                   |
 Why I Choose Not to Join the Vatican Church by James T. Bartsch, WordExplain We
all make decisions in life. Those of us who are thoughtful attempt to
use well-defined criteria by which we decide major matters. I have friends
and
family who either were born in the Vatican
Church
(also known as the Catholic Church), or else have joined it. I even
have a friend who is a priest. We can fellowship around a common bond,
Jesus, the Messiah. I do not question the motives or the sincerity of
those who have chosen other than what I have chosen. Nevertheless, I
have, with the available evidence, chosen not to join the Vatican
Church. Let me explain why.
1. A am already a member of the Catholic (Universal) Church. I do not have to join the Vatican Church to be part of the Catholic Church. I have trusted in Jesus the Messiah. Therefore I have eternal life (John 3:16-18, 36; 5:24; 1 John 5:11-13) and forgiveness of my sins (Acts 10:42-43). Moreover, I have been baptized by the Holy Spirit into the Body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:12-13), which is Jesus' Church (1 Cor. 12:27-28). The Vatican Church presumes to think it is coterminous with Christ's Church (that is why, in its Catechism, for example, the name "Catholic" appears). It also presumes it is the only true church (Humani Generis, paragraph 8). But the Vatican can only prove its elitist position from church dogma, not from the Bible. Therefore I reject entirely the Vatican's presupposition. According to the Vatican I have an "imperfect" communion with the Catholic Church" (838). But this is merely man's presumption, Vatican tradition. It has no basis in the Word of God, and thus no basis in reality. I am a full-fledged member of the Catholic Church, of which Jesus, not Peter or the Pope, is the Supreme Head (Eph. 1:22; 5:23; Col. 1:18). 2. The Vatican Church elevates church tradition to the same level of authority as Scripture (75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82). But the Vatican's stance on church tradition is based upon the myth of Apostolic Succession (77). The Apostles were authorized to pass on their teaching to their followers, but there is no indication in Scripture that they could pass on their authority. The Apostles were one of a kind, chosen by Jesus Himself. They appointed elders in the local churches (Acts 14:23), but there is no indication whatever that they could pass on their authority to anyone else. How can we know with certainty what the Apostles taught? There is only one way we can know that. That is by reading and studying the New Testament Scriptures. So the Vatican's claim that church tradition is of equal authority to the Scriptures is a bogus claim, and one that a careful Bible student will reject. It is the Scripture that is inspired (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:20-21), not human tradition. In fact, the Apostle Paul warned against power-hungry elders who would distort the truth in order to drag away disciples after themselves (Acts 20:28-30). Paul left the Ephesian elders with only two defenses with which they were to guard the flock – God Himself and "the word of His grace" (i.e., the Scriptures), which is sufficient to build up and to grant the inheritance among all those being sanctified (Acts 20:32). Elders have God Himself and His Word as resources to defend the flock. Not a word is said about any kind of church tradition. In Acts 17:11, Luke commended the people of the synagogue of Berea. They were more noble than the people of the synagogue at Thessalonica. That is because those of Berea received Paul's word with great eagerness, but they also searched the Scriptures daily to see if what Paul said was true or not! So Scripture trumps church tradition. Church tradition can never trump Scripture. The Vatican can claim all it wants to that the Pope and the bishops in communion with him are the sole interpreters of Scripture (85, 100), and that the faithful are obliged to accept with docility whatever they are taught (87) . But Scripture says otherwise. The common man in the pew is noble who searches the Scriptures daily to see if what the Pope or the Vatican says is true or not (Acts 17:11)! Elevation of church tradition to the same level of authority as the Scripture is the greatest problem I have with the Vatican Church. If one concedes that Vatican Church Tradition is just as authoritative as Scripture, then all bets are off. Anything the Vatican wants to come up with as truth must automatically be assumed as truthful by the faithful (87). Adherents of the Vatican will protest that everything in the tradition of the church is based upon Scripture. But that is simply untrue. Here is a listing of doctrines held by the Vatican that cannot be successfully proven from Scripture (see the companion document). There have been nearly 2000 years worth of incremental accretions that the Vatican has added on to Scripture. To me it is not far from the truth to say that the combined weight of the accretions of the Vatican Church bears about as much resemblance to Scripture as the combined accumulation of 240 years of American jurisprudence bears to the US Constitution. Several years ago, I was conversing with some pastor acquaintances. I was shocked to discover that one of them had previously been associated with the Catholic (i.e. Vatican) Church. "What on earth made you change?" I asked. His answer was simple, yet profound. "I started reading the Bible." End of conversation. 3. Some specific objections to my position. a. Can the Church that Jesus
founded be divided?
The expected answer is "No." The anticipated inference is that the
Reformers were, therefore, illegitimate in dividing the Church that
Jesus founded. This is a syllogism that contains an unvoiced minor
premise. Here it is:
Major Premise: The
Church Jesus founded can never be divided.
Minor Premise: The Church that Jesus founded is the Vatican Church. Conclusion: Therefore, the Reformers were illegitimate in dividing (the Vatican Church,) the Church that Jesus founded. My response is that the Church that Jesus founded was the Universal, Catholic Church, not the Vatican Church. Moreover, the Universal, Catholic Church, though it began in Jerusalem, was quickly spread over the Eastern and Northeastern Mediterranean basin. It spread to such local churches as the ones located at Antioch, Damascus, Perga, Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, Derbe, Philippi, Thessalonica, Berea, Athens, Corinth, Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, Laodicea, and, yes, to Rome. But the church at Rome as the place of prominence was a development of later church history, not Biblical history. Nowhere in Scripture do we find that the church in Rome is coterminous with the Catholic (Universal) Church. We cannot even prove from the Bible that Peter ever arrived in Rome! According to Scripture, Rome is just another location of a local church. The Vatican's doctrine that it is the only true church (Humani Generis, paragraph 8) is a confusion of the Biblical distinction between the Universal Church and local churches. Moreover, the Vatican Church, as it came to exist, is the composite result of accretions over hundreds of years, and is for that reason but a deformed shell of the Church that Jesus founded. There are individuals within the Vatican Church who are also members of the Catholic (Universal) Church, but the Vatican Church is not coterminous with the Catholic (Universal) Church. Those who believe in Jesus as the Messiah are present in the Protestant Churches, in the Greek Orthodox Church, and in the Vatican Church. But there are individuals within each of those segments who are not part of the Catholic (Universal) Church. Unfortunately, there are some in each of those segments to whom Jesus will be forced to say, sadly, "Depart from me. I never knew you" (Matt. 7:21-23; Luke 13:23-30). The reformers did not divide the Catholic (Universal) Church. They attempted to purify it of at least some of its excesses. But to a large degree, the leaders of the Vatican Church resisted purification. The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent bear witness to this resistance. So the authority of the leaders was diminished as many of the people in the pew turned to the Scriptures for their authority. The Catholic (Universal) Church remains intact. Externally it is fragmented, but internally, it is intact. It is in need of purification and refining, to be sure, and the Lord Jesus will make certain that occurs in order that His bride will ultimately be pure and holy (Eph. 5:25-27; Rev. 19:7-9). Not a person will be lost from the Catholic (Universal) Church (John 10:26-30; Rom. 8:26-39). b. Did God start a new nation of Israel, even though the original nation strayed badly into idolatry? Much like the previous question, the expected answer to this question is, "No." The expected conclusion is that the Reformers were wrong then, when they started a new church. Once again, just as in the previous question, the Reformers did not start a new church. They reformed a recalcitrant church. Their external departure did not divide the true Catholic (Universal) Church, but reformed it, at least to some degree. A better analogy is that when ancient Israel sinned, God did not start a new Israel, it is true. But in order to purify Israel, he scattered her from one end of the globe to the other, as she is scattered today. But here and there, among the scattered Israelis, is the true Remnant of the one true Israel. Similarly, God scattered the true Church all over the world in judgment against the leaders of the Vatican Church, who refused to permit reform. But the one Universal, Catholic Church still exists, though scattered all over the globe with no single unifying external control. c. If I only submit when I agree, the one to whom I submit is me. This argument, I suspect, is designed to repudiate those who would disagree with the leaders of the Vatican Church. It also, evidently, seeks to undermine the right of anyone to use Scripture to disagree with the Magisterium (83, 85, 86, 88, 95, 100) (teaching authority) of the Vatican Church. But in reality, the argument is a straw man, for every person must make a decision for one theological position over against another theological position. Not one of us who studies the Bible does so in a vacuum. Over a period of time we come to trust a certain cadre of scholars over against another cadre of scholars. Another way of saying that is that each of us chooses his own set of mentors. If a person who has been a Protestant converts to the Church of the Vatican, what he is effectively saying is, "I unilaterally decide on my own that Protestant scholars are no longer to be trusted, and the only ones who are trustworthy are scholars sympathetic to the Vatican. My point is that every person makes this kind of decision on his own. I conclude, then, that this argument is a straw man, for every person chooses his own set of scholars whom he trusts. Moreover, if I disagree with Vatican scholars on some fundamental issues, it is not that I am submitting to myself. It is rather that I am submitting to Scripture, which trumps all church tradition that does not square with holy writ. Luke, the writer of Luke-Acts, praised those who studied the Scriptures to see whether Paul, an Apostle chosen by Christ, was telling the truth or not. We are on solid ground when we follow the example of the Bereans (Acts 17:11)! (And by the way, there I am following Church Tradition, but it is Church Tradition found in the Bible (!!!), not external to it.) d. If the proliferation of division after the Protestant Reformation nearly 500 years ago is not enough to convince one of the invalidity of Sola Scriptura (the authority of Scripture alone), what else would be convincing? The arguer has used "anecdotal" evidence, not biblical evidence. Years ago, I talked with a friend in Australia. This was about the time that the evangelical church in Australia was reeling from the excesses of the Charismatic movement. He made an astute observation. He said, "Truth has become anecdotal, not exegetical." By that he meant that people in the Charismatic movement could simply recount something that happened in a Charismatic service, and that legitimized the action, regardless of what the Bible said. That is exactly what our arguer has done. He has used anecdotal evidence to confirm the Vatican Church and to repudiate the Protestant Church. That proves nothing, other than the fact that Protestantism is messy. Frankly, I agree. It is very messy. And candidly, a lot of the mess has to do with the fact that many Protestant Churches also invent their own set of unbiblical traditions which they follow! But his statement does not negate the truth that it is Scripture that is inspired (2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Pet. 1:20-21), not man's opinion of Scripture or interpretation of Scripture or church tradition. As messy as Protestantism is, I will take that mess over the mess of unbiblical teaching in the Vatican Church. I will say this. If the Vatican Church had closely followed Scripture instead of adding teachings nowhere substantiated by Scripture, there would have been no need of a Reformation. Or if the leaders of the Vatican Church, when confronted by the unbiblical nature of their practices, and beliefs, had repented when the Reformers appeared on the scene, a great many people would have remained in the Vatican Church. But for the most part, the leaders of the Vatican Church adamantly refused to do so. They simply doubled down and hurled anathemas at anyone who dared disagree with them. The Apostle Paul deplored the divisions (or schisms) (schisma, 4978) that existed in the church at Corinth (1 Cor. 11:18). Then he said something almost puzzling. "For there must also be factions (hairesis, 139) among you, so that those who are approved (dokimos, 1384) may become evident among you" (1 Cor. 11:19). As messy as they are, somehow God is using factions and schisms in the external church to demonstrate those who are approved. When the time comes for Jesus to evaluate me (Matt. 25:19; Luke 19:15; Rom. 14:10-12; 1 Cor. 3:10-15; 2 Cor. 5:9-10), I want to make certain I have honored the Word of God, not the mere opinions of man. I conclude by saying that the true Universal (Catholic) Church is intact. Not one believer in Jesus is missing from it (John 10:14, 26-29; Rom. 8:26-30). The Church of Jesus, the Universal (Catholic) Church today has many spots, wrinkles, and blemishes. But it is the washing of the Word of God that will beautify the bride (Eph. 5:26-27; Rev. 19:7-9), not human tradition. Meanwhile with those in the Universal (Catholic) Church with whom we disagree, the words of Paul are eminently appropriate: 1
If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love,
I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.
2 If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing. 4 Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, 5 does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, 6 does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; 7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. 8 Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part; 10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away. 11 When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things. 12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known. 13 But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love. 1 Corinthians 13:1-13
|
|||