" World Religions "

No Popes for You

[This is a guest post by Mark Ward, who received his Ph.D. in New Testament from Bob Jones University Seminary in 2012 and serves as part of the Bible Integration Team at BJU Press. Mark also has a ministry providing churches with beautiful and affordable websites.]

Protestants don’t get to have a pope.

Of course, that sounds backwards; the pope doesn’t get to have us. We don’t want him.

But if you’re honest, there have probably been times in your life when a pope would have come in handy—like when your church split over a particular doctrine, or when your best friend was totally wrong about the identity of the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:2. It’s tempting sometimes to want another word from God telling us what He really meant with the first Word. And, of course, He’d be on your side—right?

But no popes for you. In good blog form, here’s five reasons why.

  1. As many Protestants have pointed out, having a pope just means you have more authoritative declarations to interpret. Now in addition to 1,189 chapters of divine revelation written in three languages over the course of 1,500 years, you have papal encyclicals and homilies and true ex cathedra pronouncements.* And you have to learn Latin if you really want to get it right.
  2. The existence of a supreme pontiff doesn’t actually create the unity it advertises. Having a holy see certainly hasn’t kept Romanists from disagreeing, even splitting. There are over 200 Roman Catholic denominations, and among those still in the fold there are deep divisions between liberals and conservatives. The Reformers were right to argue that, when it comes to ultimate authority for the local church and the believer, it’s sola scriptura.
  3. Most importantly, of course, the sola scriptura standard won’t allow us to have a pope. We are given men with teaching and ruling authority (Eph 4:11–14; 1 Pet 5:1–5), but their authority is subordinated to the Word, not equal to it and certainly not above it. No one is allowed to add dogma (doctrine you must believe) beyond what the Bible teaches, let alone to pronounce anathemas on the biblical gospel (Gal. 1:8).
  4. Empirically speaking, what has the existence of a mitered man in St. Peter’s done for biblical literacy among his 1.2 billion followers? The 1960s council we call Vatican II has been widely credited with promoting the study of Scripture among Catholic laity, and of course Protestants ought to welcome this reform. The more Bible people get, the better. But—speaking mostly from (multi-national) personal experience but also from some statistical studies I’ve read—it seems clear to me that conservative Protestant groups have done a much better job teaching the actual content of the Bible to their people. We have a long way to go in our work of discipling the nations, but Bible study is one of the most healthy things in Protestant DNA.
  5. Lastly, T.D. Bernard once made a point that I have come back to again and again. It’s dense but excessively rich. Please read the whole thing!

    The writer [of NT epistles] does not announce a succession of revelations, or arrest the inquiries which he encounters in men’s hearts by the unanswerable formula, “Thus saith the Lord.” He arouses, he animates, he goes along with the working of men’s minds, by showing them the working of his own. He utters his own convictions, he pours forth his own experience, he appeals to others to “judge what he says,” and commends his words “to their conscience in the sight of God.” He confutes by argument rather than by authority, deduces his conclusions by processes of reasoning and establishes his points by interpretations and applications of the former Scriptures…. Why all this labor in proving what might have been decided by a simple announcement from one entrusted with the Word of God? Would not this apostolic declaration that such a statement was error, and that another was truth, have sufficed for the settlement of that particular question? Doubtless! But it would not have sufficed to train men’s minds to that thoughtfulness whereby truth becomes their own, or to educate them to the living use of the Scriptures as the constituted guide of inquiry. (The Progress of Doctrine in the New Testament, pp. 157-158)

    Protestants don’t get to have a pope because God inspired epistles. And He did it on purpose. The sometimes painful and difficult work of personal biblical and theological study is meant to form us into the kind of people who think like God wants us to—not just who think what God wants us to. A pope can be an unhealthy shortcut. Bible study is a privilege, but it’s also a responsibility. Your God-given pastors and teachers should play an important role in your spiritual life, and they do bear genuine authority (1 Pet. 5:1–5; Heb. 13:7–17), but they won’t stand next to you on judgment day (2 Cor 5:10).

No popes for you.

*Not all statements from a pope are technically considered to be equally authoritative, but adopting the title of “Christ’s vicar,” the Son of God’s representative on earth, is itself a claim to teaching authority.

The Lord’s Supper: a Meaningful Ordinance

Roman Catholics claim to have a more meaningful celebration of the Lord’s Supper (Eucharist) than Protestants and have used this to attract many converts, some from Protestant backgrounds, to the Roman Catholic Church. The Catholic view of transubstantiation teaches that the elements of Communion become the literal body and blood of Christ, if true, would make the Eucharist a significant ceremony.   Catholics believe Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained under the elements (Pope Pius IV 1564). The mass is defined as the “unbloody sacrifice” of Christ. The Biblical problem with transubstantiation is its failure to recognize the symbolic nature of Christ’s words, “This is my body” and to recognize the finality and completeness of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross (Hebrew 9:25-28; 10:10-14).

The Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation was not officially proclaimed until the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. The presence of Christ in communion was a great controversy during the Carolingian period when Paschasius Radbertus declared the elements were transformed into the body and blood of Christ while another monk of Corbie, Ratramnus, denied a physical presence.

Protestants who reject the actual presence of Christ in the elements can be guilty of making the Lord’s Supper a mere ritual devoid of any spiritual significance. Paul considered the Lord’s Supper to be a serious celebration and issues a grave warning to those who participate in an unworthy manner (1 Corinthians 11:29-30). Even though the elements are symbols of the broken body and shed blood of Christ, the service should be conducted as a genuine remembrance of the believer’s participation in the benefits of the death of Christ as well as a time of spiritual nourishment, self-examination and reaffirmation of one’s faith in Christ. Pastors should encourage members to prepare themselves during the week to be ready to participate in a worthy manner and in a unity of spirit.

Today we have no need for any additional sacrifices, whether bloody or unbloody. When Christ upon the cross cried out, “It is finished,” the atonement was completed; however, Christians do need to follow our Lord’s instruction to remember His death until He comes (1 Corinthians 11:26).  Rather than treating Communion as a shallow or meaningless ritual, Christians can and should celebrate it as the spiritual feast of fellowship in remembrance of our Lord’s suffering on the cross that it was intended to be.