Misreading Reality – Jeremiah 44

After Judah and Jerusalem had been destroyed by the Babylonians and the people deported, and carried away captive back to Babylon, the remanent remaining defied God and left for Egypt.  The Bible says, “for whatever things were written before were written for our learning” (Rom 15:4 NKJV) and there is certainly a lesson to be learned from the way that remanent misread reality, a lesson to be applied in our time.  Because of their misperception, they experienced catastrophe.

After Nebuchadnezzar captured Jerusalem and destroyed the city he carried away captive back to Babylon most of the people who remained alive but left some of the poor people of Judah with a man named Gedaliah to govern over them.  When Jews who had been scattered roundabout heard about Gedaliah being left to govern they returned to Judah (Jer. 40:11-12).  However, a plot was hatched by the king of the Ammonites to have Gedaliah murdered (Jer. 40:14) which took place (Jer. 41:2-3) creating great fear among the Jews fearing that Nebuchadnezzar would seek revenge on them for this killing even though they had nothing to do with it. (Jer. 41:17-18)

Their desire was to flee to Egypt where they thought they would be safe.  They sought Jeremiah to inquire of the Lord what they should do.  This he did the Lord telling them if they would remain in Judah it would go well with them, he would save them, but if they were to go to Egpyt “then it shall be that the sword which you feared shall overtake you there in the land of Egypt” (Jer. 42::16 NKJV).

Here is our first lesson.  They did not believe Jeremiah, “You speak falsely!” (Jer. 43:2 NKJV)  We are now some 40 chapters into Jeremiah.  Jeremiah has been prophesying to them for years before Nebuchadnezzar and his prophecies have all been shown to be true by the events that have come to pass.  Is he now to be judged a liar?  They have every assurance he is speaking the truth but they cannot accept it.  Why not?

Well, certainly it is a lack of faith but why?  It is hard to trust one you have been away from so long.  They had been steeped in idolatry which is why Judah was destroyed by the Babylonians, God calling Nebuchadnezzar his servant (Jer. 25:9).  He was God’s instrument to punish.  They had come to trust in their idolatry as we shall see as we continue on.  They had lost trust in God. 

Sin is deceitful (Heb. 3:13).  The prodigal son of Luke 15 thought things were going well until they weren’t.  The Bible says “when he came to himself” (Luke 15:17 NKJV) he repented (verses 18-19).  There is a sense when one gets caught up in sin that he does not think right, he is reading life wrong, judging matters incorrectly, thinking wrong but he/she does not think so.  Sin is deceitful. 

Sometimes one’s life has to be almost destroyed before you can get the person to change their thinking.  The Jewish people finally got out of pagan idolatry once and for all but at what an awful price.  In our own time, we see how the Japanese got out of Emperor worship and the Germans out of Nazism but it took destruction to bring it about.

“The heart is deceitful above all things.” (Jer. 17:9 NKJV)  “There is a way that seems right to a man,  but its end is the way of death.” (Pro. 14:12 NKJV)  Both of these passages assuredly apply to the Jews of that time but they also apply to you and me today.  Our heart tells us this or that but how reliable is it?  We are persuaded we are doing the right thing but are we?  These Jews were sure going to Egypt was the right move.

Upon the arrival of the remanent of the Jews in Egypt and their settlement, Jeremiah continued to speak to them God’s word.  “Why do you commit this great evil against yourselves … in that you provoke Me to wrath with the works of your hands, burning incense to other gods in the land of Egypt.” (Jer. 44: 7-8 NKJV) 

Hear their reply.

“Then all the men who knew that their wives had burned incense to other gods, with all the women who stood by, a great multitude, and all the people who dwelt in the land of Egypt, in Pathros, answered Jeremiah, saying: "As for the word that you have spoken to us in the name of the LORD, we will not listen to you!  But we will certainly do whatever has gone out of our own mouth, to burn incense to the queen of heaven and pour out drink offerings to her, as we have done, we and our fathers, our kings and our princes, in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem.  For then we had plenty of food, were well-off, and saw no trouble.  But since we stopped burning incense to the queen of heaven and pouring out drink offerings to her, we have lacked everything and have been consumed by the sword and by famine." (Jer. 44:15-18 NKJV)

Yes, they badly misread reality.  They thought when they were living in sin before God’s punishment that the good life they were enjoying was because of their idolatry.  The reality was it was because of God’s great patience and longsuffering, granting them time and opportunity for repentance but they could not see that.

Herein lies the final lesson to be learned.  It can be difficult at times to read reality.  Things that seem to be one way may be just the opposite.  Job had an awful time with this.  What is going on?  We do not know why things happen.  We may misjudge and misunderstand.  Things can be very deceiving.  One thinks of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16.  The rich man was receiving God’s blessings, an abundant harvest.  Did this reflect God’s approval of his character?  To ask is to answer.  But, at the time it may well have seemed that way.

The poor man in that account, did his state reflect his spiritual status?  Again, to ask is to answer.  It would be easy to misjudge reality looking at this case if one was not privy to the whole story as given in the scriptures.

The lesson to be learned is that we cannot depend on our wisdom and judgment to direct us in life.  Just because it seems right, whatever it is, does not make it right.  God’s word must direct us, believing and obeying is the only answer to life. 

Solomon nailed it in closing out the book of Ecclesiastes when he said:

“The end of the matter; all has been heard.  Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man.” (Eccl. 12:13 ESV)

This was the failure of the Jews of Jeremiah’s day, they did not do that.  May it not be our failure in our day.

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

 

Philip, The Miracle Working Evangelist

Philip, while not an apostle, not one of the twelve, was nevertheless an important figure in the earliest days of the church.  He along with Stephen were among the seven that were chosen by the church in Jerusalem to oversee the work of providing for the needs of the Hellenistic Jewish widows in the daily administration, evidently an administration of food and sustenance by the church to widows in need.  The qualifications for these seven men as put forth by the apostles was that they be “men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom.” (Acts 6:3 NKJV)

That they were full of the Holy Spirit is readily seen by the historical account of both Stephen and Philip in Acts 6:8-8:40.  Of Stephen it is said he “did great wonders and signs among the people.” (Acts 6:8 NKJV)  Philip did much the same as can be seen from Acts 8:6-7, 13.  The people of Samaria “heeded the things spoken by Philip, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did.” (Acts 8:6 NKJV)  Simon, the one we often call the sorcerer, in accompanying Philip “was amazed, seeing the miracles and signs which were done.” (Acts 8:13 NKJV)

How did these two men, and our emphasis is on Philip, come to have such power?  How was it granted to them and why?  Was it by the laying on of the apostles’ hands?  We are told that was the way the Holy Spirit was conferred (Acts 8:18).  Stephen and Philip were men full of the Holy Spirit before the apostles laid hands on them in Acts 6:6, read carefully Acts 6:3-6 with a view to chronology.  However, this could have been a second laying on of hands in Acts 6:6 that is recorded for us.  Perhaps the apostles had laid hands on them at an earlier date to confer the Holy Spirit.

Not every laying on of hands was for the purpose of imparting the Holy Spirit (see Acts 13:2-3).  It was on occasion an act showing support, approval, and fellowship when commissioning others for a task such as when Paul and Barnabas had hands laid on them as they departed on their first missionary journey.

It may be that God conferred the miraculous measure of the Holy Spirit directly himself in the early days of the church as well as through the laying on of the hands of the apostles.  I have always wondered how Philip’s daughters who prophesied came to have that gift.  Did one of the apostles lay their hands on them?

Joel quoted God as saying, “I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh; You sons and your daughters shall prophesy.” (Acts 2:17)  He did not say he would use an intermediary to do this.  See also Acts 2:18.  Acts 8:16 seems to imply to me, at least, that at times the Holy Spirit did fall on a baptized believer.  It reads, “For as yet He had fallen upon none of them.” (Acts 8:16 NKJV)  That implies to me that sometimes the Holy Spirit did fall on brethren without the laying on of hands.  I may be mistaken.

A number of prophets are mentioned by name in the book of Acts - Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen in Acts 13:1, Judas and Silas in Acts 15:32,  and Agabus in Acts 21:10?  Were they made prophets by the laying on of the apostles’ hands?  How about the unnamed prophets in Acts 11:27?  Some were indeed made prophets that way (Acts 19:6) but did God not make any prophets without the laying on of hands?  That is the question.

The Corinthians were to “desire spiritual gifts”(1 Cor. 14:1 NKJV) and “earnestly desire the best gifts” (1 Cor. 12:31 NKJV) even though it seems the church was full of spiritually gifted people already (1 Cor. 14:26).  But, Paul was not present with them as an apostle when he wrote them.  How were they to acquire spiritual gifts if no apostle was present to lay hands on them if that was the only way spiritual gifts were transmitted?  Is it not possible that God would confer those gifts directly himself?

1 Cor. 14:13 says that one who speaks in a tongue ought to “pray that he may interpret.” (NKJV)  This was a gift if it was to come that would be conferred directly by God himself, not by a laying on of hands, or so it seems.  The individual already had a gift, the gift of speaking in a tongue, but if he was to receive a second gift, that of interpretation, it was prayer that was needed, not the laying on of the hands of an apostle.  Again, so it seems to me. 

Then one wonders about the Ethiopian eunuch that Philip would convert shortly after the Samaritans (Acts 8:26-39).  Philip, not being an apostle, could confer no spiritual gift to him.  Was the eunuch going to be able to do the Ethiopian people much good without one or more spiritual gifts?  How were they to be acquired if not directly from heaven?  Did the eunuch have Philip’s sermon memorized so he could teach others?  He did have the scriptures, at least Isaiah, so perhaps he could have evangelized without a spiritual gift but one does wonder.

One can go back even earlier in time.  When Jesus was a babe the Bible speaks of a man named Simeon who saw Jesus as a baby in the temple.  He had been promised he would not die before seeing “the Lord’s Christ.” (Luke 2:26 NKJV)  The Bible says “the Holy Spirit was upon him.” (Luke 2:25 NKJV)  This gift did not come by the laying on of hands.  In the same chapter in Luke, we read of Anna “a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher.” (Luke 2:36-38 NKJV)  Her gift did not come from the laying on of hands.  There were no apostles yet.

The point I am getting at is I think it likely God conferred spiritual gifts upon mankind independently of the apostles at his discretion during the infancy age of the church.  I am certainly not denying the apostle’s ability to confer the miraculous measure of the Spirit by the laying on of hands.  The question is only about whether or not that was the one and only means of receiving such a measure in those days.

But it is a minor issue and of no real importance in view of the fact the days of miraculous spiritual gifts have long since passed.  Such gifts accomplished their purpose for that day and age and for all time which brings us to what that purpose was.

Why did Philip and others receive the miraculous measure of the spirit beyond the ability to teach the truth without error?  What was the purpose of wonders, signs, and miracles?  The apostle John in his written account of the gospel says he recorded Jesus’ signs to create belief.  “And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.” (Joh 20:30-31 NKJV)  So, the signs Jesus’ performed were to create faith.

They were also provided to confirm the word that was preached was indeed the truth and from God.  “How shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him, God also bearing witness both with signs and wonders, with various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to His own will? (Heb 2:3-4 NKJV)

These things have ceased today for they are no longer needed.  Once a truth has been confirmed how many times do you have to go back and reaffirm it?  Miracles, signs, and wonders that continue for centuries become commonplace and cease to amaze and create wonder.  They cease to be miracles, signs, and wonders and in doing so fail to convince of anything.

Philip’s ability to perform miracles had great effect in Samaria.  The biblical text says, “And the multitudes with one accord heeded the things spoken by Philip, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did.” (Act 8:6 NKJV)  And then, “When they believed Philip as he preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were baptized.” (Act 8:12 NKJV)  We thus see the purpose of miracles being fulfilled.

These people were now Christians.  However, they lacked spiritual gifts of any kind for Philip not being an apostle could not convey the Holy Spirit in its miraculous measure to them and God had not conveyed it to them directly.  It came by the laying on of the hands of the apostles.  “Through the laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Spirit was given.” (Acts 8:18 NKJV)  Peter and John came to Samaria and did this for the brethren there (Acts 8:14-17).

These brethren were saved from their sins prior to receiving the miraculous measure of the Spirit.  Had Peter and John never come down to Samaria the brethren there would have still been saved.  However, without miraculous gifts it would have been hard for them to carry on once Philip left them.  They were babes in Christ.  There were no New Testaments.  Their knowledge and understanding was likely limited to the very first principles of the gospel.  One must also recognize the limitations of the human mind.  How well do we remember things?  How well can you argue spiritual matters from memory alone?  The apostles themselves were promised the Holy Spirit to help them to remember.  “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.” (John 14:26 NKJV)

The need for spiritual help and guidance in every congregation established in the first century is one of the things that leads me to the belief that sometimes God likely bestowed gifts of the spirit directly as well as through the hands of the apostles unless we believe all congregations established in the first century were established by the apostles.  We know God did the bestowing directly with Cornelius and his household even if we believe, as I do, that on that occasion it was for a special purpose.

One other comment before closing this chapter on Philip’s preaching life.  Many think baptism is no part of the gospel.  Philip did not think that way.  He preached baptism as a part of preaching Christ and the kingdom of God.  How do we know?  The text does not say he did.  The text does say they were baptized, “both men and women were baptized.” (Acts 8:12)  How did the Samaritans know anything at all about baptism if Philip did not preach it?  Thus we see to preach “the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 8:12 NKJV) involves preaching baptism.

The final question – did Philip preach non-essentials?  He did if baptism is not essential to salvation as so many teach today.  You must remember Philip was a Holy Spirit inspired preacher.  Think on that before belittling baptism.

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

 

 

More on Peter’s Second Gospel Sermon – Acts 3

Some time ago, I wrote an article entitled, “Peter’s Second Gospel Sermon – Acts 3.”  I would refer the reader to that article first before reading this one.  It can be found on this site.  I thought I would do a follow-up on that one to cover the subject as thoroughly as possible.

The thrust of that prior article was that what Peter preached on the Day of Pentecost that a person must do to have his/her sins forgiven (Acts 2:38) is the same thing he preached in his second sermon (Acts 3:19).

Here are the two passages side by side.

Acts 2:38	Acts 3:19
Repent	Repent
Be Baptized	Be Converted (NKJV) Return (NAS)
For The Remission of Sins	Sins Blotted Out

One can easily see the parallels.  However, Peter in his second sermon in Acts 3 said, depending on your translation, “be converted” (NKJV), “return” (NAS), “turn back” (CSB), “turn again” (ESV) rather than “be baptized” as in Acts 2:38.  How does one account for this given the fact there is but one gospel, one way of salvation from sin?  One must also remember Peter was speaking not from himself but through the Holy Spirit in both instances.

The answer lies in this – the Acts 3:19 account uses a general term that tells the one who hears what must be done but does not tell how to do it.  The how to do it is to be baptized but the listener is not told that.  Why not?  If the sinner was told he must be baptized in Acts 2 for the remission of his/her sins, is the same preacher, in the same city, at nearly the same time, inspired by the same Holy Spirit going to tell a different group there is another way?

This was preaching that was interrupted, the preacher was taken into custody “as they spoke.” (Acts 4:1 NKJV)  There was to be no opportunity for baptism on that occasion.  The preaching began somewhat late in the day for it was around the hour of prayer which was 3 o’clock in the afternoon (Acts 3:1) when the lame man was healed by Peter.  The preaching began after a crowd gathered as a result of that.  We are also told after Peter and John were taken into custody and jailed they were held over until the next day for it was already evening (Acts 4:3).

This was not a long preaching event nor was there an opportunity for baptizing then and there.  This sermon made believers, about 5,000 (Acts 4:4).  Certainly, Peter and John could not have baptized 5,000 men alone.  They could have gotten help but that would have taken time and they were alone at the temple.

(Commentators are uncertain whether the number 5,000 in Acts 4 represents 5,000 new believers or is the total number of believers from the Day of Pentecost up through this day in the aggregate.  For our purposes, it does not matter, in either case it would still leave Peter and John with more to baptize than they could baptize alone.  If you take the 3,000 converts from the Day of Pentecost from the 5,000 here that would still leave the two of them with 1,000 each to baptize.  We will proceed as though the 5,000 were new disciples.)

Does this mean the 5,000 believers were not baptized?  Not at all.  It only means not on that evening by Peter and John.  We already have 3,000 baptized brethren in Jerusalem from the Day of Pentecost sermon and the twelve apostles plus others for “the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved” (Acts 2:47) and who can say how many of them there were.

It was not going to be hard for the 5,000 to find out what was involved in being converted or turning back to the Lord.  The apostles had become well known in Jerusalem due to the miracles that had been done.  “Fear came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles.” (Acts 2:43 NKJV)  Peter had the opportunity to preach in Acts 3 because he had just worked a miracle.  This day was not going to be the last opportunity for these believers to consult Peter or the other apostles or converts.  Where would you find them?  Generally, near the temple.  They would not be hard to find.

And, add to that fact, it is likely some or many of these 5,000 had already heard of what had happened and been taught and done on the Day of Pentecost.  Perhaps some had even been present and while not converted that day had impressions made on their hearts and minds going back to that time.  If so they likely knew baptism was a requirement for turning back to the Lord and likely knew where they could go to accomplish that.  When we want something done in our day we know where to go to get it done or how to find out how to get it done.  They would have been no different.

No doubt they were anxious to have their sins forgiven for Peter had earlier in his speech convicted them of their guilt in having Christ crucified (see Acts 3:13-15).  Peter also tells them, “Every soul who will not hear that Prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.”(Acts 3:23 NKJV)  This is motivating speech.  A man must get right with God.  When a man is motivated enough he will seek out the ways and means of salvation.

If one believes the preaching of the apostles was inspired then one is saying the Holy Spirit was the one speaking, speaking through the apostles.  The Holy Spirit is God.  I think it probable, simply speculation here on my part and to be taken as such, that the reason Peter was not more specific on baptism in Acts 3:19 was because the Holy Spirit knew what the circumstances of that occasion were – no opportunity for immediate baptism.

One must always remember Jesus in the Great Commission demanded that disciples be baptized.  “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” (Matt. 28:19 NKJV)  Peter would surely have done this in Acts 3 had he had the time and opportunity.  Peter was not an anti-Christ.  We can be confident the 5,000 were baptized in the days that followed.  Peter was not preaching a different gospel or a different way of salvation on that day in Acts 3 versus what he had preached on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2.

 [To download this article or print it out click here.]

 

 

 

  

Tradition in Catholicism

What is the role of tradition in religion?  Is it positive or negative?  In Jesus’ day, I think we have to say it was negative.  I remind the reader that while Jesus, a Jew, walked the earth he was living under the Law of Moses.  Christianity, the religion he brought to the world, only began after his resurrection.  In fact, without the resurrection there could be no Christianity.  “If Christ is not risen, your faith is futile.” (1 Cor. 15:17 NKJV)  Christ was “declared to be the Son of God with power … by the resurrection from the dead.” (Rom. 1:4 NKJV)

Jesus had to deal with tradition while living under the Law of Moses with the Jewish leaders of the land.  He and his disciples were constantly harassed by those who felt he and his followers were breaking the law of God.  Those accusations were based on what – scripture or tradition?  Obviously, on Jewish tradition but one has to remember the Jewish authorities believed their tradition had God as its source just as do the Catholics of our day.

Let us hear Jesus on the topic: “Then the scribes and Pharisees who were from Jerusalem came to Jesus, saying, ‘Why do your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.’  He answered and said to them, ‘Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?  For God commanded, saying, 'honor your father and your mother'; and, 'he who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.'  But you say, 'Whoever says to his father or mother, "Whatever profit you might have received from me is a gift to God” then he need not honor his father or mother.'  Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition.” (Mat 15:1-6 NKJV, see also Mark 7:1-13)

The Pharisees were always watching Jesus for any transgression of their traditions, traditions which to them were equivalent in authority to the writings of Moses and the prophets.  There would be no healing on the Sabbath, no plucking of grain to satisfy hunger on the Sabbath.  The law of man-made tradition was made in their eyes into the law of God and they would hear of nothing else.  Scripture alone was not enough.  It had to be interpreted by those in positions of power within the religious community which resulted in additions, subtractions, and perversions.  Do you see any parallels in this to Roman Catholicism?  You should.

So that is where we were with tradition in the days when Jesus walked the earth.  Jewish tradition continued to evolve with time.  Judaism today is a religion far distant from the Law of Moses. 

The apostle Paul spoke of tradition in some of his writings.  In Gal. 1:14 he talks of his time before his conversion to Christianity when he was “exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers.” (NKJV)  This would have been during the time when he held the coats of those who stoned Stephen to death, “And when the blood of your martyr Stephen was shed, I also was standing by consenting to his death, and guarding the clothes of those who were killing him.” (Act 22:20 NKJV)  This is where a blind zeal for religious tradition can lead a man. 

Paul further says, “Many of the saints I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death, I cast my vote against them.” (Act 26:10 NKJV)  This, of course, was before his conversion to Christianity but while he was enslaved to religious tradition. 

After Paul’s conversion, in later life, he warned against tradition, “See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition.” (Col 2:8 ESV)  So, we have been warned.  How can we say we have not?

But did not Paul speak positively about traditions?  He did so in 1 Cor. 11:2, 2 Thess. 2:15, and 2 Thess. 3:6.  To the Corinthians he said he praised them that they kept “the traditions as I delivered them to you.” (NKJV)  To the Thessalonians he said, “Hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.” (2 Thess. 2:15 NKJV)

What are we to make of these statements?  Just this, if Paul delivered the traditions to them, to the Corinthians, then that is what we would call teaching.  What else would you call it?  A number of versions do not even use the word traditions here.  The King James Version uses the word “ordinances,” the New Living Translation uses the word “teachings” as does the Good News Bible, while the LITV (the Literal Translation) uses the word “doctrines.”  It was not tradition in the sense in which men use the word today but rather Christian doctrine that Paul delivered to them. 

The same thing can be said for the 2 Thess. 2:15 passage where the NIV uses the word “teachings,” the NLT “the teaching,” the Good News Bible “truths,” YLT  (Young’s Literal Translation) “deliverances.”  The same can be said regarding the 2 Thess. 3:6 passage in that the same Greek word is used in all three passages, the word for traditions being in Greek the word “paradosis.”  So the point to be made is that what Paul was speaking of was not traditions in the sense in which we normally use that word but was speaking of his own spirit-inspired teachings he had delivered to those to whom he spoke or was writing to.

I add this, some of the things (commandments, teachings) from the Old Testament were carried over into the new and in that sense some of those things could be referred to as traditions if one chose to do so.  As one example, nine of the Ten Commandments were brought over into the New Testament the only one which was not was to remember the Sabbath and keep it holy.  Such a tradition when carried over took the force of a commandment for those living under the New Covenant, under Christianity.  Honor your father and mother can easily be seen as both a tradition and a commandment.

The apostle Peter also spoke of tradition.  He speaks of ‘aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers” (1 Peter 1:18 NKJV) as he spoke to the Jews of the Dispersion.  One can surely see Peter was not speaking positively of the tradition they had accepted.

One can ask the question, one ought to, why should we blindly accept religious tradition -- why?  Is it because it cannot be wrong?  Why can’t it?  If it could be wrong in the first century it can also be wrong in the twenty-first century. 

Having already written about Jewish tradition in the times of Jesus we move on.  It is time to turn to Roman Catholicism.  I assume the reader likely already knows that with Catholics tradition is on par with scripture in terms of having authority over one’s spiritual life.  Traditional Catholicism has rejected the Bible alone as being a sufficient guide to eternal life.  Furthermore, they have historically rejected the idea that a person unaided by the church can understand the Bible on their own.  The church will tell you what it means.  You can have a Ph.D. in biblical languages, you can be brilliant intellectually, but unaided by the church you are helpless in discerning the true meaning of scripture.  If you want to know what scripture means you must listen to the church.  They will tell you.

What is a correct interpretation of a passage?  Whatever the church tells you.  That is why when you read about Jesus’ brothers and sisters in whatever standard translation you want to use you need the church to tell you it is not so.  They will then go into an explanation of why involving the meaning of Greek words as though the scholars who translated our Bible versions were not able to translate reliably.   This is just a singular example of how you need the church in Catholicism.

In Catholicism, it seems you get your doctrine first and then read back into scripture what you desire or need.  

In Catholicism, it is impossible for Mary to ever have been anything other than a lifelong virgin, despite Matt. 1:25, thus one must get rid of the brothers and sisters.  (I challenge anyone to read Matt. 13:55-56 in context and then say it means anything other than biological brothers and sisters.)

You cannot combat tradition in Catholicism.  Why not?  Because the church has declared itself infallible in its teachings and people blindly accept that.  It is an easy way out of being personally responsible.  The Catholic Church has made itself untouchable.  You can no more combat it than you could Judaism in the first century.  Masses of people died in Judaism despite Christianity and masses will die in Catholicism despite Christianity likewise.  Eve did not get a pass from God for being deceived nor did the man of God who after prophesying against Jeroboam’s altar in 1 Kings 13 was then deceived by an old prophet and paid for it with his life.  Should we hope for a pass if we allow ourselves to be deceived by man’s tradition?

There is an aspect of Catholic tradition most people are unaware of who are not Catholic.  In Catholicism, tradition does not mean what you naturally think it means.  With most of us, tradition refers to what has gone on in the past and then been handed down.  We assume then that in religion it would be what has been handed down through the ages.  That would not be necessarily so, it seems to depend.

Get on the internet and search for a timeline on Catholic dogmas.  When you do so you will find lists giving the dates of when this and that dogma became official.  There will be many of them crossing the span of the past two thousand years.  If these various dogmas came from scripture they would have been incorporated from the beginning of Christianity.  They came from tradition, Catholic tradition.  I bring this to your attention to make the point that Catholic tradition does not go back all the way to the first century.  It jumps in wherever the powers that be want it.

Catholics disagree among themselves on the meaning of tradition.  The traditional view, of which I have already spoken, separates tradition from scripture, but only by combining the two can you have the sacred deposit of faith, as some call it, or put another way “the word of God.”  Scripture by itself is only partial, only part of the word of God.  The word of God in Catholicism requires both scripture and tradition for completion.

A second school of thought in Catholicism sees tradition as being whatever the church says it is.  I know, I know, no Catholic would agree with this statement but hear me out.  With this second school of thought in Catholicism all of Catholic tradition is already found in written scripture but the church has to bring it out (by its interpretation).  Thus they can find in scripture things the average reader cannot even imagine – transubstantiation, the papacy, Mary’s Immaculate Conception, her Assumption, purgatory, etc., things you need the church to help you find.  Some describe Catholic tradition as being “living.”  I would certainly agree with that, living and growing, and that is just the problem with it.

Roman Catholicism is a religion separate unto itself.  It is not Christianity.  I have no problem saying it evolved out of Christianity but it long ago ceased to be Christian.  So, why are we surprised?  Did not the same evolution from truth into error occur in Judaism?  Even the New Testament teaches there will be and must be a falling away before the second coming of Christ (2 Thess. 2:3).  The scripture teaches there will be a falling away so let us not talk and act like it cannot happen.

Let me play the role of a Catholic for a moment.  As a Catholic I declare the Catholic Church to be the one and only church of the New Testament.  I claim to believe scripture so what do I do with 2 Thess. 2:3, “Let no one deceive you by any means; for that day (the last day – DS) will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition”? (NKJV)  It says my church will fall away for after all my church is the only true church according to Catholicism.

I cannot say this passage refers to the Reformation.  Why not?  There is no one in Protestantism sitting "as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God." (2 Thess. 2:4).  In fact, since Protestantism is so diverse and divided it is hard to see how that could ever be.  And, yet, believing what I do, remember I am putting myself in the shoes of a devout Catholic, how can there ever be a falling away in my church since the church is said to be infallible, full of the spirit of God?  I cannot solve this dilemma for the Catholics.  I am sure the Catholics will have an answer if pressed, and when they do it will be said to be infallible for you see that is the way it is in Catholicism.

[To download this article or print it out click here.]