Why the Catholic Church Ought not to Select a New Pope

If you have watched the news in the past week, you’ve likely seen the media attention that has been given to the death of the “pope”; it’s virtually inescapable. (I offer my personal condolences to our Catholic friends on their loss.) During this time, many in the media have been speculating on who the next “pope” will be. However, the Catholic church has, by and large, been only concerned with the funeral and burial arrangements. But now that those matters have been completed, the time has come for them to select a new “pope.” Here is why I hope that they don’t do that.

First, Jesus is the only head of the church and God only acknowledges Him as mediator between God and man. In Ephesians 5:23 Paul writes, “For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the savior of the body.” Colossians 1:18 states, “And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.” 1 Timothy 2:5 states, “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” It is nothing more than crass arrogance to appoint a man to a position that only Jesus himself can occupy. It is my prayer that no one would so exalt himself before God as God will no doubt deal with them severely for so acting.

Second, there is no authority in the Bible to have earthly church organization or structure of leadership personnel beyond what is done at the congregational level. There were elders over the congregation at Jerusalem (Acts 11:30, 15:4). Paul and Barnabas carried out God’s pattern for earthly organization of leadership personnel in Acts 14:23 when they appointed elders in the congregations that they planted. We learn in the letters to Timothy and Titus that they also were directed to appoint elders in the congregations with whom they were working (1 Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9). These congregations also had deacons who were special servants appointed over particular matters (Acts 6:1-7, Philippians 1:1, 1 Timothy 3:8-13). Peter (who the Catholic Church claims to be the first “pope”) makes it clear that there are no intervening organizations between the local eldership and the Chief Shepherd, Jesus (1 Peter 5:1-4). Never do we find in the New Testament any ongoing organization of leadership personal in the church beyond the local level. Hence, there is no New Testament authority for such an organized structure of personnel leadership beyond the local church.

Third, even at the local level, there is no one man who has a right to be the sole leader of the church. What we read in the New Testament regarding God’s desire for local leadership is that there should be a plural number of leaders, not a single. Paul told Titus to appoint “elders” in every city in which there was a church. Paul and Barnabas appointed “elders” in all the churches that they planted (Acts 14:23). There were “elders” at the church in Jerusalem (Acts 11:30, 15:4). No where in the New Testament do we ever see a single man in leadership position over a church or group of churches. Some argue that the “bishop” of 1 Timothy 3 is in fact a single man, but Paul makes it clear that the “bishop” is no different than an elder by using the two terms interchangeably in Titus 1:5, 7. Hence, there is no authority for anything less than a plural number of local church leaders, much less for a single leader over all churches worldwide.

If the Catholic Church desires to do what the Bible teaches regarding personnel leadership in the church, then they will make this crucial first step back toward the Bible pattern and not select a new pope. However, I don’t believe for a moment that they will do this and we’ll discuss why in next week’s bulletin article, “Why the Catholic Church Will Select a New Pope.”

Posted in Kevin Cauley | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Why the Catholic Church Ought not to Select a New Pope

Why The Catholic Church Will Select a New Pope

Last week I had an article in the bulletin entitled, “Why the Catholic Church Ought Not Select A New Pope.” Biblical reasons were given as to why the papacy is an unscriptural arrangement in the New Testament model of organized church leadership. But as I mentioned, I’m not so na�ve as to think that the Catholic Church will all of a sudden do a 180 and reject the papacy (it would be good if they would, but I’m not holding my breath). There are reasons why they behave the way they do and so this week we will look at why the Catholic Church WILL select a new pope.

First, the Catholic Church will select a new pope because they love the traditions of men more than God’s word. The Bible holds no authority for the elevation of one man, except Jesus himself, into an authoritative leadership role over the church as a whole. One might then wonder from where the Catholic Church gets its justification for such. The answer can only come from centuries of tradition. The concept of a single “bishop” over a local congregation began in the 2nd century A.D. From this concept then sprang the concept that such a one would be the authority over the church for an entire city, then region, then country, and finally the world; that’s how things evolved. Catholicism, however, is proud of their tradition. They believe that tradition is equally authoritative as scripture. The Catholic Encyclopedia states, “Catholics, on the other hand, hold that there may be, that there is in fact, and that there must of necessity be certain revealed truths apart from those contained in the Bible�” (Tradition and Living Magisterium). The Bible, however, teaches otherwise. In rebuking the Pharisees, Jesus said, “Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition” (Mark 7:9). Jesus then said that they made “the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye” (Mark 7:13). The point of such passages is this: tradition is not on an equal footing with scripture; those who so proclaim reject Jesus’ words. Nonetheless, because Catholics value tradition higher than scripture, they will select a new pope.

Second, the Catholic Church will select a new pope because they desire an earthly, not a spiritual kingdom. When one surveys the physical wealth and property that the Catholic Church possesses, takes note that the Vatican is it’s own country in and of itself with it’s own diplomatic corps, and watches as world leaders prostrate themselves before a vessel of flesh and blood, it doesn’t take one long to conclude what kind of power the Catholic church desires to have over the affairs of men. And it hasn’t been too many centuries since the Catholic Church actually dictated policy to nation-states. Do any doubt that the Catholic Church would so do if given the opportunity today? All of this evidence points to the fact that the Catholic Church really is more concerned about an earthly kingdom than a heavenly one. Jesus, however, taught that the church would not be such an organization to possess physical wealth, property, and power and to wield such strong political influence in the world. Jesus himself was a pauper, yet the man who would be pope would have billions of dollars in assets at his disposal. What kind of kingdom did Jesus desire? Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence” (John 18:36). On one occasion, the Pharisees demanded of Jesus to tell them when His kingdom would come, Jesus reply was, “The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you” (Luke 17:20,21). God’s kingdom is a spiritual kingdom composed of people who have a spiritual purpose.

Third, the Catholic church will select a new pope because they believe God speaks to the church through the pope. The Catholic Church states regarding the pope’s “ex cathedra” pronouncements:

“We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals….” (Vatican IV, Constitution of Christ’s Church, c. iv.)

Without a pope, Catholics proclaim that they cannot know what God’s will would continue to be for them in the world today. The Bible, however, teaches that we have everything that we need in order to be pleasing to God through the teaching of the scriptures. Paul wrote to Timothy, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” There is not one good work that man may do what is not set forth for us in the scriptures themselves first. Hence, there is no need for a pope to tell the church how to do as Jesus has, through the Holy Spirit, inspired the scriptures to accomplish that very purpose.

We could enumerate many more “reasons” why the Catholic Church will select a new pope, all of which reasons would be unscriptural, unbiblical, unsound, and anti-Christological. There can be no biblical basis for such an earthly position, which Catholicism states is the “Supreme Head” of the church, and the “Vicar of Christ,” which, says the Catholic Encyclopedia, is “a title of the pope implying his supreme and universal primacy, both of honour and of jurisdiction, over the Church of Christ” (Vicar of Christ). Can such be anything but blasphemy? These three reasons that we have here explored, however, are enough for us to conclude that the Catholic Church really isn’t interested in what the scriptures teach, but in doing their own apostate will. Yes, the Catholics will appoint a new pope and he will occupy the seat in Rome and continue to further Catholic dogma in the world today. It is clear, however, from reading the scriptures, that their dogma is not a product of God, but of man and man’s desire to glorify himself instead of Christ.

Posted in Kevin Cauley | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Why The Catholic Church Will Select a New Pope

Is Tradition an Adequate Standard for Religious Practices? (part 1)

In the past few weeks we have examined, in these bulletin studies, some religious beliefs of Catholicism. Perhaps the most fundamental difference between Catholicism and other religions claiming Christ is our attitudes toward scripture and tradition. During the protestant reformation movement one of the things that was emphasized was the need to base our religious practices upon scripture alone as opposed to the long standing Catholic doctrine of religious tradition. This body of religious tradition in the Catholic Church is known as the magisterium; it is a body of literature that Catholicism holds as authoritative for the practices of the church. They consider this body of literature to be on equal footing with the Old and New Testament scriptures. They also believe that it is a body of information that is living in the sense that it changes and grows through time and circumstance. The Catholic Encyclopedia states regarding “Tradition and the Living Magisterium:”

“Catholics, on the other hand, hold that there may be, that there is in fact, and that there must of necessity be certain revealed truths apart from those contained in the Bible; they hold furthermore that Jesus Christ has established in fact, and that to adapt the means to the end He should have established, a living organ as much to transmit Scripture and written Revelation as to place revealed truth within reach of everyone always and everywhere.” (Tradition and Living Magisterium)

Moreover the article states:

“Holy Scripture is therefore not the only theological source of the Revelation made by God to His Church. Side by side with Scripture there is tradition, side by side with the written revelation there is the oral revelation. This granted, it is impossible to be satisfied with the Bible alone for the solution of all dogmatic questions.” (ibid)

As to the infallibility of this teaching, the article states:

“The prerogatives of this teaching authority are made sufficiently clear by the texts and they are to a certain extent implied in the very institution. The Church, according to St. Paul’s Epistle to Timothy, is the pillar and ground of truth; the Apostles and consequently their successors have the right to impose their doctrine; whosoever refuses to believe them shall be condemned, whosoever rejects anything is shipwrecked in the Faith. This authority is therefore infallible. And this infallibility is guaranteed implicitly but directly by the promise of the Saviour: ‘Behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world.'” (ibid)

In these three statements the Catholic doctrine of the authority of tradition is summarized. The Bible, they say, is not the sole source of God’s word. There is also the oral tradition of the church. This oral tradition, they claim, is equally as authoritative as God’s word and infallible. From where does this information come? It comes from the successors to the apostles whose teaching, if not believed will condemn a person to hell. Who holds this authority? According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, it is the bishops. “The bishops have, therefore, a general power of order, jurisdiction, and magisterium, but not the personal prerogatives of the Apostles.” (The Apostles) What ought we to make of this doctrine that tradition is equal in authority to scripture?

First, Jesus made it clear that tradition was not equal to scripture. In Mark 7:3 the Pharisees asked Jesus why his disciples didn’t keep the tradition of the elders. Like the Catholic church, these Rabbinical traditions were originally oral teachings, but over time they became encoded into written documents. These traditional teachings then took on an air of authority superior to the scriptures themselves. The Catholic Encyclopedia states regarding these traditions: “Under this parasitic vegetation of traditional teaching the Law itself came gradually almost to be entirely lost sight of and stifled” (Rabbi and Rabbinism). It states further regarding the same: “What has been said above of its theological basis may suffice to show the two radical errors which lie at the bottom of it: infinity of the Scriptures, and necessity of interpreting them in every detail in accordance with that severe precision which alone is worthy of God.” (ibid) It is a shame that what the Catholic Encyclopedia correctly points out as erroneous, Catholicism embraces today, namely, the “infinity of the Scriptures” through their living magisterium, and claiming divine authority for such things through their magistrates, “which alone is worthy of God.”

Jesus’ response to the Pharisees and their traditions applies with equal force to the traditions of the Catholic Church today. In Mark 7:6-13 we read:

“He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.� Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.”

Jesus was opposed to the traditions of men becoming the strainer through which scripture was understood. To Jesus, scripture was clear and stood on its own without need for additional clarification because of change in times or circumstances. And this is indeed the position of the inspired apostles in the early church as well. Paul wrote in Colossians 2:8, “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” And the Hebrew writer proclaims regarding Christ’s doctrine, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever” (Hebrews 13:8). In fact, Paul was adamant about the fact that he didn’t receive his teaching via the medium of men, and not even that of other apostles, when he stated in Galatians 1:11,12 “But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.” Paul received his teaching from Jesus’ Spirit himself and not through any human tradition.

To be continued….

Posted in Kevin Cauley | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Is Tradition an Adequate Standard for Religious Practices? (part 1)

Heaven Ain’t Full

In a recent telephone conversation, a young man asked me about the 144,000 people that will be saved. He had a few conversations with a friend who identified himself with the Jehovah’s Witness religion. His friend believed that only 144,000 people would go to heaven and the rest of the righteous people would inherit a newly renovated earth. This zealous teen sought the answer to his friend’s limited doctrine.

While on the phone we read Revelation 7:4, “And I heard the number of the sealed, 144,000, sealed from every tribe of the sons of Israel.” John, the apostle responsible for penning Revelation, has entered God’s throne room in a vision. While in the vision he hears the angels calling to one another that the servants of God must be sealed or marked. Those marked will be spared destruction on the day of Judgment�they’ll be saved. Then John hears the exact number of sealed people, 144,000.

Are Jehovah’s Witnesses correct in saying heaven will be filled with 144,000 souls? Or is there another explanation? We searched for the answer together.

The Question

To properly understand Revelation 7:4, we must be mindful of the context. Revelation 7 answers the question posed in the previous chapter, “For the great day of their wrath is come, and who can stand?” (6:17). Yet, understanding this question and why it was asked takes us back to another query in verse 10, “O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before you will judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” (6:10).

In Revelation 6:10, the souls of Christian martyrs ask how long their blood would go unavenged. They don’t want their sacrifices to be empty. They long to see justice on those who persecuted and killed Christians. God tells them to be patient and rest for a little while (6:11).

Then God assures them that justice would be served on the infidels. With the opening of the sixth seal in verse twelve, judgment begins. In this horrific scene of judgment, the wicked seek an outlet of safety from the wrath of “him who is seated on the throne” and “the Lamb” (6:16). In their terror the condemned ones ask, “Who can stand?” That is, who will be able to stand on the judgment day�the day of heavenly wrath unleashed?

So far so good; the caller and I understood these questions. Like a lot of people he began guessing their answers, “The saved? Christians? Angels?” Then I told him to look at chapter seven, the divine answer to the inquiry.

The Answer: Part 1

The angels answer the question in two parts. The first part of the answer comes in Revelation 7:1-8. The destruction of Judgment halts while the faithful servants of God under the Jewish system are marked or sealed. They declare the name of each tribe and separate twelve thousand saved souls in each one. Twelve thousand out of twelve tribes equals 144,000 souls. The first part of the answer is faithful Jews.
The voice on the other end of the phone spoke with enlightenment, “So the Jews will be saved.” I affirmed his answer. Then he asked why only 144,000 Jews would be saved. I explained how the number was not intended to be an exact count of saved Jews, but to signify a definite multitude. He understood, so we continued.

The Answer: Part 2

We looked further into chapter seven. After the 144,000 Jews are identified, John sees another group of people (7:9). This group contains people from every tribe, nation and language who wear white robes indicative of salvation.

Who are these people? They own Yahweh as their God (7:10). They worship God sitting on his throne (7:11). They have washed their robes in the blood of the Lamb (Jesus) (7:14).These serve God daily in his temple the church (7:15) and Jesus guides them (7:16). Who are these people? Christians.

So the full answer to the question in 6:17 is faithful Jews under the Mosaic system and faithful Christians under Christ’s system. He grasped the meaning, but still had a question about why the Jews had a definite number and the Christians did not.

The Confusion

A fair question. Why did the Jews get limited to 144,000, while the Christians were “a great multitude that no one could number?” I had to do some more checking and reading. After some thought it came to me. The Jews were described by a definite number because the Jewish system of salvation had stopped. Judaism had already saved all it ever would save. If we could go to the hadean realm and have all those in paradise who lived and died under the Jewish economy raise their hands, we could count them. If we did it again tomorrow, we would get the same number (given we didn’t make a counting error).

On the other hand, the Christian scheme of redemption continues today. People are still being saved daily by the blood of the Lamb. If we counted the number of Christian souls in the hadean realm today, that number would be different tomorrow. That number continues to grow because that system continues as God’s current salvation system. Therefore, as John said, it is a multitude that no one could number.

After I stopped preaching, he answered in excitement, “So the Jews had a number because there wouldn’t be any more people saved by the Jewish law; and the Christians didn’t have a number because there are still people being saved by Christ’s law?” Exactly.

People living today aren’t part of the 144,000 because that number only applied to the number of saved Jews under a system that was nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14). Today we take heart in the knowledge that God has room in heaven for all Christians�no matter how “great” the multitude gets.

Thank God heaven ain’t full!

Posted in Kevin Cauley | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Heaven Ain’t Full

What Does It Mean to Be Saved?

In order to understand what it means to be saved, we need to understand that from which we need to be saved. The Bible teaches that because all men have sinned, they have fallen short of God’s glory (Romans 3:23). It is these sins that separate us from God (Isaiah 59:2) putting us into a state of needing to be reconciled with God. Moreover, since God is a completely holy and righteous God, those who die in sins must be punished for the evil that they have done. What kind of punishment does one receive for offending an infinite God? The Bible teaches that those who die in a state of sin will receive eternal separation from God in hell (Matthew 25:46). Sinful man is doomed to condemnation. This is that from which men need salvation. What is man to do? As Paul asks, “Wretched man that I am, who shall deliver (i.e. save) me from this body of death?” (Romans 7:24)

Fortunately for man, God wants man to be saved from such an awful fate. That is the salvation that God offers; reconciliation with him through Jesus Christ (Romans 7:25, 2 Corinthians 5:18-21). Salvation is the opportunity to not have to be punished for the sins that we have committed. God has offered us an alternative. If we will believe that Jesus is God’s Son, that Jesus came to the earth to provide something for man that man could not provide for himself, namely, salvation from sin, then God will allow Jesus’ sacrificial death on the cross to be our vicarious punishment for our sins (2 Corinthians 5:21).

When we become saved by hearing God’s word (Romans 10:17), believing it (Hebrews 11:6), repenting of sin (Acts 17:30), confessing Jesus as Christ (Matthew 10:32) and being baptized for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16), then we are born again into the family of God (John 3:3,5) and we become children of God (1 John 3:1) and heirs according to God’s promise (Galatians 3:29). This entails that we can then call upon God as our Father and he considers us as His children (Galatians 4:6).

Now, while this is the basic story of salvation, the scriptures reveal to us that there are several perspectives of salvation. There is salvation at the moment of baptism. In this perspective, we gain a right relationship with God and we become his child (see Galatians 3:27-29). Here we have forgiveness of our past sins and we are able to worship God acceptably. In this perspective of salvation, we have come out of a detrimental relationship with God and entered into a constructive relationship with God. God begins, at this point, to mold us into the kind of person He wants us to be through our obedience to His word and our growth as a child of God. 1 Peter 2:2ASV states, “As newborn babes, long for the spiritual milk which is without guile, that ye may grow thereby unto salvation.” While the newborn babe in Christ is saved in that he is in a right relationship with God, he still needs to continue to grow unto salvation in order to remain saved and inherit eternal life.

There is also salvation from sin committed after baptism. In this perspective we see salvation from sin as ongoing. Once we become a Christian, the blood of Christ covers the sins that we commit and confess (1 John 1:7-10) and we remain in a state of God’s grace as we continue to serve and love Him. It doesn’t mean that God excuses our sins. It means that when we sin and turn to God with a broken heart in penitence for our sins, then God continues to forgive our sins based upon our having been cleansed by the blood (Acts 8:22).

This doesn’t mean, however, that we can’t abandon God and lose our inheritance (2 John 1:8). We can, like the prodigal son, rebel against our father and wander off into a strange land (Luke 15:11-32). If we die in such a state, then we will lose our inheritance and will not be part of the kingdom of God (Galatians 5:19-21, 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10). Jesus himself even warned us that there would be some who call him Lord, but would not enter into eternal life (Matthew 7:21). So God’s promise of forgiveness to His children is conditional upon the grounds that we remain faithful to God and His will (Revelation 2:10). God’s relationship to us is Father to child, but if the child rejects and abandons the Father, then there is no more sacrifice for sin (Hebrews 10:26). We are children of God, but we must walk as God’s children (1 John 3:10, Ephesians 5:8-11). If we stop walking as God’s children we will be disinherited.

Consider also 2 Corinthians 7:9, 10 which says, “Now I rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye sorrowed to repentance: for ye were made sorry after a godly manner, that ye might receive damage by us in nothing. For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.” Notice that godly sorrow works repentance to salvation. What kind of salvation is that? Didn’t these Christians already have salvation? Why would they need to repent to salvation if they already had it? This passage indicates that even those who were once saved, can so sin as to need to repent to salvation again.

Finally, there is another sense of the word “salvation” that refers to being saved out of this life and into the next. Consider 2 Timothy 2:10. Paul is speaking to those who are saved, yet he says, “Therefore I endure all things for the elect’s sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.” If they already had it, then why would they need to “obtain” it? He must be referring to salvation in the next life in heaven with God and Christ. Notice also 1 Peter 1:4, 5 “To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.” Again, this “salvation” is that which has not yet been “revealed” until, that is, the last time. That’s heaven itself. So while a man may be saved in that he is currently in a right relationship with God, and also that he has ongoing forgiveness of sins, it is also the case that he has not yet obtained final salvation in heaven. That blessing is reserved for those who endure to the end (2 Timothy 4:8).

What does it mean to be saved? It means that the Christian has been taken out of darkness and into light, forgiven of his past sins, and become a child of God. It means that the Christian may now call upon God as Father and ask for ongoing forgiveness of sins committed after baptism, but it doesn’t mean that the Christian can’t abandon that relationship and return to darkness. And finally, it means that the Christian has God’s promise that one day he will be saved from the sorrows, pains, and temptations of this life into a place where no evil shall dwell and Father and child may be together throughout eternity. Now, don’t you want to be saved?

Posted in Kevin Cauley | Tagged , , | Comments Off on What Does It Mean to Be Saved?