How Bad is it?
Saint Peter (6th c. encaustic icon). |
So how does Mathis’ argument disprove the papacy? If anything, he seems to be proving our point, but too ignorant of Catholicism to know it. I suppose if the Catholic Church consisted only of the pope, with no other bishops, this would be a good argument. But surely, Mathis realizes that’s not how the Catholic Church is structured. Nor does pointing out the fact that Jesus had Twelve Apostles disprove that Peter has a unique role within the Twelve, a fact that (the real) Jesus demonstrated several times in Scripture (e.g., Luke 22:31-32).
This is the general pattern: a string of Protestant proof-texts battling straw-man parodies of Catholic teaching, written from the perspective of fake Jesus. Ordinarily, this kind of intellectually-lazy anti-Catholicism is what you’d expect find on the fringes of the Evangelical blogosphere. But in this case, Mathis has quite a soap box, since he’s the executive editor of John Piper’s popular blog, Desiring God. So here are some very basic responses to the arguments that Mathis raises (or, often as not, hints at).
My answer will be in two parts. Today, I want to address the first three arguments he presents: Mary and the Saints, the Eucharist, and the Papacy. Tomorrow, I’ll address the last three: Sola Scriptura, Priestly Celibacy, and Justification.
Mary and the Saints
Mathis starts with the usual proof-texting of 1 Timothy 2:5, and his argument against prayer to the Saints gets worse from there:
You have heard that it was said to those of old, “Pray to Mary, and petition the Saints.” But I say to you that there is only one mediator between God and men (1 Timothy 2:5). You need no other go-between than me. Do you not know that you already have an advocate with the Father (1 John 2:1)? Do you not know that I am the way, and the truth, and the life, and that no one comes to the Father except through me (John 14:6)? So, when you pray, ask in my name, that the Father may be glorified in the Son (John 14:13).I’ve previously said that this use of 1 Timothy 2:5 is “the most egregious use of proof-texting, taking a verse wholly out of its context, and severing it even from the second half of the sentence.” I stand by that characterization. Here’s the context (1 Tim. 2:1-6):
In context, then, 1 Timothy 2:5-6 is saying that Jesus, and only Jesus, bridges the divide between God and man through the Ransom He paid on the Cross. His uniqueness is true in two senses. Christ is the only man who makes this ultimate sacrifice, but He’s also the only Person of the Trinity to serve as our Ransom. So Christ is our Mediator in a sense that even the Holy Spirit isn’t.First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way. This is good, and it is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, the testimony to which was borne at the proper time.
Georg Pencz, Holy Trinity (1530) |
- Intercessor: St. Paul begins the passage in question by asking for intercessory prayer (1 Tim. 2:1-2).
- Advocate: 1 John 2:1 simply says that Christ is “an” Advocate before the Father. To say that Christ is the only Advocate would be to deny that the Holy Spirit is also our Advocate. But in John 14:26, Jesus calls the Holy Spirit our Advocate.
One of the ways that we cooperate with the Holy Spirit is in praying for one another. James 5:14-16 says:
Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects.Pitting Christ’s unique role in the plan of salvation against this model of intercessory prayer is pitting Jesus against Scripture (and Scripture’s Author), not just “Rome.”
The Eucharist
Moritz Daniel Oppenheim, Seder (The Passover Meal) (1867) |
You have heard that it was said, “Kneel before the consecrated host, and worship the one sacrificed in the mass.”Incredibly, Mathis manages to avoid all of the Scriptural evidence that’s explicitly about the Eucharist. For example, he ignores it when Christ says of the Eucharist, “This is My Body” and “This is My Blood” (Matthew 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19-20; 1 Corinthians 11:24-25), or the six different ways that Jesus says that the Eucharist is really His Body and Blood in John 6:53-58. Instead, his argument boils down to a misunderstanding of the “once for all” nature of Christ’s Sacrifice, which I’ve already answered recently.
He ends his argument: “I [Jesus] meant it when I said on the cross, ‘It is finished’ (John 19:30).” It’s true, Jesus did mean it. But Mathis has no idea what Jesus was referring to in that passage. The best exegesis of this passage, in my opinion, is the “Fourth Cup” Passover explanation given by Scott Hahn.
In a nutshell, it’s a Passover reference, and actually proves the connection between the Eucharist and Calvary that Mathis spent the rest of the paragraph trying to refute. The Passover Liturgy consists of four stages, marked by four cups of wine. After the third cup, “the cup of blessing,” Jews pray the Great Hallel (Psalm 136) and drink the fourth cup.
From 1 Cor. 10:16, we know that the cup of blessing is the Eucharistic Chalice. But instead of finishing the Passover Liturgy, Jesus has the Apostles pray Psalm 136 and then leave (Mark 14:26). He then avoids drinking anything for nearly twenty-four hours so that He can drink the Fourth Cup on the Cross. That’s why John 19:28 tells us that Jesus says “I thirst,” not just because He was thirsty (He’s surely been thirsty for hours), but “so that Scripture would be fulfilled.” Now read John 19:30: “When he had received the drink, Jesus said, ‘It is finished.’ With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.” The first underlined part is tied to the second: “it” that Jesus just finished is the fulfillment of the Passover. In completing His Passover Liturgy in this manner, Jesus forever united the Last Supper and Calvary as a single Liturgical Act.
The Papacy
The Rock on which I have built my church (Matthew 16:18) for two millennia is not Peter alone, but the band of the apostles together (Ephesians 2:20).In context, the claim that Jesus meant the Rock to refer to the Apostles banded together is easily debunked. In Matthew 16:15, the real Jesus says to the Twelve, “But who do you [plural] say that I am?” Only one of the Twelve answers, Simon. He acknowledges Jesus by His proper Title: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Mt. 16:16). Jesus responds by blessing Simon, and bestowing a title upon him (Mt. 16:17-19):
“Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 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.”In the span of those three sentences, Jesus clarifies that He’s talking only to Peter eleven times:
1 | “Blessed are you,...” | The “you” is singular, in contrast to the “you” in v. 15. |
2 | “…Simon…” | If there was any question who Jesus was referring to, there shouldn’t be now. He’s just called Simon by name. |
3 | “…Bar-Jona!” | If that wasn’t enough, He then calls Simon by his lineage, so we even know it’s not some other Simon. |
4 | “For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.” | The “you” is singular: He’s talking only to Simon. |
5 | “And I tell you,…” | The “you” is singular: He’s talking only to Simon. |
6 | “…you…” | The “you” is singular: He’s talking only to Simon. |
7 | “…are Peter,…” | After this, were all of the Apostles renamed Peter? Or just Simon? |
8 | “…and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.” | Jesus specifies this rock. And Simon’s new name, Peter, means Rock. |
9 | “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and…” | The “you” is singular: He’s talking only to Simon. |
10 | “…whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and …” | The “you” is singular: He’s talking only to Simon. |
11 | …whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” | The “you” is singular: He’s talking only to Simon. |
Commission to St. Peter, Sarleinsbach altarpiece (1904) |
What about the second half of the argument here, then, the one about Ephesians 2:20? In 1 Corinthians 3:11, St. Paul says that Jesus is the Foundation of the Church. But in Ephesians 2:20, he says that the Apostles and prophets are. And Jesus refers to Peter as the Rock upon which He’ll build His Church in the passage we just saw. Are these three images contradictory? Only if you try to meld them together into a single, overly-literal metaphor. In context, each of the three makes sense, and there’s no contradiction. In fact, Matthew 16 shows how they can be rectified: Peter is individually blessed after confessing Christ on behalf of the Twelve. So it’s not Jesus v. Peter v. the other Eleven. It’s Peter leading the Eleven in service of Jesus Christ.
Mathis doesn’t seem to get this. He seems to think that if the Body of Christ has authority, this is somehow a threat to Christ, so his fake Jesus says things like this about the Apostles: “Their authority is not their own, but mine. I am the one who has authority (Matthew 7:29), not your ecclesiastical scribes.” The real Jesus gave His authority to His Apostles (Luke 9:1; Luke 10:19), and poured out the power of the Holy Spirit upon them (Acts 1:8). That’s because the real Jesus isn’t threatened by His Church.
I think that’s enough for today. Tomorrow, I’ll address his arguments on Sola Scriptura, Priestly Celibacy, and Justification. If you couldn’t guess, they don’t fare much better.
0 comments:
Post a Comment