishops. No evidence exists for any claims to jurisdictional supremacy by Rome in the first century. The first historical instances of Roman bishops claiming any type of jurisdictional priority outside of Rome itself occurred in the late second century and early third century. [48]

Mathison’s description of early leadership in the church at Rome would reflect the biblical model of a plurality of bishop/elders ruling (cf. Tit. 1:5-7) which will be discussed further below. Even the early attempts at Roman supremacy noted above were widely rejected. As introduced above, when Victor (c. 190) tried to excommunicate churches outside of Rome for not celebrating Easter on the date he had specified, Irenaeus, Bishop of Gaul rebuked him and Victor’s opinion was only widely accepted after several synods met to discuss the issue. Even then, the churches in Asia Minor continued their former practices, virtually ignoring Victor.

Likewise, when Stephen (c. 255) attempted to exercise doctrinal authority beyond Rome, Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage and a strong proponent of catholicism, nonetheless responded that no bishop should “set himself up as a bishop of bishops” and that a bishop “can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another.” [49]

Along the same lines, Hippolytus (c. 160–236), the most prestigious theologian in Rome in the third century, forcefully denounced Callistus, bishop of Rome, for his views on apostates, and many recognized Hippolytus as a rival bishop over the city. [50] So much for the accepted dominance of the Roman bishop.

Even into the fifth century, the great Augustine (354–430) is seen to diminish the authority of the Bishop of Rome, in spite of claims to the contrary. Robert Godfrey explains:

Let me offer as an illustration two examples from the work of Augustine, often quoted against the Protestant position on the question of the authority of the church. At one point in his debate with the Pelagians, a bishop of Rome sided with Augustine, and Augustine declared, “Rome has spoken, the matter is settled.” Later, however, another pope opposed Augustine on this subject, and Augustine responded by saying, “Christ has spoken, the matter is settled.” Augustine did not bow to the authority of the bishop of Rome, but turned to the word of Christ to evaluate the teaching of Rome. [51]

This claim was thoroughly supported in a previous chapter where several quotes from Augustine were provided which reflected a belief in the superior authority of Scripture. [52]

Later, near the end of the sixth century, Gregory I the Great, arguably the most respected pope in the history of Romanism, and the recognized father of the medieval papacy wrote, “I confidently affirm that whosoever calls himself sacerdos universalis [“universal priest], or desires to be so called by others is in his pride a forerunner of Antichrist.” [53] This is illustrated in Gregory’s “letters to the patriarchs of the Eastern churches (Alexandria, Constantinople, Antioch, and Jerusalem) [which] indicate his belief that the five were on an equal footing as regional heads of the Church, with none exercising universal jurisdiction.” [54]

Even into the Middle Ages when the claims of the papacy were at their peak, their actual influence and prestige was minimal. Dr. Van Engen relates:

Throughout the early Middle Ages (600-1050) papal claims remained lofty, but papal power diminished considerably. All churches, East and West, recognized in the “vicar of St. Peter” a certain primacy of honor, but the East virtually never consulted him and the West only when it was expedient. In practice, councils of bishops, with kings often presiding over them, ruled in the various Western territorial churches. [55]

Concerning the specific claim of the superiority of Rome because of the martyrdom of the two premier Apostles of the Church, Calvin commented in his notes on the Roman interpretation of Matthew 16:

Hitherto I have given a plain exposition of the native meaning of the words, so that nothing farther could have been desired, had it not been that the Roman Antichrist, wishing to cloak his tyranny, has wickedly and dishonestly dared to pervert the whole of this passage . . . [Even] though the uninterrupted succession [of Roman bishops] were fully established, still the Pope will gain nothing by it till he has proved himself to be Peter’s lawful successor. And how does he prove it? Because Peter died at Rome; as if Rome, by the detestable murder of the Apostle, had procured for herself the primacy. [56]

Regarding the claim of papal infallibility in particular, Brian Tierney, in a detailed study of the issue concludes:

There is no convincing evidence that papal infallibility formed any part of the theological or canonical tradition of the church before the thirteenth century; the doctrine was invented in the first place by a few dissident Franciscans because it suited their convenience to invent it; eventually, but only after much initial reluctance, it was accepted by the papacy because it suited the convenience of the popes to accept it. [57]

Accordingly, the doctrine of papal infallibility was not declared official Romanist dogma until Vatican I in 1870, an event that, as we have seen, was used to increase papal authority in a variety of ways. [58]

C.3) The morality of many popes would disqualify them even for local church leadership

The denial of early Church leaders of the supremacy of the Roman bishop is not the only historical evidence that argues against such a claim. We are reminded that Scripture demands that even the bishop (“overseer” episkopos cf. Tit. 1:7) of a local church is to be:

blameless—not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. Rather he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. (Tit 1:7-8)

This biblical injunction makes the behavior of several Romanist popes all the more alarming. Specifically in regards to moral issues, we are reminded that Pope Gregory IX (1227-1241) authorized the use of physical torture by the Inquisition. [59] In addition, Alister McGrath notes:

Take, for example, the Renaissance popes. They had no difficulty in affirming the world and its values and methods, even occasionally developing new twists. The Borgia pope Alexander VI was chiefly noted for turning dinner parties into a Renaissance version of Russian roulette: you were never quite sure which of the many dishes would contain the poison. Where Jesus counseled talking through difficulties with your opponents, Alexander favored more direct and permanent approaches hitherto neglected by Christian spiritual directors. . . .

The pope who condemned Luther in 1520 was a member of the prominent Florentine banking family of the Medicis, and he had liquidated his bank in order to purchase the papacy outright. There were other, more suitable candidates, most of whom had fewer mistresses and illegitimate children than Leo, and occasionally even none. By all accounts, Leo was a good-natured gourmet, equally fond of the world of high finance, hunting, and extravagant spending.

The Renaissance popes had no trouble, at least at the practical level, with sex, money, or power. They knew how to get them and how to make the most of them. They denied themselves no pleasure. [60]

Is there any question as to why there needed to be a Reformation! Our Romanist friends who define the event as the splitting of the true Church need to recognize it as the preservation of it. [61]

Dr. Latourette shares just one of many examples that a satanic pope was used to defeat the work of God:

Savonarola declared that the Church would be renovated after a period of scourging and that all unbelievers would be converted and the Gospel would triumph in the Earth. He pled with the Florentines to accept Christ as their king. He urged Italy, Florence, the princes, and the prelates to repent and turn to Christ. He exhorted his hearers to give to the poor all beyond their barest needs. In a series of sermons during Lent in 1495 he called upon his fellow-citizens to live a godly life of union and concord and undertake a complete reformation of morals.

There followed a startling transformation of the life of the city. Women threw aside their finery and dressed plainly, bankers and tradesmen restored ill-gotten gains, there was much reading of the Bible and the works of Savonarola, churches were crowded, alms to the poor increased, and some scions of leading families and several mature men of outstanding ability entered San Marco as monks.

Savonarola inevitably made enemies. Some of them went to Rome and urged the Pope, Alexander VI, to act. In 1495 the latter courteously summoned the friar to the Holy See. Savonarola asked to be excused, pleading ill health and the urgent necessity of remaining in Florence if the reforms which had been begun were to be carried through.

In October, 1495, the Pope commanded him to abstain from all preaching, whether in public or private. For a time the friar obeyed and gave himself to study. By personal persuasion he succeeded in 1496 in transforming the usually riotous carnival into a time of giving to the poor and of processions in which children marched through the streets singing hymns. In Lent, 1496, with Papal permission and at the invitation of the civic authorities, he returned to his pulpit.

Later in the year Alexander VI attempted to curb him by putting the monastery of San Marco in a grouping of Dominican houses which would render it more directly subject to Rome. Savonarola defied the order.

Early in 1497 the influence of Savonarola in Florence was such that at the annual carnival season, indecent books and pictures and carnival masks and costumes were collected by bands of children and burned in a huge pyre in the main square to the sound of devotional hymns and denunciations of the carnival.

In Lent, 1497, the friar came out boldly against the evils in the Church and with thinly veiled allusions to the Pope. That Pontiff was all the more enraged because the republic in Florence which Savonarola was supporting was in alliance with France and against the league of Italian states of which the Pope was a member: the latter’s enmity was as much on political as personal and religious grounds.

In May, 1497, Alexander VI launched a bull of excommunication against Savonarola, on the ostensible ground of his disobedience of the Papal command to come to Rome and his blocking of the incorporation of San Marco in the new combination of Dominican houses ordered by the Pope. Savonarola again defied the Pope.

Savonarola was strong enough to make of the carnival season of 1498 another time of religious fervour with a public burning of “vanities.”

However, the tide began to run against him. The Pope threatened Florence with an interdict and ordered the civic authorities either to silence the friar or send him to Rome for trial. . . . The city government, now in hostile hands, arrested Savonarola and tried him and two of his closest disciples, employing the familiar medieval device of torture. The trial was continued before two Papal commissioners who had their master’s command to see that the friar died. Savonarola and the other two were condemned, hung, and their bodies burned (May 23, 1498) in the great piazza. Alexander VI had seemingly triumphed. [62]

C.4) The Papacy has been corrected

The historical claim of Romanism to papal infallibility is impossible to respect, especially in light of the numerous doctrinal errors that subsequent councils have claimed past popes have made. The new more fluid view of Tradition which allows for changing positions on what is true has facilitated this. Vatican II took some advantage of this convenient excuse for a lack of infallibility on the part of past popes. For example, F. S. Piggin writes:

The [Romanist] church has even at times recognized as error what it had earlier decreed authoritatively. Vatican Council II’s Declaration on Religious Freedom is seen by reputable Catholic scholars to be in conflict with the condemnations of religious freedom in Gregory XVI’s encyclical Mirari vos of 1832 [In which it was claimed by papal decree that only those in Romanism could be saved].

The conflict was recognized by members of the council, but they supported the declaration on the principle of doctrinal development. Protestants hostile to Catholicism should be wary of attacking allegedly unalterable Catholic positions: the Catholic Church has reversed its position on basic issues. [63]

Indeed, while Romanism has reversed its claim to salvific exclusivity, it has shown it’s fallibility again by embracing salvific universality, now claiming that even those who do not believe in Jesus Christ will go to Heaven. [64]

On another issue, C. T. McIntire reports concerning Vatican II:

[It] introduced the biblical teaching that the church as a whole was the people of God, including both clergy and laity. This reversed centuries of virtually explicit assertion that the clergy alone were the church. Both laity and clergy, the document affirmed, shared in the priestly, prophetic, and kingly functions of Christ. The decree “On the Laity” and the constitution “On the Church in the Modern World” (also called Gaudium et spes) charged lay people to under-take their work in the world in all walks of life as Christian vocations, as a lay apostolate which shared directly in the continuation of the work of the Apostles of Christ. This too undid centuries of emphasis on the clergy, monks, and nuns as virtually the sole possessors of Christian calling. [65]

While Protestants can applaud these steps to more biblical views, these changes would seem to disprove any claim to papal infallibility in the past.

C.5) The Papacy has been ineffective

One of the primary reasons given for the institution of the papacy is to maintain the doctrinal unity of Romanism. However, it is doubtful whether or not this has succeeded. Dr. Godfrey explains:

As early as the seventeenth century the Reformed theologian Francis Turretin noted the serious theological divisions in the Roman church and asked why the pope did not settle these disputes if his office was so effective. Such theological problems are certainly much greater today than in Turretin’s day and the question remains unanswered as to why the pope is so ineffective.

Remember that while Rome is united organizationally, it is just as divided theologically as is Protestantism broadly understood. The institution of an infallible pope has not created theological unity in the Roman church. Rather, Roman theologians are constantly disagreeing with each other as to what the popes have taught, and as to whether those teachings are in fact proclaimed ex cathedra, and are therefore infallible. The modern state of the Roman church really has shown that the institution of the papacy has not made clear the necessary content of Christian truth. I suspect that every honest member of the Roman church will have to acknowledge that. [66]

Likewise, we have already noted Bernard Ramm’s comments:

Judging from the glowing terms in which Roman Catholic scholars describe it, papal infallibility is a great blessing. It would appear that hundreds of theological questions can be settled, the interpretation of obscure passages resolved, the pressing moral questions of the times properly answered.

But infallibility is not a grace that is frequently used. The Church or papacy speak infallibly only when an issue becomes forced. For example, scarcely a dozen verses have been officially interpreted; and one scholar says that if unusually rigid rules are applied to the ex cathedra statements of the pope, only four infallible utterances have been made in nineteen hundred years of Church history.

The area in which infallible statement may be made is also carefully limited; for example, nothing may be said about critical or historical matters. Even when the issue is unusually agitated the papacy may call a halt to the discussion rather than settling it with an ex cathedra utterance. Much of the enthusiasm for infallibility must then be drawn off when it is learned how infrequently it may be exercised. [67]

C.6) Popes have condoned unbiblical heresy

In previous and subsequent chapters we will document how Romanism has taught and promoted heresy, especially concerning the biblical view of salvation by grace. [68] Along these lines, we have previously shared the example reported by Dr. Latourette:

The decline of the Papacy became even more marked during the reign of Celestine’s successor, Boniface VIII (Benedict Gaetan), who held the See of Peter from 1294 to 1303. . . . He made as great claims for Papal authority as were ever promulgated. In his bull Unain Sanctam, issued in 1299, he declared “that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” [69]

That has never been true, it is heretical, and Boniface was a pope.

C.7) Modern Romanist scholars are rejecting the primacy and/or infallibility of the pope

It is not surprising, based on the above data, that an increasing number of leaders within Romanism are denouncing the historical claims to papal primacy and infallibility. Along these lines, Dr. Van Engen writes:

Catholics have never uniformly reverenced the papacy to the degree that most Protestants believe . . . [I]in the last generation some theologians, led by Hans Küng, have openly questioned infallibility, and many faithful Catholics have rejected the stand on contraception enunciated in Pope Paul VI’s Humanae vitae (1968). There is increased suspicion of Roman primatial claims and considerable ferment in favor of episcopal and conciliar authority. But whether this is merely a momentary reaction or something of lasting significance is not yet clear. [70]

Particularly concerning papal infallibility, Dr. Van Engen says:

Recently, Roman Catholic attitudes toward papal infallibility have shifted somewhat in response to ecumenical dialogue, historical investigation, and most recently Hans Küng’s book [Infallible?]. Küng’s challenge, provoked by the papal ruling on contraception, set off a large and still unresolved debate inside Catholicism. . . .

In recent years the most fundamental attacks have come, ironically, from Roman Catholics promoting collegiality. They have produced historical evidence to show that the Roman Church retained a presbyterial structure (making Peter and Clement merely spokesmen, not presiding bishops) into the second century, and that the church as a whole had a decentralized regional structure at least into the fourth, whereby councils of bishops ruled on larger issues and the Roman Church enjoyed at best a primacy of honor. [71]

Evidently, some are concluding and confessing what should have been confessed long ago. One shudders to think of the divine accountability of those Romanist leaders who have sought to compete with the authority of God’s written word by claiming to be Christ’s representative on Earth. The fact is, on that Day, many of them will hear the Master say, “I never knew you. Away from Me, you evildoers!” (Matt 7:23).

Extras & Endnotes

Gauging Your Grasp

  1. What does papal infallibility mean?

What was the basic steps that led to a pope?

What happened at the Council of Chalcedon in 451?

  1. What is the foremost biblical support for a pope? How do we argue against the Roman Catholic interpretation? Do you agree or disagree?
  2. What do we suggest was Peter’s foundational role in building the Church?
  3. What are some biblical texts that would argue against having a pope?
  4. What are some historical evidences that God has not ordained a pope?

Publications & Particulars

  1. Romanism is our word for the Roman Catholic Church. Not only is this word shorter, it better reflects what is unique about this branch of Christianity (originated in Rome), and avoids the suggestion that it alone is the catholic (universal) Church. ↑

  2. J. Van Engen writes concerning the derivation of the term “pope”:

    The term pappa, from which the word “pope” is derived, originated in ancient colloquial Greek as an endearing term for “father,” and was then applied, beginning in the third century, to Eastern patriarchs, bishops, abbots, and eventually parish priests (of whom it is still used today). In the West the term was never very common outside Rome (originally a Greek-speaking church), and from the sixth century became reserved increasingly for the bishop of Rome, until in the later eleventh century Pope Gregory VII made that official. (“Papacy” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (EDT), Walter Elwell ed. (Baker, 1984), 824) ↑

  3. Excerpts from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, CCC, para. 889-891; online at http://www.scborromeo.org. ↑

  4. Vatican Council, 1870, Session 4, cap. 4 in T. Rees, “Authority in Religion” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, James Orr, ed. Electronic Edition STEP Files (Parsons Technology, 1998). ↑

  5. Kenneth S. Latourette, A History of Christianity (Hendricksen, 1975), 130. ↑

  6. Ibid., 118 ↑

  7. P. Toon in Who’s Who in Christian History writes concerning Clement:

    In ancient lists Clement is often placed as the third bishop after the apostle Peter. When Clement served the church of Rome, however, it is doubtful that that church was ruled by a single bishop. ↑

  8. Latourette, 118. ↑

  9. Irenaeus, Against Heresies; online at http://www.ccel.org. ↑

  10. Latourette, 159. ↑

  11. Ibid., 186. ↑

  12. Ibid., 172. ↑

  13. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles, trans. C. J. O’Neil (University of Notre Dame Press, 1957), iV. 25, P. 142. Aquinas discusses papal infallibility in Summa Theologiae, 11-11, q. i, a. 10. For a useful discussion of Aquinas’s views and their significance see Hans Küng, Infallible? (Collins, 1971), 95-8. ↑

  14. T. Rees, “Authority in Religion”. ↑

  15. Donald McKim, Theological Turning Points (Knox, 1988), 106. ↑

  16. Keith Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura (Canon Press, 2001), 180. ↑

  17. John Henry Newman in William Abraham, Canon and Criterion in Christian Theology : From the Fathers to Feminism (Clarendon Press, 1998), 349. ↑

  18. F. S. Piggin, “Roman Catholicism,” EDT, 957. ↑

  19. Piggin, 958. ↑

  20. Van Egan, “Papacy”, 823. ↑

  21. The Documents of Vatican II (Geoffrey Chapman, 1967), 48 (1-3.25). ↑

  22. Robert W. Godfrey, “What Do We Mean by Sola Scriptura?” in Sola Scriptura! The Protestant Position on the Bible (Soli Deo Gloria, 1995), 11-12. In spite of this, it should be mentioned that there are a number of valuable Romanist NT scholars today including Raymond Brown, Raymond Collins, Daniel Harrington, Luke Timothy Johnson, and Rudolf Schnackenburg. In addition, the Romanist commentary series Sacra Pagina is generally well worth consulting. Still, there is a good deal of liberalism in Romanism, especially among their theologians which would include Karl Rahner, which, despite J. I. Packer’s politically correct praise in this context, is not worth reading. Hans Küng is at times possibly worth reading. ↑

  23. CCC, 882, 889-891 ↑

  24. J. I. Packer, God Speaks to Man: Revelation and the Bible (Westminster Press, 1965), 78. ↑

  25. McKim, 113. ↑

  26. James White, “Sola Scriptura and the Early Church” in Sola Scriptura! The Protestant Position on the Bible (Soli Deo Gloria, 1995), 55-6. ↑

  27. Piggin, “Roman Catholicism”, 958. ↑

  28. John MacArthur, MacArthur’s New Testament Commentary, Electronic Edition STEP Files CD-ROM (Parsons Technology, 1997), Mt. 16:18-20. ↑

  29. J. Van Engen, “Peter, Primacy of”, EDT, 847. ↑

  30. John Calvin, John’s Calvin’s Commentaries, Matt 16:18; online at http://www.ccel.org. ↑

  31. Against this Dr. Carson rightly says, “In this passage Jesus is the builder of the church and it would be a strange mixture of metaphors that also sees him within the same clauses as its foundation.” (Matthew in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Frank Gaebelein, ed. CD-ROM (Zondervan, n.d.), 368. ↑

  32. Ibid. ↑

  33. cf. Lexham Greek-English Interlinear New Testament, Logos Research, 2008-2010; Matt 16:17-19. ↑

  34. Ibid.; Matt 18:18. ↑

  35. Calvin, 1 Peter 5:1. ↑

  36. MacArthur, Ibid. ↑

  37. That this incident that Paul records in Galatia occurred after the events of Acts 10:1-11:18 is indicated by the fact that the planting of the church in Antioch is not recorded until Acts 11:19-21. ↑

  38. Albert Barnes, Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, Matt 16.18, underlining added; online at http://www.ccel.org. ↑

  39. William Barclay, Daily Study Bible, CD-ROM (Liguori Publications, 1996), Matt 16:17-19. ↑

  40. Ibid. ↑

  41. Wayne Grudem concurs and writes:

    Elsewhere in the NT a key always implies authority to open a door and give entrance to a place or realm (Luke 11:52; Rev. 1:18; 37 9:1; 203; Cf. Isa. 22:22). The keys of the kingdom of heaven therefore represent at least the authority to preach the gospel of Christ (cf. Matt 16n6) and thus to open the door of the kingdom of heaven and allow people to enter. Peter first used this authority by preaching the gospel at Pentecost (Acts 2:14-42). But the other apostles also were given this authority in a primary sense (they wrote the gospel in permanent form in the NT). And all believers have this “key” in a secondary sense, for they can all share the gospel with others. (“Keys of the Kingdom” EDT, 604)

    Dr. Grudem goes on to also suggest that “the binding and loosing” that Jesus speaks of refers to church discipline. However, D. A. Carson provides an excellent and detail commentary on this passage and demonstrates that even this phrase supports the interpretation that Jesus is speaking of the gospel opening up the door to the kingdom. (See Matthew, EBC at Matt 16:19) ↑

  42. There is some difficulty in knowing what Paul intended by using hedraiōma as Knight points out that it is “a NT hapax found only in Christian writings and occurring here first.” (181). This explains why several versions translate it differently: NIV “foundation,” NASB “support,” (N)KJV “ground,” (N)RSV “bulwark”. ↑

  43. Donald Guthrie, The Pastoral Epistles (TNTC) (Eerdmans, 1990, repr. 1999), 99. ↑

  44. John Stott, Guard the Truth: The Message (Intervarsity, 1996), 105. ↑

  45. Ibid., 106. ↑

  46. Latourette, 137. ↑

  47. cf. Clement I, 42, 44; online at http://www.ccel.org. ↑

  48. Mathison, 51. ↑

  49. Latourette, 183. ↑

  50. Ibid., 144-145. ↑

  51. Godfrey, 16-17. ↑

  52. For quotes from Augustine which reflect a belief in the superior authority of Scripture see section 13.5.C. ↑

  53. Godfrey, 14. ↑

  54. Mathison, 54. ↑

  55. J. Van Engen “Papacy,” EDT, 823. ↑

  56. Calvin, Mt. 16.19. ↑

  57. Brian Tierney, Origins of Papal Infallibility (LE. J. Brill, 1988), 281. ↑

  58. For a thorough critique of the doctrine of infallibility, which after a century has yet to receive a full response or refutation, see George Salmon, Infallibility of the Church, 3rd. ed. (John Murray, 1899). For an outstanding exhaustive scholarly examination of the origins of the doctrine of papal infallibility, which has also yet to be refuted, see Brian Tierney, Origins of Papal Infallibility (E.J. Brill, 1988). ↑

  59. See more at Mathison, 220-223. ↑

  60. Alister McGrath, Power Religion (Moody, 1992), 311-12. ↑

  61. Dr. Van Engen elaborates:

    The Orthodox considered the church to be organized around five patriarchates, with the see of Peter in the West holding a certain primacy of honor but not final authority. They have consistently refused to recognize any extraordinary magisterial authority (which resides in the teachings of general councils).

    The catalyst which finally divided the Eastern and Western churches in 1054 was Rome’s revitalized claim to primacy, worsened by papal support for the crusades and establishment of a Latin hierarchy in the East. As hostility toward Rome increased, the Orthodox became ever clearer in their exegesis of the keys: the church was built upon Peter’s confession of faith (which the Orthodox had preserved intact), not upon Peter himself or his sometime wayward successors.

    More recently, the Orthodox found the declaration of infallibility almost as offensive as did Protestants. (“Papacy” EDT, 823) ↑

  62. Latourette, 673. ↑

  63. F. S. Piggin, “Roman Catholicism” EDT, 955. ↑

  64. Regarding Romanism’s embrace of salvific universality, now claiming that even those who do not believe in Jesus Christ will go to Heaven, see section 13.6.C.2. ↑

  65. C.T. McIntire, “Vatican Council II,” EDT, 1136. ↑

  66. Godfrey, 22. ↑

  67. Ramm, 68, 71. ↑

  68. For further discussion on Romanism’s attack on the Gospel see section 13.6.C. ↑

  69. Latourette, 487. ↑

  70. Van Engen, “Papacy” EDT, 823. ↑

  71. W. C. G. Proctor and J. Van Engen, “Infallibility”, EDT, 559. ↑