As you read this article, keep in mind, the overall subject is: “pluralism,” which says that: “One religion is just as good as any other and is no worse.” The “good” in the statement must be defined or everyone will put their own definition on it. After looking at the meaning of the word, I found two words that defined the word “good,” as used here; the two words are: 1) profitable and 2) advantageous. You may have to think on this for a while! To help with this, a question or two will help: 1) Is good ever unprofitable in the long run? And 2) Is good ever disadvantageous in the long run?
Before leaving the above, hear Paul as he wrote to Timothy: “For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come” (1 Tim. 4:8). “Godliness” is piety toward the one true God, the God revealed on the pages of the Bible! “Godliness,” unlike “bodily exercise,” is both “profitable” and to our advantage, “having promise of this life that now is, and of that which is to come.” These words can never be said in truth of any other religion; other than: Christianity as revealed in “the teaching of Christ!” This means that “godliness” is included in “the teaching of Christ;” it is in the gospel of Christ; and it is in the “truth” that has the to power to make us free!
With these thoughts in mind, let us turn our attention to the subject of Peter and his being the first Pope of the Roman Catholic Church. In the first place, the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church is not allowed to marry. This doctrine means that Peter is totally unqualified to be Pope! Why is this true? It comes as a total surprise, to some, to learn that Peter was married! Did you question: “How do you know this?” We shall allow the apostle Matthew to answer: “And when Jesus was come into Peter’s house, he saw his wife’s mother laid, and sick of a fever” (Matt. 8:14). We might say, not only did Peter have a wife, but he also had a mother-in-law! But, this is not the only place that we get such information. Paul wrote: “Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?” (1 Cor. 9:5). Clearly Paul knew that Peter (Cephas) had a wife and he took her with him in his work in the kingdom! This makes Peter totally unqualified to be Pope! Just as an afterthought, so to speak, Paul wrote of this doctrine which is not of “the teaching of Christ,” but that it would come later than inspiration. Here is what Paul had to say: “Forbidding to marry, …” (1 Tim. 4:3). The context of these words is very important! Let Paul give the context: “Now the Spirit speaketh expressly,that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; (2) Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; (3) Forbidding to marry, …” (1 Tim. 4:1-3). The teaching of not being allowed to marry is in bad company, to say the least! “Forbidding to marry” is a false doctrine and it is not of Christ.
On this same subject, through the years we have learned what this false teaching has done to some who have reached the level of “priest” in the Roman Catholic Church, as they have been caught up in acts of homosexuality with young boys. This has become a “blackeye” upon the whole Roman Catholic Church through the years. It is a problem they have brought upon themselves; as it is their teaching which has no part in “the teaching of Christ:” “forbidding to marry!”
Peter was a married man, unqualified to be the first Pope of the Roman Catholic Church! But, this is not the only problem the Roman Catholic Church has as it relates to Peter. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that Peter was in Rome, serving as the first Pope as the New Testament was being written. However, not one verse in the New Testament has Peter in Rome. This means there is no inspired record of Peter ever being in Rome. This is a major problem to the claim of the Roman Catholic Church! There is one verse, and within this one verse there is one word, that the Roman Catholic Church uses in trying to prove that the New Testament has Peter in Rome. Just what verse would this be? Peter wrote: “The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son” (1 Pet. 5:13). So, how does this help their case? They have made “Babylon” a figurative word, to be Rome and not the actual Babylon Peter was in! However, there is really no evidence for making “Babylon” figurative; thus, making it Rome. It is most likely, literally, Babylon on the Euphrates!
In conclusion, right at the foundation of the Roman Catholic Church, we learn that this religion is not equal to, or anywhere near the religion of Christ!
Frank R. Williams