Ohio Independent Baptist, February 1968

The IS by Oliver S. Martin Niles, Ohio Right! Back in July, 1967, there appeared in "The Post" an article written by a Dr. Frederick D. Wilhelmsen , en– titled, "Catholicism is right so why change it?" The author of this reply to Dr. Wilhelmsen's article is Mr. Oliver S . Martin , deacon in the Faith Baptist Church , Niles, Ohio, where Rev . John Warren serves as pas.tor. Brother Martin informs us that he first sent his reply to THE POST, but they refused to run it. It appears here in abbreviated form. He takes the position that Catholic– ism is NOT right! Our authority must be the Bible .. . nothing more, nothing less. Mr. Martin has taught Bible for over thirty years and is the author of a series of studies on the Book of the Revelation. t .dt Following Pentecost there was one church composed of those who pro- , fe sed faith in Jesus Christ. As time wi! went on un criptural teachings a nd practices crept inito the church. These ! departures from the Scriptures were ~ accepted by some but were rejected ,J by other . This iproduced djfferen.t groups composed of those who be– UJieved the same doctrines. Those who accepted certai,n doctrines a·nd prac– tices came to be known as Roman Catholics. The Council of Trent con– firmed the doctrine that church laws and tradition are equal witih .the Bible Sor in authority concernjng fai.th and , morals. Among the unscriptural dootrines and practices of Roman Catholi cism are papal infal1libility , immaculate 1a conception of Mary, indulgences, and , celibacy of the prie~thood. While the e Roman church did not deny :the P tenets of the faith these traditions were added , and sometimes changed , until , as Dr. Wilhe lmsen said, -"The Catholic church is a tower of babel. " Primacy of Peter The writ er makes much of the primacy o f Peter and qu otes the well known Matthew 16 : 18 . The writer comple tely igno red the e cond stateme nt o f Jesus to Peter in th e same di cour e. (Matt. 16 :23) . Let us consider two statements of Jesu . Jesu sai d . " And T ay unto thee, thou art Peter ( pet ro ) , and upon th is rock ( petra) I will bui1ld my church , and the gates o f hell sh all not prevai l agai nst it." During the same di cou rse Jesu. aid ,to Pe ter, " et thou beh ind me Sa tan, 1ho u art an ff nee un.to me: f r 1ho u <;avoure<;t no t the thing<; th at be of God , but tholie that be f m n." TH OHIO INDEPENDEN BAP 1ST That which has divided Catholic and P rotestants is this - Was Jesus referring to Peter personally, or was He referring to Peter's words? To say that in ,the fi.rnt ins tance Jes,us meant Peter himself, and in t he othe.:– instance Jesus meant Peter's word s i preposterous and does vi.olence to exegesis as well. Let us assume that Jesus indicated the man , Peter. Then Peter is Sa-tan incarnate, and ,the church is built upon one who denied hi s Lord, .and one who has long since turned to dust. Note that Jesus did not say, "You are Peter, and I will build my church upon you . the rock ." Neither did He say to Peter, "Th ou art Satan." Tf t he churz-h is built upon Peter, why does the Bibl,e say that Jesus Ghri st is the chief cornerstone of the church? Let us assume .that Je us indica ted Pete,r'~ words. Then •th e church is not built upon changeable Peter but upon the everlastin,g foundation , the etern al , o n of God, the Rock , Ohri t Jesus. (Eph . 2 :20 and I Cor. 10 :4) . I ;:ir., sure Jesus is al s·O reiferrin° ,t o P eter'. word s when he aid , "Ge t thee behind me Satan." The Roman ath olic t eachin g o f Peter's primacy is un uppo,rted bv the Bible account of the early church . Afte r hi s conver ion P aul went t Jeru salem and vi ited Pe te r a nd fames, the Lord 's brothe r. Why diid h no t vi it Peter o nl y? P aul al o tate th at fames, Peter, and John seemed t,o be pilil ar in the chu rnh . Why is no t Peter menti ned fi r t? Tn thi s ame e pi t,J e to ,the alatian P aul ay he reprimanded Pete r oub– licly fo r h is conduct at Ant ioch . oe one repri mand h i uperi r b for ' o th r. ? At th h urch oun ii in Jeru<; a) m bot h Peter and J am s , pok on the subject at hand ; and the coun– c i I e ndorsed the judgme nt of J ames in the matter. I it not odd that they heeded J ames rnther t han Peter? Celibacy of Priesthood Another unsc riptu ral chu rch law is celib acy of ,the prie ,thood . God saiys i.t is not good that man hould be alone . If thi s is 1:rue in the e nvi ron– ment ·of Eden, I am ure it i also true in .thi s present sinful environ– ment of fallen man. But the church says it is good f.or a man to be alone . Does the churc:h know more t han the Creator about the creature? Does l Timothy 3: 1-7 read I ike a de cri ption of a celibate priest? It is very evident bh at Roman Catholici sm upholds tra– dition rather tha.n the Wm d o f God , while claiming t o believe ithe Bible to be the Word o.f God , divinel y in– spired . Is it not strange t hat the pope mu st be unmarried when the one they claim to be the first pope was a married man? Veneration of Mary The venera tion o f Mary by Ro man Catholicism is another instance of tradition over the ,Bible . M ar y herse lf did not claim sinlessness when she spoke of her Saviour. The Bible gi ve<; Mary no part as co-redemptress or co-medi ator with her Son, Jesus Christ. There ca n be no uch thin g as co-authority betwee n ,the Bible and church traditi,on. Is Catholici m ri,giht? lf church law and tradition i<: the ~.tand ard o f compari son t hen Catholi cism is right. But the ame cannot be sa id of it when the s.tand– ard of compari so n is t he Bib le. Let ,.., take God at hi s wo rd and not re ly nr,on traditi on s o f men fo r sa lvation. The Bibl e IS ri ght , o why not accep t it<; teachings? ministering worldwide through missionaries and pastors • Orphans • Medical clinics • Hospitals • Disaster re li ef • Leprosy cli nics • Widows' homes • Rehabil ita tion of waywa rd girls in Korea A ministry of compassion . ----41 · - --- Wr ite INTERNATIONAL CHRISTIAN RELIEF 801 HADDON AVENU E COLLINGSWO OD , NEW JERSE Y 081 08 FEBRUARY, 1968 PAGE 13