Dear Protestants ... please explain John 1:42

[SuperCow]

Which of Jesus' "principles" might that be?

If Peter wasn't the leader, the twelve apostles certainly were the leaders of the Church. Are saying having twelve leaders is acceptable but having one leader isn't?

As soon as you're given a title that denotes a person as a leader instead of a servant you are encouraging that person to assume they are better than someone else. That's why Jesus would set the example of washing the feet of the apostles, so they would remember and know this. And to answer your question, having twelve people with experience to guide the church is infinitely better than one supreme leader. The only leader we should have is Jesus, and Jesus delegated the responsibility of guiding the early church to twelve chosen people.

That's why they are called ministers, preachers, or teachers. They aren't there to control or legislate or be empowered. The pastor serves his parish. A deacon or an elder serves the congregation. By contrast a Pope makes rules and enforces them. And before the 19th century would determine the legality of wars, the succession of rulers, and the punishment of sin. Where in the Bible was there a justification for the inquisitions, for burning people to death for heresy, for holy wars, etc. It seems to me that the only justifiable punishment a church can undertake is excommunication or removal from duties. The rest of it is totalitarian.

 

[Buzzard3]

Please quote where the Catholic Church teaches the above.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

553 Jesus entrusted a specific authority to Peter: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."287 The "power of the keys" designates authority to govern the house of God, which is the Church. Jesus, the Good Shepherd, confirmed this mandate after his Resurrection: "Feed my sheep."288 The power to "bind and loose" connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgments, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church. Jesus entrusted this authority to the Church through the ministry of the apostles289 and in particular through the ministry of Peter, the only one to whom he specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom.

567 The kingdom of heaven was inaugurated on earth by Christ ... The Church is the seed and beginning of this kingdom. Its keys are entrusted to Peter.

881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the "rock" of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock

936 The Lord made St. Peter the visible foundation of his Church. He entrusted the keys of the Church to him

1444 In imparting to his apostles his own power to forgive sins the Lord also gives them the authority to reconcile sinners with the Church. This ecclesial dimension of their task is expressed most notably in Christ's solemn words to Simon Peter: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of the apostles united to its head."

981 After his Resurrection, Christ sent his apostles "so that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached in his name to all nations." The apostles and their successors carry out this "ministry of reconciliation," not only by announcing to men God's forgiveness merited for us by Christ, and calling them to conversion and faith; but also by communicating to them the forgiveness of sins in Baptism, and reconciling them with God and with the Church through the power of the keys, received from Christ:

[The Church] has received the keys of the Kingdom of heaven so that, in her, sins may be forgiven through Christ's blood and the Holy Spirit's action. In this Church, the soul dead through sin comes back to life in order to live with Christ, whose grace has saved us.

983 Catechesis strives to awaken and nourish in the faithful faith in the incomparable greatness of the risen Christ's gift to his Church: the mission and the power to forgive sins through the ministry of the apostles and their successors:

The Lord wills that his disciples possess a tremendous power: that his lowly servants accomplish in his name all that he did when he was on earth.

979 In this battle against our inclination towards evil, who could be brave and watchful enough to escape every wound of sin? "If the Church has the power to forgive sins, then Baptism cannot be her only means of using the keys of the Kingdom of heaven received from Jesus Christ. The Church must be able to forgive all penitents their offenses, even if they should sin until the last moment of their lives."


From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

"Christ by employing this expression ("the keys of the kingdom of heaven") clearly designed to signify his intention to confer on St. Peter the supreme authority over His Church."

"Christ's words ('And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven') are a promise that He will confer on Peter supreme power to govern the Church. Peter is to be His vicegerent, to rule in His place."

"Christ has made His Church to be infallible in the exercise of her doctrinal authority."

" the reunion Council of Florence (1438-1445), repeating what had been substantially contained in the profession of faith of Michael Palaeologus approved by the Second Council of Lyons (1274), defined "that the holy Apostolic see and the Roman pontiff holds the primacy over the whole world; and that the Roman pontiff himself is the successor of the blessed Peter Prince of the Apostles and the true Vicar of Christ, and the head of the whole Church, and the father and teacher of all Christians, and that to him in blessed Peter the full power of feeding, ruling and governing the universal Church was given by our Lord Jesus Christ""

 

[Buzzard3]

So when was he named Cephas? John 1:42 or Mat 16:18 because those timelines don't agree.

Jesus gave Simon the name "Cephas" ("rock") in John 1:42, which was the very first time they ever met. Moreover, the very first thing Jesus said to Simon was, "You are Simon, son of Jonah. You will be called Cephas (which means 'rock')".

 

[prodromos]

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

553 Jesus entrusted a specific authority to Peter: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."287 The "power of the keys" designates authority to govern the house of God, which is the Church. Jesus, the Good Shepherd, confirmed this mandate after his Resurrection: "Feed my sheep."288 The power to "bind and loose" connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgments, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church. Jesus entrusted this authority to the Church through the ministry of the apostles289 and in particular through the ministry of Peter, the only one to whom he specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom.

567 The kingdom of heaven was inaugurated on earth by Christ ... The Church is the seed and beginning of this kingdom. Its keys are entrusted to Peter.

881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the "rock" of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock

936 The Lord made St. Peter the visible foundation of his Church. He entrusted the keys of the Church to him

1444 In imparting to his apostles his own power to forgive sins the Lord also gives them the authority to reconcile sinners with the Church. This ecclesial dimension of their task is expressed most notably in Christ's solemn words to Simon Peter: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of the apostles united to its head."

981 After his Resurrection, Christ sent his apostles "so that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached in his name to all nations." The apostles and their successors carry out this "ministry of reconciliation," not only by announcing to men God's forgiveness merited for us by Christ, and calling them to conversion and faith; but also by communicating to them the forgiveness of sins in Baptism, and reconciling them with God and with the Church through the power of the keys, received from Christ:

[The Church] has received the keys of the Kingdom of heaven so that, in her, sins may be forgiven through Christ's blood and the Holy Spirit's action. In this Church, the soul dead through sin comes back to life in order to live with Christ, whose grace has saved us.

983 Catechesis strives to awaken and nourish in the faithful faith in the incomparable greatness of the risen Christ's gift to his Church: the mission and the power to forgive sins through the ministry of the apostles and their successors:

The Lord wills that his disciples possess a tremendous power: that his lowly servants accomplish in his name all that he did when he was on earth.

979 In this battle against our inclination towards evil, who could be brave and watchful enough to escape every wound of sin? "If the Church has the power to forgive sins, then Baptism cannot be her only means of using the keys of the Kingdom of heaven received from Jesus Christ. The Church must be able to forgive all penitents their offenses, even if they should sin until the last moment of their lives."

I asked where the Catholic Church taught what you stated;

The Catholic Church teaches that the supernatural power of the "keys" allowed Peter to be infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit when deciding what the Church should teach (ie, dogma and doctrine) with respect to faith and morals - in other words, the means of salvation, which is the key to the kingdom of heaven.​

If the above quotes from the Catechism is your answer then I must assume that the Catholic Church does not teach what you claimed above.

I earlier stated that the "keys" were authority and not, as you claim, "supernatural power", and your quotes from the Catechism confirm what I said.

 

[DamianWarS]

Jesus gave Simon the name "Cephas" ("rock") in John 1:42, which was the very first time they ever met. Moreover, the very first thing Jesus said to Simon was, "You are Simon, son of Jonah. You will be called Cephas (which means 'rock')".

He says the same in the Mathew text. What about when Jesus cleanses the temple? John says it was early in Jesus ministry (Jn 2) Mathew says it was later (Mat 21) or did Jesus do it twice like you're suggesting with naming Peter?

Ancient texts see details as more fluid and are goal driven so arrange details to suit that goal (western logic is more fact driven and arranges events linearly), John arranges the details to build the point he's making, Mathew arranges it to build his point but the order doesn't have to agree which is a form of hebraic block logic. You're using the order to proclaim specific motivations that are outside of the goals of the texts themselves using a very western logic as your method.

I would look at the Mattew and John texts as the same event then start looking at what the purpose behind ordering them differently is. Instead your approaching the text with already knowing the meaning and magically the texts agree with you. I would surrender these preconceived ideas and read the text for how they are presented not how you want them presented.

 

[Buzzard3]

I earlier stated that the "keys" were authority and not, as you claim, "supernatural power", and your quotes from the Catechism confirm what I said.

The quotes I providing state that the "keys", for one thing, give the Church (priests) the power to forgive sins, which is a supernatural power, is it not?

One quote says:
"The Lord wills that his disciples possess a tremendous power: that his lowly servants accomplish in his name all that he did when he was on earth."
The "tremendous power" is of course supernatural power, is it not?

Another quote says:
"[The Church] has received the keys of the Kingdom of heaven so that, in her, sins may be forgiven through Christ's blood and the Holy Spirit's action", which means that with the "keys" comes supernatural power, does it not?


And - surprise, surprise - you still haven't answered my question: How could a man hold "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" without God endowing that man with supernaural power?
Your non-response is completely understandable ... even the village idiot would know that a man could not hold the keys to heaven without God giving that man supernatural power.

 

[prodromos]

The quotes I providing state that the "keys", for one thing, give the Church (priests) the power to forgive sins, which is a supernatural power, is it not?

It's an authority, which is one of the definitions of "power"

One quote says:
"The Lord wills that his disciples possess a tremendous power: that his lowly servants accomplish in his name all that he did when he was on earth."
The "tremendous power" is of course supernatural power, is it not?

Given to those who love God and truly humble themselves. Many of those who possess tremendous power are simple monks. It is not something that is specific or exclusive to the Apostles and their successors.

Another quote says:
"[The Church] has received the keys of the Kingdom of heaven so that, in her, sins may be forgiven through Christ's blood and the Holy Spirit's action", which means that with the "keys" comes supernatural power, does it not?

Once again it is referring to authority.

And - surprise, surprise - you still haven't answered my question: How could a man hold "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" without God endowing that man with supernaural power?
Your non-response is completely understandable ... even the village idiot would know that a man could not hold the keys to heaven without God giving that man supernatural power.

That you believe I have not answered your question simply demonstrates a lack of comprehension on your part, which is not surprising when you place yourself on par with the half-intelligent or the village idiot.

 

[Buzzard3]

He says the same in the Mathew text. What about when Jesus cleanses the temple? John says it was early in Jesus ministry (Jn 2) Mathew says it was later (Mat 21) or did Jesus do it twice like you're suggesting with naming Peter?

No, there's a difference: Jesus GIVES Simon the name Peter in John 1:42; whereas in Matt 16, Jesus USES the name Peter.

I would look at the Mattew and John texts as the same event

It seems to me that your claim is easily disproven:

1. When Jesus gave Simon the name "Cephas" in John 1:42, John the Baptist was a free man, walking around preaching (see John 1:29-40). But when Jesus said "you are Peter" in Matt 16:18, John the Baptist was in prison and had been for some time (since Matt 11).

2. At the time of John 1:42, Jesus had not yet called the twelve apostles to follow him. But at the time of Matt 16:18, the twelve apostles had been with Jesus since way back in Matt 10.

So it seems evident from Scripture that Jesus gave Simon the name "Cephas" (John 1:42) well before the event described in Matt 16:13-20.

Incidentally, I don't understand how anyone can read John 1:40-42 and not agree that it describes the very first time Jesus and (Simon) Peter met.

Instead your approaching the text with already knowing the meaning and magically the texts agree with you. I would surrender these preconceived ideas and read the text for how they are presented not how you want them presented.

Please cite one reputable Bible commentary that agrees with your claim that John 1:42 and Matt 16:13-20 describe the same event.

 

[Buzzard3]

It's an authority, which is one of the definitions of "power"

When I claim that the "keys" endowed Peter with supernatural power, I simply mean that the power of the Holy Spirit worked through him.

 

[DamianWarS]

Incidentally, I don't understand how anyone can read John 1:40-42 and not agree that it describes the very first time Jesus and (Simon) Peter met.

In a John vaccum this is true but John does not agree in order with all the Gospels, notably the cleansing of the temple event. This is not surprising in ancient texts as they can be more goal driven with more fluid details. If John had other motivations in his ordering then why not the naming of Peter too since it is an overlapping event from another gospel but at a different time. I'm not really concerned about the literal ordering of the events in John and Mathew but more with using these events in a strict literal vaccum to prop up a post biblical point.

 

[BNR32FAN]

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

553 Jesus entrusted a specific authority to Peter: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."287 The "power of the keys" designates authority to govern the house of God, which is the Church. Jesus, the Good Shepherd, confirmed this mandate after his Resurrection: "Feed my sheep."288 The power to "bind and loose" connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgments, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church. Jesus entrusted this authority to the Church through the ministry of the apostles289 and in particular through the ministry of Peter, the only one to whom he specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom.

567 The kingdom of heaven was inaugurated on earth by Christ ... The Church is the seed and beginning of this kingdom. Its keys are entrusted to Peter.

881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the "rock" of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock

936 The Lord made St. Peter the visible foundation of his Church. He entrusted the keys of the Church to him

1444 In imparting to his apostles his own power to forgive sins the Lord also gives them the authority to reconcile sinners with the Church. This ecclesial dimension of their task is expressed most notably in Christ's solemn words to Simon Peter: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of the apostles united to its head."

981 After his Resurrection, Christ sent his apostles "so that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached in his name to all nations." The apostles and their successors carry out this "ministry of reconciliation," not only by announcing to men God's forgiveness merited for us by Christ, and calling them to conversion and faith; but also by communicating to them the forgiveness of sins in Baptism, and reconciling them with God and with the Church through the power of the keys, received from Christ:

[The Church] has received the keys of the Kingdom of heaven so that, in her, sins may be forgiven through Christ's blood and the Holy Spirit's action. In this Church, the soul dead through sin comes back to life in order to live with Christ, whose grace has saved us.

983 Catechesis strives to awaken and nourish in the faithful faith in the incomparable greatness of the risen Christ's gift to his Church: the mission and the power to forgive sins through the ministry of the apostles and their successors:

The Lord wills that his disciples possess a tremendous power: that his lowly servants accomplish in his name all that he did when he was on earth.

979 In this battle against our inclination towards evil, who could be brave and watchful enough to escape every wound of sin? "If the Church has the power to forgive sins, then Baptism cannot be her only means of using the keys of the Kingdom of heaven received from Jesus Christ. The Church must be able to forgive all penitents their offenses, even if they should sin until the last moment of their lives."


From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

"Christ by employing this expression ("the keys of the kingdom of heaven") clearly designed to signify his intention to confer on St. Peter the supreme authority over His Church."

"Christ's words ('And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven') are a promise that He will confer on Peter supreme power to govern the Church. Peter is to be His vicegerent, to rule in His place."

"Christ has made His Church to be infallible in the exercise of her doctrinal authority."

" the reunion Council of Florence (1438-1445), repeating what had been substantially contained in the profession of faith of Michael Palaeologus approved by the Second Council of Lyons (1274), defined "that the holy Apostolic see and the Roman pontiff holds the primacy over the whole world; and that the Roman pontiff himself is the successor of the blessed Peter Prince of the Apostles and the true Vicar of Christ, and the head of the whole Church, and the father and teacher of all Christians, and that to him in blessed Peter the full power of feeding, ruling and governing the universal Church was given by our Lord Jesus Christ""

The second council of Lyons was a Latin council not an orthodox ecumenical council. The eastern bishops in attendance were Latin not orthodox bishops. It is not recognized as an ecumenical council by the Orthodox Church.

 

[Buzzard3]

In a John vaccum this is true but John does not agree in order with all the Gospels, notably the cleansing of the temple event. This is not surprising in ancient texts as they can be more goal driven with more fluid details. If John had other motivations in his ordering then why not the naming of Peter too since it is an overlapping event from another gospel but at a different time. I'm not really concerned about the literal ordering of the events in John and Mathew but more with using these events in a strict literal vaccum to prop up a post biblical point.

The fact that you can't cite even one reputable Bible commentry that supports your claim (that John 1:42 and Matt 16:13-20 describe the same event) says it all.

 

[SuperCow]

When I claim that the "keys" endowed Peter with supernatural power, I simply mean that the power of the Holy Spirit worked through him.

Then how is it any different from any of the other apostles, or even the Christians that received the Holy Spirit on Pentecost?

BTW, I agree with you on the fact that John 1 and Matthew 16 are two different time periods, even allowing for DamianWarS consideration of the temple tables only being overturned by Jesus once. The context of John 1 and Matthew 16 are completely different regardless. I just don't think that makes any difference to the argument.

 

[Buzzard3]

In a John vaccum this is true but John does not agree in order with all the Gospels, notably the cleansing of the temple event.
This is not surprising in ancient texts as they can be more goal driven with more fluid details. If John had other motivations in his ordering then why not the naming of Peter too since it is an overlapping event from another gospel but at a different time.

So, according to your fascinating spin on the Scriptures, what "goal driven ... other motivations" did John have for setting John 1:42 BEFORE the twelve apostles were appointed and setting Matt 16:13-20 WELL AFTER the apostles were appointed ... two seemingly separate events which you claim were actually one event? Got any suggestions that will sound even remotely plausible?

I'm not really concerned about the literal ordering of the events in John and Mathew but more with using these events in a strict literal vaccum to prop up a post biblical point.

[Staff Edit]

 

[DamianWarS]

So, according to your fascinating spin on the Scriptures, what "goal driven ... other motivations" did John have for setting John 1:42 BEFORE the twelve apostles were appointed and setting Matt 16:13-20 WELL AFTER the apostles were appointed ... two seemingly separate events which you claim were actually one event? Got any suggestions that will sound even remotely plausible?

[Staff Edited Quote]

I think the naming event is articulated in both gospels but the order of when it takes place is different. how it relates to their motivation, or which is the correct order, or the other details surrounding the texts would require additional study but it is no mystery that ancient texts see details more non-linear, especially in Hebraic thought (despite that it's written in Greek). For example, read the creation account and you will see light is created before the sun which makes no rational sense. I would suggest it is ordered this way because light is more important so it is ordered first and through this establishes a powerful metaphor of light being spoken into darkness that works best when is light is highlighted on its own.

The creation account is not the gospel, I know that, but that is an example of how ancient world views approach details differently. I'm not trying to inject some sort of vivid imagination into the text but rather approaching the text for what it is, which is a 1st-century text with Hebraic influence and contrasting order of events. there is nothing controversial about that.

We shouldn't think our western fact-driven logic will superimpose over ancient accounts perfectly. The early church falls under similar predispositions to their own ancient mindsets and are also very goal-driven because if a goal is worthy then it's worth finding details to support that goal. These are honor-driven values over fact-driven. For example the first council of Nicene is said to have 318 bishops in attendance but there are conflicting sources on this number and it would seem the actual number was probably closer to 250. So why 318? 318 is the number of servants Abraham took with him to rescue Lot and 318 is also a number associated with Christ. the number 318 is used because it is the best number not necessarily because it is the actual number. It's used because the cause is worthy enough and 318 ordains the events and makes it more orthodox. Modern western culture would vehemently oppose this because we are fact-driven but the early church was more honor-driven where the details can be more fluid because the cause is worthy. This is how ancient systems work and it can still be found in eastern systems today.

When we approach ancient texts with our fact-driven western logic we're going to come to non-ancient conclusions which may satisfy our process but at the same time have nothing to do with the account we're looking at. I'm calling out that the OP seems to be approaching the text using modern western logic and I don't think they have taken the time to study the accounts in their ancient world views. It may check the boxes they are looking for but that probably has nothing to do with the accounts themselves. It feels the OP starts with the answer and then finds the details to support them.

 

[Buzzard3]

I think the naming event is articulated in both gospels but the order of when it takes place is different. how it relates to their motivation, or which is the correct order, or the other details surrounding the texts would require additional study but it is no mystery that ancient texts see details more non-linear, especially in Hebraic thought (despite that it's written in Greek). For example, read the creation account and you will see light is created before the sun which makes no rational sense. I would suggest it is ordered this way because light is more important so it is ordered first and through this establishes a powerful metaphor of light being spoken into darkness that works best when is light is highlighted on its own.

The creation accounts in Genesis are obviously not meant to be read literally, so to compare that style of writing to the Gospels is a stretch, I must say.

Your claim that John 1:42 and Matt 16:13-20 describe one event strikes me as bizarre and irrational. I have absolutely no idea why anyone would read it that way.

 

[BNR32FAN]

So, according to your fascinating spin on the Scriptures, what "goal driven ... other motivations" did John have for setting John 1:42 BEFORE the twelve apostles were appointed and setting Matt 16:13-20 WELL AFTER the apostles were appointed ... two seemingly separate events which you claim were actually one event? Got any suggestions that will sound even remotely plausible?


[Staff Edit]

It’s an indication that Peter will establish the church, but Peter wasn’t the only one planting churches. Paul planted more churches than Peter did. In any case it appears your intention is to use this to support the Roman Catholic Church. Peter also established the churches in Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria before going to Rome where he also left successors and Rome was excommunicated from the Catholic Church in 1054 when all three of the other churches sided against Rome’s claim to papal primacy and adopted the name Orthodox Catholic Church. So Rome was a part of the Catholic Church at one time until 1054AD.

 

[DamianWarS]

The creation accounts in Genesis are obviously not meant to be read literally, so to compare that style of writing to the Gospels is a stretch, I must say.

it's just an example of how details can be fluid to emphasize a point, even if those details are non-literal

Your claim that John 1:42 and Matt 16:13-20 describe one event strikes me as bizarre and irrational. I have absolutely no idea why anyone would read it that way.

the hint is the cleansing of the temple account which is at the start of Christ's ministry in John but closer to the end in Mathew so it's already established that there is a different order to some events. The language with the naming of Peter in John mirrors that in Matthew and I think it's reasonable given the history of other accounts that they may describe an over-lapping event that may have all occurred but perhaps not as linear. Each isolated there isn't a problem, but the conflict comes when they are studied together. At the very least it needs to be considered and studied in greater depth. The OP doesn't give thought to this and to me lacks a proper study of the accounts in question to come to it's conclusions

 

[BNR32FAN]

The creation accounts in Genesis are obviously not meant to be read literally, so to compare that style of writing to the Gospels is a stretch, I must say.

Your claim that John 1:42 and Matt 16:13-20 describe one event strikes me as bizarre and irrational. I have absolutely no idea why anyone would read it that way.

I wouldn’t say it’s obvious it’s actually far from being obvious which is why it’s such a debated topic. I do find it interesting that you would say that the creation accounts in Genesis are obviously not meant to be taken literally but the bread of life discourse in John 6 is meant to be taken literally. I’m assuming that’s your position on John 6 since it is a popular belief amongst RCC believers.

 

[SamInNi]

It seems that the original purpose of this thread is to legitimise unique Roman Catholic dogma that is exclusively rooted in so-called infallible Tradition rather than in Scripture alone. So it’s best to cut to the chase.

The Bible and the New Testament in particular distinctly testify to the definitive centrality of Christ. Scripture testifies that He is the foundation of the true Church — it is built on Him alone and is defined by His teaching alone through the written testimony of the apostles and prophets who were carried along by the Holy Spirit. The true Church is built on Christ alone — not first of all on one person, the apostle Peter, and it is not continued through the "Holy See":

The righteousness of God comes through faith in Christ. We are justified as a gift by God’s grace through the redemption which is in Christ. We are made alive to God in Christ. We are no longer under God’s condemnation because we are in Christ. The law of the Spirit of life is found and experienced in Christ alone.

If we do not have the Spirit of Christ we do not belong to Him. Truth is established in Christ alone Who is the Truth and the only way to God. We are sanctified in Christ alone. Grace is given to us in Christ alone. We are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and redemption. We boast in Christ alone.​

The true Church is the Body of Christ. Its teaching authority is defined in full by infallible Scripture alone. The Truth of sound teaching cannot be infallibly defined by God’s people. The Truth of Scripture is established in the local church not by any local church. As God’s Word the Truth of Scripture is living and active, leading us into a secure understanding of His will, correcting us and fully equipping us for the work God calls us to do. The precise measure of infallible Truth is contained in the fullness of Scripture.

Generally there is no dispute that distinctive Roman Catholic teaching and dogma cannot be explicitly derived from Scripture alone. To get around Scripture’s sufficiency and the fullness of its definition of Salvation the Roman Catholic system must define its position in this way: what it decrees as Truth is infallible because it has decreed it! So, over 100s of years of ponderous evolution the Roman Catholic system has progressively departed from Scripture and officially ratified the following:

• Baptism for Salvation and Justification (“...not only purifies all sins, but also makes the neophyte a new creature, an adopted son of God who has become a partaker of the divine nature, a member of Christ and co-heir with Him and a temple of the Holy Spirit” [RC Catechism])
• The Holy Mass (carries on the work of redemption and is “the source and summit of the Christian life”; “In the sacrifice of the Mass Our Lord is immolated [the sacrificial killing of a victim]” [Vatican Council II])
• The Eucharist (by the priest’s authority, the physical body and blood of Jesus; the sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice; “...the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ” [Council of Trent])
• Transubstantiation (bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus)
• The Priesthood
• The Confessional (where the Roman Catholic can be absolved of sin)
• Purgatory (experienced after death for the purification of venial sins)
• Indulgences (a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins; can be purchased for the souls of those who suffer in Purgatory; can be “undertaken on behalf of the dead” [RC Catechism])
• Penance (to recover the grace of justification)
• Sainthood
• Church and Papal Infallibility (the Roman Catholic Church cannot err in her objective and definitive teaching regarding faith and morals; “Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility…”)
• Papal Authority (“...supreme and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered” [RC Catechism].)
• The veneration of the Virgin Mary (who was conceived without original sin, lived a sinless life, was bodily assumed into glory, is the mediatrix [female mediator] of all grace, is our advocate, and reigns as the “Queen of heaven” alongside Christ; “...by her manifold intercession [Mary] continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation”; “Devotion to the Blessed Virgin is intrinsic to Christian worship” [RC Catechism].)
• Crucifixes, Statues, etc (“Following the divinely inspired teaching of our holy Fathers and the tradition of the Catholic Church… [these] are to be exhibited in the holy churches of God, on sacred vessels and vestments, walls and panels, in houses and on streets” [RC Catechism].)

In brief, the Roman Catholic religion infallibly teaches that the grace of justification can only be realised through its sacraments. It begins with baptism when Roman Catholics receive the righteousness of God. In daily life, through the sacraments, good works and obeying God’s Law, the Roman Catholic can merit the graces needed to obtain eternal life: “Moved by the Holy Spirit, we can merit for ourselves and for others all the graces needed to attain eternal life” (RC Catechism).

But this is not the message of salvation as found in Scripture. By faith we turn to Christ alone in full and sincere repentance. In Christ alone we are fully justified by His blood.