If you have your Bibles, I'd like you to open them, if you will, to the Gospel
according to St. Matthew.
The Gospel according to St. Matthew, chapter 16.
Matthew, chapter 16.
There is here one of the most interesting dialogues in the Bible between the Lord
Jesus Christ and His Apostles.
And it is a passage often quoted by the Roman Catholic Church as proof of its
authority to represent Jesus Christ.
Matthew, chapter 16.
When Jesus came to the coast of Caesarea Philippi, verse 13, He asked His
disciples, Whom do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?
They said, Some say you're John the Baptist, some say Elijah, others Jeremiah,
or one of the prophets.
But Jesus said to them, But whom do you say that I am?
And Simon Peter answered and said, You are the Christ, the Son of the living
God.
And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah,
for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father which is in heaven.
And I say unto thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church,
and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever shall be bound
on earth shall be bound in heaven.
Whatsoever shall be loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Then ordered He His disciples that they should tell no one that He was Jesus the
Christ.
This particular passage is quoted by the Roman Catholic Church and has been quoted
consistently historically as proof of their ultimate authority, that is their
right to speak in the name of God, and that Peter was indeed the first Papa,
or the Bishop of Rome, and the Sovereign of the Church.
Now they have carried this doctrine to almost unbelievable lengths historically.
And I'd just like to quote what they have to say on the subject.
And I think it's very important that we recognize that there are differences that
do persist.
There are Roman Catholics who are true Christians, who love the Lord Jesus Christ
and trust Him as their Savior.
I believe that they are Christians not because of the Roman Catholic Church,
but despite the Roman Catholic Church and the things which it has added to biblical
theology.
When the Lord Jesus Christ encountered the Pharisees and the Sadducees and the
scribes, He said to them, You do make void the command of God through your
traditions.
And by adding their traditions, they had watered down the truth of God's
word.
I believe this is true classically of Roman Catholic theology.
It is not the core of Catholicism which disturbs us, because they confess the
Trinity, the Deity of Christ, the virgin birth, the perfection of our Lord,
His miracles, His vicarious death on the cross, His bodily resurrection,
salvation through Him alone, the resurrection from the dead, ascension into
heaven, our great High Priest before the Father after the order of Melchizedek.
They believe also in the second coming of Jesus Christ, the establishment of the
kingdom of God on earth, and they loudly maintain that they have always believed in
justification by faith, as notes in the current Catholic Bibles indicate.
So, they believe in this, as well as in eternal judgment, and in bliss for the
redeemed in heaven.
Now, that basic outline of Christian theology is not the core of Catholicism
which disturbs, any more than it was the core of the Pharisees that disturbed the
Lord Jesus Christ.
Because He said, unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes
and the Pharisees, you cannot enter the kingdom of God.
Which meant that the scribes and Pharisees really had it made in terms of their
keeping to the letter of the law.
But added to the letter of the law were their traditions.
The traditions of men, the theories and comments of men, the ideas of men were
added to God's word.
What happened?
There was instantaneous progressive dilution, so that the truth was watered
down, and Jesus could turn to them and say, look what you're doing.
You are arguing for the validity of the law, and destroying the spirit of the law
by adding human tradition.
I believe this is what has happened in Roman Catholic theology.
I know because I attended Roman Catholic parochial schools, I graduated from a
Roman Catholic school, I have had associations over the years with priests
and Catholic theologians, I have asked all the right questions, I think, and I have
gotten the answers.
I've compiled all this material, and there are many fine books on the
subject.
We have a complete list of books at Christian Research Institute on
Catholicism and Protestantism, in which we urge interested Protestants
and Roman Catholics to peruse.
The point I'm trying to make is, there's no hostility on the part of
Protestantism to historic Catholic theology, classic Catholic theology,
because in the beginning there was only one universal church.
The Apostles' Creed clearly states, I believe in the holy Catholic church.
It does not say Roman Catholic, it says Catholic, which meant the
universal church.
There were many bishops of the church.
Each one was called Papa, from which we get our word, Pope.
Each one had his own diocese.
He was the ruling teacher, following apostolic order, where Paul sent Titus to
Crete.
And he said, I appointed you to ordain elders at all the churches.
Titus was the first bishop, or ruling teacher, of Crete.
Under him came the pastors, teachers, evangelists, and those constructed the
authority of the early church.
This upsets the Baptists when you say this, but nevertheless, it's classical
theology.
That's exactly what church history indicates took place.
Now, authority gradually centralized when Christianity was recognized as the state
religion by Constantine, emperor of Rome.
And he used it as a political means to fuse the empire together.
Rome was falling apart, so the church was used as the mortar of a new empire to hold
it all together.
You can read all of this in Philip Schopp's History of the Christian Church,
Lars Qualben on the Christian Church, Kenneth Scott La Tourette.
All the great church historians have cataloged this.
Even Roman Catholic historians have given us this information.
There's no doubt about its background.
But we must understand what the Roman Church claims for its pontiff.
Jolly John XXIII was a marvelous public relations man for the Roman Catholic
Church.
I believe he was a sincere Christian.
I believe the Lord did tell him to call an ecumenical conference.
I believe he did have a vision of Christ.
I believe he went against all odds in the entire Vatican to bring it about.
And since that time, the windows were opened in the church, as John said,
and some fresh air and some light got in.
Unfortunately, the bats haven't gotten out of the belfry yet.
But nevertheless, still, John made a great move.
The popes who succeeded him haven't made much of a move at all.
And the one that now occupies the seat of Peter is desperately trying to bring them
back again under the realm of Pius XII, who was one of the classic authoritarian
popes of history.
So, let us understand that we are Protestants, protesters against the
authority of the Bishop of Rome, against his right as supreme pontiff or
sovereign over the church, that we do not feel as Protestants we answer to him or to
the Church of Rome, but we answer instead to the Holy Spirit and the Word of God and
our conscience before the Lord.
That was the difference between Protestantism and Catholicism.
One is the submission to a man, Bishop of Rome.
The other is submission to God, the Holy Spirit, and to the authority of
Holy Scripture.
There is the difference.
Now, should there be any doubt, before I deal with Matthew 16,
let me draw your attention to what the popes themselves have said on the subject.
In the bull of Pope Boniface VIII, entitled Unum Sanctum, which any Catholic
reference book will give you, he states, We declare, affirm, define and pronounce
it to be necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman
pontiff.
Should there be any doubt about what he meant, in case you can't understand
English, Cardinal Manning, in authority on papal bulls and decrees, said that this
is, quote, infallible and beyond all doubt an act.
Ex cathedra.
Close quote.
That means, from the chair of Peter, faith and morals, the statement has been
made.
And the statement is, we affirm, define, declare and pronounce it to be
necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman
pontiff.
They who are with me are with the church.
They who are not with me are out of the church.
They are out of the way of the truth and the life.
Let men well understand this, that they be not deceived or led astray by soi-disant
Catholics.
That's by Catholics who are not telling the truth.
Who desire and teach something quite different from what the head of the church
teaches.
Close quote.
You notice that he lifted John chapter 14 verse 6 for himself.
I am the way, the truth and the life.
So, that was a declaration never rescinded.
What is a vicar?
A vicar is, quote, a deputy, one who acts for another.
In this case, Jesus Christ.
I alone, despite my unworthiness, he says, act in the name of Jesus Christ.
You are with me, you are with Christ.
You are not with me, you are not with Christ.
I would like the present pope to issue another edict in which he said that this
wasn't ex-cathedra.
It didn't come as an infallible decree.
Olly, olly, oxen free.
All of you separated brothers are going to be considered part of the body of Christ.
Now, if we could just get something official like that, then we could offset
Pius IX and Boniface VIII.
But you don't hear anything on that subject from Rome.
And the reason you don't is because one suspects that they haven't really altered
the opinion at all.
Again, the Roman Catholic Catechism, lesson two on the church, clearly states
that the church is the congregation of all those who profess the faith of Christ and
partake of the same sacraments and are governed by their lawful pastors under one
visible head.
Close quote.
Who is the visible head?
The Bishop of Rome, the representative of the Apostle Peter.
Jesus Christ rules, governs, and preserves the church.
But how does he do it?
Through the ministry of his Apostles and their successors.
Who is the visible head of the church?
Our Holy Father the Pope, Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Christ on earth, visible head of
the church.
Other name for the Pope?
Sovereign Pontiff, Father of Christendom, His Holiness.
Close quote.
One need only read the 17th chapter of the Gospel of John, chapter 11, to realize the
error of this.
Jesus Christ, in his great high priestly prayer to the Father, said, Holy Father,
keep through thine own name those whom thou hast sanctified, the ones that you
have given me.
Keep through thine own name.
Whose name?
God's name.
What name?
Holy Father.
The only person designated Holy Father from the lips of the Lord Jesus is His
Father.
His Father.
Not the successors of Simon Peter, allegedly.
Now, that brings us face to face with what Peter said.
And I think we must go to Scripture to ascertain this.
The argument goes this way.
I say unto thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church,
and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.
Catholic theology teaches, and the Pope pronounces, dogmatically, that this refers
to Peter and his successors.
And that therefore, he has the keys of the kingdom of heaven.
The power to bind and loose are the keys of the kingdom.
Peter has it.
He is unique, and he is the sovereign pontiff.
The first one consecrated by Christ personally.
That's the argument.
I'm not going to get into grammar on rock, because that's been worked over by
experts, and I am not a grammarian in Greek.
I read it, but that doesn't make me a Greek grammarian.
I would like to bypass all of the unnecessary gobbledygook which surrounds
this type of argument.
And I would like to go to the heart of the argument on what is called a hermeneutical
basis, which means the interpretation of the passages that deal with this subject.
And there is only one that deals with the subject directly.
So when you are talking with Roman Catholics, a good approach is this.
Who is the one person that ought to have understood what Jesus said?
Who is the one person in context that should have known the meaning?
Answer?
Peter, because Jesus was talking to him.
Thou art Peter.
Upon this rock I will build my church.
Well, if Peter doesn't understand what Jesus is talking about, believe me,
the successors of Peter don't know.
So it's got to be Peter.
Now, did Peter understand what Jesus was talking about?
One suspects that he did.
So I want you to keep your finger in Matthew 16.
I want you to move over to 1 Peter, chapter 2.
1 Peter, chapter 2.
A passage not read frequently in Roman Catholic churches.
And in a moment you will see clearly the reason why it has a distinct lack of
popularity.
1 Peter, chapter 2.
Peter answers the question.
Laying aside all malice, guile, hypocrisy, and envy, and evil speaking,
as newborn babies desire the sincere milk of the word, that you may grow thereby,
if you have tasted that the Lord is good.
To whom, that's the Lord, verse 4, coming a living stone, rejected indeed by
men, but chosen by God, and perfect.
You also are living stones, built up into a spiritual house, a holy priesthood,
to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
Therefore, it is contained in scripture, Behold, I lay in Zion, a chief,
get this, a chief cornerstone, elect, precious, and he that believes on
him shall not be ashamed.
Please notice, this is a direct quote from Isaiah 28, verse 16, which is considered
to be Messianic.
Peter says, God prophetically told us, he was going to lay in Zion, the heavenly
city of God, Zion, a chief cornerstone, chosen and precious, and whoever believes
on the cornerstone will never be ashamed.
Now, was Peter that cornerstone?
Not according to Peter.
Unto you, therefore, which believe, he, Christ, is precious.
But unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders rejected,
that's Messiah, the same is made the head of the corner, not Peter, Christ,
a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense.
Even to them which stumbleth the word being disobedient, whereunto also they
were appointed.
But you're a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation,
a peculiar people, I'll say we are, that you should show forth the praises of
him that called you out of darkness into his marvelous light, which in times past
were not a people, but now are the people of God, which had not obtained mercy,
but now have obtained mercy, dearly beloved.
Oh, listen, Peter was a great saint.
And Peter is explaining what Jesus meant, very simply.
Who is the rock?
Christ.
What's the church built on?
Christ.
Who are you to believe on?
Christ.
If you trust in Christ, you're not going to be ashamed.
If you trust in Peter, you're going to blush forever.
Because he started out with the glorious statement, I don't know him, I never heard
of him.
And then he swore, I have no idea what he said, but I'm sure being a fisherman he
had quite a vocabulary.
And he swore, I don't even know him.
That's the first pope.
Now you will be ashamed if you believe in him.
If you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, you'll never be ashamed.
Now, Peter is backed up by Paul.
Ephesians 2 verse 20, write it down.
You have been built upon the foundation of the apostles and the prophets,
Jesus Christ the chief cornerstone.
Peter and Paul together forever.
Who's the foundation?
Christ.
Who's the rock?
Christ.
Who's the stone?
Christ.
End of argument.
Now go back to Matthew 16.
I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, a rock.
And upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell will not prevail
against it.
What about the keys of the kingdom?
The power to bind, the power to loose.
They're Peter's.
Yeah, but they're ours too.
Matthew chapter 18.
Whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound.
Whatever you shall loose shall be loosed.
On earth or heaven.
Pray that this may be the case.
The power to bind and loose.
Matthew 18.
18 belongs to believers.
Disciples as well as apostles.
Now once we put these together, and we look carefully at the passages of
Scripture.
We see immediately who the foundation of the church is.
The foundation is the Lord Jesus Christ.
And He, Jesus said, who is the greatest among you.
Matthew 23.9 is the servant of all.
Well if He is, and if the Master washed the feet of His disciples, then we should
expect the same kind of example from the history of the papacy.
We have not received that example.
We have received flowing robes, large churches built on the backs of
people.
We have seen the terrible disparity between the profession of Christianity and
the practice of it.
Simply visit the countries where Rome rules, and you will see it for yourself.
The American Catholic is a different breed of cats from the Irish Catholic,
the Spanish Catholic, the Italian Catholic.
Different.
Because there you find the theology I'm talking about now, today.
Just as much is alive as when Boniface VIII, and when the popes of yesteryear
wrote it and said it had to be believed.
You must understand, what you're seeing in this country is not pure Roman Catholic
theology.
What you are seeing in this country is a watered-down version adapted to the
American mind, so that the Americans will live with it.
Rome is a great chameleon.
She changes color on whatever surface you place her.
Here in this country, she cannot do the things she does in Spain and Italy and
survive.
And so she is different.
The face is different, but underneath, the theology remains unchanged.
The statement, we never change, is true.
They never change on the basics.
They will change on the peripherals.
Never on the centrality, the authority of the papacy.
Now, next week, when I discuss the papacy further, we will discuss papal decrees.
We will discuss how you can point out to Roman Catholics that they're literally
damned by one pope, and then redamned by another one.
Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
We will also go into the history of the papacy, to the first Vatican Council of
1870.
And we will spell out in detail what scripture has to say on the evolution of
an infallible pope.
But let us learn what history has to say.
Before the year 590 A.D., with the ascension of Gregory I, there was no
centralized Roman authority.
It was not until the 10th century, when the Eastern and Western churches
split, that there was anything known as the Roman Catholic Church.
10th century of the Christian era, a thousand years after the fact.
We will go into this historically, using Roman Catholic sources, so there
will be no doubt about the subject.
And we must understand, this is not an attack upon Roman Catholics.
This is a critique of the differences which persist.
Roman Catholic theology and Protestant theology.
If you are a devout Christian, who takes his Bible seriously,
you want to know why you believe what you believe.
You just don't want to take things for granted.
So, if you didn't get all these notes, get the tape.
We are going to have 5 or 6 weeks of this, or as long as I think is necessary,
for you to get educated on where we are.
And in response to Jack Chick and Alberto Rivera, who have accused me of being soft
on Roman Catholicism, I would draw to their attention that this material was all
printed by Walter Martin in the year 1958, before either one of them were Christians.
I therefore would draw to their attention, before they criticize their Christian
brothers, they should do their homework, which I might add, in most cases,
they haven't.
I do not do this series in response to Jack Chick or Rivera.
If I wanted to, I would have done that a long time ago.
I do it because many people in this class, and elsewhere, have asked for contemporary
information on Catholic theology.
We're going to get it.
We're going to get it in the light of the Bible.
And we're going to love Roman Catholics.
But we are going to be on guard as Protestants, lest we think there are no
differences.
There are lots of differences.
And Jesus Christ and his gospel are a very major part of those differences.
Why did Christ found the Church?
Christ founded the Church to teach, govern, sanctify, and save all men.
By what means does the Church sanctify and save all men?
The Church sanctifies and saves all men by means of the Mass, the Sacraments,
special blessings and devotions to save their souls.
Catholics must believe all the teachings of the Church.
Two, keep the commandments of God and the Church.
Three, pray to God and are worthy to receive the Sacraments.
That is from the Catholic Catechism as to how one obtains salvation.
What a contrast this is to the Apostle Paul.
When encountering the Philippian jailer in Acts chapter 16, the man cries out to him,
What must I do to be saved?
And Paul says, The Church sanctifies and saves all men by means of the Mass,
the Sacraments, and special blessings and devotions to save their souls.
You must believe all the teachings of the Church, keep the commandments of God and
the Church, pray to God and are worthy to receive the Sacraments.
Close quote.
I don't think so.
I think you get a very clear-cut statement from the Apostle Paul.
And Paul said, Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved.
And your whole house.
Simple gospel.
1 Corinthians chapter 15, the same Apostle said, I deliver unto you the gospel.
Christ was delivered for our offenses, died for our sins, and rose for our
justification.
That's the good news.
God appeared in human flesh, died for our sins, and rose from the dead for our
justification.
Clear as crystal.
Multiple passages teach us what New Testament salvation is.
It is the gift of God.
The wages of sin is death.
Romans 6, 23.
The gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ, our Lord.
So the Christian receives salvation as a gift.
Ephesians 2 reminds us, It is by grace you have been saved.
It's a past tense in the Greek.
Not by yourselves, not by your works, but through faith.
Lest any man should boast.
You're not going to get there by faith and works or any combination of it.
You're going to get there by grace alone through faith in Jesus Christ.
And then you will produce good works in your life to testify to the existence of
that salvation.
That's the purpose of works.
To testify to the existence of saving faith.
Roman Catholic Catechism.
Are all people bound to belong to the Catholic Church?
Answer.
All are bound to belong to the Church, and he who knows the Church to be the true
Church and remains out of it cannot be saved.
Why are all bound to belong to the Church?
All are bound to belong to the Church because Christ founded it for all nations,
for all times, and it alone possesses the means that is necessary for salvation.
What is meant by the meaning of the saying, outside the Church there is no
salvation?
Answer.
This means that whoever through his own fault willfully remains outside the true
Church will not be saved.
I think we're lost.
Because willfully, by our own fault, we choose to reject Roman Catholic
theology.
And according to the Catechism, that excludes us from the Kingdom of God
except, as I pointed out last week, by the doctrine of invincible ignorance.
If you are so incurably stupid that you cannot understand that the Roman Catholic
Church is the one true, holy, apostolic Church, then you will be saved because of
your ignorance.
Not, I should say, despite your rejection of them and because of your ignorance.
Now, there are many other quotations which I think are valuable.
I take the time to make them so that we will not get the idea that this is a
Protestant opinion.
The American Ecclesiastical Review, Roman Catholic publication, quote,
No one can have a real objective right to practice any but the true religion.
And Catholics believe that Catholicism is the only true religion which God commands
all men to accept.
Every other religion is false and opposed to God's plan for man's salvation.
Close quote.
So, I'm quoting these things so that you get some idea of the concept in which the
average Roman Catholic grows and matures in the educational process of the Church.
It is a closed system.
Absolute thought control enforced by fear.
If you do not, then you will not inherit.
I can remember when I was going to Roman Catholic parochial school.
Everybody was in mortal terror to get to confession on Saturday.
Did it change anybody's life?
No.
Did anybody stop sinning?
No.
Were they just as bad Saturday night?
Worse.
Then why did they go?
Because they were regimented to believe that if they didn't go, they'd be guilty
of mortal sin.
If they didn't confess mortal sin, they couldn't take the sacrament and
therefore they could end up in hell rather than purgatory.
So the entire system was fortified by this concept of fear.
Now, as Christians, what ought our attitude to be?
It ought to be an attitude of gratitude.
An attitude of joy.
Because God has delivered us from this system into the glorious liberty of the
sons of God.
We are not the descendants of this papacy.
Nor do we wish to be.
We do not wish its sacraments.
We do not wish its dogmas.
We worship only Jesus Christ.
King of kings and Lord of lords.
Redeemer and savior of lost men.
We reject a corrupt church.
A backslidden church.
An apostate church.
And reach out to her people with the love of Christ.
Holding forth Holy Scripture.
And standing upon the liberty wherein Christ has set us free.
Let us not think that Rome has changed her basic positions.
She has not.
Her catechisms are essentially the same.
Her dogmas, uncompromising.
It is the same Roman Catholic Church as at the Council of Trent.
Only carefully adapted to American Protestant culture.
It is a Roman Catholic Church which today threatens Protestantism in various parts
of the world.
Whenever she gains the upper hand.
Spain, Central America, Latin America, Italy, Ireland.
Bastions of Roman Catholicism are known for their marked intolerance of
Protestantism.
For their unwillingness to let Protestants build churches or only a restricted number
are permitted.
And still we are told that the church has adapted to the 20th century.
No, the church has adapted to the necessity of survival in the 20th century
as she always has.
But she has never changed the position.
Peter is not the first Pope.
Nor does he have the power, his descendant that is, have the power to legislate for
Christians.
When he tells you that he thanks the Virgin Mary for sparing his life when he
is assassinated.
And yet he is the vicar of Jesus Christ by profession.
Then I think it is time to realize that is the kind of leadership we do not wish to
follow.
And we wish to discourage other people from following.
Let us not forget the Bull Unum Sanctum of Boniface VIII.
I read it last week.
I close with it now.
We define, declare, affirm, and pronounce it to be necessary to salvation for every
human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
Pius IX, who was made the first infallible Pope, said, I alone, despite my
unworthiness, am the successor of the apostles, the vicar of Jesus Christ.
I alone have the mission to guide and direct the ship of Peter.
I am the way, the truth, and the life.
They who are with me are with the church.
They who are not with me are out of the church.
They are out of the way, the truth, and the life.
Let men well understand this, that they be not deceived or led astray by swarthy
stone Catholics, who desire and teach something quite different from what the
head of the church teaches.
Close quote.
So be it.
If that's what the head of the church teaches, let us be glad that on a door of
a chapel, Wittenberg, over 500 years ago, an Augustinian monk had the courage to
nail a large strip of paper, which said, in effect, I dissent, I disagree,
I protest, and argued for a return to the apostles and the rock of Holy Scripture,
on which all truth rests.
Our Father, we thank Thee that we have a heritage that comes through blood and
suffering, and which we must never take for granted.
We thank You for this opportunity to serve You.
We praise You and thank You for setting us free.
We pray for our Roman Catholic friends and brethren.
We pray for Him who is the Bishop of Rome, that Thy Holy Spirit may illumine them,
that they may see Thy Word as the supreme authority.
Sanctify us and them through Thy truth, Father.
Thy Word is truth.
In Jesus' name, with praise and thanksgiving, we ask it.
Amen.
This is the end of side one.
Please fast-forward the tape and turn the cassette over.
Will you open your Bibles with me to the Gospel according to St. Mark, chapter 7.
Mark, chapter 7.
I'd like you to read a few verses from the Word of God.
We talk on Roman Catholic tradition and the Bible.
Roman Catholic Church.
Catholic Bible and Tradition.
What does the word tradition mean?
According to the definition of the Roman Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 15,
page 7.
Quote,
As an example of this, the Catholic Encyclopedia, quote the 20th chapter of
John, verse 30.
This is the example that they're citing.
John 20, verse 30.
In the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book.
They also quote 2 Thessalonians, chapter 2, verse 15.
2 Thessalonians 3, verse 6.
Every brother who walks disorderly and not after the tradition which he received from
us.
Roman Catholic Church rests upon two pillars according to its theological
teaching.
The pillar of scripture and the pillar of tradition.
Now, what is this tradition that they are referring to?
It is oral tradition from the apostles, they claim inspired equally by the Holy
Spirit.
Which was given to the early church and transmitted through the sea or the chair
or controlling wing of the church of Rome through Peter.
Who was, by their affirmation, the first pope.
Now, we've already discussed that and pointed out that Peter did not consider
himself the first pope.
Said that Christ was the rock and that our faith should be in Christ and not in him.
So, I think that's been covered quite thoroughly.
But what we're dealing with here is another argument.
If you talk to a Roman Catholic theologian or the average well informed Roman
Catholic.
They will say to you, which came first?
The Bible or the church?
Now, if you say the Bible, you're in trouble.
Because it was the early Christian church that collected all of the books of the
Bible and sifted through all of the material which was present.
And tested it by the writings of the apostles, which they knew to be genuine.
And eventually, at the Council of Carthage, we had the canon of scripture as
we have it today.
Except that the Roman Catholic Church at the Council of Trent in 1546 added the
books which the Jews rejected in the first century.
The apocryphal books.
Otherwise, the canon of scripture is identical in the Old Testament to the
Jewish canon.
That is, the Protestant Bible's Old Testament.
And the New Testament is identical to the Roman Catholic version itself.
They have added apocryphal books.
But, what's really important is that tradition did precede the Bible.
Oral conversations and transmissions of the gospel.
But they forget that the gospel was inscripturated or in writing before the
fall of the temple.
With the exception of 1st, 2nd, 3rd John and the book of Revelation.
All the rest of the books of the New Testament and the canon of the Old
Testament already were established.
So, though they talk about tradition being important, and it is, it must always be
tested by what is known to be the authoritative word of God.
Don't jump down on tradition because there's lots of tradition which has
spiritual content and meaning.
For instance, the tradition of celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ.
That's nowhere enjoined upon the church in the first century of the Christian era.
But, December 25th was settled upon because it was a Roman feast day.
And therefore, by bringing in the celebration of the birth of Christ to
rival the feast day, the Christian church wiped out the pagan festival of
Saturnalia.
That's tradition.
So, traditionally we keep December 25th as the birthday of the Lord Jesus Christ.
But we don't know when Christ was born.
It could have been July, it could have been December, it could have been any
time.
But the fact remains, He was.
And that is the fact of the incarnation and culminating in the cross and the
resurrection.
Our redemption.
So, understand that tradition preceded the New Testament documents.
But all tradition is to be tested by the scriptures.
You don't test scripture and conform scripture to tradition.
Now, the word itself, paradosis in Greek, means that which goes along with,
alongside of.
When the Apostle Paul said that we were to pay attention to the traditions which you
have been taught, whether by word or by epistle, he never taught that tradition
replaced the epistle.
That's very important.
The scriptures tested everything.
Every opinion, every theory, every tradition was subject to holy scripture.
That was the viewpoint of the early Christian church.
And in fact, that was the viewpoint of the church fathers for the first five
centuries of the Christian era.
Tradition was subject to scripture.
However, when power centralized in Rome, political power and religious power
followed the centralization.
Then things really began to change.
And traditions came into the church which had no bearing whatsoever on biblical
theology.
I mentioned some of these to you.
Prayers for the dead.
The veneration of angels and dead saints.
The exaltation of the Virgin Mary.
The different dress of the priesthood and the laity.
The doctrine of purgatory.
Prayers directed to Mary, dead saints and angels.
Holy water mixed with a pinch of salt and blessed by a priest.
Tradition.
Baptism of bells.
Canonization of dead saints.
Celibacy of the priesthood.
The rosary.
The sale of indulgences.
All of these were traditions that came into the church and became dogmas of the
church.
That the church taught as if they were scripture.
However, it remained for the Council of Trent in 1545, after the Protestant
Reformation, to declare that tradition was of equal authority with the Bible.
After that, they proclaimed the Immaculate Conception of Mary and then the famous
Syllabus of Errors by Pope Pius IX.
You are probably not even aware as a Protestant of the Syllabus of Errors.
The Roman Catholic Pontiff, Pius IX, the first infallible Pope as of 1870,
declared that religious freedom, conscience, freedom of speech,
press, and scientific discoveries which are disapproved by the Roman Catholic
Church are to be condemned.
This was asserting the Pope's temporal authority over all civil rulers.
And from there to condemn the public school system, Pius XI, proclaim the
Assumption of the Virgin of Mary into Heaven in 1950, and proclaim Mary the
Mother of the Church by Paul VI in 1965.
If you add to that the following traditions, monks, nuns, monasteries,
convents, 40-day Lent, Holy Week, Palm Sunday, Ash Wednesday, All Saints
Day, etc., etc., etc., including St. Christopher, who was declared to be
fraudulent in the 1960s.
And in one fell swoop of the papal pen, they removed at least three or four
hundred at that time, people who were called saints that people were praying to.
We had a big Catholic church in our neighborhood named St. Philomena's.
And they found out that Philomena was a phony.
And that was the end of St. Philomena.
St. Christopher allegedly carried the Christ child.
Of course, that's very difficult for a person to grasp because Christopher is a
Greek name.
And what would a Greek be doing in a Jewish story carrying Jesus?
They didn't think about that one either.
But when they did, they abolished that.
And for a long time the tradition was that you could not eat meat on Friday.
You had to eat fish, to a tradition.
And then, of course, pressure was placed on the church and Vatican II.
And all of a sudden, it was no longer a sin.
God made no distinction between fish protein and animal protein as of Vatican
II.
Up until that time, he took a great dim view of eating meat on Friday.
Now, all of these strike us as somewhat humorous.
But more than that, they strike us as downright contradictory.
So that's why I thought it would be good to look at Mark chapter 7 for just one
moment.
Jesus speaking to the Pharisees about the abuse of tradition.
Now notice, as Protestants, we are not against tradition.
As long as tradition is in accord with Holy Scripture.
When it is not, we reject it.
But notice very carefully what the Scripture says.
The Lord Jesus Christ spoke to the Pharisees.
For the Pharisees and all the Jews, verse 3, except they wash their hands
often, do not eat, holding the tradition of the elders.
That's the word tradition there.
The tradition of the elders.
The Pharisees and all the Jews, except they wash their hands often,
do not eat, holding the tradition of the elders.
So it was a form of worship.
Again, verse 8, laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition
of men.
As the washing of pots and cups and many other such things do you do.
Verse 5, your disciples walked not according to the tradition of the elders,
but eat bread with unwashing hands.
Now, I just want to concentrate briefly upon that one very important fact.
They took normal traditions, and through these normal traditions, ended up adding
to the word of God.
And when Jesus Christ finally dealt with it in all of its fullness, he did not
hesitate to make this statement.
Verse 13, you make the word of God invalid through your tradition which you have
delivered, and many such things do you do.
So Christ's view of tradition was, it was dispensable if it contradicted or
added to the scriptures.
It's very important to understand that when we start adding tradition as equal
authority with scripture, we are violating Proverbs 30, verses 5 and 6.
Where we're there instructed by the Holy Spirit, add not to his word, lest he
reprove you, and you be found a liar.
As I've listed all the things that the church brought in, I think you can see
quite clearly we are not dealing with biblical authority.
We are dealing with papal authority opposed to biblical authority.
Tradition is not to be rejected, says Paul, because it consistently
expounds divine truth.
But tradition that came from apostles is one thing.
Tradition that comes from men who have made a habit of contradicting themselves
for a thousand years is not to be given equal authority with the word of God.
Therefore we test all these things by the scripture.
We are not antagonistic to Roman Catholics for their faith, because the basic faith
we share.
We're antagonistic to the additions to that faith in the name of authority and
tradition.
When it in fact does exactly what the Lord Jesus warned the Pharisees of.
It makes null and void the faith of the gospel through that tradition.
However, right now we've summed up a couple of things that are important about
tradition.
First of all, the word itself, paradosis, in Greek means to simply go
alongside of something.
And the Bible is the word of God, and what goes along with the Bible is what
the early church called tradition.
Now there are references to tradition in New Testament theology, and there's just
no way that you can possibly escape it, nor should we want to.
Colossians 2.8, the Apostle Paul warns against the wrong kind of tradition.
He says that we are not to be led astray by the traditions of men.
We're not supposed to be in any way corrupted by false traditions.
After the basic elements or traditions of the world, and not after Christ.
For in Christ dwells all the fullness of God in human flesh.
Colossians 2.8 and 9.
Then, the Apostle also tells us of another kind of tradition that we are to pay
attention to.
You find it in 2 Thessalonians 2.15.
So if you open your Bible to that, we can review these passages and then move
on to the conclusion of the lecture on tradition.
In 2 Thessalonians 2, the Apostle writing to this young, virile, tremendously
dedicated church that suffered persecution for its willingness to serve Christ,
the following words, 2 Thessalonians 2, verse 15.
Therefore, brothers, stand fast and hold the tradition which you have been taught,
whether by word or our epistle.
So, Paul acknowledges there is such a thing as Christian tradition.
That which goes along with the word of God, that which may be mentioned in the
word of God, whether it's by word of mouth or actually in the scripture itself,
Paul says, if it's consistent with the word of God, hang on tight to it.
Now, Roman Catholic theology rests on two foundations.
It rests upon the pillar of scripture and the pillar of tradition.
Protestantism rests only upon the pillar of scripture, but it considers tradition,
so long as tradition does not contradict the scriptures.
We have nothing, for instance, against the tradition of December 25th.
It's a pagan feast day, the pagan Saturnalia, which was taken over by the
Christian church, not by the Roman Catholic church, and recognized as a
celebration of the birthday of our Lord.
We accept that tradition.
We accept traditions in the Christian calendar consistently, such as Lent,
which is a tradition.
What does it mean?
It means you prepare for Easter by fasting and prayer.
It's not biblically enjoined, but it's a tradition.
Nothing wrong with that tradition.
So, the Christian who knows his Bible and her Bible doesn't have anything against
tradition that is in accord with scripture.
Where we reject tradition is where tradition contradicts the scriptures.
And that's exactly why I read the list of individual traditions to you in Roman
Catholic theology.
To show you that these are the things we don't accept because they are non-biblical
tradition.
Purgatory, baptism of bells, canonization of dead saints, celibacy of the
priesthood, tradition as equal authority with the Bible, infallibility of the
papacy, the assumption of Mary into heaven, and some 35 other traditions,
limbo, prayers for the dead, etc.
Christian Church doesn't recognize these.
The reason we don't recognize them is because the Protestant Christian Church
doesn't recognize them, is because they contradict the scriptures.
So, make this a basic rule of thumb when you're talking with Roman Catholics.
Disarm them by saying, I'm not against tradition.
I don't oppose tradition.
But, I believe in testing all tradition by the scripture.
Because the scripture is acknowledged as the word of God.
So, if something contradicts the scripture, you know immediately it is not
consistent with God's word, and you reject it.
Now, once you lay that foundation in talking to a Roman Catholic, before you
start discussing the Bible and authority and so forth, you have disarmed them
because they've been taught that Protestants want nothing to do with
tradition.
Not true.
We acknowledge tradition as long as tradition is in accord with scripture.
Often Roman Catholics will say to you, well, the church is the one responsible
for the Bible.
The church is the one responsible for tradition.
So, the church came first, not the Bible, and we should listen to the church.
That sounds like a very valid argument because historically the church did come
before the New Testament.
But, it forgets that the Old Testament came before the church.
And therefore, when the gospel was preached, the people of Christ's time
tested what the apostles said, and what Jesus said, by the Old Testament
scriptures.
If you read the book of Acts, you'll find the apostle Paul in Acts chapter 17,
stating that the Bereans were more noble than the Thessalonians.
The Thessalonians were very noble people.
More noble than the Thessalonians because they tested the preaching of the gospel,
what Paul told them, by the scriptures.
They went to the Old Testament scriptures and searched them to find out if those
things were true.
They were commended by the apostle for testing his own words.
You think about that for a minute.
Here's the apostle to the Gentiles, the greatest of all the apostles.
The most powerful and gifted of all the apostles.
And he preaches at Berea.
The Bereans listen to him and go home and open up their Bibles and check out what he
has to say.
And then they come back the next day and say, By George, you're right, Jesus is the
Messiah.
And they get saved.
But not before they did what?
Tested even the apostle.
Tested even the kerygma, the message, the gospel, by scripture.
So, we admit the church came before the New Testament scriptures.
But the Old Testament scriptures preceded that.
And therefore, recognize the fact that although the New Testament church brought
together what we call the New Testament scriptures today, they accepted only those
things which were consistent with Old Testament theology.
If it was not consistent with the Old Testament, they didn't accept it.
That's a very important rule to remember.
So, in biblical teaching, 2 Thessalonians 2 must be remembered.
There are such things as traditions, some of which originated with the
apostles.
But how will you know if the tradition is apostolic?
How will you know if the tradition is genuine?
How will you know if the tradition is from God?
Answer, 1 Thessalonians 5.
Test all things, hold tight to what's good.
How do you know it's good?
Scripture.
Test by Scripture.
So we test every church by Scripture.
The Roman Catholic Church tells us that we should test the cults by Scripture.
I've been told that by Catholic theologians.
I was told that by Bishop Fulton Sheen.
You'll find it in Catholic books, theology books.
The cults contradict the Scriptures, says the Catholic Church.
Right.
So the Catholic Church uses the Scripture to reject the cults.
Correct?
Then we must use the Scripture to test the cults and every church, not excluding the
Roman Catholic Church.
If the Apostle Paul was subject to test, so is John Paul II.
If the Apostle Paul was subject to analysis by the Bereans, so is John Paul
by the Orange Countyites and the Californians.
In other words, before we believe it, we test it.
We're not just talking about a change of political parties.
We're talking about the destiny of our souls.
That is far too important to leave in the hands of theologians.
Far too important to leave in the hands of priests, ministers, or religious leaders.
That's safe only in your hands and in the light of the Word of God in the hands of
Jesus Christ.
That's all.
Otherwise, we're all in trouble.
That's what makes us Protestant.
We protest against being thought for by somebody else.
That's the difference.
I do not wish to be thought for by somebody else.
Now, Scripture mentions another form of tradition which we are warned against.
You'll find that in Matthew chapter 15, verses 2, 3, and 6.
You may write these down, Matthew chapter 15, verses 2, 3, and 6.
And Mark chapter 7, verses 3, 5, 8, 9, and 13.
Mark 7, 3, 5, 8, 9, and 13.
Mark 7, the Lord Jesus Christ told us to beware of the tradition and the teachings
of the Sadducees and the Pharisees and the scholars of that day.
He warned the Jews against it.
Now, what was the great danger that accompanied human tradition?
There is an overriding danger to accepting human tradition.
What is it?
Now, you'll find it in Mark's gospel, chapter 7, verse 13.
You make the word of God null and void.
Mark that in your Bible because that's the meaning of the Greek.
You make the word of God null and void through your tradition, which you have
delivered.
In other words, it came from men.
You delivered it, not God.
And many such things do you do.
Mark 7, 13.
There is a danger from tradition.
There's a blessing from it and a danger from it.
Blessing in that if it goes along with the word of God, it can be spiritually
uplifting.
Danger, if it contradicts the word of God, it nullifies the scripture and throws in
doubt your entire Christian foundations.
So, says Christ to the Jews, your tradition makes null and void God's word.
That's scary, but it's exactly the warning from the Holy Spirit.
And then, finally, Paul tells us, 1 Corinthians 11, 23.
1 Corinthians 15, 3.
That tradition is part of the Christian message.
There's no reason why we cannot recognize it as such.
He said, I received from the Lord Jesus what I delivered to you.
In other words, he, without getting it from scripture, received personally from
Christ something that went along with the scriptures.
The communion service.
He wasn't present at the Last Supper.
But he said, the Lord told me this.
So at the Lord's Supper, do this.
Why?
The Lord's Supper, says Paul, as I'm telling it to you, came along from Christ
to me.
Unfortunately, it doesn't rest just upon the fact that Paul said it.
It rests upon the fact that it is inscripturated.
You find it in the Synoptic Gospels, exactly as Paul said it.
But he didn't have access to that at the time.
So, one final note of conclusion on the subject of tradition.
In John, chapter 20, verse 30.
There appears an all-encompassing statement.
John 20, 30.
Many other things Jesus did.
Got that?
Many other things Jesus did, and he said, that are not recorded in this book,
says John.
But these are written that you may believe.
Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and the believing you might have life in
his name.
It's very clear from John 20, that tradition existed in the church on the
basis of the Apostles saying, we heard Jesus say this, A, B, C, D.
I don't have any doubt about the fact there were many things they repeated that
Jesus said.
They are not recorded in the Bible.
Alright, the next logical question is, well, maybe the Roman Catholic Church is
right then.
Because, if these things weren't recorded in the Bible, and they were passed on by
tradition, then we would have to accept that tradition along with the Bible.
No, not at all.
Because, the tradition which was delivered was recognized by the church of the time
as consistent with the Bible.
We will apply the same test.
I'll go through that again, so you won't mistake it.
The church that existed at the time, the early Christian church, received
traditions.
They checked the traditions by scripture.
They accepted them because they were consistent with what God had said.
We are to do exactly the same thing today.
So, if the Roman Catholic Church says, Purgatory is an apostolic tradition.
Limbo is an apostolic tradition passed on by the church.
Our response is, let's test it out.
Do we find Purgatory?
Do we find Limbo in Scripture?
No.
Does the doctrine of Purgatory and the doctrine of Limbo contradict Scripture?
Yes.
Then it cannot be apostolic doctrine because the apostles will never contradict
Scripture.
Never.
And that's how we know the difference.
We know because Scripture does not controvert itself.
God does not talk out of both sides of His mouth.
He does not speak as the Indian expression says, with forked tongue.
He speaks consistently.
So, when anybody ever tells you this is tradition, believe it.
Test it by Scripture, which is believable.
When somebody quotes John 20, 30 to you, as Roman Catholics are prone to do,
many of the things Jesus did, which are not recorded here, say, Amen.
That's true.
Many things Jesus did and said are not recorded here.
There's only one way we can find out if they're true.
Does it agree with what is recorded here?
And if it doesn't, scrap it.
Because it is not biblical theology.
As Protestants, we do not despise tradition.
As Protestants, we recognize there is a body of traditional truth that came down
from the early church.
As Protestants, we test it by Scripture to ascertain its validity.
And once we see that it is consistent with Scripture, we accept it as spiritually
uplifting and instructive.
But we do not accept from Rome a dictate that something is true because Rome
affirms it is biblical tradition.
We test Rome as Rome herself tests the cults by Holy Scripture.
And we find out then if we are dealing with truth or with what Jesus warned us
about.
What Paul warned us about.
The empty elements of this world.
The vain traditions of men.
After the basic elements of mankind.
And not after Christ.
For in Christ, the living word, and in the Bible, the written word,
God has spoken for the last time.
And has revealed, finally, the faith.
Once for all delivered to the saints.
Our Father, bless Thy word.
That it may reach out, strengthen, encourage, and bless us.
That we may grow in grace and in Thy knowledge.
And exalt Thy Son, Jesus.
Whom we are, whose we are, and whom we serve.
Send us with Thy benediction.
Bless us as we go forth to serve Thee.
And use us that men may see in us Thy power and Thy grace.
And be born into Thy kingdom through Christ our Lord.
Amen.
For further information on this subject, remember that the Christian Research
Institute offers a wide selection of books, fact sheets, statements,
CRI prospective transcripts, and other user-friendly resources that will help you
to become better equipped.
Just write CRI, Box 500, San Juan Capistrano, California, 92693.
Or you may call 714-855-9926.