Leaving Rome In The Dust (part 2) - [Hebrews 10:11-14]

Father in heaven, what a beautiful morning. You have granted us this morning Father, what a great reminder of how gracious and kind you are to us each and every day. Lord we praise you this morning For your love for your kindness for Salvation in Christ Jesus.

Lord, we would grieve as we've Watched this last week all the hubbub over the papal visit Father all the people excited about this and or we just pray as you turn our minds to your word that you would invigorate us to right thinking to not only discernment but to The work of preaching the gospel of preaching Christ Jesus as the good news.

Lord bless each one here this morning. We pray in Jesus name. Amen. Well, I don't know about you, but this last week I've almost felt like remember acts 17 the preface to Paul's Sermon that he gives you know on Mars Hill.

What is it that bothers? Paul as he's walking through the city of Athens. You remember that? The the unknown got all the altars right all the worship of idols and this week. Seriously as you cannot turn on if you turn on TV, I think ESPN and the weather channel were covering the Pope it was.

You know watch this drop step by the Pope, you know, it was thank you. Yeah, it was it was just really incredible and so I started talking about Catholicism last week and I hope we get to You know the papacy because I I've just been getting more and more Irritated as the week goes on when you see people, you know hundreds of thousands of people and all the You know accoutrement all the accompaniment that would go on with a head of state visiting and all these kind of things and you wonder what is it about the Pope that people love so much.

And I think maybe one of the good exhibitions of what people love about the Pope was in his speech to Congress. What do you think the people loved about that? That he didn't speak about Christ. I think that's exactly right.

I mean if you look at John, I think it's chapter 14, but where he says that you know, if they hated me They'll hate you too. Well, why don't they hate the Pope? They don't hate the Pope because he's not really very confrontational.

He talks about a lot of things he talks about Climate change. You know the importance of being nice to people who don't have any money, you know charity all these kind of things the I guess he did some kind of Message last night about the importance of family just off the top of his head about the importance of family.

I did find it interesting though that like one of the songs he's had sung both at Madison Square Garden. It's like I've been watching this whole thing. I haven't been. I've just been reading about it Madison Square Garden and then again last night in Philadelphia he had one song in particular song that I just found fascinating.

What what song would that be anybody know? Did he really See, I see. I didn't know that. Thank You Charlie. He had imagined song. Yeah, imagine all the people. Yeah, well. And you know if he tells you there is no heaven then you're supposed to believe that.

But the song the song was because I saw Harry Connick jr. Sang it and then last night Aretha Franklin sung sang it amazing grace. And I'm just like there's a little irony in that, you know. There's there's more gospel in amazing grace than there is anything that he's been saying.

Scripture, Authority, and the Roman Catholic Claims

But last week we started or we were talking about some of the issues and I was reading this article by a Catholic Critiquing sola scriptura and to just kind of set the stage here the three areas of authority that Roman Catholics appeal to our scripture, but not scripture alone.

What else were there other. What is it church doctrine and church teaching. Yep church tradition and Tradition. Magisterium, which I I guess, you know, it took me a while to really nail down a good Definition of it, but the magisterium is simply this.

It's the church's capacity the Roman Catholic Church's claimed capacity to infallibly interpret the scriptures. So if there seems to be a problem with or a conflict between what the Bible says and what the church teaches.

Well, the church wins because they have the infallible capability of interpreting scripture. It's easy. Okay, so We're gonna talk a little bit about oral tradition this morning. This is again written from the Catholic perspective.

The church did not only pass the teaching on in written form meaning scripture and and again, this is coming from their perspective that the church is Responsible for the writing of Scripture. Certainly it's under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, but it was the church that decided what should go in scripture.

Says. But the church did not only Pass the teaching on in written form from the earliest days the teaching was also passed on through oral tradition by tradition. Catholics don't mean dead religious customs.

Ceremonies rules and regulations. Instead when Catholics speak of tradition we are referring to a body of teaching which is formed by the experience of the church a body of teaching which is at once ancient and yet fresh and alive.

Is this what the early church believed. Did Paul rest his faith only in the scriptures? He certainly really believed in the Old Testament scriptures. Right when he writes Timothy and he says devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture to preaching and a teaching.

Tells Timothy continue on what you have learned because you know that Those from whom you learned it and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures. He believed in the Old Testament. This man says.

Let's skip ahead here. But now talking about Tradition, let's look at 2nd Thessalonians 2 15. And this is one of the examples he gives of tradition. 2nd Thessalonians 2 15. And then we're going to use a keen observer of Scripture.

But not a keen theologian to sort of refute this 2nd Thessalonians 2 15. Who'll read that. Go ahead mark. Now on the face of it that seems to give some credence to what the Roman Catholic priest is saying here.

Right not it's not just Scripture but also traditions. Hold fast to these traditions that we passed on to you. Whether by word of mouth or by letter in other words whether it came to you by Some inspired epistle or whether we just told you both are equally valid.

That's the concept of. That the Roman Catholics would like you to believe somebody has an email. When Lenski says Says the use of the word tradition here does not contain something Rabbinic for this term is used in the Gospels and also by Paul and Galatians 114 and Colossians 2 8 to 2 verse 8 to denote Jewish and human traditions here and in several other verses.

And the plural is to indicate the different parts of the gospel truth the word itself points only to Transmission the things given or handed over from teacher or pupil. Then he says Romanists that would mean Catholics have appropriated it and referred to its teachings.

Handed down in the church and not recorded in the scriptures, but this late Romish use has nothing to do with Paul's use. This is back to the Roman Catholic here again. Some people say that the word-of-mouth tradition ceased once the Bible books were written.

But Paul acknowledges that both sources of teaching existed when he wrote to the Thessalonians. We also see that Paul not only received this oral tradition from others. But he also passed it on to his hearers in 1st Corinthians 15, please turn in 1st Corinthians 15 verses 2 and 3.

He says by this gospel you are saved if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you for what I received. I passed on to you as of first importance. So he's saying look, here's the tradition. It was given to Paul and then Paul passed the tradition on to someone else or to the Corinthian listeners.

Now, is there a problem with that in? This context. You don't even need a fancy schmancy, you know bit of software or a commentary to understand the problem here. Let's just read the context and I think it becomes Pretty clear that there's a problem.

Would somebody read 1st Corinthians 15 verses 1 to 4? Okay, go ahead Gary. Now does this affirm Oral tradition and the value of oral tradition. I mean it's it's just like that the Catholic priest did a very nice job of editing, you know.

He left out all the according to the scriptures according to the scriptures according but it's like how many times does he have to say? According to their scriptures, you know until you realize oh, it's According to the scriptures.

Yeah. Just Dopey oral tradition. Well, I mean think about it to oral tradition. I Mean in a sense, it's it's this way. I mean there are two ways to look at it. One is that God may providentially Preserve oral tradition and the other way to look at it is, you know, play a game of telephone at home and what happens.

You know the old I used to do that when I was in high school and now we do something like it at home. Janet likes this game. What do you draw a picture and? Then the next person has to look at the picture and write down a word and then the next person has to look at the Word and write a picture and you know, you go around like that and by the time we get done.

It's pretty it's pretty loopy. And yet when it comes to Roman Catholic tradition We're supposed to presume that something that has been that they practice now. Of course has been passed down for a couple thousand years.

And how do we know that that's true? Because they tell us it's true. And as I said last week if you want to know really the definition of a cult. The definition of a cult is where they say. Well, how do you know that's true because we tell you it's true.

Not the brains were commended for examining the things that they were taught and seeing if they were according to the scripture it's how do you know that's true because we say it is and. And this is you know.

This is the thing with the Pope too, and I have to tell you really it was distressing to see people in tears. You know even Rick Warren wearing a suit. What was that all about? Sorry can resist that Rick Warren, I'm sure many of you saw the picture of Rick Warren and a man.

Resembling TD Jake's it was kind of blurry. He was but. Yeah, that was that was you know standing in front of the White House all happy you wait to see the Pope. Okay, so. And I just asked the question where in Scripture would we see a promise by God to maintain the integrity of these passed on traditions in other words.

You know, they say that it's guaranteed and they would say well, you know. For example when Jesus tells the Apostles that he's going to send a comforter and he's going to lead them into all truth. Well, what what is that referring to?

It's referring to the scriptures not to church tradition. You know, I really want to skip this. The deposit of the faith and all that stuff. I just want to talk about the the papacy because when you get down to it I mean there are a lot of errors in the Roman Catholic Church the number one error being.

Yeah, justification or just the gospel. I mean if you get the gospel wrong. And pretty much eliminates you as a as a church, but the issue with The papacy is really an interesting one. Anybody know what the term with regard to the papacy the Pope what the term primacy means a first importance.

Okay, good. Primacy is the idea. Yes first importance, but it's it's specifically that the Roman bishop or the Pope is the chief of all bishops of all the Bishops and bishoping he is the bishop of all the bishops.

He is the primary bishop. Richard Bennett Writes as he says a Catholic web page boasts of 264 Popes from st. Peter to John Paul the second. So I guess there would be a couple more now the history of the papacy showing on one page the unique direct link Catholics have to Jesus.

The whole Catholic structure is based on three false presuppositions. Number one The text of I have some other ones later, so I may I shouldn't read these but that the text of Matthew 16. Which we referred to last week Matthew 16 where Jesus says to Peter Peter makes the confession.

Peter says you know who do you say that I am and Peter says you are the Christ Son of the Living God. Blessed are you you know for flesh and blood hath not revealed that to you, but Spirit of God therefore you know he pronounces this statement to Peter and there are various understandings of that, but You know the Roman Catholic Church says that the text of Matthew 16 16 and 20 means that Peter was the foundation of the church.

That the church was built on him. Secondly their second false presupposition that Peter went to Rome and was the first bishop in Rome and Their third false presupposition is that Peter's successors are the bishop of Rome under the primacy of the Pope in other words the idea.

Here here's what they have to establish first of all that Romans 16 means that secondly that Peter went to Rome which is not evident in the Bible and Thirdly that when Jesus pronounces these blessings on Peter or these Comments where he makes these comments to Peter that he really means to say not only is Peter the first Pope But that all the bishops of Rome even though Peter never went to Rome After him are supposed to have this primacy that they're supposed to be above ruling all the church.

And there are other ones too basically that when they speak about matters of faith and doctrine they are infallible. There are a lot of problems here, but You know was Peter the foundation of the church.

Let's look at Matthew 16 for a minute. Matthew 16 verses 16 to 20 and we'll actually read what it says instead of just going for my memory I'll just read what what I have here Simon Peter replied in verse 16 You are the Christ the Son of the Living God and Jesus answered him blessed.

Are you Simon bar Jonah? Son of Jonah for flesh and blood. Has not revealed this to you, but my father who is in heaven and I tell you not. And I tell you you are Peter and on this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever you Loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Then he strictly charged the disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

Now in this text alone Roman Catholics would teach the primacy of Peter that in other words it well the primacy of the Pope and That Peter was the first Pope that he's able to even let people out of Purgatory because it says right there.

Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven so you can he can actually loose people from purgatory into heaven that he strictly. Joe, okay, so Question is Rome even in the picture here.

Do we see Rome mentioned here? Do we see Jesus talking about Rome anywhere in the new terror in the Gospels the answer is no and Then did Peter actually go to Rome. Do we have any record of him going to Rome?

Listen what Bennett says he says the scripture is utterly silent about the Apostle Peter going to Rome. He visits Samaria Lydda or Lydda Joppa Caesarea and Antioch. But there is simply no mention meant no mention made of his going to Rome.

Which is essential to establish the Roman Catholic position. If it had been of any importance the Holy Spirit the Holy Spirit would have had it. Documented in the New Testament this omission underlines the truth that his going there Had no significance at the beginning of Christianity if he went there.

In his letter to the Romans the Apostle Paul makes no mention of Peter when he salutes by name. Many in the church of Rome right you would think if he's the bishop of Rome if he's the primary Bishop in all the church that Paul would say something about that while he's writing of the church at Rome.

But undoubtedly therefore he had not come by that time the same Apostle Paul Being at Rome in the reign of Emperor Nero. Never once mentions Peter in any of his letters written from Rome to the churches and to Timothy.

Although he does remember very many others who were with him in that city. Now this is an argument from silence right, but it's pretty odd. You know the Pope sends his greetings. He I just talked to him last Thursday.

The fact that some extra biblical sources speak of Rome or Peter. Visiting Rome is of no consequence since certainty cannot be built on such writings. They're not scripture. It is very significant that even in those writings which say he went to Rome.

They give no evidence that he was ever bishop of Rome. I mean you would think That the bishop of Rome the leader of the Roman Church would stay there that he would be running the affairs of the Roman Church.

Peter may have been at Rome and may have preached the gospel there. He may have died there. All these are possible conjectures, but not the fabric on pawn which the faith is based. If the Apostle Peter did visit Rome it was to preach the gospel there.

But we know from the scriptures that he never fixed his office in the city as the first bishop of Rome. He never claimed to be the first bishop of Rome. So the second precept presupposition of the Roman Catholic Church is therefore.

A lie, he says pure and simple. Now are Peter's supposed successors as Pope Bishop of Rome are they to be granted primacy. In other words are we to think of them? And by the way, let me just kind of I'm gonna skip ahead here.

I want you to listen to this from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. And listen this carefully says for the Roman pontiff the Pope by reason of his office as vicar of Christ that he is the representative of Christ on earth is what they believe and as pastor of the entire church has full supreme and universal power over the whole church a Power which he can always exercise.

He is. He has universal power over the whole church. We would believe that only Jesus has that power and listen to this one. Consequently this is from a Pope declaring a papal bull which means it's infallible Roman Catholic doctrine from 1302.

Consequently we declare state define and pronounce that it is altogether necessary to salvation. For every human creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff. So when we're talking about the idea of a Pope this isn't some small issue that separates Protestants and Catholics to them official Roman Catholic doctrine is a matter of Salvation.

You have to submit to the Pope. Every knee will bow every tongue will confess that the Pope is prime over the church. So getting back to primacy and his successors the authority of this successor to Peter over the universal church.

Primacy was first claimed by Stephen the first to my everlasting shame the Bishop of Rome from 254 to 257 that's the first recording of this. Similar to the squabbling among Jesus disciples. There are there is much Controversy within the institutional church over who should be accorded first place the Eastern churches over there in Asia Minor Turkey.

Were more important to the life of the church during the first few centuries however with Rome being the center of commerce and The traditional side of the martyrdom of Peter and Paul the balance of power gradually shifted to the Bishop of Rome.

Later forgeries forged documents were used by later bishops to support the primacy of Rome. Bennett again says in Scripture there is no mention of successors to the Peter or to Peter the Pope or the Apostles.

Which is interesting right because there are people even in Protestant churches claiming to be Apostles. But we know from Scripture you had to from Acts chapter 1 that you had to Have seen the resurrected Lord and to have been with him during his life to to be an Apostle and Nobody alive did that naturally.

But anyway, he says there's nothing like that in Scripture talking about a succession. He says in the New Testament the Apostles appointed elders and deacons not a line of Apostles not successors. Nonetheless, the Roman Catholic Church attempts to defend her position in the name of personal succession from The Apostles if one wants to use the concept of apostolic succession.

The true successors of the Apostles are those who hold to the doctrines of the Apostles. We would agree with that and If that doctrinal foundation in other words Doctrine is what decides it if that doctrine foundation is destroyed instead of the apostolic faith one has apostasy.

And that is certainly what Rome has. In fact they condemn anyone who believes in salvation by faith alone as we just read if you don't believe that the Pope is Christ Vicar his representative on earth and the head of the church.

There's no salvation for you according to Rome. Roman Catholic Church teases that it alone has the keys and the power of Salvation and that is held by the Pope. The real roots of the papacy are those of the Roman Emperor and not the Lord Jesus Christ.

Bennett says the Lord commanded the king of the Gentiles exercised lordship over them and they exercise Authority over them that are called benefactors, but ye shall not be so he says Christ absolutely prescribed all domination in his kingdom.

Roman Catholic Church is not the successor to Peter but rather to the Roman Empire. I think it's hard to argue with that. Okay, let's get down to The stuff here from James White. He summarizes the claims of the papacy this way says for the Roman pontiff.

By reason of his office as vicar of Christ and as pastor of the entire church. He has full supreme and universal power over the whole church a power which he can always exercise. And James White says Again Matthew 16 He is without question speaking to Peter.

These are the Roman claims the words though. And secondly the words the Lord Jesus speaks. Established Peter as the prince of the Apostles the very first Pope the head of the Christian Church. Thirdly these words of Jesus necessarily indicate the creation of an office of Pope.

Replete with successors and finally the Christian Church has always held this to be her constant Unchanging faith, let's turn to Acts chapter 15 just as an example of How we might expect this to be fleshed out here and it's really amazing.

I don't know if you if you did see the coverage, but people holding up their children and the Pope. Calling people. Young children towards him to receive blessings and all this kind of thing and I and I just thought what in the world Is this?

Now in Acts chapter 15, we have a the Jerusalem Council and they're really talking about doctrinal matters. And let's just let's just read through this. The first 21 verses here. But some men came down from Judea.

And we're teaching the brothers unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses. You cannot be saved so circumcision necessary for salvation and After Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them.

Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the Apostles and the elders about this question. Now it's interesting that they're going because again the Roman Catholic doctrine is not that the papacy developed.

But that the papacy existed from Matthew 16 on. I mean, I guess you could say that, you know from the time Jesus left on but okay. So, why are they going to the council or to the church in Jerusalem and talking to the Apostles and the elders about this matter.

Of doctrine why not appeal directly to the Pope? Verse 3 so being sent on their way by the church. They passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria. Describing in detail the conversion of the Gentiles and brought great joy to all the brothers when they came to Jerusalem they were welcomed by the church and the Apostles and the elders and they declared all that God had done with them, but Some believers who belong to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said again It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses.

Some people today want to keep the law of Moses. The Apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter and After there had been much debate Peter stood up and said to them. Well, here you go.

Here's the Pope. Of course he's not in Rome. Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of God or the word of the gospel and belief and God who knows the heart bore witness to them by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us and He made no distinction between us and them having cleansed their hearts by faith.

He's saying listen the Gentiles now have been grafted into the church. There's no difference between Jew and Gentile and this gets to the heart of Circumcision whether or not it's necessary for salvation.

Do the Gentiles now have to be circumcised? Verse 10. Now therefore Why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples? That neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear.

And what is that yoke? The law. They've not been able to keep the law nobody has so why are you gonna put the law on the Gentiles? We've been delivered from the law but we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus just as they will not by Obedience to the law which we cannot keep but by grace salvation by grace Peter.

According to modern-day Rome is a heretic and all the assembly fell silent. Well, there you go. The Pope spoke and they all shut up. Not exactly and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.

After they finished speaking James replied Brothers, listen to me. Simeon has related. Peter has related how God first visited the Gentiles to take from them a people for his name and With this the words of the prophets agree just as it is written after this I will return and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen.

I will rebuild its ruins and I will restore it that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord and All the Gentiles who are called by my name says the Lord who makes these things known from of old. Therefore my judgment James making a judgment in front of this whole Council of Jerusalem and the Pope allegedly is That we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols and from sexual immorality and from what has been strangled and from blood and from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him for for from Ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him for he has read every Sabbath in the synagogues.

He says we should not trouble those Gentiles. We should not put them under The law but we should write them not to do certain things. But listen to their response in verse 22. Then it seemed good to the Apostles and the elders and the whole church but not no mention of the papacy to choose men from among them and to send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas.

They sent Judas called Barsabbas and Silas leading men among the brothers. With the following letter the brothers both the Apostles and the elders. To the brothers who are the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia greetings.

Again, no mention of the Pope even though he was there the alleged Pope. Since we have heard that some persons have gone out from us and troubled you with words. Unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions.

It has seemed good to us having come to one accord. To choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul. Men who have risked their lives for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ. We therefore sent Judas and Silas who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth.

For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay unto you no greater burden than these requirements that you abstain from what has been sacrificed idols and From blood and from what has been strangled and from sexual immorality.

If you keep yourselves from these you will do well farewell. Do you have to keep the whole law of Moses? No, but we think you should do this again, just a real a Gaping hole if you will in the argument that there's a Pope.

There's also in 2nd Corinthians when Paul says When he's defending his apostleship, what does he say he says that I consider myself No less an apostle than these. Whether it's the false Apostles or whether it's the real Apostles, but there's no mention.

They're a pope and of the Pope in fact, there's no mention of a Pope anywhere in the New Testament. There's no idea of this entire office and. And so when you when you look at what scripture says about it.

Actually what it doesn't say about it, you know, you're left with This question. Why would I believe it? Why would I believe it and worse? Why would you then? Join together with a Religious organization that says something like you know, there's only salvation available through the Pope or something like that.

Why would you go and see this man? Why would you spend time? Seeking his blessing. There are a lot of questions there I think even in Galatians. See if I can. I mean, of course we can look at Galatians chapter 2 Which is one of my Favorite illustrations of the problem with a with a papacy.

Because Paul talking about a matter of some importance says this in chapter 2. He opposes Peter the little headline says he says but when Cephas or Peter in verse 11 Came to Antioch. I opposed him to his face because he stood condemned.

For before certain men came from James. He was eating with the Gentiles. But when they came when these men came from James in Jerusalem in other words when they came he drew back and separated himself fearing the circumcision party and The rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him.

So that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypo by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel I said to Cephas before them all if you though a Jew live like a Gentile and not like a Jew.

How can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews? In other words, why are you trying to impose the law of God upon? the Gentiles. You know better now I've said before you know I think Paul was maybe the bravest man because in the Record of the New Testament because he went right to the Pope and was stood him to his face on a matter of doctrine.

But again think of this. Let's say for it. Let's say for just a minute that Peter is the Pope and he is in some kind of error. What would you do if you're Paul? What would you do if you were Paul? How would you talk to him?

How would you talk to anybody who is in? Authority over you. Well, let's just let's just make it really practical if you have a problem with your boss at work. Do you just call him out in front of everybody?

You can do that, right? You can't say, you know what boss? I really think you're wrong. If I may be so bold in front of this entire assembly to just say you're wrong. How will that go over? It might be reflected in your next pay raise.

Or your next pay deduction. What are you gonna do in that situation? Marie. Yes in in short, yes, that's how he would go to him, you know in humility and Sort of address him as a fellow believer, but you know keeping in mind.

Let's just put our ourselves in the mindset of a Roman Catholic. What Paul would have to do is at the very least I mean the first thing he'd do is just say who am I to talk to the Pope? I'm not gonna say anything.