This “policing” effort has gone so far that a Chicago area school has banned parents from giving their children a sack lunch.  The principal has said, “Nutrition wise, it is better for the children to eat at the school,”.  Needless to say many parents are upset about this edict.  But why are they upset?  This form of forced and coerced food restrictions has been practiced for centuries without many having anything to say except “Oh, it’s Friday”.

The Catholic organization has routinely over many years commanded abstinence and fasting which at least date back to Pope Nicholas I (858-867).  This pope declared abstinence from flesh meat on Fridays.  The Catholic organization has many such prohibitions that are imposed on its adherents.

In the Catholic Sunday Missal, published in 1956, there are 9 rules for fasting and abstinence.  There are rules on complete abstinence and partial abstinence, on the age and health of the participants, the days of the week and year, how much meat can be eaten, and even snacking in between meals.  The caveat to these rules is that they apply to those in the United States and that there could be some difference in regulation of these laws according to the desires of the bishop of a particular diocese.

It has become a sad state of affairs when man discounts the knowledge given by God for his own attained knowledge.

When it comes to food if we read the Bible we can get some very insightful knowledge that is easy to apply.

In Exodus 16 we read of the children of Israel as they complained about the lack of food.  God provided bread for them in the morning (verse12); the quail mentioned in verse 13 were not a daily provision but one that would be given occasionally.  They were given commands concerning this bread, This is the thing which the LORD has commanded: ‘Let every man gather it according to each one’s need, one omer for each person, according to the number of persons; let every man take for those who are in his tent.’” (Exodus 16:18).  These commands continued, And Moses said, “Let no one leave any of it till morning.” (Exodus 16:19).  The lessons here are simple take what you need for each person and eat what is put in front of you.

Another lesson to be learned is found in Numbers 11.  The children of Israel are complaining about food, again, and desiring meat.  They were also longing for the days in Egypt when they had a variety of food.  They were not thankful for the food that sustained them day after day but wanted something else.  God said He would give them meat until it was coming out of their nostrils and loathsome to them.  The quail came and the least of gathered ten homes (verse 32), which is about 11 bushels.  Their greediness and gluttony showed as they complained against God and then gathered much more than they could eat.  A lesson here is evident in that we ought to be thankful for what we have.  We all have stories about growing up and the food that we had to eat.  Those older than myself might speak of a diet of beans and potatoes, while I remember Spam, beets, and sauerkraut.  While it may not sound appealing and we got tired of the same meal it is what we had and we didn’t starve.

The lessons continue.

In Proverbs 23:1-3 we are warned about gluttony and craving the delicacies of the rulers. In verses 20 & 21 we are warned the glutton will come to poverty.  When we put our stomach as our lead and guide no good thing will come.  There comes a time when the stomach rejects any more food but the glutton is such a slave to his appetite that he rejects the warnings sent by the stomach.  The warning given in Philippians 3:19 simply says, whose god is their belly.  Again, these serve their physical appetites without regard for spiritual things.

As far as the banning of foods the Old Law is rife with laws concerning the foods that can be eaten and those which cannot be eaten.  With the understanding that the Old Law has been done away with those regulations are no longer binding (Colossians 2:14).  So we must look to Jesus and understand what He has commanded under His law.

In Matthew 15:16-17 Jesus said something that foreshadows what will be under His law, ¹⁶So Jesus said, “Are you also still without understanding? ¹⁷Do you not yet understand that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and is eliminated? Jesus was under the Old Law and He kept in perfectly, but this verse gives an indication of what will be.  In 1 Corinthians 6:13 Paul wrote, Foods for the stomach and the stomach for foods and from the context of the passage Paul exhorts us not to come under the power of any of our physical desires and urges whether it is food or any other yen.

It is good to remember the vision that Peter had in Acts 10.  God used the vision of the beasts on the sheet and His command to “kill and eat” as a sign to Peter that the Gentiles were to be taught the Gospel also.  Peter did not understand the vision at the time but later when he met Cornelius he understood.  The additional lesson to be understood comes from the fact that God cannot and will not tempt man to sin.  It was not sinful for Peter to eat any of the meat presented to Him first because God had cleansed it, (verse 15) and second because the Old law was past.

When the apostles and elders of the church in Jerusalem met to discuss the conflict over circumcision in Acts 15 they determined that the Gentiles should not be burdened with the things of the Old Law (verse 10).  When the letter was written that was sent to the disciples among the Gentiles in Antioch the commands were simple and clear; abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, and from things strangled (verse 29).

As if that example was not enough the apostle Paul also wrote to the Colossians, ²⁰Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations— ²¹“Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,” ²²which all concern things which perish with the using—according to the commandments and doctrines of men? ²³These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh (Colossians 2:20-23).  He also wrote to Timothy, ¹Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, ²speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, ³forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth (1 Timothy 4:1-3).  From these passages we learn a simple lesson that self imposed religion such as abstaining from foods is useless, of no value, and are from the deceiving doctrines of man.  What is the purpose of these doctrines other than to enslave its adherents to the will of others?

Paul also wrote to the churches at Corinth, 1 Corinthians 8, and Rome, Romans 14, specifically about the eating of meats offered to idols.  He did not prohibit the eating of these meats but cautioned that they should be sensitive to the consciousness of those who were weaker in the faith.  As a part of the Gentile’s idolatrous worship practices the eating of these meats was a continuation of the sacrifice that was made at their temples.  If a weak brother or sister in Christ saw another eating such meat they might consider it as a part of idol worship, not being able to discern that it was just meat fit to consume for the nourishment of the body.  The stronger in the faith were cautioned not to put a stumbling block in front of their weaker brothers and sisters in Christ by eating this meat in their presence.  It didn’t matter if they ate the meat or didn’t eat the meat; it didn’t matter if the meat was offered as a sacrifice to an idol or was fresh off the hoof, but food does not commend us to God; for neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we do not eat are we the worse (1 Corinthians 8:8), what mattered was the example and influence they had on each other and whether they would be causing one to stumble by their eating.

When it comes to the wisdom of man it is a foolish and futile path that man walks down.  While his knowledge has profited him greatly he ignores that wisdom and knowledge that comes from the one who gave him the ability to think in the first place.

Many have decided that they must make decision for the masses because they really know what is best.  Whether it is a principal usurping the authority and responsibility of the parents or a pope, or any religious leader, demanding adherence to man-made traditions and regulations over the simple teaching of the Gospel; we must read and apply the Bible in our lives, be the Christian example for those around us, and teach others of the folly of following man over obedience to God.

What can I eat?  Anything I want within the confines of the doctrine of Christ, with thankfulness, ignoring the edicts and bulls of man; not craving more, being a glutton, and not wasting out of abundance.

History of Evil Spirits

From a historical standpoint, possession of evil spirits has been around as long as civilization itself. Ancient Mesopotamia believed and recognized bad fortune, diseases, and all other sicknesses as the work of evil spirits prevailing in a person. Ancient Babylonian priests carried out the ritual of melting a clay statue in the figure of a demon to disconnect the evil spirit from the body. The Persians, Greeks, Hindus, and even the Romans all looked at demon possession as real, all having spiritual leaders and rituals to cast out these demons.

From a biblical standpoint, the mentioning of demon possession has a far shorter history than the world perspective. The Old Testament mentions nothing of “free will” demons attaching themselves or possessing human beings. The only mention of any kind of spirit occurs with the case of Abimelech (Judges 9), and Saul (1 Samuel 16).

Abimelech was the son of Gideon, the great judge who defeated the Midianites with only 300 men (Judges 7:7, 21 8:30-31). It was coveting of power that led Abimelech to kill all of his brothers save one, that he could become ruler. The Lord sent a “spirit of ill will” (evil spirit-KJV,ASV) upon Abimelech and the people of Shechem. This was not the Lord tempting Abimelech, (1 Corinthians 10:13; James 1:13-14) but rather allowing Abimelech to pursue his own evil desires. This made the people of Shechem rebel against him, and he ended up dying as he had lived, a prideful man (Judges 9:53-55).

King Saul had disobeyed the Lord on two occasions, both of them cost him his right to be king and his kingdom (1 Samuel 13:11-14; 15:10-26). It was during this time that the Lord sent a “distressing spirit” upon Saul causing him to be swallowed up in his own grief (1 Samuel 16:14-15).

The nation of Israel under the Law of Moses was forbidden to have anything to do with pagan spiritists or diviners (Leviticus 19:31; 20:6, 27). This is why the exercising of demon possessed souls does not show up in Jewish history until around the 1^st century A.D. The dybbuk is considered a demon possession which causes a person mental illness, and changes in their personality.

Unclean Spirits of the New Testament

The dawning of the New Testament era brought with it a new wave of demon possession across the lands of the bible. This shows an interesting contrast between the times that demon possession pops up and the purposes God has for mankind. All during the 400 years of silence (the time period which God had no verbal interaction with man), no possession of demons are mentioned in the secular history of mankind within these lands.

When the time for Christ to come into the world approached, God allowed spiritual things to take place, and demon possession was one of them. It is interesting to find that nearly all of the mentions of demons possessing people happen within the three year span of Jesus’ life covered in the Gospels. Only three instances occur outside of the gospels; Peter cast out unclean spirits from the people surrounding Jerusalem (Acts 5:16), Phillip in Samaria as he preached the gospel there (Acts 8:7), Paul did it twice during his travels preaching the gospel (Acts 16:16-18; 19:12). This is to show the point that demon possession was not at random, but rather was planned and calculated so that the Messiah would be glorified through the miracles He would perform.

Consider the whole purpose for God to work miracles through man to begin with, it is to prove a message that was spoken (Mark 16:20). When we answer the reason why Jesus cast out these unclean spirits in this particular point of time in history, we understand the reason for demon possession in the first place. Jesus cast out demons from people so that they would know He was the Messiah (John 5:36). Consider his first time casting out an unclean spirit, from the man in the synagogue at Galilee. As Jesus cast it out, He had to rebuke it because it was testifying of Him as the Son of God. After this spirit had come out, many people were curious of Him, this was exactly the point! The people wanted to know by what authority Jesus did this, what doctrine this was, and who this man is?! Such a reaction was exactly what Jesus expected. In many other instances this is also the case; (Matthew 4:23-25; 8:29; Mark 3:11, 22; 5:7-8, 20; Luke 4:41).  So God’s whole purpose of allowing demon possession in the times of the first century was to prove Jesus as the Messiah, whether by Jesus Himself, or later on His apostles and disciples.

If Jesus gave this power to His apostles and disciples (Matthew 10:1; Luke 10:1, 17), does this mean that everyone could possibly have this power also? No greater example exists in answering this question than that of Sceva and his sons (Acts 19:13-17). Practice of magic and incantations was common in the days of the first century, and the Jews were no exception. Ephesus in particular was a popular place for magic, shown with the vast number of people coming and confessing of these deeds (Acts 19:19). Jewish practitioners of magic were highly esteemed, as they only were known to have the correct pronunciation of the sacred name of God. The ancients misunderstood this and looked to it as a prestigious magical incantation. The priests especially were looked upon as higher, being they had closer contact with God. However, the account with Scevas’ sons shows quite the opposite as far as what God thinks of them. As these exorcists looked to use the name of Jesus as an incantation, seeing the effectiveness Paul had with it, were overpowered by this demon and humiliated along with it.  The name of Jesus was not to be misused, something these men learned firsthand!  Not everyone using the name of Jesus is going to have success, but only those who carry with it the approval and authority of God! These sons found themselves in the same circle as Simon the Sorcerer (Acts 8:20-21). If an exorcism is going to take place, than it must first have the power of God, and second the authority of God, this does not happen by merely saying the name of Jesus, but only happens to those who whom it has been given!

Exorcisms Happening Today

This leads us to our final question. In order for exorcisms to be valid today, demons must still be free to roam the earth and possess whom they please, but is this the case? Demons are spiritual beings (Matthew 8:16), they are not simply changes in personality that develop in a person, but enact a distinct and sudden change, foreign to the person. These are spirit beings that were able to leave the human body and enter into swine (Mark 5:12-13). Demons no longer exist today in this sort. The fact is God no longer needs demon possession to exist, because He has completed His message to mankind, and has given us a complete word that needs no addition, making demon possession no longer valid in proving Jesus as the Messiah.

God from long ago had a timeframe in which demons would operate in the way we read about in the New Testament. But, this time frame was not to carry on forever. God prophesied through Zechariah that demon possession would end and not last forever (Zechariah 13:2). For exorcisms were a miracle that God performed through Jesus and the hands of men, and Paul wrote to us that miracles also were not to last forever, but only be here until the perfect came, which is the completion of the word of God (1 Corinthians 13:8-13). Demon possession was indeed a miracle, for it involved something that is supernatural (not of this world). So the need for demon possession does not exist in our modern day time, for they no longer serve God’s purpose.

Biblical Exorcisms vs. Modern Exorcisms

A comparison of the way modern exorcisms are carried out reveal quite a bit of difference from the way that those in the bible were carried out. When Jesus or any other person in the New Testament cast out a demon, the response was immediate (Acts 8:7; 16:18). The demon would go out, and never do we hear of it entering another person. The only subject a group of demons would enter were swine, and this was still under Jesus’ authority (Mark 5:12-14). Once the demons were cast out, they were gone, never to return; this shows the true power that Jesus and His ministers had over demons!

However, this is a far stretch from how modern exorcisms are performed today. The Catholic system of exorcism exists in what is called The Rituale Romanum (The Roman Ritual).  This consists of a series of prayers, reading of scripture, and then while laying hands on the victim, the priest calls for the demon to succumb to the power of Jesus Christ. Catholic exorcists never work alone, but generally have three other people to “assist” in this ritual. The first person is normally another priest who is in training, the second is a medical physician, and the third is usually a physically strong member of the victim’s family to hold them down. If the victim is a female, then another female is chosen for this position, to avoid scandal. Perhaps the most famous exorcism of our modern day time was that of Anneliese Michel. Her eventual death from malnutrition came after a period of 10 months performing exorcisms and over 76 exorcism sessions.  As one can clearly see, the performance of exorcising demons has changed drastically from the days of the first century.

Conclusion

Exorcism and demon possession in our modern day does not exist. In fact, nearly all of the cases of supposed demon possession have been diagnosed with normal human disorders by psychiatrists and medical doctors. The bible teaches that demon possession has served its purpose, and therefore no longer has a point to be around today. When comparing the modern practices to those of biblical times, the difference is obvious. If God could cast out demons instantly back then, why would the same God take months to do the same thing today? The purpose of demon possession was to show that Jesus is the Christ, and without a faith in Him, there is no hope for your soul (Acts 4:12).

The Apostate Church

Soon after the church was established men began to seek innovations in congregational government, work and worship.  There was a gradual change in thinking regarding the concept of authority.  The attitude of the apostles and first century Christians was, "If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God…" (cf. 1 Peter 4:11).  But, as the years progressed, the concept that tradition should be viewed as equally authoritative as scripture gradually developed.

Today, the Catholic church has expressed this principle absolutely:

"It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls."

Cathechism of the Catholic church (95)

Such a view coincided with pattern changes in the nature and work of our Lord’s church.  For example, churches were at one time satisfied with the Bible pattern of a plurality of elders in every congregation, and church autonomy (cf. Philippians 1:1; Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:2).  However, a gradual departure from that biblical pattern has resulted in the ecclesiastical  structure presently seen in the Catholic church.

Similar departures from Biblical patterns have resulted in unscriptural worship, the adoption of pagan days, and man-made doctrines such as the veneration of Mary, purgatory, celibacy, etc.  These things are from man, not God, and are condemned in principle by passages such as Matthew 15:9, "And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men."

Protestant Reformation

Much is made of the reformation efforts of men such as Luther, Zwingli and Calvin in the 1500′s.  However, these efforts, designed to reform the Catholic church, fell far short of a return to Bible authority for religious beliefs and practices.

Denominational creeds replaced church tradition, but both were substituted for Bible doctrine.  Humanly devised theologies were embraced rather than plain Bible teaching, and many of the conventions and innovations of Catholicism were retained in the Protestant denominations.

Christian Church

In the United States in the early 1800′s some became disillusioned by such human innovation.  A movement began to return to the Bible and the Bible alone for religious authority.  Men began to again respect Peter’s admonition, "If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God…"  We owe our heritage as Christians in this country, at least in part, to these efforts.

However, it was not long before men again began to depart from the word of God.  In his book, (published in 1951) Doctrine and Thought of the Disciples of Christ, Howard Short concisely states the attitude of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), which is the final product of this apostasy.  "Some (Christians, SC) were determined that the Bible contained every work of information and inspiration which the church could ever need:

‘What the Scripture does not explicitly teach is prohibited,’ they said.  It said nothing about missionary societies and organs, so there must be none.  Others (Disciples of Christ, SC) insisted, ‘What is not prohibited is permitted,’ so they had societies and organs.  The Churches of Christ stand separately from the Disciples of Christ today…, because the former group did not avoid the pitfall of literalism and expected more from the Bible than it promises." (pg. 15).

We dealt with this principle "What is not prohibited is permitted" in our article The Silence of Scripture.  Such a wrong attitude toward the Bible has not only led to "societies and organs" but in the 51 years since Short wrote his little book, the addition of women as preachers, a rejection of the inspiration of the scriptures by many of their preachers, and an full fledged embracing of the ecumenical movement in America.

Each apostasy had as its core a rejection of the authority of God’s word.  Had there been a fidelity to the principles established in the New Testament, such innovations and changes would not have occurred.  This is an important lesson to us today.  Brethren, unless we understand the nature of biblical authority and apply it to all aspects of our lives, we are in danger of suffering  the same fate.

Religion That Is God-Imposed

There is religion that is God-imposed, and can be studied in the New Testament. In order to meet Christ’s demand that all worship of his father be both in spirit and truth, man’s praise must hew to what can be ascertained from revealed authority (John 4:23-24). That authority rests in Jesus (Matt. 28:18-20) and his twelve apostles who were chosen to reveal much of it through the inspired dictates of heaven (Matt. 18:18). As the first century of Christ drew toward its dusk, Jude could write that the faith had been once for all delivered (Jude 3). That system of belief, practice and religion was being completed. Any form of religion which God had imposed was in its masterpiece state even 1900 years ago.

Yet even then, forces were at work in an attempt to refinish that faith once delivered. A strong element of Judaism sought compromise with the church by suggesting that Gentile converts to Jehovah simply adhere also to the law of Moses. Unfortunately, this required grown men to be circumcised in the flesh and adopt a form of life and religion that was itself dying (Heb. 8:13). Inspired men successfully fought this movement with boldness (Gal. 5:1-12) and its dross was not added to God’s pure work.

The religion that is God-imposed can be examined on the pages of the New Testament of Jesus Christ. It differs greatly from the system of practice under the law of Moses, containing no Sabbath day observance (Col. 2:16), no provision for animal sacrifice (Heb. 10:1-4), no Jerusalem temple (Eph. 2:19-22), no instrumental music in worship (Eph. 5:19, Col. 3:16) and no civil codes (Rom. 13:1-7). Accepting the religion that God has imposed ensures that we will serve him in a way that is acceptable to him. Going beyond what is written is like walking onto an icy pond during the late stages of the spring thaw—it’s thin ice (2 John 9).

Religion That Is Self-Imposed

The obvious form of self-imposed religion is a system of practice that tolerates moral degeneracy. Some denominations today have sanctioned the use of alcoholic beverages and covetousness through gambling. Others have proscribed teaching against sexual immorality (homosexuality) and lewdness (dancing, immodest dress, mixed bathing). Such self-imposed religion is Christianity Lite–all the joy and sense of grace with less of the sacrifice and self-discipline (Matt. 10:38-39, 1 Cor. 9:27).

Sometimes, however, self-imposed religion introduces a strictness and harshness that the Bible does not require, binding it on oneself or others to the actual detriment of the cause. Paul wrote in Colossians 2:20-23:

Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations—"Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle," which all concern things which perish with the using—according to the commandments and doctrines of men? These things have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.

This self-imposed religion introduces prohibitions not espoused by the Holy Spirit, and thus sends the worshiper out on the thin ice. He is concerned about appearances more than genuine, meek discipleship. His methods, thus, do nothing to overcome carnal impulses, but provoke them by proudly displaying one’s "deeply religious" soul. All these self-imposed tenets are mere commandments of men and worth no consideration in the faith belonging to God (Matt. 15:1-9).

Roman Catholicism

The Roman Catholic religion is almost as old as the church of Christ itself. Jesus established his church in about the year 33 A.D. when he perished upon a Roman cross, but was then resurrected and ascended into heaven (Acts 2:29-33). That church which Jesus promised to build (Matt. 16:16, Rom. 16:16) is easily identifiable from the scriptures and can be replicated today by reverent believers in the wisdom and authority of Jehovah. A God-imposed religion will be practiced by her members (James 1:27), who will eschew the traditions of men in the practice of faith that every oracle of God might be revered (1 Peter 4:11).

Catholicism evolved from a falling away from these principles in the second and subsequent centuries. Councils were convened to pronounce matters of faith. Congregational elders began overstepping their local authority and seizing control over other, smaller churches in the region (1 Peter 5:4, Acts 20:28). Finally, a Pope was anointed as the Chief Bishop and the place of Catholic tradition alongside (and often in contradiction of) scripture was forever established.

The hair shirt was a fourteenth century example of self-imposed religion. Donned as a form of penance, the shirt was composed of very course animal hair which formed the inside so that it scratched the flesh into ribbons. Surely, this had the appearance of wisdom and piety to those not courageous enough to wear it, but what value against the flesh did it actually possess? And just as importantly, where did God ever prescribe "acts of penance" in the religion which he delivered once for all through his emissaries? Fruits of repentance, we see, but not acts of self-punishment. Lastly, if such a practice was so religious 600 years ago, why is it not emulated today?

The observance of Lent on the Catholic calendar is yet another example of self-imposed religion. Lent is a 40 weekday period between Ash Wednesday (scripture?) and Easter (scripture?), observed by the Catholic, Orthodox, and many Protestant churches as a period of penance and fasting. Lent regulations were more strict prior to World War II and since have been eased. Until that time, Catholics could eat no meat during this period; now only Fridays are designated as meatless. The scriptures are forever but human traditions come and go (1 Peter 1:23-25).

Lent is intended to mimic the 40 day fast by Jesus just prior to his temptation by the devil in the wilderness (Matt. 4:1-11). Note, however, that Jesus did not take weekends off, nor is there any record that he broke his fast for a feast of fish. Moreover, there is absolutely no record of a Lenten observance in all the New Testament. This cannot be God-imposed religion; it must be self-imposed. Paul stated that commands to abstain from certain foods was evidence of apostasy (1 Tim. 4:3-4). Who is right?

What value against the flesh does Lent offer? Catholics are encouraged to give up something for the Lent period. Their president, John Paul II, decreed that Catholics who give up smoking or heavy drinking this year will receive special consideration in eternity. That is like encouraging people to give up fornication or murder for 40 days. Some things should be given up permanently and decisions about eternity belong to God, not some pretender to the throne.

The lifestyle of priests, nuns and monks wreaks of self-imposed religion. The dark, hot and uncomfortable clothing is intended to make a boast of humility. God did not impose such attire, but man did. Such people are required to live celibate or they cannot serve in these capacities. Yet, God says, that a religion which forbids marriage to eligible people is apostate (1 Tim. 4:1-2). It looks deeply pious to the uninformed and yet the desire for companionship and sexual gratification is not completely deterred (1 Cor. 7:1-5). Of this, Peter could likely attest; if not, perhaps his wife could (Matt. 8:14). Modern accounts of sexual abuse in the cathedral show the cracks of this self-imposed religion and that it often does great harm.

Conclusion

Paul wrote, "Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ" (Col. 2:8).

Catholicism is self-imposed religion that cheats people out of the truth, genuine discipleship, and a home in heaven. It is so concerned with its ancient tradition that it has set aside the more ancient words of God. It draws near to God in word, but betrays a distant heart, vain in its works.

"Campaigns that target Jews for conversion to Christianity ‘are no longer theologically acceptable in the Catholic Church,’ a committee of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has declared.

"Summing up a series of Vatican pronouncements since 1965 that has reversed the church’s historical approach to Judaism, the bishops said last week that the Old Testament covenant between the Jews and God is valid and that Jews do not need to convert to Christianity to be saved. While the Roman Catholic Church ‘must bear witness in the world to the Good News of Christ…this evangelizing task no longer includes the wish to absorb the Jewish faith into Christianity and so end the distinctive witness of Jews to God in human history,’ they said.

"….Eugene Fisher, director of Catholic-Jewish relations for the bishops’ conference, said the document contains ‘no new doctrine’ but ‘distills a lot of things that have been said and steps that have been taken’ since the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s. Fisher noted, for example, that in the 1970s, the church changed its official prayer for the Jewish people, which used to call for their conversion. Now the prayer, recited on Good Friday, asks God to help Jews intensify their faith in their covenant, he said.

"While the Southern Baptist Convention and other evangelical groups run campaigns to convert Jews, the Catholic church gradually has abandoned such efforts. ‘If an individual Jew wants to convert to Catholicism, that can still happen,’ said Monsignor Francis Maniscalco, spokesman for the bishops’s conference. ‘But the point is that proselytizing campaigns are not compatible with the respect with which we hold Judaism.’

"The document makes clear that this attitude is unique. ‘Though the Catholic Church respects all religious traditions…and though we believe God’s infinite grace is surely available to believers of other faiths, it is only about Israel’s covenant that the Church can speak with the certainty of biblical witness,’ it says.

"Although he played no role in drafting the document, Rabbi Arnold Resnicoff, director of interreligious affairs for the American Jewish Committee, hailed it as ‘groundbreaking,’ Some Catholic leaders have renounced proselytizing among Jews in the past, but ‘this is the first time the Catholic leaders of a whole country have stated it officially,’ he said."

Old Testament Not Nailed To The Cross?

The law of commandments, contained in ordinances, has not been "nailed to the cross if those bishops are correct; but, they are not, and it has been (Eph. 2:15; Col. 2:14). Though the Hebrew writer argues that God has taken away the first covenant that he may establish the second, this committee of Catholic bishops says "that the Old Testament covenant between the Jews and God is valid." Do these bishops read the book of Hebrews?

Consider the awful implications of Hebrews 9:8 ("that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was still standing") if the Old Testament covenant is still "valid." (a) If the Old Testament is still "valid," Christ cannot be our High Priest, since there is no place for one to be a priest from the tribe of Judah under the law of Moses (Heb. 7:11-14; Heb. 8:4). (b) If that is so, Christ is not our High Priest and we have no offering for our sins (Heb. 10). (c) Christ has not yet entered into heaven itself to "appear in the presence of God for us." We are yet in our sins! (d) Paul uses the marriage relationship to establish that we are not under the law of Moses and that we may, therefore, be married to Christ (Rom. 7:1-6). Otherwise, we would be spiritual adulterers!

Despite the fact that these bishops say "the Old Testament covenant between the Jews and God is valid," in 2 Corinthians 3, Paul says it "is done away" and "is abolished" (vv. 11, 13). Those Catholic bishops who contend to the contrary are "blinded" and are unwittingly forbidding men to receive "liberty" through the Spirit (vv. 14, 17; Cf. Gal. 3:1-5).

If Jews Saved Apart From The Gospel:

If it is true "that Jews do not need to convert to Christianity to be saved," as per the report above, then a number of things must follow.

1. The "new birth" is null and void, at least as far as the Jews are concerned. Remember, though, that it was to Nicodemus, a "ruler of the Jews," to whom Jesus said, "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God" (Jn. 3:1-7). Why did the Savior say that to Nicodemus? Since it is now claimed "that the (Catholic) Church can speak with the certainty of biblical witness" that Nicodemus need not be born again, why did Jesus say that he "must be born again"?
2. The gospel is not now, and never has been, "the power of God unto salvation…to the Jew first and also to the Gentile" (Rom. 1:16). Jesus said that "repentance and remission of sins" was to be preached "in (his) name, beginning at Jerusalem" (Lk. 24:47). Why, though, begin at Jerusalem, if the Jews have no need for "repentance and remission of sins" in the name of Christ?
   If the Jews are saved through faithfulness to "Israel’s covenant" and not by the gospel, as Catholicism now claims, (a) why did John the Baptist tell them that their fleshly ties to Abraham were no guarantee of Divine deliverance (Matt. 3:7-12)? (b) Why did Jesus tell them, "your house is left unto desolate" (Matt. 23:38)? Further, (c) if the Jews may be saved by the Old Testament, why did Jesus say, "The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof" (Matt. 21:43; Cf. Heb. 12:28 and 1 Pet. 2:5-9 which shows the threat was fulfilled)? Has that verdict been repealed? Does modern Judaism possess the "kingdom of God"? The Holy Spirit says it does not (Col. 1:13; Heb. 1:8; Heb. 12:28)!
   Specifically and directly including and indicting the Jews, Paul said that "the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness" (1 Cor. 1:18-23). If he is correct, the Jews today, who still consider the gospel "foolishness" are those who "perish" in contrast with those who believe it and "are saved." Is it possible that a committee, a conference of men, can simply wipe Paul’s words out of existence and cancel their meaning? No (Matt. 24:35; Lk. 10:16; 1 Cor. 4:6; 14:37; 15:11)!
   (d) Paul taught that the gospel he preached was "the word of…salvation" prophesied by the prophets (Acts 13:26). He also taught that it was only through the gospel they could have "the forgiveness of sins" and be "justified from all things from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses" (Acts 13:38, 39). When the Jewish audience rejected the gospel and clung to "Israel’s covenant," Paul said they had "judged (themselves) unworthy of everlasting life" (Acts 13:46). How could that be true if the Jews are saved without obedience to the gospel and by cleaving and clinging to "Israel’s covenant"?
3. Jesus erred when he said to the Jews that their unbelief would condemn them. If it is true that Jews may be saved without faith in Jesus as the Son of God, how do we explain the following texts, spoken to Jews, by the Lord himself? "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God (Jn. 3:18). "I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins" (Jn. 8:24). "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." (Jn. 14:6). Did Jesus err when he made those statement to the Jews? If not, this segment of Catholicism is wrong when it declares that the Jews may be saved without faith in Christ.
   Jesus said that those who, like the Jews, do not believe in him, do not believe in the Father, nor do they believe in Moses or his testimony. "For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me" (Jn. 5:46). If Jews today reject Jesus, they also reject Moses, "for he wrote of me," Jesus said. So, though Catholicism claims that the Jews are saved if they abide in the Old Testament, Jesus denies it. Again, "It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me" (Jn. 6:45). Where was that written? It was "written in the prophets," that is, in the Old Testament. So, that covenant says that those who hear and learn from the Father will believe in Jesus. Thus, the Old Testament prophets did not say that Jews were to be excused from the New Covenant of Christ (Cf. Matthew 26:28; Heb. 9). Jesus says that if one has "learned of" (or from) the Father, he will come "unto me." Thus, Jews who reject Jesus have not "learned of the Father." Neither are they truly abiding in "Israel’s covenant," for if they were, they would believe in Jesus as the Son of God (Jn. 5:46; 6:45). (Peter, who was allegedly Catholicism’s first Pope, spoke to the same effect and appealed to the testimony of Moses to prove that Jesus is Lord — Acts 3:22, 23; Cf. 2:36; 3:13-15, 24-26).
   The apostle John testifies to the same point. "Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ?….Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: but he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also" (1Jn. 2:23). "Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son." (2 Jn. 9). Jews who do not believe in Christ have neither the Father, nor the Son, so in what way can it be said that they are saved apart from Christ?
   According to the Holy Spirit, the "liar" is "he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ." However, a Catholic committee of U.S. bishops says those liars, if they be unbelieving Jews, may be saved! (We shall not bother to mention that "all liars shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone" [Rev. 21:8]).
   Note what the Holy Spirit said is done to God by those who, like the Jews, refuse to believe "on the Son of God." "He who believes in the Son of God has the witness in himself; he who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed the testimony that God has given of His Son" (1Jn. 5:10). The unbelieving Jew makes God a liar "because he has not believed the testimony that God has given of His Son." Is it possible that such a man can be saved if he remains in that state of unbelief? Catholicism, it appears, would say, "yes."
   Did the Lord and the apostles tell the truth? If so, the Jews do not know God since they have spurned the Savior. This means that Catholicism is in error when it claims to the contrary. If their committee of bishops is not teaching falsely, is the Bible wrong? It is one or the other. Both cannot be right. Either the doctrine of the Catholic Affairs Committee is wrong, or the Bible is wrong. What say ye?
4. God’s grace is nullified and Jesus died in vain. At least, that is what Paul argued. "I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly" (Gal. 2:21). If unbelieving Jews are saved by the works of the law (which Paul contended was an impossibility-Gal. 2:16, 21; 3:10, 11), why did Jesus "taste death for every man" (Heb. 2:9)? How could he be the propitiation for our sins, "and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world," if the Jews are saved by "intensify(ing) their covenant" (1 Jn. 2:1, 2)?
   The Hebrew writer has harsh words for those who have "insulted the Spirit of grace" (Heb. 10:29). When they say Jews may be saved by Moses’ law, the Catholic bishops endorse that which the Spirit of grace says has "nullified" the grace of God. Is not the sanctifying of unbelief an insult to the Spirit of grace?
   Peter, whom the Catholic bishops claim as their first Pope, said that those who had been "redeemed" "with the precious blood of Christ" stood "in the true grace of God" (1 Pet. 1:18, 19; 5:12). That being true, in what kind of grace does one stand if he has "counted the blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified an unholy thing" (Heb. 10:29)? Yet, that is where the unbelieving Jew stands to whom Catholicism promises grace and acceptance.
   The Hebrew Christians were in danger of drawing back unto perdition (Heb. 10:32-39). They were seeking asylum under Moses and the blood of bulls and goats, which could never "take away sins" (Heb. 10:4). As such, they were warned of the eternal consequences which carries with it a penalty worse than physical death (Heb. 10:29). In strong and strict terms, they were told of the folly and futility of turning to "Israel’s covenant" and of forsaking the covenant of Christ (Heb. 2:1-4; 10:26-31). "See that you do not refuse Him who speaks. For if they did not escape who refused Him who spoke on earth (Moses), much more shall we not escape if we turn away from Him (God, through Jesus) who speaks from heaven" (Heb. 12:25; Cf. 1:1, 2). In light of those sacred, solemn, searing words of the Spirit, how dare men declare them recipients of redemption who nullify the grace of God and make the cross of Christ of none effect?
5. Paul was wrong when he said the purpose of the law was "to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith" (Gal. 3:24, 25). No, Paul, according to Catholic scholars, that was not the purpose of the law. According to Catholicism, Paul did not know that the Jews, instead of coming to Christ in order to be justified by faith, must retain and maintain the "intensity" of their devotion to their law and not to Christ.
   The law was written "unto the fathers by the prophets" (Heb. 1:1). It was given to the Jews (Rom. 9:4, 5). The promises of which Paul spoke were made unto "Abraham and his seed" (Gal. 3:16). Hence, it cannot be denied that the Jews were included in the "us" of Galatians 3:24-"Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith." Now, since that system of faith has come, the Jews are "no longer under a schoolmaster;" that is, they are no more under the law, for "the law was (their) schoolmaster" (Gal. 3:24, 25).
   In view of the declaration of Galatians 3:24, 25, that the law was given to bring the Jews to Christ that they might be justified by faith, and that, therefore, the Jews are no longer under the law, will someone please explain how, in view of that, Catholicism can say, "with the certainty of biblical witness," that grace is available to unbelieving Jews apart from faith in Christ? Denial will not make the text disappear or go away. Either Scripture is wrong, or Catholicism is wrong. Both positions cannot be true. Which is correct?
6. Access into the grace of God is not by faith. If the Jews (who yet "crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame," declaring in their unbelief that he deserved the death he died) are saved, it follows that Paul was wrong when he declared that "we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand" (Rom. 3:24; 5:1, 2). Without faith, one cannot have access or entrance "into this grace wherein we stand" and by which we are saved and justified (Rom. 3:24).
   
   Galatians 2:16 through 3:29 is the declaration of independence from the curse of the law. It is the charter of spiritual liberty, freeing those who were bound under sentence of death to the works of the law. It is an emancipation proclamation granting full inheritance to the family of faith. Because "Israel’s covenant" is not of faith, it cannot liberate and emancipate, it cannot free and forgive its captives who wait on their spiritual death row. However, "you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise" (Gal. 3:26-29).
   
   Now, let us reverse that great text. What is true of the opposite of it? Let us see. "You are not sons of God for you have not believed in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were not baptized into Christ have not put on Christ. There is both Jew and Greek, there are slaves and free, there are males and females; for you are not one in Christ Jesus. And if you are not Christ’s, then you are not Abraham’s seed, and not heirs according to the promise."
   
   See the condition of those who are not children of God by faith in Christ, those who have not been baptized into Christ? Now, it is to just such people, modern day unbelieving Jews, to whom Catholicism would grant the blessings and benefits of son-ship and inheritance. If they have those blessings (and I would to God that they did!), then one can make no sense of Galatians 2:16-3:29, particularly 3:26-29.
   
   Observe that Abraham’s seed are those who are children of God "in (not out of) Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:26). This "squares" with Romans 2:28, 29, "For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God." In view of those texts, are unbelieving Jews today "Abraham’s seed"? Are they Jews "whose praise is…from God"? No wonder that Jesus said to Nicodemus, a man who had the blood of Abraham pulsing, coursing and throbbing through his body, "Ye must be born again"!
   
7. One may be saved who will not submit himself to the righteousness of God. Since his prayer was that the Jews "might be saved," it is evident that the apostle Paul thought and taught that unbelieving Jews were lost (Rom. 10:1-17). Paul argues that it is "the same" for both Jew and Gentile, for both have the same Lord (Rom. 10:12). Plainly, he says that both classes of men, all men, must call on the name of the Lord, confessing that Jesus is Lord, if they would be saved (Rom. 10:9-13). The language of Roman 10 will not allow one to say that unbelieving Jews can be saved in their unbelief. It will not permit one to be saved who does not believe "that God hath raised him (Christ) from the dead" (v. 9).
   
   Yes, Paul allows, the Jews have a fervent "zeal of God," but it is not according to knowledge, rather, it is in ignorance (Cf. Acts 3:17; Rom. 10:3). The Jew is ignorant of God’s plan of making men righteous through Christ. Because of that, he has rejected Jesus and gone about to establish his own plan of righteousness, his own system of salvation, which cannot save him. No group of bishops, however gracious are their goals or noble are their intentions, can grant them the hope of eternal salvation apart from faith in Christ. At least, they cannot do so if Romans 10 is to be believed.
   
   Because of their unbelief, the Jews were broken off. All who stand, stand by faith in Christ. Only if the Jew turns to faith in Christ can he expect to be saved. That is what the Spirit said in Romans 11:20-23. Thus, they cannot be saved who "have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God."
   
8. One may have eternal life outside of Christ. "And this is the record, that God hath given unto us eternal life, and this life is in his Son" (1 Jn. 5:11). Paul spoke of "the promise of life which is in (not out of) Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 1:1). May one have eternal life apart from Christ? Peter, who is supposed to have been the first Pope of the Catholic Church, said, "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved" (Acts 4:12). Let it be noted that Peter said those words to his brethren in the flesh, the Jews. Late in the afternoon on the day before, he had told the Jews to "Repent…and be converted that your sins may be blotted out" (Acts 3:19). They had refused to acknowledge that Jesus was the Christ and had crucified him. Peter told them there was no other refuge, no other way of redemption, no other plan of peace and pardon. They had to believe and obey the Lord Jesus, or else they would be "destroyed" (Acts 2:36-38; 3:13-19, 23; 4:12).
   
   Since the Catholic Church of today no longer prays for the Jews "conversion," they are refusing to pray for that which their alleged first Pope appealed (Acts 3:19). Now, according to the article above, instead of issuing a "call for their conversion…the prayer recited on Good Friday, asks God to help Jews intensify their faith in their covenant." In other words they are not only denying Peter’s appeal for their conversion, but they are asking God to harden the Jews in their unbelief toward his only begotten Son!

Conclusion

If the news report is in error, and if the Catholic Church has been misrepresented, I shall be happy to know it so that I may make correction. Or, if the bishops have overstepped their authority, should we not expect to see a clear disclaimer and denunciation of their pronouncement? Too, should we not expect to hear that the Jews must indeed be converted to Christ and that if they fail to believe on the Son of God, they "shall die in (their) sins" (Jn. 3:18, 36; 8:24; 14:6)? If the news account is misleading, will a Catholic authority, above that of the U.S. Conference of bishops, come out and frankly declare to the Jews exactly what the Savior said to them, ""that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him" (Jn. 5:23)?

(Addendum: After finishing the article above, I saw a report where another group of religious scholars, some of whom evidently are Protestants, have said much the same as Catholicism has said; namely, that "Jews can be saved without coming to faith in Jesus Christ" [San Antonio Express-News, 9/7/02, 7B]. Again, if that be so, let liberal Protestants answer the same questions posed to Catholics who teach the same error.)

In previous articles we have established that the Bible is the Word of God, and constitutes the sole standard of authority for the Christian faith. It is important to review this fact, as the Catholic Church denies it. Notice the following quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

“It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls” (95)

Note: The quotation above, and all quotations in this article, are taken from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, whose English edition was published in 1994. Concerning this Catechism, Pope John Paul II said, “The Catechism of the Catholic Church, lastly, is offered to every individual … who wants to know what the Catholic Church believes.” It is an official source of Catholic doctrine, and so quoting from it establishes authoritatively Catholic teaching. It is numbered by paragraph, and the numbers in parenthesis following each quote establishes the paragraph in the Catechism where the quote can be found. To view the Catechism online, go to:

www.scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc.htm

Contrary to what the Catechism asserts, “sacred Tradition” and the “Magisterium of the Church” have no place in establishing Christian doctrine. The New Testament affirms that the faith has been delivered “once for all”, (cf. Jude 3), and there are strict condemnations expressed toward anyone who would teach something new or different. “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:8). “For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book” (Revelation 22:18-19).

The “sacred traditions” of the Catholic church are, in effect, the added innovations of men. The apostle Paul warned about such departures from truth, “Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth” (1 Timothy 4:3).

Shortly after the close of the New Testament canon, Paul’s warnings were realized. Men began to depart from the faith. The organization, work and worship of the church were slowly corrupted. As a part of this corruption, the first man-made creed was established in Nicene in 325AD. This creed, applauded by the Catholics, constitutes the first example of a systemic departure from reliance on scripture as the sole authority for the Christian faith. As churches corrupted the New Testament pattern of a plurality of elders in every church (cf. Acts 14:23), a hierarchical and centralized church government evolved. This gradual change culminated in the proclamation of the bishop of Rome, Boniface III, as Pope in 606 AD. Contrary to Catholic tradition, this was the first time any man aspired to be named as the “Vicar of Christ.”

This apostasy is significant. Jesus taught that if a church (congregation) fell away, He would remove its lampstand. “Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent and do the first works, or else I will come to you quickly and remove your lampstand from its place; unless you repent” (Revelation 2:5). A religious organization that is so far removed from the teaching of our Lord and his disciples can lay no claim on being the true “catholic” church.

Catholic Tradition VS Scripture

Through the ages, many false doctrines have been established through the traditions of the Catholic church. If you examine the writings of the New Testament, you will search in vain for any passages which establish Catholicism’s ecclesiastical form of government; its doctrine concerning the forgiveness of sins being conveyed through the agency of the church; or its peculiar doctrines concerning the Sacraments; Infant Baptism, Transubstantiation; Degrees of Sins; Mass; The Eucharist; Purgatory; Prayers to the Saints; The Rosary; Penance; The Confessional; Praying for the Dead; Indulgences; Celibacy; and the Last Rites.

Space does not permit a detailed refutation of each Catholic Doctrine. However, to establish the magnitude of the apostasy, two primary Catholic institutions will here be exposed as unscriptural. This will allow the careful reader to see that Catholicism is a false system of belief.

Catholic Doctrines Concerning the Pope

1. The Catholic Church claims that the Pope is the “Vicar of Christ” on earth. Catholics believe that the apostle Peter was the first Pope, serving as the Bishop of the church in Rome. According to Catholic doctrine, from then until now, the Bishop of Rome has served as the “universal father” of the Catholic Church.
   “For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered” (882).
   “The Pope enjoys, by divine institution, supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls” (937).

   However, scripture paints a far different picture. First, Peter was never exalted above others. Jesus taught his apostles that “For he who is least among you all will be great” (Luke 9:48). In fact, the apostle Paul, who describes himself as “the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God” (1 Corinthians 15:9), had the audacity to admonish sharply Peter for his sin. “Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed” (Galatians 2:11). This action does not resemble in the least the veneration and deference that is practiced by all Catholics to their Pope. There is no mention in scripture of Peter serving as the bishop of Rome, or even ever being in Rome. The sole authority for such beliefs resides in Catholic tradition, which we have shown to be unworthy of our confidence.
   Second, such veneration of any man violates clear instructions in scripture. Catholics use the term “Holy Father” to describe the Pope. In contrast, Jesus gave instructions to his disciples, “Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven” (Matthew 23:9). Not only is such veneration inappropriate, but the reception of such veneration constitutes arrogance. When Paul and Barnabas were the objects of worship they said, “Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men with the same nature as you, and preach to you that you should turn from these useless things to the living God…” (Acts 14:15). Where Paul and Barnabas rejected such exaltation, the Catholic Pope receives it willingly.
   The Pope is not the visible head of the church. Christ is the sole head of the church, which is his body. “And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence” (Colossians 1:18). “And you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power” (Colossians 2:10).

2. The Catholic Church Claims that the Pope is Infallible in matters of faith, doctrine and morals. There are many references to this in the Catechism, though it is never stated more clearly than in the following citation:
   “The Roman Pontiff… enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful – who confirms his brethren in the faith – he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals… This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.” (891).

   The claim fails on two fronts. First, there are the many doctrinal contradictions found in Catholic tradition. As tradition has established new teaching over the centuries, that which was once held as truth is rejected. Remember Galileo, who was branded a heretic by Rome because of his teaching that the earth revolved around the sun? In our time the Pope has revealed his belief that the doctrine of theistic evolution is true, a contention that previous Popes most certainly have denied.
   Second, the contention that the Pope may “proclaim by a definitive act a doctrine” and be infallible, constitutes a claim that divine revelation continues. We have successfully denied this contention by previous passages, (cf. Jude 3). If the Catholic Pope proclaims a “new doctrine”, we must heed the words of Paul, “As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:9). We must not allow ourselves to be “turned away” by such false claims.

Catholic Doctrines Concerning Mary

1. Catholics believe that Mary plays a part in the salvation of man. Note two representative quotes from the catechism which reveal clearly Catholic teaching in this matter:
   “Taken up to heaven she (Mary) did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation…” (969)
   “Being obedient she (Mary) became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race.” (494)

   This veneration of Mary is a peculiarly Catholic institution. No other denomination accords her such extensive intercessory and redemptive powers. The reason for this is clear, as scripture is silent regarding any special power or place for the mother of Jesus. While it is true that Mary enjoyed a special privilege as Jesus’ mother, (cf. Luke 1:48), there is no indication in scripture that such a privilege afforded her any special place of veneration in the Christian faith. Her exaltation is purely a product of Catholic tradition. Notice our Lord’s dismissal of the importance of the physical relationship between him and his mother, “Then one said to Him, ‘Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.’ But He answered and said to the one who told Him, ‘Who is My mother and who are My brothers?’ And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, ‘Here are My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother’” (Matthew 12:47-50). Jesus was not expressing disrespect for his mother in this, he was simply pointing out that the spiritual relationship we sustain with Him is of greater import than any physical bond.
   The contention that Mary has any place at all in securing the salvation of man is nothing short of blasphemous. Scripture reveals our Lord’s declaration, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me” (John 14:6).

2. The Catholic Church teaches that Mary was perpetually a virgin.
   “Mary remained a virgin in conceiving her Son, a virgin in giving birth to him, a virgin in carrying him, a virgin in nursing him at her breast, always a virgin.” (510)
   “And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the ‘Ever-virgin.’” (499)

   Notice how this claim clearly contradicts plain scripture. Jesus was well known in his own country. When he astounded with his teaching those who had known him since a child, they said, “Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this Man get all these things?” (Matthew 13:55-56). Catholics deny plain scripture in their attempt to revise history.

3. The Catholic Church teaches that the Virgin Mary is a mediatrix for Catholics. The claim, stated in the following quote from the Catechism, amounts to blasphemy.
   “Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix.” (969)

   This writer once heard on a Catholic television program devoted to the veneration of Mary that in her position as Mediatrix she was, due to her nurturing female nature, a more effective and gracious intercessor than Jesus himself! But, the scripture reveals that Jesus alone has the office of mediator. “For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5).
   The aforementioned exaltation of the woman Mary constitutes an idolatrous veneration of one who was, simply, a righteous individual. Though a wonderful and blessed woman, she is not deserving of such veneration. This is but another example of the many innovations and errors established by Catholic tradition.

Conclusion

The Catholic church claims to be the one true church of God. Note the following:

“This is the sole Church of Christ, which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic.” (811)

Though many in the laity would not accept such a proposition, the Catholic church still claims to be unique among Christian denominations. It claims to be the sole Church of Christ. However, as we have seen, a careful examination of scripture reveals it to be far different from the church of the New Testament. To find the “sole Church of Christ” we must find an institution that is identical to that described in scripture. The Catholic church is rather an apostate institution, and is therefore unworthy of our support or membership.