All this uncertainty does upset some Christians. And these Christians sometime turn to certain systems of belief to help soothe their worries.

Like Roman Catholicism.

Alright. I'm not saying this is the only reason people hop over to the Rome. Nor is it the main reason. It is, rather, a reason sometimes given by those who seek certainty. So, I'll venture to discuss it a little here.

So how does the Roman Catholic church offer "certainty"? Well, if I'm not incorrect, it comes from none other than the Pope.

I'm not going to offer some detailed exegetical refutation of prooftexts here, but I think that the foundation for the Papal office (as well as infallibility) is very obviously circular.

The thing is, the RCs (hope you don't mind the abbreviation) cite Matthew 16:18. And they rely on a contestable interpretation of that passage to establish Papal Supremacy.

Okay then. Let's grant that Matthew 16:18, after all is properly exegeted, proves the RC contention. What then?

The Roman Catholics love to argue that unless there is a single standard of interpretation, done by an infallible interpretor (namely, the Pope), then all will be in chaos. They point to the differing interpretations of various texts in the Bible in the hope that we will run for shelter in their cathedrals. Alright then.

But the moment a passage like Matthew 16:18 can be properly understood without an infallible interpreter, why not other passages?

Sure, maybe this is one of the few passages we can objectively understand without a fallible interpreter. But it's rather too convienient, isn't it? I think that, if all the verses in the Bible supported a fallible interpreter, all of them can be "properly" understood without the need for a Pope.

But that still doesn't answer the question- why all the differing interpretations? Isn't there something wrong here?

I'll try to discuss that in the next post.