Skip to comments.Who’s in Charge Here? The Illusions of Church Infallibility
Posted on 06/13/2012 2:59:02 PM PDT by Gamecock
In my experience with those who wrestle with conversion to Roman Catholicismat least those who have professed faith in the gospel, the driving theological issue is authority. How can I be certain that what I believe is true? The gospel of free grace through the justification of sinners in Christ alone moves to the back seat. Instead of the horse, it becomes the cart. Adjustments are made in their understanding of the gospel after accepting Romes arguments against sola scriptura. I address these remarks to friends struggling with that issue.
Reformation Christians can agree with Augustine when he said that he would never have known the truth of Gods Word apart from the catholic church. As the minister of salvation, the church is the context and means through which we come to faith and are kept in the faith to the end. When Philip found an Ethiopian treasury secretary returning from Jerusalem reading Isaiah 53, he inquired, Do you understand what you are reading? How can I, the official replied, unless someone guides me? (Ac 8:30-31). Explaining the passage in the light of its fulfillment in Christ, Philip baptized the man who then went on his way rejoicing (v 39).
Philip did not have to be infallible; he only had to communicate with sufficient truth and clarity the infallible Word.
For many, this kind of certainty, based on a text, is not adequate. We have to knowreally knowthat what we believe is an infallible interpretation of an ultimate authority. The churches of the Reformation confess that even though some passages are more difficult to understand, the basic narratives, doctrines and commands of Scriptureespecially the message of Christ as that unfolds from Genesis to Revelationis so clearly evident that even the unlearned can grasp it.
For the Reformers, sola scriptura did not mean that the church and its official summaries of Scripture (creeds, confessions, catechisms, and decisions in wider assemblies) had no authority. Rather, it meant that their ministerial authority was dependent entirely on the magisterial authority of Scripture. Scripture is the master; the church is the minister.
The following theses summarize some of the issues that people should wrestle with before embracing a Roman Catholic perspective on authority.
1. The Reformers did not separate sola scriptura (by Scripture alone) from solo Christo (Christ alone), sola gratia (by grace alone), sola fide (through faith alone). As Herman Bavinck said, Faith in Scripture rises or falls with faith in Christ. Revealed from heaven, the gospel message itself (Christ as the central content of Scripture) is as much the basis for the Bibles authority as the fact that it comes from the Father through the inspiration of the Spirit. Jesus Christ, raised on the third day, certified his divine authority. Furthermore, he credited the Old Testament writings as scripture, equating the words of the prophets with the very word of God himself and commissioned his apostles to speak authoritatively in his name. Their words are his words; those who receive them also receive the Son and the Father. So Scripture is the authoritative Word of God because it comes from the unerring Father, concerning the Son, in the power of the Spirit. Neither the authority of the Bible nor that of the church can stand apart from the truth of Christ as he is clothed in his gospel.
2. Every covenant is contained in a canon (like a constitution). The biblical canon is the norm for the history of Gods saving purposes in Christ under the old and new covenants. The Old Testament canon closed with the end of the prophetic era, so that Jesus could mark a sharp division between Scripture and the traditions of the rabbis (Mk 7:8). The New Testament canon was closed at the end of the apostolic era, so that even during that era the Apostle Paul could warn the Corinthians against the super-apostles by urging, Do not go beyond what is written (1 Co 4:6). While the apostles were living, the churches were to maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you (1 Co 11:2), either by our spoken word or by our letter (2 Th 2:15). There were indeed written and unwritten traditions in the apostolic church, but only those that eventually found their way by the Spirits guidance into the New Testament are now for us the apostolic canon. The apostles (extraordinary ministers) laid the foundation and after them workers (ordinary ministers) build on that foundation (1 Co 3:10). The apostles could appeal to their own eye-witness, direct, and immediate vocation given to them by Christ, while they instructed ordinary pastors (like Timothy) to deliver to others what they had received from the apostles. As Calvin noted, Rome and the Anabaptists were ironically similar in that they affirmed a continuing apostolic office. In this way, both in effect made Gods Word subordinate to the supposedly inspired prophets and teachers of today.
3. Just as the extraordinary office of prophets and apostles is qualitatively distinct from that of ordinary ministers, the constitution (Scripture) is qualitatively distinct from the Spirit-illumined but non-inspired courts (tradition) that interpret it. Thus, Scripture is magisterial in its authority, while the churchs tradition of interpretation is ministerial.
4. To accept these theses is to embrace sola scriptura, as the Reformation understood it.
5. This is precisely the view that we find in the church fathers. First, it is clear enough from their descriptions (e.g., the account in Eusebius) that the fathers did not create the canon but received and acknowledged it. (Even Peter acknowledged Pauls writings as Scripture in 2 Peter 3:16, even though Paul clearly says in Galatians that he did not receive his gospel from or seek first the approval of any of the apostles, since he received it directly from Christ.) The criteria they followed indicates this: To be recognized as Scripture, a purported book had to be well-attested as coming from the apostolic circle. Those texts that already had the widest and earliest acceptance in public worship were easily recognized by the time Athanasius drew up the first list of all 27 NT books in 367. Before this even, many of these books were being quoted as normative scripture by Clement of Rome, Origin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and others. Of his list, Athanasius said that holy Scripture is of all things most sufficient for us (NPNF2, 4:23). Also in the 4th century Basil of Caesarea instructed, Believe those things which are written; the things which are not written, seek not It is a manifest defection from the faith, a proof of arrogance, either to reject anything of what is written, or to introduce anything that is not (On the Holy Spirit, NPNF2, 8:41). Second, although the fathers also acknowledge tradition as a ministerially authoritative interpreter, they consistently yield ultimate obedience to Scripture. For example, Augustine explains that the Nicene Creed is binding because it summarizes the clear teaching of Scripture (On the Nicene Creed: A Sermon to the Catechumens, 1).
6. Roman Catholic scholars acknowledge that the early Christian community in Rome was not unified under a single head. (Paul, for example, reminded Timothy of the gift he was given when the presbytery laid its hands on him in his ordination: 1 Tim 4:14). In fact, in the Roman Catholic-Anglican dialogue the Vatican acknowledged that the New Testament texts offer no sufficient basis for papal primacy and that they contain no explicit record of a transmission of Peters leadership (Authority in the Church II, ARCIC, para 2, 6). So one has to accept papal authority exclusively on the basis of subsequent (post-apostolic) claims of the Roman bishop, without scriptural warrant. There is no historical succession from Peter to the bishops of Rome. First, as Jerome observed in the 4th-century, Before attachment to persons in religion was begun at the instigation of the devil, the churches were governed by the common consultation of the elders, and Jerome goes so far as to suggest that the introduction of bishops as a separate order above the presbyters was more from custom than from the truth of an arrangement by the Lord (cited in the Second Helvetic Confession, Ch 18). Interestingly, even the current pope acknowledges that presbyter and episcipos were used interchangeably in the New Testament and in the earliest churches (Called to Communion, 122-123).
7. Ancient Christian leaders of the East gave special honor to the bishop of Rome, but considered any claim of one bishops supremacy to be an act of schism. Even in the West such a privilege was rejected by Gregory the Great in the sixth century. He expressed offense at being addressed by a bishop as universal pope: a word of proud address that I have forbidden .None of my predecessors ever wished to use this profane word ['universal'] .But I say it confidently, because whoever calls himself universal bishop or wishes to be so called, is in his self-exaltation Antichrists precursor, for in his swaggering he sets himself before the rest (Gregory I, Letters; tr. NPNF 2 ser.XII. i. 75-76; ii. 170, 171, 179, 166, 169, 222, 225).
8. Nevertheless, building on the claims of Roman bishops Leo I and Galsius in the 5th century, later bishops of Rome did claim precisely this proud address. Declaring themselves Christs replacement on earth, they claimed sovereignty (plenitude of power) over the world to govern the earthly and heavenly kingdoms. At the Council of Reims (1049) the Latin Church claimed for the pope the title pontifex universalisprecisely the title identified by Gregory as identifying one who in his self-exaltation [is] Antichrists precursor . Is Pope Gregory the Great correct, or are his successors?
9. Papal pretensions contributed to the Great Schism in 1054, when the churches of the East formally excommunicated the Church of Rome, and the pope reacted in kind.
10. The Avignon Papacy (1309-76) relocated the throne to France and was followed by the Western Schism (1378-1417), with three rival popes excommunicating each other and their sees. No less than the current Pope wrote, before his enthronement, For nearly half a century, the Church was split into two or three obediences that excommunicated one another, so that every Catholic lived under excommunication by one pope or another, and, in the last analysis, no one could say with certainty which of the contenders had right on his side. The Church no longer offered certainty of salvation; she had become questionable in her whole objective formthe true Church, the true pledge of salvation, had to be sought outside the institution (Principles of Catholic Theology, 196).
11. Medieval debates erupted over whether Scripture, popes or councils had the final say. Great theologians like Duns Scotus and Pierre DAilly favored sola scriptura. Papalists argued that councils had often erred and contradicted themselves, so you have to have a single voice to arbitrate the infallible truth. Conciliarists had no trouble pointing out historical examples of popes contradicting each other, leading various schisms, and not even troubling to keep their unbelief and reckless immorality private. Only at the Council of Trent was the papalist party officially affirmed in this dispute.
12. Papal claims were only strengthened in reaction to the Reformation, all the way to the promulgation of papal infallibility at the First Vatican Council in 1870. At that Council, Pope Pius IX could even respond to modern challenges to his authority by declaring, I am tradition.
13. Though inspired by God, Scripture cannot be sufficient. It is a dark, obscure, and mysterious book (rendered more so by Romes allegorizing exegesis). An infallible canon needs an infallible interpreter. This has been Romes argument. The insufficiency of Scripture rests on its lack of clarity. True it is that the Bible is a collection of texts spread across many centuries, brimming with a variety of histories, poetry, doctrines, apocalyptic, and laws. However, wherever it has been translated in the vernacular and disseminated widely, barely literate people have been able to understand its central message. Contrast this with the libraries full of decreetals and encyclicals, councilor decisions and counter-decisions, bulls and promulgations. Any student of church history recognizes that in this case the teacher is often far more obscure than the text. Its no wonder that Rome defines faith as fides implicita: taking the churchs word for it. For Rome, faith is not trust in Jesus Christ according to the gospel, but yielding assent and obedience unreservedly simply to everything the church teaches as necessary to salvation. There are many hazards associated with embracing an infallible text without an infallible interpreter. However, the alternative is not greater certainty and clarity about the subject matter, but a sacrifice of the intellect and an abandonment of ones personal responsibility for ones commitments to the decisions and acts of others.
14. Those of us who remain Reformed must examine the Scriptures and the relevant arguments before concluding that Romes claims are not justified and its teaching is at variance with crucial biblical doctrines. A Protestant friend in the midst of being swayed by Romes arguments exclaims, Thats exactly why I cant be a Protestant anymore. Without an infallible magisterium everyone believes whatever he chooses. At this point, its important to distinguish between a radical individualism (believing whatever one chooses) and a personal commitment in view of ones ultimate authority. My friend may be under the illusion that his or her decision is different from that, but its not. In the very act of making the decision to transfer ultimate authority from Scripture to the magisterium, he or she is weighing various biblical passages and theological arguments. The goal (shifting the burden of responsibility from oneself to the church) is contradicted by the method. At this point, one cannot simply surrender to a Reformed church or a Roman church; they must make a decision after careful personal study. Were both in the same shoes.
15. Most crucially, Romes ambitious claims are tested by its faithfulness to the gospel. If an apostle could pronounce his anathema on anyoneincluding himself or an angel from heavenwho taught a gospel different from the one he brought to them (Gal 1:8-9), then surely any minister or church body after the apostles is under that threat. First, Paul was not assuming that the true church is beyond the possibility of error. Second, he placed himself under the authority of that Word. Just read the condemnations from the Council of Trent below. Do they square with the clear and obvious teaching of Scripture? If they do not, then the choice to be made is between the infallible writings of the apostles and those after the apostles and since who claim to be the churchs infallible teachers.
As I have pointed out in previous posts, the frustration with the state of contemporary Protestantism is understandable. I feel it every day. Yet those who imagine that they will escape the struggle between the already and the not yet, the certainty of a promise and the certainty of possession, the infallibility of Gods Word and the fallibility of its appointed teachers, are bound to be disappointed wherever they land. As Calvin counseled on the matter, Scripture alone is sufficient; better to limp along this path than to dash with all speed outside it.
I suspect you did not read this. I hope you could provide a better answer than the one I received.
Beautiful, well written.
I tend to be more sympathetic to the EO since they DO believe that doctrine can be changed or modified given the will of the church. They don't pretend like our Catholic friends who will say that they never altered their doctrine when their websites clearly shows this is not the case. The EO may be wrong in my personal opinion, but at least they make sense.
Instead, some other would be singled out for some small mistake, real or imagined, the attacks focusing upon where there was perceived weakness, fairly often devolving into some sort of personal attack. I'm watching, and see what goes on.
The Eastern Orthodox Church followed the teachings of Pelagius and John Cassian (a follower of Pelagius and one who emphasized "semi-Pelagius"). As I've stated many times on this board, it isn't surprising the Roman Church is identifying with the eastern Church. They have embraced the semi-Pelegius views which at one time was rejected by the Church as heresy.
The idea that Christ merely was a symbol of perfect love acting out His obedience to the Father may be rooted in eastern teachings but it certainly was not part of western teachings. Augustine view (especially late in life) which he received from the early teachings of Cyprian, was that man was saved to do good works. We don't do good works to be saved. A subtle but important difference. He condemned semi-Pelagius and fought very hard against it. The Church embraced it at the Council of Trent.
But these brethren of ours, about whom and on whose behalf we are now discoursing, say, perhaps, that the Pelagians are refuted by this apostolical testimony in which it is said that we are chosen in Christ and predestinated before the foundation of the world, in order that we should be holy and immaculate in His sight in love. For they think that "having received God's commands we are of ourselves by the choice of our free will made holy and immaculate in His sight in love; and since God foresaw that this would be the case," they say, "He therefore chose and predestinated us in Christ before the foundation of the world." Although the apostle says that it was not because He foreknew that we should be such, but in order that we might be such by the same election of His grace, by which He showed us favour in His beloved Son. When, therefore, He predestinated us, He foreknew His own work by which He makes us holy and immaculate. Whence the Pelagian error is rightly refuted by this testimony. "But we say," say they, "that God did not foreknow anything as ours except that faith by which we begin to believe, and that He chose and predestinated us before the foundation of the world, in order that we might be holy and immaculate by His grace and by His work." But let them also hear in this testimony the words where he says, "We have obtained a lot, being predestinated according to His purpose who worketh all things." [Eph. 1.11.] He, therefore, work-eth the beginning of our belief who worketh all things; because faith itself does not precede that calling of which it is said: "For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance;" [Rom. 11.29.] and of which it is said: "Not of works, but of Him that calleth" [Rom. 9.12.]
Not if you are talking about the divinity of Jesus. Mary is only the mother of Jesus if he is less than God, much more than that if he is God. As the Arian controversy shows, the Scriptures are open to both interpretations.
To be more precise, Christ was an example of good works by being obedient. We too should be obedient in good works.
See a problem???
>>1) Where did Jesus give instructions that the Christian faith should be based exclusively on a book?<<
In John 14:26 Jesus inspired the Apostles with His Word. John 14:26, But the Comforter, even the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said unto you. (ASV) Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would be given so that the Apostles will have brought to their remembrance all that Jesus taught, i.e., Jesus wants to pass on to the world through the Apostles not their wisdom, not their insight, but His own Word! Jesus, remember, is the high point of Gods revelation. Jesus turns to the Apostles and says, The Spirit will bring to your mind everything that I have taught. He didnt say that to any of the people after the apostles did he.
In Matthew 10:40, Jesus explains the concept of an apostle known well in that day when He said, He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me. (NKJV) Jesus was sent by the Father, and Jesus turns and sends the Apostles into the world. And He says the person who receives you (as My apostle) in fact receives Me; and in so doing, receives the Father Who sent Me! Jesus made the apostles spokesmen for Him and authorized to speak His word. They didnt speak their own words but through the Holy Spirit remembered everything Jesus spoke. Jesus didnt give that authority to anyone else did He.
Paul taught that it was his word. Galatians 1:11-12, For I make known to you, brethren, as touching the gospel which was preached by me, that it is not after man. For neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came to me through revelation of Jesus Christ. Once again, no other human beings were given that promise by Christ.
Paul says II Timothy 1:13, Paul says, Hold the pattern of sound words which thou hast heard from me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. That good thing which was committed unto thee guard through the Holy Spirit which dwelleth in us. You see he says to listen to those who were told that the Holy Spirit which dwelleth in us is what we are to hold to. No one else was told that the Holy Spirit would teach you all things and bring to your remembrance did He.
The apostles wrote what the Holy Spirit guided them to write and we know that Jesus told them the Holy Spirit would bring to their remembrance what to teach. Did Jesus give that promise to anyone else? Did the apostles promise anyone that the Holy Spirit would bring to their remembrance what Jesus taught? Paul warned about teaching what he didnt teach. II Timothy 1:13, Paul says, Hold the pattern of sound words which thou hast heard from me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. That good thing which was committed unto thee guard through the Holy Spirit which dwelleth in us. The only teaching we have from the apostles is recorded in their writings. What was important to know was written down and not left to the risky word of mouth.
Once again Jesus says. John 16:12-15 12"I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.
No other human was given that promise by Jesus and the writings they left us are all we can truly say with faith are inspired by the Holy Spirit and as we see in II Timothy 1 we are warned that we should listen to only what the apostles taught.
The RCC, John Smith, and Muhammad might convince you that they somehow can add to what we know the apostles taught but Ill stay convinced that Jesus told the apostles that the Holy Spirit would bring to their remembrance and told no one else that.
"ALL SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for DOCTRINE, for REPROOF, for CORRECTION, for INSTRUCTION IN RIGHTEOUSNESS: That the man of GOd may be PERFECT, THOROUGHLY FURNISHED unto all good works." 2 Tim. 3:16-17.
We weren't. Try to keep up.
See my post #248
See my post #248
>>4) Where in the Bible do we find an inspired and infallible list of books that should belong in the Bible? Where did the table of contents come from?<<
See my post #248
>>5) Where is the concept of Trinity explained?<<
6) Where is the concept of Sola Scriptura explained?
See my post #248
He is a poster who claims that Catholics are idolaters, that those who celebrate Easter and Christmas are pagans and that claims that the idea of church on Sunday is a man made tradition and apparently not either Christian or Biblical. Given that this is the point of view from which CynicalBear views the world, why should anyone pay attention to his odd, often incomplete and clearly out of context cut-n-pastes?
The message of the Scriptures has nothing to do with the divinity of Jesus?
All Scripture—meaning what? You are dancing around the plain fact that the books of the canon were not inscribed on tablets of stone as was the law of Moses direct from the hand of God. Why these writings? Why ONLY these writings?
Wouldnt that be making it personal?
When did facts become “personal”?
Nice try Robby. The fact is that Mary is no where mentioned after the ascension. Thats what we were discussing. There was much written and taught after the ascension of Jesus but Mary was given not even a mention.
Because Jesus told no one else that the Holy Spirit would bring to their remembrance. Paul said to teach only what the apostles taught. And Jesus says in John 16: 13When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.
You go right ahead and listen to the RCC, John Smith, or Muhammad but Im staying with what the apostles taught because Jesus told them the Holy Spirit would bring to their remembrance and not any others.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.