Millions of people watched with great excitement and anticipation on Wednesday as a new pope was elected as leader of the 1.2 billion-member Catholic church. This newest pope will be known as “Pope Francis I.” Even liberal media outlets were frenzied by the spectacle. People are always intrigued by the mystery and pageantry that attend the selection of a new pope.
Of course, Bible-believing non-Catholics have a different perspective on the office of the pope:
- We reject the very notion that God’s church has a human head. We believe Paul’s words in Ephesians 5:23, that Christ is the sole “head” of the church, and that He is the “savior of the body.” Christ alone is our “Chief Shepherd” (1 Peter 5:4). There is no scriptural authority for having human leaders of the universal church. This applies equally to the notion of Christ having a “vicar” as His earthly substitute. No such concept is taught by God.
- The universal church has no universal organization. There can be no head of the universal church if the universal church has no universal organization! The only level of organization authorized by the New Testament is that of the local church. “Elders” (also called “pastors” and “bishops”) were to be appointed in every {local} church (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5). Early Judean churches had elders (Acts 11:30). The Ephesian church had such men as their leaders (Acts 20:17 + 28-32). The Philippian church had elders (Philippians 1:1). Peter addressed the “elders” of the various churches throughout “Pontus, Galatia, Cappodocia, Asia and Bithynia” (1 Peter 1:1 + 5:1-4). No “popes” are ever mentioned in the Bible. No hierarchy of human leadership is authorized either.
- Catholics claim that the apostle Peter was the first pope, but Peter does not satisfy the Catholic definition of “pope.” Peter was married (Matthew 8:14; 1 Corinthians 9:5), and as noted before, he taught that “elders” (note the plural in all elder passages) were the leaders of local churches. Peter nowhere endorsed or authorized the concept of papal supremacy or of human headship over the universal church.
- Jesus explicitly instructed His disciples to “call no man your father upon the earth” (Matthew 23:9). He was speaking in the context of the wearing of religious titles, so calling one’s male parent “father” is not condemned (see Ephesians 6:2). However, calling a human “holy father” is indeed condemned by Jesus in this passage.
- Catholics recognize the pope as being spiritually authoritative. The apostles taught that only the Scriptures are spiritually authoritative (2 Timothy 3:16, 17), and that all other sources of religious authority are to be rejected – this includes popes and human creeds (Galatians 1:8,9).
No Bible authority exists for the office of the pope, thus its practice should be abandoned. No man is to be so honored by other men. God has expressed His will through His infallible and all-sufficient word. Papal “decrees” and “edicts” are as fallible as the men who issue them. Let us place our confidence in the “perfect law of liberty” (James 1:25).
Tim Haile
Dear Mr Haile,
I read with great interest your article on the Papacy.However in rejecting the Papacy -Your language -almost sounds Papal in itself.
Your acceptance or rejection has to be based on on subjective and and objective realities. You seem to imply that the Catholic Church teaches that Christ is not the Chief Shepard.
Coul you please substantiate that by sources.
You speak of the universal church. Do you find that word in Scripture. Where do you get that from?
I am only responding to your first point in your article.
Thanks,
Victor.
Victor, I’ll let Tim respond to you as he has time. But I wanted to address one point in your comment.
You said: “You seem to imply that the Catholic Church teaches that Christ is not the Chief Shepard [sic].” He didn’t address what the Catholic Church teaches about Christ. His point was about the Papacy and how that one man is the earthly head over the Catholic Church. This concept is completely foreign to Scripture. There is no earthly head of the Lord’s church. There is no organization of the Lord’s church found in Scripture any larger than the local church. Any greater hierarchy (such as is found in the Catholic Church) violates the instructions contained in the New Testament for the church.
Also, what exactly do you mean when you say the language in this article “almost sounds Papal in itself”?
Dear Mr Sochor,
I respond to that one point- I say imply – because Mr Haile,states that he believes that Christ is ‘Head-Savior and Chief Shepard’. He may not be aware but that is exactly what the Catholic Church has always believed.My many Catholic friends believe just that. He then talks about the human head of the church not stating in his article that Catholics believe that -Christ is the Head of His Church. He then states “the notion of Christ having a “Vicar” as His earthly substitute”. The Catholic Church has made no claim that the Vicar of Christ is a substitute for Christ.
One of his titles is The Vicar of Christ– not The Vicar as Christ.
Again in your response- you state “His point was about the Papacy and how that one man is the earthly head over the Catholic Church”. I state again that the Pope is not the Head over the Church but is the Head of the church. You must also note that one of his titles is “The Servant of Servants”.
You further say in your reply that the the concept of the earthly head is completely foreign to Scripture. If your starting points are the words of Paul and the words of Peter then,I say maybe you can come to that conclusion. However if the Words of Christ come first- which they should-and everything else revolve around His Words, the the concept will not be so foreign.
I get the impression and I may be wrong -that you view Scriptures are a set of instructions.
I end for the moment.Thank you Mr Sochor for your response.
Will get to Mr Haile’s point 2 later.
Victor.
Victor, I don’t doubt your claim that Catholics will say they believe that Christ is the head of the church. The issue is whether or not there is an earthly head over the church. In the New Testament, we find no organization greater than the local church. Therefore, any hierarchy that extends beyond a local church is not of God, but of man.
You said you could understand how I could reach the conclusion about there being no earthly head of the church when considering the words of Paul and Peter. However, you said that by considering the words of Christ, that concept would “not be so foreign.” Could I ask which words of Christ you are referring to in which He talked about an earthly head of His church?
Victor,
I “vicar” is one who acts vicariously in the place of, or on behalf of another. You are arguing with commonly accepted definitions when you claim that the pope does not act on behalf of Christ.
That is, according to Catholic perception.
Mr Sochor,
The Old Testament points to a Saviour. That Saviour is Jesus the Christ.The Old Testament is fulfilled in The New Testament in the PERSON OF CHRIST. To be Christian is to be CHRIST CENTERED.. He is the Source and the Summit. Whatever comes before Him and and after Him must be CENTERED in HIM.
Both you and Mr Haile have read the Bible I presume. Mr Haile in his article on the Papacy,quotes the words of Paul and Peter and rightly concludes that Christ is the Head of the Church and the Chief Shepard.
The Catholic Church has Dogmatically taught these Truths from the beginning.These truths Jesus taught his Apostles.
I repeat again- if you read the words of Peter and Paul without much reference to the words of Christ you could have an incomplete understanding of what is written.You have asked for words of Christ where He speaks of an earthly head. The Catholic approach is to go first to the Person of Christ and to His Sacred Words to be found in the Gospels. I give you a verse you have read often -Matthew chapter 16 (16-20). In these verses Jesus not only claims Ownership of His Church but makes mighty promises to Peter and entrusts Peter with the keys of His Kingdom.
Mr Sochor, I am sure you have pondered why there are about 40,000 denominations of Christian Churches in the USA?
I shall address Mr Haile -tomorrow. Thank you.
Victor,
I agree with your first paragraph. Everything we believe, teach, and practice must Christ-centered, for all authority belongs to Him (Matthew 28:18). However, the apostles were His hand-picked spokesmen (2 Corinthians 5:20). What they taught carried the same weight as what Christ taught while on the earth (1 Corinthians 14:37; 1 Thessalonians 4:2; 2 Peter 3:2).
Also, nowhere in Matthew 16 does Jesus appoint Peter as the head over the church. He gave him “the keys of the kingdom” because he would first preach the gospel to both Jews and Gentiles, not because he was to lead the church. Paul said that he was “not in the least inferior to the most eminent apostles” (2 Corinthians 11:5). How could this be if Peter was the earthly head of the church?
I have considered why there are so many denominations. It is because so many have departed from the Scriptures that reveal the Lord’s will. But the Catholic church is no different than these denominations. It has also gone beyond the Scriptures and practices things that are foreign to the word of God, such as infant baptism, praying to saints, a celibate clergy class, and even the papacy. Victor, have you pondered why there are so many differences between the practices and doctrines of the Catholic church and the Lord’s church that we can read about in the New Testament?
Mr Haile,
You state and I quote you ‘You are arguing with commonly accepted definitions when you claim that the pope does not act on behalf of Christ’. I have made no such claim.
What I am pointing out to you and your readers that in your article on the ‘Papacy’ in point # 1 you state ‘This applies equally to the notion of Christ having a vicar as His earthly SUBSTITUTE’. My objection is to the word ‘SUBSTITUTE ‘ that you use. The Catholic Church does not teach the that the Vicar of Christ substitutes Christ. The Church teaches – “Christ appointed the Apostle Peter to be the first of all the Apostles and to be the visible Head of the whole Church,by appointing him immediately and personally to the primacy of jurisdiction”. St Peter represents the position of Christ in the external government of the Church and to this extent “the representative of Christ” on earth. You seem to be in a position of authority in your Church and being in such a position calls for a greater caution in correctly representing the teachings of the other even if you are not in agreement.
Thanks
Victor.
Mr Sochor,
Well you and I seem to agree in principle that we should be Christ- Centered and you for the first time in our dialogue have gone to Christ words in Matthew 28:16. We also have agreement that all the Apostles were called by Christ directly. We can also agree that each and every book of scripture is inspired.
Now in your first paragraph of #8 you state ” What they taught carries the same weight as what Christ taught while on earth”. I would say this- the Old Testament awaits a Messiah- that Messiah is Jesus.The Jesus of the New Testament. Take away Jesus and the Old Testament is unfulfilled and there would be no New Testament. Therefore the Person of Christ, His actions and Words have a pre- eminence. He taught His Apostles for three years and then commanded them to teach the world everything He taught them.
When the Spirit came upon them at Pentecost they proclaimed the Good News orally -and while the first Writings would come almost twenty years later the main thrust of the Sacred Words of Christ would be through Sacred Oral Tradition. The Apostles were Christ Centered.They received the Living Word from Christ this group of Twelve upon whom Christ would found His Church.
Yes the Apostles through the Holy Spirit and being Christ Centered had that authority and to proclaim Christ both in Word and Writing.
In # 8 last paragraph you claim that many denominations have departed from the Scriptures and the Lord’s Will. You are right. However all these denominations go by the unbiblical teaching of ‘Only Scripture’. Correct me if I am wrong- but i think that your Church believes and follows this same tradition. A tradition that is man made and historically in existence for the last four hundred years or so. In the article on the Papacy Mr Haile references the writings of Paul and Peter almost ninety percent. You in your reply to me have referenced Paul writings as much. I find hardly any reference to Christ words in the Gospels.
This is what I mean when you quote the other parts of the New Testament without much reference to the Gospels and Christ words-it is then that you left with a flawed understanding of the teachings of Christ.
Only with the Written Word as his sole guide each one becomes his own interpreter. Splits are bound to happen with every disagreement. That is the sad story of the thirty to forty thousands denominations of churches in America. If you trace the history of your Church which could not be very old -I am positive you will find that it has split for another church. So is everyone right. Is truth a relative concept.
IN # 8 para two you quote 2 Corinthians 11:5. I will get to that later.
Thank you again.
Victor.
Victor,
Again, the divisions in the denominational world have not happened because of people following “only Scripture,” but because they have departed from the Scripture. We are not at liberty to define truth as each one of us sees fit. The word of God is an objective standard of truth. Therefore, everything that we believe, teach, and practice in religion must be judged according to the word of God – not according to our opinions, traditions, or church leaders.
There are certain principles you and I agree on, but there is one fundamental difference that makes discussions like this difficult. We follow different standards of authority. I believe we must go to the Scriptures to find authority in religion. You believe that we can go to the Scriptures, but not exclusively, because we can also use the traditions and commandments of men.
Earlier I mentioned certain practices of the Catholic church that were completely foreign to Scripture (infant baptism, praying to saints, a celibate clergy class, and the papacy). I cannot and will not accept those because there is no authority for them in the New Testament. Yet you (I assume) accept them because they are commands and traditions that have developed from men you regard as somehow having a right to legislate in matters of religion. I believe Jesus is the “one Lawgiver” (James 4:12). You believe He has delegated that authority to certain men today.
If we cannot at least agree on the same standard of authority, any discussions we have are only going to go in circles.
Mr Sochor,
I state again that Sacred Scripture is Inspired. You keep stating that men have departed from the Scriptures and I am in agreement with you. You state “We are not at liberty to define truth as each one of us sees fit.” I agree with you again.
Mr Sochor – Martin Luther stated that every one from the humble milkmaid to the king had the right to interpret the Scriptures as he or she saw it fit. The year was around 1520. It was a novel idea at the time. No one before that in the Christian world had made that statement. No doubt there were many around at the time who loved that idea. What was the immediate result- denominations. Starting with a few and today around 40,000, all in the past 500 years.
These men 500 years ago, Luther Calvin and Zwingli each read the same Scripture and had different interpretations that resulted with 3 different denominations and their respective followers. Very soon the followers reading the same Scriptures interpreted it differently from their masters. They could not agree with each other so the followers began their own denominations. All these men were sincere they all went to the same Sacred Scriptures and to each one of them the Scriptures were their final authority.
You make the same claim 500 years later. How are you different. What is the history of your church. A rough trace of your history-The Restoration Movement from there the Disciples of Christ then the Church of Christ. Am I very wrong in saying this. So what level of truth do all these denominations have?
Mr Sochor at the start of his revolt against the Catholic Church Martin Luther claimed that everyone has the right to interpret Scripture . Now at the end of his life Luther said
“As many heads there are so many interpretations of Scriptures there are and each one different from the other.”
Mr Sochor if ten people were to read a book or look at a painting- would they all understand the book the same way or describe the painting in the same way?
Did Our Lord hand his Apostles a book and say thats all you need?
Victor,
The Scriptures are our standard. Everything we believe, say, and practice must be tested according to the Scriptures. No man is our standard – not the Pope, not Martin Luther, not you or me. You keep bringing up the mess and confusion of denominationalism. I agree, it’s a mess (though I would contend that the Catholic church is a part of that). What is the solution? Not to blindly follow the Pope or any other man. We must search the Scriptures to find the truth (Acts 17:11).
You asked: “Did Our Lord hand his Apostles a book and say thats all you need?” Not exactly, but He did promise to send the Holy Spirit who would “guide [them] into all the truth” (John 16:13). Therefore we study the New Testament Scriptures, not the decrees of the Catholic church, to find the truth and what the Lord expects of us.
Mr sochor,
You say “The Scriptures are our standard.” Here is the problem that you are not addressing. Forty thousand other denominations make the same claim that Scripture and Scripture alone is their standard. I have said this before that their interpretations from reading the same Scriptures are different from each other and different from yours. Now, these denominations are as sincere as you and your Church is.
So 1. Who has the truth? 2. If you say that your denomination has it – How do you reasonably come to that conclusion?
You also quote Acts 17:11. You also state we should follow no man. Who was Paul? Was he not a man ? Acts 17:11 is about the Jews in Beroea. What was the Scriptures that these Jews were familiar with – You will agree that it was what we now call the Old Testament. Verse 11 says that ” these Jews were far more fair minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all willingness and examined the Scriptures daily to determine if these things were so.”
Now in verse 11 lets examine the actions of the Jews in relation to what you say or your Church teaches. You say we should follow no man but we should search the Scriptures.
For the Beroens the only scriptures were the Old Testament. In listening to Paul preach,they in effect went beyond their written Scriptures. They heard Paul’s words and objectively applied it to their Scriptures. It is only then that they could discern the truth. The Jews of Thessalonica
rejected the Oral Traditions of Paul and so rejected Christ.
Had the Jews of Beroea followed no man and gone only to Scripture they would have lost Christ. The very notion of ONLY SCRIPTURE is impossible and unbiblical. You may like to think that you are going by scripture only- in reality you are following the interpretations of some man- Maybe Mr Campbell?
Victor
Victor,
You’re right about the denominations claiming to follow the Scriptures. Clearly, making the claim to follow the Bible, even if it is done in sincerity, is not sufficient. The solution to the problem of religious confusion is not to throw out the Scriptures, but to actually follow the Scriptures.
You’re correct that the Scripture the Bereans searched was the Old Testament. The Old Testament was designed to lead men to Christ (Galatians 3:24). So they searched the Scriptures to learn the truth – not to be a follower of Paul, but to become a follower of Christ. Paul was not promoting himself, but leading people to follow Christ (2 Corinthians 4:5).
I do not follow the interpretations of any “Mr Campbell.” Frankly, your notion that people are not reasonable and honest enough to follow Christ for themselves is insulting.
You asked: “Who has the truth?” God does. His word is the truth (John 17:17). We are to walk in the truth (2 John 1:4). You seem to think that one being right is determined by his being part of a denomination. I contend that one being right is determined by his obedience to the teachings in the word of God.
Mr Sochor,
I am glad you see that claiming to follow the Bible only even if done in all sincerity may not be sufficient. It could lead one to misunderstand or misrepresent some passages of Scripture. Its not the scripture thats the root of the problem but man interpretation of the Scripture. We must heed Christ’s words in Matthew 28:20 “Teach them everything I have …commanded you.” We see a quick follow up of Christ instructions in Acts 8 where Philip is told by an angel to go to the Ethiopian. In verse 30-31 Philip asks him ” Do you really grasp what you are reading?” ” How can I, ” the man replied, “unless someone explains it to me?” The Ethiopian was reading the Old Testament with great sincerity but he did not understand. What he was reading was inspired but yet he did not understand. It became clear to him only when Philip expounded the Life of Christ to him. He had to go beyond the written Sacred Text -he had to listen to Philip before Christ became reality to him.
Peters words in 2 Peter 3:16 should be reflected on. The unstable and ignorant in sincerity can distort the Word of God. The idea of throwing out Scripture as a solution did not come from anything I said -I do not recall you having implied that either. You keep talking of going to the Scriptures and following it. I have no problem with that-But how do you know you are really following the Scriptures?
In retrospect its easy to say that the Old Testament was designed to lead men to Christ. We have that advantage today.
I have not implied that the Jews read the Old Testament to become followers of Paul. If you read my point # 14- 4th. paragraph I stated clearly in listening to Paul, in that sense they follow Paul. My point being they had to go beyond their Sacred Text to come to the truth.
Mr Sochor – My intention is not to insult you. You are offended and I am very sorry- please accept. The decision to follow Christ is one of free will. I do respect that always. However the decision to follow Christ is not in ordinary man from the day he is born. He is dependent upon someone telling him about Christ. Parents,family ,friends teachers they all may play some part. The decision to follow Christ comes after hearing about Him. You keep harping about going to the Scriptures- My only point is that some one played a part in showing you the Christ.
Unless one has had a” Pauline Experience” where Christ appears directly to the person. Those are few and far between.
Mr Sochor- again you take my question out of context. If you would kindly read my point #14 paragraph one – my question “so who has the truth?” is not in relation to God but between other denominations and your church. All other denominations claim to follow Scripture and have it as their sole Authority. Your church makes the same claim. They also claim to follow the teachings of the Scriptures as you do. I have made no claim that being part of a denomination will determine if you are right. I am in agreement with your contention that we should be in obedience to the Word of God.
Lets be a little more specific -lets take the Disciples of Christ and the Church of Christ. How would you determine who is faithful to the Scriptures?
Victor
Victor,
Your example of the Ethiopian eunuch is a good one. Why couldn’t he understand the passage he was reading without Philip’s help? Because the passage was speaking of Christ and he didn’t yet know about Christ. So what did Philip do? He “preached Jesus to him” (Acts 8:35). You implied that Philip explaining to the eunuch how Jesus fulfilled Old Testament prophecy is the same as the extra-biblical commands and rules that originate in the minds of human religious leaders (like the pope). They are in no way parallel. The Old Testament pointed to Christ (Galatians 3:24). Nothing in the Bible points to a papacy that would usurp the headship of the church from Christ and establish laws and decrees that would be contrary and/or in addition to the teachings we find in the New Testament.
You said: “The decision to follow Christ comes after hearing about Him.” I agree. Paul said, “So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ” (Romans 10:17). Having been taught by someone doesn’t necessarily mean you’re following that person. We are to follow Christ and obey His word.
You think I’m taking your question out of context, but I know of no other way to answer it. Who has the truth? God does. In a sense, you could say that anyone who has a copy of the Scriptures has the truth, since the word of God is truth (John 17:17; Psalm 119:160). The question should be, who follows the truth? No denomination of man owns the truth. We must test our beliefs, teachings, and practices by the Scriptures. If we’re wrong on any point, we must change. On those points in which we’re right, we must remain steadfast.
Mr Sochor,
I referenced the passage of of Philip and the Ethiopian only to stress that the Old Testament even though Inspired needed an interpreter -we see that in the role of the prophets of the Old Testament. God always entrusted his Will and Word to be fulfilled by men. Men whom He chose and sent.
You for your part misinterpret my words and draw your own conclusions. My only point is that God both in the Old and New Testament chose men to explain and protect his teachings.
In #17 your second para you state ‘Having being taught by someone doesn`t necessarily mean following that person .’ That is true to a point. If that person teaches you the truth and you except it,you then follow the truth. The person who taught you is the channel of that truth.
If a person teaches error and you accept that teaching – you than follow the error. The person is the channel of that error. One is the teacher of error and one is the teacher of truth. My point being that no man is self made.
In your third para You tell me that God has the truth.I think we both agree on that? My question to you -and you keep avoiding the answer- that if two different churches take the same Book and come to different conclusions then who has the truth?
You talk about Gods word being the truth. I agree with you,
but even though its true -we still have thousands of interpretations.How do you know what is right and what is wrong? If you tell me that going to the Scriptures you will come to the truth – that does not work because all denominations that follow Sola Scriptura – got to the Scriptures with quite amazing results.
You also state if wrong you must change and if right must remain steadfast. Are you meaning yourself or your church.
Victor
interpretations of that word. The fault is not of
Victor,
Our discussion is going around in circles, and I fear it is reaching the point of becoming unprofitable (if it has not reached that point already). The “proof” you have cited to argue your point that we can go beyond what is written in the Scriptures is the failure of men to follow the Scriptures. This does not prove the insufficiency of the Scriptures, only the failure of man to follow it in the instances you referenced.
You have asked what church has the truth. My response was that since the word of God is truth (John 17:17), then whoever is faithfully adhering to the Scriptures is right. That’s not avoiding your question. That’s the answer. Again, your reference to those who claimed to follow only Scripture but failed to do so does not in any way prove that we should go beyond the Scriptures. We must always examine the Scriptures to determine what is right.
Example: baptism. Some baptize infants. Others baptize believers. Who is right? We need to examine the Scriptures. When we do, we find NO examples of or references to infants being baptized. We also see that belief ALWAYS comes before baptism (Mark 16:16; Acts 8:36-38). So who is right, those who baptize infants or those who baptize believers? Obviously, it is those who baptize believers.
Another example: instruments of music in worship. Some use musical instruments to accompany their singing in worship. Others only sing without accompaniment. Who is right? We need to examine the Scriptures. When we do, we find NO examples of or references to instruments of music being used in worship to God. Second, we have a hermeneutic principle stated in Hebrews 7:14 – when God has specified something (in that case, the fact that priests would come from the tribe of Levi), everything else is unauthorized (such as priests coming from the tribe of Judah). God’s word specifies vocal music as the type of music used for psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs (Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16). Therefore, all other types of music (such as instrumental music) are unauthorized when we sing these types of songs.
So while there are people who claim to follow the Scriptures but practice different things, that does not mean we ignore the word of God as our perfect standard. Instead, we must study the Scriptures with an honest heart (Luke 8:15) and an attitude of humility (James 1:21) in order to learn the truth so we can then practice it (James 1:22; Colossians 3:17; Matthew 7:21-23).