Catholic Doctrines and Practices Not From Jesus or His Apostles

April 19, 2013 by Leave a Comment

This article comes from a discussion I have been having with a well-studied Roman Catholic. He asked me to provide examples of Catholic Church doctrines and practices that were not given by Jesus and His Apostles. There are so many to mention. I will be adding to this article  Below is a list that I will add to as I study more of the Catholic catechism and catholic church councils. I will also be working on articles on these subjects and will add in links. This list is meant to show that what we know as the catholic Church does not look like the church in the Bible as described by Jesus and His Apostles. They have many unbiblical and extra-biblical teachings and traditions that they bind on people that the scriptures do not.

  1. The Organization of the Church (New Testament pattern- the position of elder/bishop/pastor/presbyter (all same position in NT), deacons, evangelists, teachers) There is not an organization beyond this and the New Testament churches were autonomous. They were self governed and followed the writings of the Apostles. There is not a laity-clergy distinction in the Bible as we see today.
  2. The Position of Pope – The position of pope is not mentioned in the New Testament.
  3. Infallibility of Pope (Vatican council) Peter himself didn’t make any such claims.
  4. Priests – This was a later invention of the Catholic church that reinstates the O.T. system of worship. All Christians are priests in the New Testament with Christ as their High Priest.
  5. Priests can forgive sins – There is no evidence this power went beyond the Apostles.
  6. Not allowing marriage within leadership – This is contrary to scripture in 1 Timothy 4:3.
  7. Calling spiritual leaders “father” – This was not a religious title given to men.
  8. Prayer to Mary and other “saints.” – Prayer to someone who is not on this earth presupposes they are 1.) able to hear all people in any given language at all times, 2.) hear unspoken prayers. This practice deifies these people as being omniscient and omnipresent. We are told that we can approach the throne of GOd on our own to ask for mercy and forgiveness in the New Testament.
  9. Veneration (or worship) of Mary -
  10. Immaculate conception of Mary – This is nowhere found in scripture
  11. Perpetual virginity of Mary – Many scriptures must be twisted to believe this
  12. Practice of infant baptism – the candidate for baptism is someone that is a penitent believer. Peter commanded the people on the day of Pentecost to repent and be baptized (Acts 2:38). Jesus says that the one who believes and is baptized will be saved (Mark 16:16). The Corinthians heard the message, believed, and were baptized (Acts 18:8). Peter says that baptism is the “answer of” or an “appeal for” a good conscience to God (1 Peter 3:21) where the conscience is sprinkled clean and the body is washed with pure water (Heb 10:22). Those who are baptized need to understand that they need to walk in newness of life (Rom 6:4). Jesus said they were to go and make disciples by baptizing (Mt 28:19) and by teaching them to observe all that was commanded by Christ. How can a baby do these things? A baby that gets baptized is doing nothing but getting wet. Baptism comes after belief and repentance in every example we see in Christian baptism and the baptism of John, which was a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
  13. Special dress for clergy -
  14. Observance of Holy days (Christmas, Easter, etc) as religious holidays – The Apostles gave the first day of the week as the time in which Christians are to come together for worship and the Lord’s Supper. He nowhere in the New Testament tells Christians of any other days to observe. These are manmade inventions.
  15. Observance of lent – Although the Catholic Church no longer commands the observance of lent, my understanding is that they did in the past. Paul condemns commanding it as a religious observance: “But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, 3 men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth .(1 Tim 4:1-3)
  16. The doctrine of Purgatory – This was not created by the Apostles, but was later created and then read back into scripture.
  17. Instrumental Music in Worship – This was not practiced in the earliest centuries of the church nor by the Apostles. It is a manmade invention that God did not give His approval of under the New Covenant.
  18. Canonization of saints -  All Christians are called saints in the N.T. There is not a special class of saints, especially a group that can be prayed to.
  19. Burning of Incense in New Testament worship – This is from the Old Testament system of worship. There is not authority in the New Testament to use it in New Testament worship.
  20. Using  an alter – This concept is not in the New Testament in reference to Christian worship assemblies.
  21. Transubstantiation -  If the wine in the Lord’s Supper miraculously turns into the literal blood of Jesus, this would mean that Jesus commanded Christians to drink blood, something that was condemned in the Old Testament and commanded not to do by the Apostles (Acts 15:29).
  22. Mass as a “re-sacrificing of Christ – Christ’s sacrifice was a one time sacrifice. The practice of re-sacrificing Christ at the mass denies the sufficiency of the cross (Heb 7:27; 9:12; 10:10; 1 Peter 3:18)
  23. Ten Commandments must be observed to be saved (CCC 2068). Those who command observance of the law as a requirement of salvation bring themselves under bondage to keep the whole law (Gal 5:1-4)
  24. Veneration/ bowing before statues -Statues for veneration should not be made nor bowed before. This is idolatry according to Ex 20:4-5.
  25. Adoration and Elevation of Host: ie. communion bread
  26. Sale of Indulgences or “tickets to sin” – This is in direct opposition to many scriptures that show that the Christian will not sin that grace may abound (Rom 6:1).
  27. Ringing bells at Mass -
  28. Man-made tradition of church made equal to Bible (Council of Trent) – Jesus lifted scripture over all manmade traditions. The Jews believed their beloved traditions came from the time of Moses. They even made them equal and/or greater to scripture as the Catholic Church does today with what they claim is from the time of the Apostles.
  29. Apocryphal books added to Bible (Council of Trent) These are Jewish writings that the Jews never accepted as inspired writings.

More to come!

“Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son.” (2 John 1:9)

Filed Under: Catholic Church Tagged With: , ,

Is Salvation ONLY in the Catholic Church?

March 23, 2013 by 32 Comments

I have spoken with many Catholics who say that the Catholic Church does not teach that you must be a Catholic to be saved. I beg to differ on this:

“The Second Vatican Council’s Decree on Ecumenism explains: “For it is through Christ’s Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the People of God.” (CCC 816).

This text from the Catholic Catechism makes it clear that it is through the “Catholic Church alone” in which we can receive salvation. Some may say that this does not teach that you must be a member of the Catholic Church to be saved. It is clear that the verse says that the “sole” church of Christ was entrusted to Peter to rule over along with the bishops. If this is the case, and someone rejects the papacy and bishops of the Roman Catholic Church, how can the Catholic church hold the position that it is ok to reject the authority that Christ put into place?

They also have pronounced anathemas on those who believe in the  “faith alone” and eternal security doctrines of Protestantism at the Council of Trent:

“If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.”  (Canon 9)

If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema (Canon 1)

“If any one shall say that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in the divine mercy pardoning sins for Christ’s sake, or that it is that confidence alone by which we are justified … let him be accursed” (Canon 12)

“If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because that he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema.” (Canon 14)

“If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ’s sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema” (Canon 7).

“If any one saith, that it is necessary for every one, for the obtaining the remission of sins, that he believe for certain, and without any wavering arising from his own infirmity and disposition, that his sins are forgiven him; let him be anathema” (Canon 8).

“lf any one saith, that a man once justified can sin no more, nor lose grace, and that therefore he that falls and sins was never truly justified; or, on the other hand, that he is able, during his whole life, to avoid all sins, even those that are venial,- except by a special privilege from God, as the Church holds in regard of the Blessed Virgin; let him be anathema.” (Canon 23)

They also condemned those who say we are not saved by our works, which contradicts Ephesians 2:9-10. Normally when I talk to Roman Catholics, they say the church teaches that our works our a sign of our faith and love towards God, but this is not what the Catholic Church teaches:

“If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.” (Canon 24) (also see CCC 2068, where it is taught you must observe the Ten Commandments to be saved)

They also pronounced an anathema on those who do not believe in purgatory:

“If any one saith, that, after the grace of Justification has been received, to every penitent sinner the guilt is remitted, and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such wise, that there remains not any debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in this world, or in the next in Purgatory, before the entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be opened (to him); let him be anathema.” (Canon 30)

It seems from these quotes that the Catholic Church is condemning all “Christian” denominations and churches that are not part of the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Catechism makes the same points as the Council of Trent:

“Just as the office which the Lord confided to Peter alone, as first of the apostles, destined to be transmitted to his successors, is a permanent one, so also endures the office, which the apostles received, of shepherding the Church, a charge destined to be exercised without interruption by the sacred order of bishops.”375 Hence the Church teaches that “the bishops have by divine institution taken the place of the apostles as pastors of the Church, in such wise that whoever listens to them is listening to Christ and whoever despises them despises Christ and him who sent Christ.” (CCC 862)

“How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.” (CCC 846)

I have had discussions with one Roman Catholic who holds the position that the Catholic Church at the council of Trent did not pronounce anathemas on those who disagree as we understand the word ‘anathema.’ He says that the word anathema was used at that time to mean “excommunication,” not “eternal condemnation.” Although I disagree with this and feel it is a redefinition of the word to suit present Catholic teachings, I say this so you can consider it for yourself. My opinion is that at the time of the Council of Trent, emotions were still pretty strong against the reformers, and that the anathema is a condemnation of those who oppose the doctrines of the Catholic church.

Well, at least they make an exception for Muslims:

“The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.” (CCC, par. 841)

Muslims worship a different god. Just because they claim to follow the God of Abraham does not make it so. They do not believe God is triune. They do not believe Jesus is God. They cannot be saved without repenting of their idolatry and trusting in Christ.

They also make an exception for those who, by no fault of their own, do not know Christ:

“Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation.”

These people that do not know Christ cannot achieve salvation on their own and cannot be saved by doing good works. They cannot make up for their sin. They must hear the gospel or they will be lost.

——-

Council of Trent quotes from http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch6.htm

Catholic Catechism quotes from http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc.htm

 

Filed Under: Catholic Church, World Religions Tagged With: , ,

Do You Pledge Your “Unconditional Reverence and Obedience” to Your Pope?

March 23, 2013 by Leave a Comment

http://www.endtimeprophecies.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/bow-before-pope.jpg

The following are quotes from two different articles:

“When Benedict was elected, 12 church representatives knelt in front of him at the installation: three cardinals, one bishop, a priest, a deacon, a married couple, a nun and man from a religious order, and two young people who have had their confirmations — a key sacrament of the faith. A similar group is expected to kneel in front of Francis as a symbolic pledge of obedience.”1

“Benedict’s decision to be known as “Pope Emeritus” caused some controversy in the Vatican. It was suggested that in renouncing the papacy he had “lost all the power of primacy” conferred on him by his election as pope. It was believed he would instead choose the title “emeritus bishop of Rome”, and some people saw his new title as a sign that his allies would attempt to undermine the new Church leader.” However, in his very last meeting with his Cardinals in February, Benedict pledged his “unconditional reverence and obedience” to the then-unknown future pope. Father Lombardi said he repeated that pledge to Francis today.2

These quotes are very telling about the views of Roman Catholics about the status of the popes. The first quote, where many people bow before popes as a ‘symbol’ of their allegiance to the pope. This brought to my mind a verse in Exodus 20:4-5: “You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; 5 you shall not bow down to them nor serve them.” I would like to know how bowing before a human being (or statue) which is created is not worship. This text from the Ten Commandments makes it clear that we are not to bow down nor serve, let alone give our “unconditional reverence and obedience” to a man as the former pope Benedict said he would do. Only God is worthy of bowing to and pledging our unconditional reverence and obedience to.

1. from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/13/pope-francisco-cardinal-jorge-mario-bergoglio-_n_2855101.html

2. from http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-meets-pope-emeritus-benedict-xvi-in-first-for-vatican-in-600-years-8546931.html

Filed Under: Catholic Church, World Religions Tagged With: , , ,

Was Peter the First Pope?

January 19, 2013 by 1 Comment

The Roman Catholic Church’s teaching about Peter:

“Simon Peter holds the first place in the college of the Twelve; Jesus entrusted a unique mission to him. Through a revelation from the Father, Peter had confessed: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Our Lord then declared to him: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.” Christ, the “living Stone”, thus assures his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death. Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakable rock of the Church. His mission will be to keep this faith from every lapse and to strengthen his brothers in it.”  (Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 552).

“The Pope … is the bishop of Rome and the Vicar of Christ on earth. He is the visible head of the whole Catholic Church … Who was the first Pope? St. Peter, who was made Pope by Jesus Christ Himself … Did Peter’s authority die with him? No, it was handed down to a man named Linus, and after he died, it was handed down to another, and so on, during the past 2000 years … Does Jesus require us to follow the Pope in matters of religion? Yes, because obedience and loyalty to the Pope are among the chief requirements of the Lord’s plan for unity in His church” (A Catechism for Adults, by William Cogan, 1975 ed., pp. 55,56).The Roman Catholic Church (RCC) builds their case on Peter being the first Pope on Matthew 16:18. The verse says, “And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it.” They teach from this verse that the church would be built upon Peter and that he would be the supreme apostle. There are many problems with this view:

1. It does not say this in the Greek. Jesus says, “you are Peter (petros) and upon this rock (petra) I will build my church. In the Greek language, words have gender, just as in English with words such as “waiter” or “waitress.” Waiter is a masculine noun, waitress is feminine, as “petros” is masculine and “petra” in feminine. Using an illustration with the words “waiter” and “waitress,” we can see clearly what Jesus is not saying in Matthew 16:18:

“You are the waiter, but this waitress will serve the tables.”

“You are Peter (petros), but upon this rock (petra) I will build my church”

Just giving an English illustration of what the Greek is saying shows that it is not Peter that is being referred to as the one who would be the foundation of the church. The verse is not saying Peter is the rock on which the church is built, but rather it contrasts Peter’s name (Greek PETROS, masculine – a piece of rock) to the rock on which the church would be built (Greek PETRA, feminine – a solid ledge of rock).

The RCC will respond by turning to the Aramaic that Jesus would have spoke in to try to prove it is talking about Peter, but this misses an important point: God decided to give us this section of scripture in Greek, not Aramaic. The fact that Jesus spoke in Aramaic is irrelevant to the argument. You cannot pick and choose which verses you want to use the Aramaic instead of the Greek that the text was given in.

2. The Catholic interpretation contradicts other scriptures. The Bible is clear in other passages who is the rock the church is built on.

“For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 3:11).

“Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. 26 And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. 27 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it” (Matthew 7:24-27).You can only have one foundation, and Jesus is it! These verses are clear that Jesus and His teaching is the rock that the lives of His disciples (the church) must be built upon. Even Peter himself refers to Jesus as the One who is the cornerstone the church is built upon (Acts 4:10-12, 1 Peter 2:4-8).

Jesus is also called “petra” in scripture, unlike Peter:

“and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ” (1 Cor 10:4).

When interpreting scripture with the view of scripture that you cannot have any contradictions, you cannot believe that both Jesus and Peter are the rock the church was built on. Since the Catholic interpretation contradicts other scripture, it should be rejected.

3. Peter never acted like the Supreme Apostle. During the council in Jerusalem, he did not lead the meeting, which you could assume he would do if he were the chief apostle (Acts 15). Paul stated that Peter was not the Apostle over the whole church, but only over the circumcised. Paul was the Apostle to the gentiles (Galatians 2:7). One verse to especially take note of:

“Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, 2 shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; 3 nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock” (1 Peter 5:1-3).

Peter spoke of himself in this text as though he were no more important than any other elder in other churches. He is only a “fellow” elder, not the supreme elder. He leaves the title of Chief Shepherd/Elder to only one man, Jesus Christ. The Catholic Pope may have no problem calling himself such self-exalting names, but it is interesting to note that Peter never called himself anything other than an Apostle of Jesus Christ (1 Peter 1:1), a shepherd/elder (1 Peter 5:1), and a bondservant (slave) of Jesus Christ. Peter lowered himself so Christ could be exalted as the head of the church, unlike the Roman Pope today. There is just no evidence that Peter ever acted as the Supreme Apostle. He actually in 1 Peter 5:3 forbids the elders to lord it over the flock, which the Catholic Pope is in direct violation of by raising himself above other men as the Supreme one over the church who can make laws that are from his god.

4. The office of Pope is nowhere mentioned in scripture. It is unbiblical, just as all of the other offices they created that are contrary to scripture. The Bible contains several passages where the office of Pope ought to be mentioned, if it existed. Ephesians 4:11,12 and 1 Corinthians 12:28 list various officers and workers in the church, but the office of Pope is not mentioned. Paul wrote several letters to and from Rome, naming many people there (Rom. 16; Col. 4:7-14; 2 Tim. 4:9-22; Philemon 23,24). If Peter was Pope in Rome, surely Paul would have mentioned him. But Paul mentions neither Peter nor anyone else as being Pope. Peter could be Pope only if Jesus authorized the existence of that office. Jesus does not do so in scripture.

5. The Pope is NOT the head of the church, Jesus is.

“And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church, 23 which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all” (Eph 1:22-23)

“For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. 24 But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything” (Eph 5:23-24).The church of Christ does not need two heads. Christ is a sufficient leader of His people, and they are to be subject to Him as the head, not to any other leader. He is the head over ALL things to the church. This does not leave any headship to anyone else.

6. The Catholic Church does not authority from Christ to interpret scripture. One of the main reasons why the RCC stands on their interpretation of Matthew 16:18 is because they claim to be the only group that has the authority to interpret scripture. What they say it means goes! There is no evidence in scripture that Christ gave them such authority. Their claims of Apostolic succession are no better than any other church that claims to have them. To study the RCC doctrine of Apostolic Succession, go to the article I wrote here. Since their claims of Apostolic Succession do not hold any weight, neither does their claim of being inspired interpreters of the word of God (not to mention that such a claim contradicts Bible passages that say every one of us is able to understand for ourselves under the New Covenant)

I believe a better argument could be made that Paul was the first Pope. These arguments are stronger than any claims that Peter was such:

Both we and Catholics deny that Paul was ever a Pope, but if we used the kind of reasoning that is used to “prove” Peter to be Pope, we could make a better case that Paul was Pope:

      • Paul was not married, as must be the case with Popes today (1 Corinthians 7).
      • Acts talks about Paul more than about Peter.
      • Paul rebuked Peter (Galatians 2:11-14); nowhere in Scripture did Peter rebuke Paul.
      • Paul cared for all the churches (2 Corinthians 11:28).
      • Paul was not behind any apostle (2 Corinthians 11:5; 12:11). Peter never made such a claim for himself.
      • Paul wrote 3/4 of the New Testament books. Peter wrote only 2 little ones.
      • Peter cited Paul’s letters as authority (2 Peter 3:15,16), but Paul never cited Peter’s letters as authority.
      • Scripture expressly tells us Paul was in Rome, but never says Peter was there.
      • Paul’s labors exceeded those of other apostles (2 Corinthians 11:23).1
    All that the Catholic Church has is Matthew 16:18 to prove their doctrine of Peter being the first Pope. With all of the above evidence, we can see clearly that the RCC’s claim of Peter as the first Pope is just another way for the them to try to raise itself up and to try to give itself authority that does not belong to them. They are using this doctrine along with others to make people depend on them for their salvation instead of Jesus Christ, the real Head of the church of Christ.

1. got this list from http://www.gospelway.com/religiousgroups/peter_as_Pope.php

Filed Under: Catholic Church, World Religions Tagged With: , , ,

A Form of Godliness

January 19, 2013 by Leave a Comment

Scripture says that some people have the appearance of godliness, but deny its power. (2 Tim 3:5).

As you look out into the religious world today, there are so many people that go to church and claim to be the people of God, when in reality you can see clearly that they are not once you get to know them. They try to appear to the world to be religious when their hearts do not really belong to the Lord. They have not been regenerated. They have not been born again.

Jesus says, “”Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God… unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:3,5). This is a serious statement that Christ makes that we must consider. There is no hope for anyone to get to heaven who is putting on a show; anyone that has not allowed their life to be impacted(and changed) by the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ (Romans 1:16).

The reason I have titled this article “Catholicism: A Form of Godliness Without Power” is because this is one thing I have noticed amongst people that I know that are Catholics and amongst those who claim to be Catholic when I am out sharing the gospel. It seems like, without fail, every time I ask a Catholic whether or not they have been born again, they say no. Some of them may be going to mass every week (some even 5-7 times per week), but they have not allowed the Gospel to penetrate their hearts so that they may be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth. Instead, they trust in a church that has no power in itself to save, no power to forgive sins, and who does not speak for Jesus Christ.

Beyond this, we see in the Roman Catholic Church , an organization that puts so much focus on appearances. The pope, cardinals, bishops, and priests may wear the most elaborate clothing to set themselves apart from the laity. The Catholic Church builds amazing buildings that probably cost a ton of money, and build many statues of “saints” so that their people honor them and by bow before them. But with all of this work on appearances, these men lift themselves up beyond what is taught in scripture, give themselves authority which Christ didn’t give them, and have not been regenerated (born again) by the teaching of the gospel.

One thing is for sure: I believe the gospel is powerful enough to save these men. It is able to convict them to become new creatures in Christ. The gospel can lead them to leave their sin and call Him Lord.

Next time you share the gospel with a Catholic, try asking them this question: “Are you born again?” It will be a good way to show them where they stand before the Lord.

Also, ask yourself the same question. Have you allowed the Gospel of Christ to transform you? Or do you look the same as you have your whole life? If you cannot point to a time in your life where Christ transformed your life; your thinking about sin, the world, and yourself; or has led you to trust only in His authority as your Lord, you probably have not been born again. This means, once again, that you will not enter the kingdom of God. Please examine yourself, to make sure you are in the faith that was once for all time delivered to the saints (Jude 3).

Filed Under: Catholic Church Tagged With: , , ,

Does the Bible Teach Apostolic Succession?

January 10, 2013 by 1 Comment

The Roman Catholic Church, along with other churches, claims to have authority from God because they have an unbroken line of succession dating back to the Apostles in which the teachings and authority of the Apostles was passed on through tradition. Here is one quote from the catholic Catechism that shows their belief on this subject:

In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority." Indeed, "the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Section 1, Chapter 2, Article 2, Paragraph 77).

If the Catholic Church’s claim to have the authority of the apostles, scripture needs to be provided that shows they have such authority. They cannot just make the claim or give themselves such authority. They can’t use their traditions to prove their traditions are from God. They must appeal to the inspired word of God.

Without the Apostolic Authority they claim to have, they would not be able to administer the sacraments with the authority that they claim to have, they would not have the authority to forgive sins that they claim they have, their traditions that they say are directly from the Apostles would be nothing more than just manmade traditions, and the catholic church that claims to have infallibility in their doctrines is a apostate, heretical church. This is the crucial subject that must be met head on to know the truth of where the Catholic church stands before God.

One last point before getting into this article: It is not good enough to provide a list of succession of bishops. This is the case for a few reasons:

  • The Roman Catholic church is not the only church that claims to have such a list
  • Anyone through history could have made or even forged such a list without any evidence
  • A list of names does not prove faithfulness to God. If one man on the list was a heretic, the whole list would be invalidated.
    We need more than an arbitrary, subjective list to prove that someone has authority from God. We need objective evidence, especially evidence from scripture.

 

The Qualifications of Apostle

The Apostles are chosen by God, not by men

  • In Luke 6:12-16, Jesus personally chose 12 men and named them to be apostles.
  • In Acts 1:24, when one was chosen to take Judas’ place and be numbered among the 12, the Lord indicated which man He had chosen to fill the office through the casting of lots after the Apostles prayed.
  • In Acts 9:15, Jesus personally appeared to Paul (v 1-9), then told Ananias to teach and baptize him because Paul was "a chosen vessel" to preach Jesus’ name to Gentiles, etc.

    The Apostles had to be eyewitnesses to the resurrected Christ
  • Apostles repeatedly affirmed that they were eyewitnesses – Acts 2:32; 10:41, etc.
  • Acts 1:15-26 (v 21,22) – The one chosen to replace Judas had to be an eyewitness.
  • Acts 26:16 – Jesus said he appeared to Paul to make him a witness

    • These men had the duty of being witnesses to what they saw, especially their seeing Jesus resurrected. They needed to do this so others could believe through their preaching of the gospel.

    The Apostles had “signs” (miracles) to show they were legitimate Apostles and spoke for God, inspired by the Holy Spirit
  • 2 Corinthians 12:12 – Paul accomplished the signs of an apostle among the Corinthians.
  • Matthew 10:1-4 – Jesus gave the 12 power to perform miracles.
  • These signs showed their authority and confirmed their words to be from God (Mark 16:20, Hebrews 2:4)

    Apostles could lay hands on people, giving them the power to perform miracles
  • Acts 8:14-21 – Apostles went from Jerusalem to Samaria to lay hands on Christians there and give them the Holy Spirit. Philip, though he could preach the gospel and do miracles, was not an apostle and did not bestow these powers on others (v 5-13).
  • Acts 19:6,7 – He laid hands on twelve disciples so the Holy Spirit came on them and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.

Does the Catholic Church, who claims Apostolic Authority show these qualifications of an Apostle?

  • There is no evidence in scripture (which we will see shortly) that any individuals are specifically chosen by God after the Apostles to fill their role
  • No one after the Apostles has been an eyewitness of the resurrected Christ.
  • The Pope, along with Catholic bishops, do not performing miracles like the Apostles did.
  • The Pope, along with his bishops, do not lay hands on anyone to give them the ability to perform miracles like the Apostles did.
    The Catholic church claims not to possess some of these qualifications:

"Peter, it is true, … possessed also the gift of inspiration and the power of working miracles. These two latter gifts are not claimed by the Pope … The Apostles were endowed with the gift of inspiration … No Catholic, on the contrary, claims that the Pope is inspired or endowed with Divine revelation properly so called" (Faith of Our Fathers, pp. 89,99).

    Just based on the qualifications that the Apostles give, no man after the Apostles can fulfill the role or have the authority of an Apostle. If someone did claim to have the authority of an Apostle today, all they would have to do is show the above credentials.

    Did The Apostles Pass Their Authority Down to Other Men?

    As previously stated, if the Apostles did do such a thing, it would be visible. Those who had such authority would show the signs of an Apostle. Nonetheless, the Catholic church uses a few scriptures to prove that the Apostles did such a thing. I would like to examine these one by one.

    Acts 1:15-26: The replacement of Judas

    This is probably the best verse a catholic can give to show Apostolic Succession. But this verse comes up far short of showing that all of the Apostles were to be replaced at their deaths. Here are some important things to note in this text:

    • Peter says he is fulfilling a prophecy that spoke specifically of a replacement of Judas that would be able to join with them in their Apostleship.
    • There is no reason in the context to believe this was to be done beyond Judas. Peter specifically applies it to him.
    • The Apostles had not yet begun their Apostleship. They had not received power themselves yet from God. This would happen on the day of Pentecost. They didn’t have power to give to someone else.
    • Peter states that there are qualifications that must be met to be selected as an Apostle.
    • The Lord chose the one that would fill Judas’ office. It was not voted on by cardinals as it is done today in the Catholic church.
    • The Apostles were not handing down THEIR apostleship to anyone here. God was selecting an Apostle to replace Judas

      • These six points show that Apostolic succession is not being taught in this verse.

    2 Timothy 2:2- The Handing Down of Teaching

    This is another popular verse that Catholics go to in order to show Apostolic Succession.

    “The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.”

    There are many things missing in this verse if it were to prove Apostolic Succession. First, what was it that Timothy is instructed to pass on? He surely did not have the authority of an apostle to give to other men. This is nowhere to be found in scripture. What he is instructed to pass on is the teachings that Paul had given him by the Spirit to other teachers so they can teach. The authority of an Apostle is mentioned nowhere in this context.

    Acts 14:23 – Paul and Barnabas appoint elders

    “When they had appointed elders for them in every church, having prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed.”

    This verse also does not talk about any authority being given to these men that were appointed as elders. They appointed more than one man in each congregation to oversee the flock and to protect it from false teaching (see 1 Tim 3; Titus 1). We do not see Paul appointing anyone as His successor.

    Acts 9:17-19 – Ananias lays hands on Paul

    So Ananias departed and entered the house, and after laying his hands on him said, "Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road by which you were coming, has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit."

    Where is it mentioned in this text that Paul was given the authority of an Apostle by Ananias? Ananias is not even an Apostle. Jesus had already made His choice of Paul and appeared to Him. Ananias is sent to heal Paul of his blindness, to baptize Him, and to give him instructions from the Lord. There is no mention of Apostolic Succession in this text.

    Acts 6:3-6 – choosing of seven to serve

    "Therefore, brethren, select from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may put in charge of this task. "But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word." The statement found approval with the whole congregation; and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas and Nicolas, a proselyte from Antioch. And these they brought before the apostles; and after praying, they laid their hands on them.”

    The Apostles are not appointing successors in this text either. They are appointing servants (maybe deacons) to fulfill a specific role of caring for the needy widows.

    2 Tim. 4:1-6 – Paul’s final instructions to Timothy

    I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: 2 preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, 4 and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths. 5 But you, be sober in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry. 6 For I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the time of my departure has come.

    This text is used by Catholics to show that Paul is handing his ministry over to Timothy. It is interesting that Paul never says such a thing in this text. Just a literal reading of the text shows that Paul is instructing Timothy to fulfill not the role of an Apostle, but an evangelist (v5). As an evangelist, he was to proclaim the word of God boldly and faithfully.

    These are all of the verses that I know of that the Catholic Church uses to prove that it has Apostolic Authority through succession. If you know of any that I have not dealt with in this text, please share them. I will ad them to the list. I have tried to find all of the references in the New Testament that are used by Catholics so I am not accused of passing over any verses.

     

    I would like to share one verse before concluding:

    Acts 12:1-2 – James, son of Zebedee is killed

    Now about that time Herod the king laid hands on some who belonged to the church in order to mistreat them. 2 And he had James the brother of John put to death with a sword.

    This is an example of one of the twelve being put to death. The question I have regarding this verse is: “Why is it that the Apostles do not appoint a successor for James?” According to the Catholic interpretation of Acts 1 (where Judas is replaced), this is what the Apostles should have done. But the fact is, they did not replace James. The reason? Because they were not instructed to and the Lord did not choose a replacement for him.

    Paul stated the church has been built on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Christ Jesus being the cornerstone. We still have this foundation today. The Apostles and Prophets still live today through their writings that were handed down to us in the Bible. Why is there a need for Apostles when we have their authoritative teachings in scripture?

    “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim 3:16-17).

    Although within the context Paul is referring mainly to the Old Testament scriptures, this verse applies to “all scripture.” Paul states that the word of God is what the Lord gives us so we can be adequate (perfect, mature) and equipped to do every (or all) good works. This verse doesn’t leave room for traditions based on false claims of Apostolic Succession, which is not taught in scripture.

    Filed Under: Catholic Church, World Religions Tagged With: , , ,

    The Perpetual Virginity of Mary?

    January 10, 2013 by Leave a Comment

    The Catholic Church teaches that Mary the mother of Jesus had no children after Jesus Christ. Here are some examples of these teachings from the Catholic Catechism:

    499 The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary’s real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man. In fact, Christ’s birth "did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it." and so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the "Ever-virgin".

    500 Against this doctrine the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus. The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, "brothers of Jesus", are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls "the other Mary". They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression.

    501 Jesus is Mary’s only son, but her spiritual motherhood extends to all men whom indeed he came to save: "The Son whom she brought forth is he whom God placed as the first-born among many brethren, that is, the faithful in whose generation and formation she co-operates with a mother’s love."

    As seen in these quotes, the catholic church teaches that Mary had no children following Jesus. But is this view backed up by scripture? No, it isn’t.

    “Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, 25 and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name Jesus” (Matt 1:24-25, NKJV).

    And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, 25 but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus” (Matt 1:24-25, NASB95).

    This passage from Matthew says that Joseph did not know (or kept her a virgin) until she bore Jesus. The Greek word for “until” is heôs, which is 83 times translated as “until.” What the verse says is that Joseph did not know (have sexual relations) with Mary until she gave birth to Jesus.

    Also consider the following verses:

    “While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. 47 Then one said to Him, "Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You" (Matt 12:46-47, NKJV).

    “Then He went out from there and came to His own country, and His disciples followed Him. 2 And when the Sabbath had come, He began to teach in the synagogue. And many hearing Him were astonished, saying, "Where did this Man get these things? And what wisdom is this which is given to Him, that such mighty works are performed by His hands! 3 Is this not the carpenter, the Son of Mary, and brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And are not His sisters here with us?" (Mark 6:1-3, NKJV).

    “These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers” (Acts 1:14, NKJV).

    “Do we have no right to eat and drink? 5 Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?” (1 Cor 9:4-5, NKJV).

    These verses seem to clear up the issue as to whether or not Jesus had brothers and sisters. The first verse mentions Jesus’ mother and brothers. The second verse says he came to his country (His hometown- see Luke 4:16, 24) where they knew His mother (Mary) and His brothers and sisters. The final two verses also say Jesus has brothers. So the question is, “Why the debate?” Unfortunately, Catholics still, in spite of these verses, believe what their church teaches. Just reading the text compared to the Catholic catechism shows that there is a contradiction between the two.

    Catholics believe that they have a ’silver bullet’ that defeats this argument. They respond by saying that the brothers and sisters that are mentioned are either cousins or Israelite brothers. They say that it is possible to translate the word as cousins because there are places in scripture where the Greek word is used to refer to distant relatives or ancestors, one example being Hebrews 7:5.

    This common catholic response is not being honest with the text. If the verses were talking about anyone other than Jesus and Mary, there would not be a debate as to who the ‘brothers and sisters’ are. But because they contradict the catholic Church’s teachings, they need to change what the verses clearly say. The reason I say this is:

    In the verses that mention Mary (Mark 6:1-3, also Matthew 13:55), who we all would agree is Jesus’ mother, Catholics jump ship in the middle of the stream. In these verses, if the brothers of Jesus are not brothers, but His cousins, then who is His mother and who is the carpenters father? The people are referring to both Joseph and Mary in these verses, who they believed were His literal parents. Why is it not best to say based on this context that the brothers and sisters mentioned are the children of Mary and Joseph? You cannot just switch in the middle of a sentence so the verses say what you want them to say. The context is speaking of Jesus whole family: His father (supposed), mother, and siblings.

    If this convinces a catholic, the response usually is that it is possible that these are children of Joseph from a first marriage. Of course, this statement is given without a shred of evidence to prove it. It is grasping for straws.

    The strongest evidence that these were the brothers and sisters of Jesus is not in the New Testament, but the Old Testament. In Psalm 69, which Jesus quotes as a Messianic Psalm, we see that the Messiah would have siblings.

    Jesus quotes Psalm 69 verses 4 and 9 in John 15:25 and John 2:16-17. The verses bookend a very important verse (Jesus’ quotes are in red):

    “Those who hate me without a cause Are more than the hairs of my head; They are mighty who would destroy me, Being my enemies wrongfully” (Psalms 69:4, NKJV- cross reference John 15:25)

    “I have become a stranger to my brothers, And an alien to my mother’s children” (Psalms 69:8, NKJV).

    “Because zeal for Your house has eaten me up, And the reproaches of those who reproach You have fallen on me” (Psalms 69:9, NKJV- cross reference John 2:16-17).

    This Messianic prophecy states that the Messiah WOULD HAVE siblings. This cannot be denied. And it is fulfilled when His brothers do not believe in Him during His ministry (John 7:3-10; Mark 3:21). Psalm 68:8-9 are connected with a preposition (because or for depending on your translation) showing that they go together.

    This is clear evidence that Jesus had brothers and sisters, and that this is the correct interpretation of the verses that mention them along with His mother.

    By far the best argument that Catholics have from scripture for the perpetual virginity is John 19:26-27, in which Jesus entrusts the care of His mother to the disciple whom He loved (presumably the apostle John). They ask, “Why is it that Jesus entrusted the care of His mother to John if He had living brothers?” I believe the answer to this question is simple. I would ask the same question though if they were cousins. Why did Jesus not entrust the care of His mother to His “cousins?” I would give the same answer to both questions, because they were not currently believers.

    What About Church History?

    The only  three places I know of in first 3 centuries of the church in which the perpetual virginity is mentioned is:

    • In the apocryphal gospel, The Protoevangelium of James, which no one that I know of believes James wrote
    • In two of Origen’s Commentaries: Matthew and John, in which he references this false gospel that he disagrees with, but says that he agrees with it’s statement about the perpetual virginity of Mary.
      Here are the quotes from Origen:
    • "There is no child of Mary except Jesus, according to the opinion of those who think correctly about her. "1
    • "Those who speak thus mean to safeguard Mary’s dignity in the virginity she conserved until the end, so that body chosen to serve the Word… did not know any relations with a man, after the point that the Holy Spirit came down upon her and the power of the Most High overshadowed her. "2

    It should be noted about these quotes. First, Origen supposedly got his information from a false gospel. There is no evidence he got this information from an Apostle. Second, Origen was deemed a heretic by the church in 453 (though not for this teaching).

    There is one quote I was able to find that said Jesus had brothers, referencing Jude:

      This is just one case in point that shows that you can find pretty much whatever you want to find in the Early Church Fathers to support what you want them to believe. They disagreed on many things.

     

     


    1 Origen, Commentary on John 1, 4; PG 14, 32, in Gambero, Mary and the Fathers of the Church, 75.
    2 Origen, Commentary on Matthew 10, 17; PG 13, 876-77, in Gambero, Mary and the Fathers of the Church, 75-76

    Filed Under: Catholic Church, World Religions Tagged With: , ,

    Must A Pastor/ Bishop Be Married?

    January 10, 2013 by Leave a Comment

    This wrote this article for the “catholic” section of my website because it comes from a discussion I am having with a Catholic where we are debating a specific qualification of an overseer: whether or not he must be married to be appointed. In spite of this, this article does apply to the qualifications of pastors that most protestant denominations have. (I will use the word overseer in this article. I believe scripture teaches that the overseer, bishop, shepherd, elder, & presbyters are all words describing the same function/office)

    Here is what my Catholic friend said in his response to my article Did the “Church” Give us the Bible?:

    The Bible doesn’t say a bishop must be married (in the early Church, some were, some weren’t), only that he must be the husband of only one wife (that is, bishops can’t practice polygamy). The Church fully acknowledges that many bishops (for example. Peter) were married. Today, clerical celibacy is a discipline of the Church that could be revoked at any time, not an issue of doctrine.

    Here are the the two texts that are being discussed:

    “An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. 4 He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity 5 (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?)” (1 Tim 3:2-5)

    “For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you– 6 if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination” (Titus 1:5-6)

    There is a lot of debate on what these passages are teaching about the qualifications of overseers. Here is a short overview of the three main positions;

    1. Since the phrase “husband of one wife” could be literally translated as a “one woman man,” this means that Paul is saying that an overseer cannot be a polygamist. He can only have one wife, not multiple.
    2. The passage is teaching that IF an man has a wife, he must be faithful to this relationship to be appointed as overseer.
    3. A man must be presently married to be able to be appointed as an overseer.
      I believe all three positions are true and are part of what Paul is saying in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1, except for the following caveat: the “if” in position two. I believe the “if” is not an option given in the text. So here is my position on what the text teaches:

     

    1. It is a stretch to say that the bishop does not have to be married. He must be the husband of one wife. The word ‘must’ defeats the word ‘if in argument two. The passage does not say “if a man is the husband, it should be to one wife.” It says the man “must” be the husband of one wife. Not being married is not an option that is given.
    2. If it is the case that an overseer does not have to be married, the context doesn’t make sense that says he is to have believing/faithful children and rule his household well (see quoted verses above). The fact that Paul mentions having children that are in submission shows that the overseer must be married. The reason Paul gives this qualification is stated: “but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?).” How this man has led his family and brought up his children shows how well he will do in taking care of the Lord’s people as an overseer. Once again, just as the passage does not say “if he is married,” it does not say “if he has children, they must be believers.” Since Paul says that this man must “be one who manages his own household well,” is it not reasonable to say that the man must have a household (a wife and children) to meet this qualification? This seems to me to be the straightforward reading of the passage.
    3. The tense in these passages should be examined. Paul says that the overseers must “be” (present tense) the husband on one wife. This is currently the position that they are in. They currently have a wife, and they currently have children.
    4. I do believe the phrase “husband of one wife” does mean that this man must be faithful to his wife and not have multiple wives. I do believe that scripture teaches that having multiple wives today is adultery. I will not go into detail about this here. To go as far to say that the passage is saying that it is only teaching this man should not be a polygamist, I believe, is not correct. I believe it is included, but not limited to this.
      With this position in mind, I do not see in scripture how it can be justified to appoint a man as an overseer that does not have a wife and children. One response to this position would be, “what about Timothy and Titus? Weren’t they overseers of churches?” My answer to this question is “no.” There is not a passage of scripture that can be pointed to that shows that they were appointed to be overseers. We do not know that Timothy was still in Ephesus when Paul wrote his second letter to him. Whether Timothy received Paul’s second letter at Ephesus or not, Paul did not expect Timothy to remain there (2 Timothy 4:13).
      This is just assumed into the text based on a tradition that is in the writings of Eusebius.

    Timothy, so it is recorded, was the first to receive the episcopate of the parish in Ephesus, Titus of the churches in Crete. (Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 3.4.6)

      This statement alone does not prove that Timothy and Titus were overseers. We do not know where Eusebius is getting his information. Was he inferring it from scripture? Had he been told this by someone else? We just do not know. To base a whole argument on what was written by one man who wrote about 300 years after the Apostles is not strong evidence that it is the case that Timothy and Titus were overseers. As is the case in many of the church fathers, Eusebius does not give his sources, and to just throw a blanket statement over church history saying that this is an apostolic tradition is unwise and incorrect. It is not too difficult to find teachings within the church fathers that contradict each other.
      But if tradition is correct that Timothy was an overseer, I believe it is a reasonable conclusion that he did fulfill the qualifications that the Holy Spirit gives in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1, which includes being a husband and having children that are believers.
      One other question that is commonly asked is “What about Paul’s instructions about celibacy (1 Corinthians 7:6-9), and Jesus’ statement about those who make themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom? (Matthew 19:12)”
      Paul and Jesus both are showing that it is a great privilege to be in the position of not being married. It is acceptable under certain circumstances not to get married. As Paul states, considering the present distress (1 Cor 7:26), that it is good to stay in the position of singleness. But it is important to note that this passage is given not to a select class of teachers, but to all Christians. Also, to say that Paul is giving this instruction to overseers is incorrect because of his instructions that overseers must be married and have children. To say this instruction is for overseers would make Paul contradict the commands he gives in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1.

    I will close in giving three final observations that I would like to discuss in other articles at some later date:

    1. Every time we see overseers/elders of a congregation spoken of in scripture, there is a plurality of them. We do not have an example of there being only one man overseeing a congregation. This article deals with the subject of the single-pastor model in depth. I agree with pretty much all of the article. I would apply this also to the “priests” that the Catholic church has residing over its parishes.
    2. The qualifications of overseers/pastors always speak of a man holding the office, not a woman. Women are not to hold leadership positions over the church. I agree with this article on the subject of women elders and pastors.
    3. Pastors are not the same as evangelists. They are a separate office that is listed in Ephesians 4:11. They are not given a list of qualifications that shows that they must be married and have children. You can be a single evangelist.

    This article may touch some nerves of people that are Catholic and Protestant, because both have men in leadership that do not fulfill the qualifications of having a wife and children. If you disagree with this article, please leave your comments.

    Filed Under: Catholic Church, Qualifications of Pastors/ Bishops, World Religions Tagged With: , , , ,

    Veneration of Mary, or Worship?

    January 9, 2013 by Leave a Comment

    "You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; 5 you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God” (Ex 20:4-5)

    Protestants at times are pretty quick to throw out accusations towards Catholics that they worship the Virgin Mary. They normally respond by saying, “We do not worship her, we are venerating her as scripture say to do.”

    Looking at the above picture with the passage below it from Exodus 20:4-5, there is not any denying that these people are bowing before a statue, which is worship. I don’t know how many Catholics do this, but I have seen multiple pictures like this of Catholics, along with even the pope bowing before statues of Jesus, Mary, or other saints. As much as Catholics claim that this is not worship, it is. making or bowing down to a statue or anything else made by man is idolatry.

    Catholics do not understand what they are saying when they claim to be venerating Mary. Here is a definition of veneration:

    From Dictionary.com:

    venerate: comes from a Latin word meaning to solicit the goodwill of (a god), worship, revere. Defined as to hold in deep respect; revere; to honour in recognition of qualities of holiness, excellence, wisdom, etc.

    From Webster’s:

    venerate: to regard with reverential respect or with admiring deference; to honor (as an icon or a relic) with a ritual act of devotion

    Synonyms: adore, deify, glorify, revere, reverence, worship

    Worship is included in the origins, definition, and synonyms of venerate. So whenever a Catholic says that they are venerating Mary, a good response is, “yep, you are… Do you have any idea what that means?”

    What most Catholics do not know is that the Catholic Church in its official doctrine has taught to do more than just “venerate” Mary. For instance:

    "The liturgical feasts dedicated to the Mother of God and Marian prayer, such as the rosary, an "epitome of the whole Gospel," express this devotion to the Virgin Mary," (CCC. 971).

    From Dictionary.com:

    devotion: profound dedication; consecration; earnest attachment to a cause, person, etc.

    This definition shows attitudes that should only be shown to God. Did you catch what the Catholic Church is teaching in this statement? Prayer and devotion to Mary pretty much sums up what the Gospel is! Where is this in scripture? It’s not there.

    Prayer to Mary (or to any other “saint”) is not Biblical. To pray to Mary, believing that she can hear prayers in all languages in all areas of the world at all times, is attributing God’s attribute of omnipresence (and maybe omniscience) to Mary. Scripture does not teach to pray to people that are in heaven. Jesus commanded the disciples to pray to God. To do otherwise disobeys Jesus.

    Let’s look at some other official teachings of the Catholic Church:

    Mary is Second Only to Jesus: "Mary has by grace been exalted above all angels and men to a place second only to her Son" (Vatican Council II, p. 421). "This mother…is waiting and preparing your home for you," (Handbook for Todays Catholic, p.31). Where is this teaching in scripture and the earliest centuries of church history? Jesus said He was going to prepare a place for us, which He did through the cross. There is nothing for Mary to prepare.

    Mary is Mediatrix: "Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix.’" (CCC, par. 969) Only Christ is our mediator, as taught in scripture (1 Tim 2:5). "For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus." If there is one mediator according to sacred scripture, how can the Catholic church call someone else a mediator for our souls?

    Mary is the ALL HOLY ONE: "By asking Mary to pray for us, we acknowledge ourselves to be poor sinners and we address ourselves to the ‘Mother of Mercy,’ the All-Holy One." (CCC 2677) Calling Mary the “all Holy One" is a deifying of Mary.

    And as much as the Catholic Church and their followers like to reject this, it is in their official doctrine:

    Mary is to be WORSHIPPED!! "…when she [Mary] is the subject of preaching and worship she prompts the faithful to come to her Son…" (Vatican Council II, p. 420).

    I could supply many more passages from Catholic teachings. These statements raise Mary far above being the one who the nations will call blessed, as Luke 1:48 says will happen. Mary is a blessed women for giving birth to the Son of God, but this passage is not teaching a special veneration of Mary. There is not one passage of scripture that instructs anyone to show the kind of love and devotion towards Mary that Catholics show. But one thing is clear, the catholic church teaches to do so. The Catholic church deifies Mary, pretty much making her a 4th member of the Godhead. The only way to miss this truth is to completely ignore it and to ignore the teachings and writings of the Catholic Church.

    Catholics time and time again point to Luke 1:45, 48 to say the Bible teaches Mary “veneration.” Here are these two verses:

    Blessed is she who believed, for there will be a fulfillment of those things which were told her from the Lord…For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed” (Luke 1:45, 48).

    Should Mary receive veneration just because this text says that people in all generations will call Mary blessed? Catholics say yes. But the question I raise is: “Do you feel the same way towards others that Jesus calls blessed in scripture?” For example:

    • Matthew 5:3-11 – All kingdom citizens are called “blessed.”
    • Luke 11:27-28 – Jesus, after someone blessed His mother who bore Him, said “Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.”

    This is just two examples of many that could be given of Jesus pronouncing special blessing on all those who are Christians and are obeying the word of God. Why do Catholics not show veneration to all of these people that Jesus pronounces this blessing on?

    Filed Under: Catholic Church, World Religions Tagged With: , , ,

    Call No Man Your Father?

    January 9, 2013 by Leave a Comment

    I wrote an article titled: Did the Church Give Us the Bible? a couple months back that has led to some interesting discussions with Roman Catholics in which I was accused of misrepresenting their positions. Because of this, I have decided to write a series of articles on the beliefs and false practices of the Catholic church and its sheep that follow its voice without question.

    The first article is based on a common response they give to a Christians grievance with them calling their priests and teachers ‘father’ as a title of honor and reverence.

    I wrote in my above mentioned article:

    Why does it [the Bible] forbid us to address religious leaders as “father”? (Matt. 23:9).

    Here is the normal Catholic response that I got:

    Jesus is here, too, speaking against the hypocrisy of the Pharisees. Jesus certainly didn’t mean "call no man on earth your father" — which would include your physical, earthly father. There are plenty of references in Scripture to Christians calling other Christians "father" or calling others their spiritual "children" — for example, 1 Cor 4:15, Philemon 10, Philippians 2:22, 1 Timothy 1:2. We call our priests "father" similarly as an honor, because they are spiritual "fathers" to us. "Father" is not their official title — it is usually "Reverend," just like it probably is for your pastor.

    This normal Catholic response is interesting because pretty much what they are saying is “Jesus didn’t mean what He said," then he in no way tries to describe what he believes Jesus was saying. What did Jesus mean if He didn’t mean what He said? He says, speaking of spiritual teachers, "call no man your father."

    Instead of dealing with the passage, this Catholic just says it doesn’t mean what it says, and then turns the argument back on the person who gives it (me) saying, “you call your earthly father your father, right?” This is a good way to not answer the argument. Nonetheless, my answer to this argument is simple. The context shows that Jesus is referring to spiritual leaders that desired to receive this title. There are plenty of passages of scripture where earthly, blood relatives are called father, so to say it includes your earthly father would make Jesus contradict other scriptures and examples that show God approves of calling your earthly parent or ancestors “fathers.”

    One point that I do agree with Catholics is this: We do see instances of Paul calling himself a father of certain people that he had taught the gospel to or had discipled in some way (references given by Catholic above).  But we DO NOT see an instance where a Christian called their spiritual leader their father to show them honor or reverence.

    The verses supplied do not justify calling a spiritual teacher or leader "father." To use these verses to teach it is acceptable contradicts what Jesus said. This Catholic’s response made it clear that he and other Catholics call their priests ‘father’ to honor them. This is what Jesus is saying not to do. Also, to say “father” is not an official title (as the catholic above argues) is just incorrect. There are plenty of websites of Catholic parishes that have the name of their priest on the site as “Father _____________,” and if you ask a priest what he would like you to call him, there is a good chance he will say ‘father.’

    Here is an example of what I found on the website of a local parish in my area:

    • Fr. Albert Zapf – Pastor;
    • Fr. Ladis J. Cizik – In Residence
      These priests are using ‘Fr.’ as a title just like someone would use Mr. or Mrs., or as some pastors would use Rev. for reverend. It is being used as a title of honor.

    Just as an aside. I do not believe it is a good idea to call a pastor ‘reverend’ either. It is just as much giving a spiritual leader a title to honor them as it is calling a priest ‘father.’ It is a word that is used to describe God also: "…Holy and Reverend is His name." (Ps.111:9). It is another manmade title that people use to distinguish laity from clergy, which is not something that scripture does. All church “leaders” in scripture are to be servants of the flock, not in any way lifting themselves above their brethren. All members of the church are brothers.

    It seems clear to me that the point of the context (Matt 23:5-12) is that spiritual leaders should have the heart of servants and not desire to be called names or given titles that raise them above their brethren, nor should they wear things that do the same.

    If calling priests ‘father’ was not bad enough, Catholics call the pope the ‘Holy Father’ as a title, which is a name only given to God the Father in scripture in John 17. Jesus, praying to the Father in Heaven says “Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are” (John 17:11). If the pope willingly allows himself to be called by this title, he is a blasphemer. He is giving himself the title of God [He is also called the head of the church, which is a title given to Jesus Christ- Ephesians 1:22].

    “But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad and enlarge the borders of their garments. 6 They love the best places at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, 7 greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called by men, ‘Rabbi, Rabbi.’ 8 But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. 9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10 And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ. 11 But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted” (Matt 23:5-12)

    Filed Under: Catholic Church, World Religions Tagged With: , , ,
    «Older Posts