Incarnation and Authority

[Truthstalker]

I can not believe that least common denomiator Christianity is invisibility.

Where is Chesterton to answer this properly? Probably he’d gone on about the invisibility of the sense of having an invisible city on a hill for all to see. It makes no sense, it is implausible to boot, it cannot be seen, by its very nature. There are those who by the gace of God will be saints; there are those who will walk away. There are those who break out in a reverent shiver whenever the priest speaks the words of transubstantiation, and there are those priests who are checking out the women while they are celebrating Mass. Some of the shiverers will walk away, some of those priests whose heart is elsewhere will someday rest in the heart of Christ. And who, really, can sort the wheat from the chaff? Who can play judge and jury on the hearts of men? Why do we all cry out instinctively, '“Pick me! Pick me!” at the question? For four hundred years Protestants have been earnestly seeking a pure church, strangely enough to collect the invisible church and make it visible, and the attempt was bankrupt from the inception.

Someone made the observation that if you left your umbrella in a Methodist (not to pick on Methodists!!!) church, you could be sure it would be there on your return. But you could also be sure that your umbrella would be gone if you left it in a Catholic church, because they let anybody in, and keep no one out. In that sense the honesty of the Methodists is an indictment against them. It is high praise of the Catholics that the theives are willing to come. It is easier for a thief to repent, I suppose, than a Pharisee, or for a camel to go through the eye of a needle. We want Jesus on our side. Certainly not on the side of the bum we live next door to.

And what kind of a church did Jesus lead on earth? Noisy, visible, hungry, sick, salt-of-the-earth types with nothing better to do than run out in the desert after some miracle worker. He said someday he would separate the sheep from the goats. He never said He would do it at the time of the Reformation.

 

[Randy_Carson]

We can’t seem to agree on the “On this rock” passage. Some other method must be presented.

Disagreement from what quarter? Protestants begrudgingly acknowledge that Peter is the “kepha” to which Jesus referred.

Petros is simply the masculine form of the feminine Greek noun petra. Like Spanish and French, Greek nouns have gender. When the female noun petra, large rock, was used as Simon’s name, it was rendered in the masculine form as petros. Otherwise, calling him Petra would have been like calling him Michelle instead of Michael.

Protestant Greek scholars like D.A. Carson and Joseph Thayer admit there is no distinction in meaning between petros and petra in the Koine Greek of the New Testament. [Joseph H. Thayer, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1996), 507; D.A. Carson, “Matthew,” in Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), vol. 8, 368.] Petra does mean ‘rock’, usually a ‘large rock.’ That is exactly what petros means. The Greek word for ‘pebble’ or ‘small stone’ is lithos, not petros, used numerous times in the Bible (Mt. 4:6, 7:9, 21:42, by quick count, 32 times in the New Testament).

David Hill, a Presbyterian minister at the University of Sheffield wrote, “It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church. Attempts to interpret the ‘rock’ as something other than Peter in person (e.g. his faith, Jesus, etc.) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of which is highly unlikely” (David Hill, The Gospel of Matthew, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972), 261)

We can search for additional “methods” to prove the primacy and authority of the Petrine office, but there is little doubt that Jesus’ own words are sufficient to establish this truth.

 

[Truthstalker]

Disagreement from what quarter? Protestants begrudgingly acknowledge that Peter is the “kepha” to which Jesus referred.

Petros is simply the masculine form of the feminine Greek noun petra. Like Spanish and French, Greek nouns have gender. When the female noun petra, large rock, was used as Simon’s name, it was rendered in the masculine form as petros. Otherwise, calling him Petra would have been like calling him Michelle instead of Michael.

Protestant Greek scholars like D.A. Carson and Joseph Thayer admit there is no distinction in meaning between petros and petra in the Koine Greek of the New Testament. [Joseph H. Thayer, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1996), 507; D.A. Carson, “Matthew,” in Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), vol. 8, 368.] Petra does mean ‘rock’, usually a ‘large rock.’ That is exactly what petros means. The Greek word for ‘pebble’ or ‘small stone’ is lithos, not petros, used numerous times in the Bible (Mt. 4:6, 7:9, 21:42, by quick count, 32 times in the New Testament).

David Hill, a Presbyterian minister at the University of Sheffield wrote, “It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church. Attempts to interpret the ‘rock’ as something other than Peter in person (e.g. his faith, Jesus, etc.) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of which is highly unlikely” (David Hill, The Gospel of Matthew, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972), 261)

We can search for additional “methods” to prove the primacy and authority of the Petrine office, but there is little doubt that Jesus’ own words are sufficient to establish this truth.

This has been covered on many spirited threads on CAF. I don’t want to reprise the arguments. I will say that from the present passage, from Acts, from Augustine, from history and other early church fathers it certainly looks like some kind of Petrine primacy is more than possible. I hesitate to say that the fact that many Orthodox and Protestants reject the papacy is solely due to bias. As in everything Protestants are divided on this issue, and if what has been presented so far does not convince, is there more that needs to be done? Deeper theological foundations? The only thing, perhaps, that Protestants are united on is that we reject the Pope. Not exactly a positive basis for a Christian identity.

Some Orthodox are willing to discuss some sort of reformed papacy, such as a first among equals. Luther, at one time, was willing to have a reformed papacy (or so I’ve heard). I think Calvin rejected it outright, and I’m not sure why. Habit, maybe.
Then there are those who recognize that the Pope is, like it or not, the spiritual leader of a significant percentage of the human race, and that a lot of what he says makes sense, and a habit of suspicion must be overcome, and God can use him.
You may not appreciate the effort it takes me to say that.

 

[Truthstalker]

Augustine’s Tractate 120 bears on this. He compares the wound in Christ’s side to the wound in Adam’s when the rib was removed; in both cases it was to make a bride, that of the first Adam from the rib, that of the second from the blood and water that flowed forth, that is, if I understand correctly, sacramentally: the wound in Christ’s side became a gate of life. Augustine also compares the wound in Christ’s side to the door in Noah’s ark, wherein all to be saved must enter.

(Augustine, it should be noted, leans heavily on the word “laid open” where the Greek has “pierced”:ennuksen. His point however remains valid.)

In what way are the blood and the water of the sacraments those of Christ incarnate, and how is it that the Catholic Church has the exclusive right to validly dispense them?

 

[petra]

Catholics operate out of a Scripture and Tradition mindset. It’s a consideration that it is NOT a presuppositional system but one logically arising from the doctrine of the incarnation. . .The challenge to the Catholic on this thread is to demonstrate that because of the incarnation we necessarily have a valid oral Tradition today as well as the written Scripture. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and so it is soli verbum dei.

Well, like you said, the incarnation is that common ground. I think it is the key to reconciling the very different epistemologies.

It seems to me that the following is the logical progression of establishing the S+T system:

1. There is historical evidence of the life of Jesus Christ (some of this is included in what we regard as scripture, but those documents can first be evaluated as historical documents, rather than initially taken as scripture.) Evidence of Christ’s life is also provided by the Jewish journalist/historian, Josephus.
2. Taking the gospel accounts as historical (though not yet scriptural), we see that Christ fulfilled numerous prophecies, and this occurred in a way that could not have been contrived or humanly self-fulfilled. (This does presuppose the inspiration of Old Testament works, so it may be preferable to start there). We also see in these accounts that Christ claims to be God, yet His works and words are not consistent with one who was deceptive or schizophrenic. Thus, we can take His words to be God’s Word.
3. Christ indicated that He was going to leave His followers and return to the Father, but He provided significant information about how His ministry would be continued after He was gone. The controversy about Peter and the rock will never be reconciled between Catholics and Protestants, and even the Early Church Fathers were divided on the meaning of that passage. However, in my opinion, it doesn’t make any difference whether the rock is Jesus, Peter, or the profession of Peter’s faith. I happen to agree with Augustine that the rock referenced is Jesus. However, the authority of the Church does not hinge on this. Regardless who the rock is, Jesus says that His Church will be built upon it and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. Then Jesus gives Peter the keys to the kingdom. This has significance in Jewish culture because when the owner of a house gives someone else the keys, the owner is giving the steward complete administrative control over the household. (Isaiah 22:22: Then I will set the keys of the house of David on his shoulder, when he opens no one will shut, when he shuts no one will open." So regardless of whether Jesus is the rock upon which the Church is built, He is giving Peter complete authority over the household, both to bind and release the household to and from rules. We know from the preceding verse that, in spite of this authority, the gates of Hades will never prevail.
4. The body of revelation flows from Jesus to the apostle (including Paul, who had a personal encounter with Christ in the third heaven), Church’s authority flows from that critical reference point of Christ giving Peter the keys, and Christ promises a measure of supernatural protection over His Church.
5. This authority and infallibility is the only rational basis for trusting the Scriptures as infallible, as any criteria that one might suggest as being self-evident to enable mere human selection of the inspired books fails in the case of at least one book in the Bible. The writings that we initially rely upon for historical information can now be trusted at a deeper spiritual level.

Next Post >>>>

 

[petra]

Moreover, there are a number of severe limitations that make it seem very impractical that God chose to use a book as the sole source of authority:

• Before and during the time that the scriptures were being written, the Church did not have access to Christ’s revelation in written form—at least not more than a small portion of it.

• After the inspired writings were complete, geography limited full distribution for a period of time.

• An official canon of scriptures was not defined until several hundred years after Christ. The infallibility of the Catholic Church is the only rational basis for trusting that the canon is accurate. The collection was not self-evident and any criteria one imposes after the fact will expose conflicts in what was actually selected.

• Until Gutenberg invented the printing press, reproducing written works was very costly and time consuming. A single large book required the skins of 300 sheep, and the production of the vellum itself was very time consuming. The ink was prepared from fine soot or lampblack. Then began the tedious process of copying the manuscript. Until the printing press, there were very few books. Because there were few books, literacy was not a necessity. So for 75% of the Church Age, books were scarce and most people illiterate.

• After the Reformation split and the subsequent splits ad infinitum, we see very different interpretations of scripture on central issues, such as how one is saved and whether salvation can be lost. We have infallible scripture, but that does not ensure infallible interpretation.

Given these limitations, why would God make Christianity so dependant upon a book? The sola scriptura position is unreasonable, untenable, and actually presupposes the infallibility of the Catholic Church.

On the other hand, there is a rational and reasonable basis for trusting the Catholic Church as the highest authority because the Church speaks for Christ, having been given the keys to His household. The infallibility of the Chuch is the only basis for trusting the scriptures as infallible, and the scriptures themselves speak of the necessity to follow oral tradtion.

 

[petra]

At the same time I am angered by what I find in Catholics and in Catholic churches: if I become Catholic, it will be in spite of both (I mean no offense here; you probably know the kind of Catholics and have been to the kind of Masses I am thinking of). Sometimes I think they are out to make it as hard as possible to want to become Catholic. I read one thing of what the Catholic church is; I see another thing in Catholics and the churches around me.

Sorry you feel that way. I guess my experience as a lifelong Evangelical Protestant gave me a different perspective. I learned as a Protestant that people are imperfect and will disappoint. As a Catholic now, I can easily separate the Church as a corporate body and all that it means, with the disappointing behavior of individual Catholics. When I look at the Church I see that which Jesus instituted by handing the keys of His household to Peter and culminiating the the outpowering of the Holy Spirit at Pentacost. It is beautiful and awesome to be a part of.

 

[Truthstalker]

Sorry you feel that way. I guess my experience as a lifelong Evangelical Protestant gave me a different perspective. I learned as a Protestant that people are imperfect and will disappoint. As a Catholic now, I can easily separate the Church as a corporate body and all that it means, with the disappointing behavior of individual Catholics. When I look at the Church I see that which Jesus instituted by handing the keys of His household to Peter and culminiating the the outpowering of the Holy Spirit at Pentacost. It is beautiful and awesome to be a part of.

It’s just something I have to work around. Calvin’s view on total depravity is less bleak than mine used to be.

 

[Truthstalker]

Moreover, there are a number of severe limitations that make it seem very impractical that God chose to use a book as the sole source of authority:

• Before and during the time that the scriptures were being written, the Church did not have access to Christ’s revelation in written form—at least not more than a small portion of it.

• After the inspired writings were complete, geography limited full distribution for a period of time.

• An official canon of scriptures was not defined until several hundred years after Christ. The infallibility of the Catholic Church is the only rational basis for trusting that the canon is accurate. The collection was not self-evident and any criteria one imposes after the fact will expose conflicts in what was actually selected.

• Until Gutenberg invented the printing press, reproducing written works was very costly and time consuming. A single large book required the skins of 300 sheep, and the production of the vellum itself was very time consuming. The ink was prepared from fine soot or lampblack. Then began the tedious process of copying the manuscript. Until the printing press, there were very few books. Because there were few books, literacy was not a necessity. So for 75% of the Church Age, books were scarce and most people illiterate.

• After the Reformation split and the subsequent splits ad infinitum, we see very different interpretations of scripture on central issues, such as how one is saved and whether salvation can be lost. We have infallible scripture, but that does not ensure infallible interpretation.

Given these limitations, why would God make Christianity so dependant upon a book? The sola scriptura position is unreasonable, untenable, and actually presupposes the infallibility of the Catholic Church.

On the other hand, there is a rational and reasonable basis for trusting the Catholic Church as the highest authority because the Church speaks for Christ, having been given the keys to His household. The infallibility of the Chuch is the only basis for trusting the scriptures as infallible, and the scriptures themselves speak of the necessity to follow oral tradtion.

Well, both under SS or S+T there is a reliance on the Holy Spirit to guide the believer. The devastating lack of any objective human measure is one of the chief indictments of SS, which I seldom see mentioned around here when people attack it.

I don’t believe in Sola Scriptura. I don’t think it can be defended, at least not the pop version. There is a more nuanced version I’m fond of, but my real sympathies are with Prima Scriptura - Scripture first.

The authority of the church must from from it being the body of Christ, Christ incarnate, but incarnate in a different sense than the incarnation. This is more complicated than I thought. Throw in the guidance of the Holy Spirit and it gets worse…

 

[petra]

Well, both under SS or S+T there is a reliance on the Holy Spirit to guide the believer.

Sure, but accurately perceiving that guidance is a process that is subject to human error. Even Protestants would agree that if one thinks the Holy Spirit is leading them in a certain way, but it contradicts scripture, then that perception is clearly wrong. Due to the significant differences in key doctrines among Protestants, it is clear that personal interpretation of scripture is not an infallble process either. Protestants have not solved the problem of how divine authority leads and protects the Church. In contrast, the Catholic Church can explain this.

I don’t believe in Sola Scriptura. I don’t think it can be defended, at least not the pop version. There is a more nuanced version I’m fond of, but my real sympathies are with Prima Scriptura - Scripture first.

So how do you get there? How do you get from the Incarnation to Prima Scriptura?

The authority of the church must from from it being the body of Christ, Christ incarnate, but incarnate in a different sense than the incarnation. This is more complicated than I thought. Throw in the guidance of the Holy Spirit and it gets worse…

Incarnate in a different sense? What does that mean?

How does the guidance of the Holy Spirit complicate a discussion of divine authority? In the “food chain” of infallible revelation, it is relatively low—by even Protestant standards.

Moving from the subjective (and fallible) to the objective (and infallible) are the following:

1. personal revelation from the Holy Spirit
2. personal interpretation of the scriptures
3. Church doctrine and authority as derived by Christ’s promise that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church and by the transference of the keys of the household to Peter.

What is complicated about this?

 

[Truthstalker]

Sure, but accurately perceiving that guidance is a process that is subject to human error. Even Protestants would agree that if one thinks the Holy Spirit is leading them in a certain way, but it contradicts scripture, then that perception is clearly wrong. Due to the significant differences in key doctrines among Protestants, it is clear that personal interpretation of scripture is not an infallble process either. Protestants have not solved the problem of how divine authority leads and protects the Church. In contrast, the Catholic Church can explain this.

You mean you have accepted the Catholic Church’s explanation. On what basis do you accept that explanation? I suspect on the basis of personal judgement you have accepted Catholicism, which means that the distinction between Catholicism and being Protestant is solely on the basis of a personal decision we each make - one to accept Catholicism, another, ultimately perhaps, to reject it. Many Catholics are not confirmed or otherwise walk away from the Church; others accept it, almost uniformly because they personally realize it it true.

So how do you get there? How do you get from the Incarnation to Prima Scriptura?

I don’t know. Until you asked it the question had not occured to me.

Incarnate in a different sense? What does that mean?

If the Church is Christ’s body, then it is Christ incarnate. But He now sits in heaven.

How does the guidance of the Holy Spirit complicate a discussion of divine authority? In the “food chain” of infallible revelation, it is relatively low—by even Protestant standards.

Moving from the subjective (and fallible) to the objective (and infallible) are the following:

1. personal revelation from the Holy Spirit
2. personal interpretation of the scriptures
3. Church doctrine and authority as derived by Christ’s promise that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church and by the transference of the keys of the household to Peter.

What is complicated about this?

Authority is not derived solely from the incarnation but pneumatically, by the continued guidance of the Holy Spirit. Also, there seem to be different forms of incarnation, for example, Christ and Church. There may be others.

Please consider that the “gates of hell” relates to a defensive position, not an attack by hell on the church, but an attack ON hell by the church. The Church will triumph. That promise does not relate to infallibility. Gates in warfare are always defensive, protecting a city or other fortified location, never offensive. IBecause the Church will win, it is without error? This is a non sequitor.

 

[JaneFrances]

Please consider that the “gates of hell” relates to a defensive position, not an attack by hell on the church, but an attack ON hell by the church. The Church will triumph. That promise does not relate to infallibility. Gates in warfare are always defensive, protecting a city or other fortified location, never offensive. IBecause the Church will win, it is without error? This is a non sequitor.

I like this line of thinking. I appreciate the implications of the “gates” in terms historical and theological, but I think I may disagree that infallibility only applies to a defensive position.

When an infallible pronouncement is made, it is not always in defense of doctrine, nor is it necessarily prompted by an offense. Perhaps it is not so much “Because the Church will win, it is without error.” But rather, “The Church will win (ie, remain without error), because the gates of hell can not.” The charism of Infallibility does not ensure that the Church will only win when we are attacked. We will win when we play. In other words, our forward rocks and when he shows up, we win and their keeper sucks.

Hmmm. . .what is the logical extension here? I need to think about it.

 

[JaneFrances]

In other words, our forward rocks and when he shows up, we win and their keeper sucks.

Hmmm. . .what is the logical extension here? I need to think about it.

Thinking some more. . .We will win when our rockin’ forward shows up, to play only on fields A and B–not on C, D, E, etc.

 

[petra]

You mean you have accepted the Catholic Church’s explanation. On what basis do you accept that explanation? I suspect on the basis of personal judgement you have accepted Catholicism, which means that the distinction between Catholicism and being Protestant is solely on the basis of a personal decision we each make - one to accept Catholicism, another, ultimately perhaps, to reject it. Many Catholics are not confirmed or otherwise walk away from the Church; others accept it, almost uniformly because they personally realize it it true.

If what you mean by “personal judgment” is a subjective personal decision to believe or not believe, I would disagree. In my original post, I provided a rational progresssion from the Incarnation to the Church’s authority, begininning with historical evidence of Christ’s life, the implications of who He was based on the evidence, the promise that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church, and His clear intent to give the keys of His household to Peter.

If the Church is Christ’s body, then it is Christ incarnate. But He now sits in heaven.

This statement doesn’t make sense. One needs to be careful not to take metaphors beyond their appropriate and intended meaning. Metaphors are only useful for making certain parallels, but cannot be applied literally from every aspect of the symbol to that which is represented. The Church is the Body of Christ because Christ is the Head. We are also Christ’s mouth, hands and feet on earth as we take the gospel to the world and love our neighbor. But that is the extent of the analogy. The source of authority is Christ who was literally incarnate—God entering space and time to live among us. The question that Christians need to account for is how the revelation of Christ as Logos comes to us in the 21st Century.

Authority is not derived solely from the incarnation but pneumatically, by the continued guidance of the Holy Spirit. Also, there seem to be different forms of incarnation, for example, Christ and Church. There may be others.

What you have said here takes a low view of Christ as Logos. If we are to believe John 1:1, Jesus Christ is the sole source of authority. Period. It is incumbant upon Christians to explain how Christ revelation of doctrine and moral teachings reaches us infallibly today.

Please consider that the “gates of hell” relates to a defensive position, not an attack by hell on the church, but an attack ON hell by the church. The Church will triumph. That promise does not relate to infallibility. Gates in warfare are always defensive, protecting a city or other fortified location, never offensive. IBecause the Church will win, it is without error? This is a non sequitor.

I agree with your interpretation that the referenced scripture describes an offensive position of the Church against Hell. By default, everyone is born into original sin and Satan’s dominion. The premise of the gospel is that the Church storms the gates of Hell to rescue people, one by one. How is this possible without infallibility? It implies that the Church will teach doctrine that is capable of leading people to salvation and, on the other hand, that it would not teach doctrine that would deceive people toward damnation. You prove the point that Christ is promising a measure of infallibility.

Furthermore, while this verse can be taken to describe the Church’s offensive position, other scriptures clearly talk about offensive attacks of the devil. The devil prowls around like a lion seeking to devour. False teachers will attempt to mislead.

How will the Church “win” if there is not some source of objective and infallible revelation? You may suggestion that the objective constant is scripture. While you are correct in trusting scriptures as infallible, this trust is based on presupposition and a disconnect from Christ as Logos.

 

[Truthstalker]

If what you mean by “personal judgment” is a subjective personal decision to believe or not believe, I would disagree. In my original post, I provided a rational progresssion from the Incarnation to the Church’s authority, begininning with historical evidence of Christ’s life, the implications of who He was based on the evidence, the promise that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church, and His clear intent to give the keys of His household to Peter.

Protestants seem to be frequently derided here for coming to conclusions based on rational argumentation based on Scripture. I need to review your post in light of what you just said, and I don’t have time right now. I was expecting a third post in that series. You seemed to be leaving things hanging.

I also need to look at the Logos and its implications. John wrote in the context of hellenic philosophy, and Logos had important meanings. I need to do some research. But I think you would agree that all three persons of the Godhead are authoritative - including the Holy Spirit. I appreciate your post; I see this from a new perspective.

More later.

Thanks.

Concerning JF’s post, it is not specified which gates we win on. It doesn’t say we win on all of them, or on some but not others. It says they will not prevail, which means to me that there may be some instances in which there is defeat, but the overall pattern is one of victory, as when a boxer takes some punches but winds up winning the round, or some goals are taken but the team still wins.

I am also cognizant of the distinction between *infallible *and inerrant. Only men could be fallible, while the Scriptures are inerrant, without error as opposed to being unable to make mistakes.

We (meaning the people I hang around with) regard the Scriptures as inerrant, but men as very fallible. God will, by His grace, prevail in our lives, and we must trust Him to do so, to be faithful in guiding us. We will make mistakes in hearing and obeying Him, but we trust Him to straighten us out, even if He doesn’t do so while we are still on the planet. We may make messes to the fourth generation, and still God is faithful to us. There is something reassuring to me in the impassioned words of a pastor that he cannot assure you, something that engenders trust in a preacher who says to not trust him but to check it out yourself in the Bible, in the admission of human helplessness of an office worker who says they cannot do it, they cannot be trusted, but only Jesus can, but trust Him to work through their weak and impotent hands and minds and hearts, despite their errors and frailties and sins. I find an echo of this in Catholicism, but also this cold hard edge of steel, this absolute insistence on infallibility, this reckless assertion based on reason, this alien concept that separates the brethren. You are stuck with the unyielding statement that there is a vast number of dogmas unalterable; we are stuck with the statement that only the Bible can be trusted, and then the inspiration, ultimately, of the Holy Spirit to teach us (we do not rely. or should not, on ourselves), I find the idea of dogma bewildering: real thought has become incarnate in the teachings of the Catholic church, and instead of a representation of truth, there is objective truth splayed for the world to see. Strange. Odd. Intriguing.

 

[Truthstalker]

This statement doesn’t make sense. One needs to be careful not to take metaphors beyond their appropriate and intended meaning. Metaphors are only useful for making certain parallels, but cannot be applied literally from every aspect of the symbol to that which is represented. The Church is the Body of Christ because Christ is the Head. We are also Christ’s mouth, hands and feet on earth as we take the gospel to the world and love our neighbor. But that is the extent of the analogy. The source of authority is Christ who was literally incarnate—God entering space and time to live among us. The question that Christians need to account for is how the revelation of Christ as Logos comes to us in the 21st Century.

You raise a good point, once again. I agree that metaphors must be carefully used. Too many points get dismissed on the ground that the other side is incorrectly using metaphor, such as in John 6 and here whether, or how much, the image of the church as the body of Christ is metaphorical.

I think a primary distinction between Protestants and Catholics is that Protestants argue for a direct revelation to each believer of God’s truth, by God, rather than truth being mediated by the church. In that sense I do not think you can support your argument by regarding the Body of Christ solely as metaphorical - you must argue for some reality. I’m using the word “reality” sloppily, but it makes the point.

Furthermore, while this verse can be taken to describe the Church’s offensive position, other scriptures clearly talk about offensive attacks of the devil. The devil prowls around like a lion seeking to devour. False teachers will attempt to mislead.

Agreed. Paul warns repeatedly against them. But it should be noted that in Ephesians 6 the armor and weaponry is all offensive - there is nothing covering the back. The church is an army at war, on the offense; the bride of Christ wears combat boots; the Christian is to be fearless, loving his life not unto death, and overcoming the evil one, and none of these things are metaphors without application or real meaning.

If there is infallible leadership on earth, I am interested. But from where I sit, the inerrant Word coupled with the power of the Holy Spirit in grace poured out is more than abundant, is overflowing, immeasurable, inexhaustible, dwarfing any human leadership. Peter’s primacy was one of rebuke, rebuked by Jesus on one side and Paul on the other, as well as in preaching and reaching out to the Gentiles although called to the Jews. Whatever strength was in Peter was not Peter, it was Christ, and so often it seems the Church puts its strength in itself rather than in Christ. Without Christ it is nothing.

That is one of the things that fascinates me about Catholicism.
Without Christ it is nothing. The priest says words, and God acts. The priest has little to do with it. Whether in absolution or baptism or communion or marriage, the secret of the priest I think is that he basically is a bystander. The Church does little, and what it does is dangerous. The Church is best when it is at its weakest, doing nothing, because then its only strength is its only strength, and that is Christ. All but Christ is folly, where the Church seems to go whenever it forgets this. Somehow this ties into the Incarnation. But as I read the doctrine concerning infallibility, it basically is a promise that the Pope won’t mess things up too badly. This is on par with Douglas Adam’ s comment about earth: mostly harmless. But I get nervous when the Church tries to be something it isn’t. And it keeps trying, and making claims about all sorts of interesting things, often with good reason. But the Lord’s ways are not our ways, and His thoughts are not our thoughts, but His are higher, more subtle and better. It is good to think His thoughts after Him, and I think it pleases Him, but we also need a sense of humor about ourselves and our abilities. Do I laugh at the Church? No, but sometimes I think the saints up on high must be rolling on the floor with laughter. At us. And so the idea of accepting infallibility comes to me with difficulty.

 

[petra]

Protestants seem to be frequently derided here for coming to conclusions based on rational argumentation based on Scripture. I need to review your post in light of what you just said, and I don’t have time right now. I was expecting a third post in that series. You seemed to be leaving things hanging.

I am extremely sorry if you took anything I have said in that way. I appreciate this topic and your thoughts. I also relate to where you are coming from, as I was a Protestant of the reformed wing for most of my life.

I also need to look at the Logos and its implications. John wrote in the context of hellenic philosophy, and Logos had important meanings. I need to do some research. But I think you would agree that all three persons of the Godhead are authoritative - including the Holy Spirit. I appreciate your post; I see this from a new perspective.

Concerning JF’s post, it is not specified which gates we win on. It doesn’t say we win on all of them, or on some but not others. It says they will not prevail, which means to me that there may be some instances in which there is defeat, but the overall pattern is one of victory, as when a boxer takes some punches but winds up winning the round, or some goals are taken but the team still wins.

One must be careful to distinguish between the role of each Person of the Trinity and how they relate to mankind. God’s will and mind are conveyed to us both objectively and subjectively and both universally and personally. While the subjective and personal is valid and an essential part of our relationship with God, it must always be checked against the objective and universal. If there is a conflict, we must defer to the latter. Again, Protestants do not disagree with this when personal spiritual intuitions (assumed to be received from the Holy Spirit) are contrasted with Scripture. If there is a contradiction, Scripture must prevail. Scriptures have a measure of objectivity, as many scriptures are quite plain. A solid understanding of context, audience, and history bolsters this. However, there is still a measure of subjectivity in interpreting Scripture. If there were not, there would not be such disagreement in Protestantism on central issues such as how one is saved, whether one can lose salvation, and what the remedy is if that happens. Up to this point, the only person of the Trinity that is involved is the Holy Spirit. The fact that personal intuition and personal interpretation of Scripture has potential for error is not a slight against the Holy Spirit. It is only to recognize that this is only part of the puzzle.

There is another tier of objectivity that Protestants lack. This is the Catholic recognition that the Word of God is essentially Jesus. He is revelation to mankind. He makes a promise that the Church would prevail in Her efforts to storm the gates of Hell. Your comment that “prevailing” only implies an overall trend (and therefore does not support infallibility of the Church), misses an important point. There are several components necessary to convert a soul.

1. A true gospel
2. The drawing of the Father and the moving of the Holy Spirit in an individual
3. The individual’s choice
4. Adequate personal insulation from the devil and/or the world

What parts of this process pertain to correct revelation? Only #1. You are correct that “prevailing” implies an overall trend. But the fact that some battles for souls are won and some are lost is not due to the fact that sometimes correct doctrine is preached and sometimes it is not. The battle for a soul is partly determined by the individual. And for the Church to prevail at all, it is essential that correct doctrine be preached consistently. Protestants can’t agree on key doctrines because they have deviated from what Christ intended. The Catholic Church accurately preserves that which was revealed to mankind through the Logos.

 

[Nita]

Thanks.

. I find an echo of this in Catholicism, but also this cold hard edge of steel, this absolute insistence on infallibility, this reckless assertion based on reason, this alien concept that separates the brethren. You are stuck with the unyielding statement that there is a vast number of dogmas unalterable; … truth splayed for the world to see. Strange …

I found your choice of words (underlined) very interesting.
Rev. 1:16 “from His mouth issued a sharp two-edged sword”.
Only one of many Scripture passages that call the words of God a “sword”.

That “edge of steel” that seems cold, hard and strange to you is reassuring to a Catholic; a source of peace that eliminates the anxiety of wondering whether our reasoning is right or not.

Nita

 

[JaneFrances]

If this seems to be derailing, please ignore it, but I have some questions here:

Whatever strength was in Peter was not Peter, it was Christ, and so often it seems the Church puts its strength in itself rather than in Christ.

This stuck out. . .how so?

The priest says words, and God acts. The priest has little to do with it. Whether in absolution or baptism or communion or marriage, the secret of the priest I think is that he basically is a bystander.

Is bystander really the correct qualification? What about instrument? I think we lose the true function of priesthood when we reduce it to onlooker or bystander. The priesthood of believers, for instance, requires particular participation. In much the same way, the ordained priesthood of the New Covenant entails an active mutuality. Christ works through the priest, to be sure, but is it really in spite of him?

The Church does little, and what it does is dangerous. The Church is best when it is at its weakest, doing nothing, because then its only strength is its only strength, and that is Christ. All but Christ is folly, where the Church seems to go whenever it forgets this.

The sentiment here is sound. We are weak as such and only strong in Christ. St. Augustine treats this topic most sensitively with much attention to precision, BUT “doing nothing” can not be a the buisness of the Christian, can it?

And so the idea of accepting infallibility comes to me with difficulty.

Ah, proof positive that TS is a human! The acceptance of the doctrine of infalliblity is directly related to our acceptance of the reality of authority. This is something our fallen nature fears, yet craves. So we look for more docile, more malleable, more passive sources to submit our will. I think this speaks to the Protestant appeal to Scripture alone. . .which, admittedly, differs from appealing to Scripture first. The incarnation entails lively, active, aggressive authority. The charism of infalliblity is the pragmatic work of our benevolent and providential Creator.

Okay that last one wasn’t a question.

 

[petra]

We (meaning the people I hang around with) regard the Scriptures as inerrant, but men as very fallible. God will, by His grace, prevail in our lives, and we must trust Him to do so, to be faithful in guiding us. We will make mistakes in hearing and obeying Him, but we trust Him to straighten us out, even if He doesn’t do so while we are still on the planet. We may make messes to the fourth generation, and still God is faithful to us.

I hear your heart and understand what you’re saying. I could have written something very similar a number of years ago. But think about what you are saying. Is it really God’s will that the Church Militant stumble through the dark, misinterpret divine revelation, only to get it sorted out in the end? The Church on earth is not in survival mode. She is engaged in warfare, battling for souls. She needs Truth to do this. As I explained in my previous post, Protestants lack a tier of absolute objectivity because personal interpretation of Scripture (which is subject to human fallibility) is the highest tier of objectivity that they have. Your comment above illustrates well how that leaves Christians adrift.

Please don’t misunderstand. The Catholic Church makes no claim that individuals (not even the Pope) are perfect or always make good decisions. What is claimed is that the revelation of Christ, the Word, is perfectly preserved.

There is something reassuring to me in the impassioned words of a pastor that he cannot assure you, something that engenders trust in a preacher who says to not trust him but to check it out yourself in the Bible…

Again, I hear your heart. We all agree that humans are fallible and that we need a divine, objective constant to get our bearings. The Bible is more objective that a preacher or co-worker’s opinion. But how is it reassuring to know that if you and the preacher read the same passage, that you might get very different interpretations? In a world of moral and theological relativism, how can the Church be a light and a city set upon a hill? Protestants have already lost many fronts in the war against relativism…contraception, divorce and remarriage, theological error central to the salvation message, etc.

…in the admission of human helplessness of an office worker who says they cannot do it, they cannot be trusted, but only Jesus can, but trust Him to work through their weak and impotent hands and minds and hearts, despite their errors and frailties and sins.

To clarify, are you talking about the means by which God conveys objective and eternal Truth to us, or this a general statement about our need and reliance upon Christ? These are very concepts, and the way you wove these two thoughts together does not follow. Catholics are in 100% agreement about our reliance upon Christ and His grace in our daily lives. But as you’ve articulated in several ways, personal interpretation of the Scriptures is the closest you can come to accessing objective Truth.

I find an echo of this in Catholicism, but also this cold hard edge of steel, this absolute insistence on infallibility, this reckless assertion based on reason, this alien concept that separates the brethren. You are stuck with the unyielding statement that there is a vast number of dogmas unalterable…

No not a cold hard edge of steel, but rather a rock. Christ was not only the Word, but He is also the Cornerstone. Rocks are indeed unyeilding, but thankfully so. Unlike a house built on sand, a house built upon rock will not be washed away. The Church is built upon this rock and provides an unmoving foundation of orthodox theological and moral doctrines. This is the means by which our Savior is brought to the world!

…we are stuck with the statement that only the Bible can be trusted, and then the inspiration, ultimately, of the Holy Spirit to teach us (we do not rely. or should not, on ourselves).

Again, you fail to differentiate between personal spiritual intuition and universal revelation. No question that the Holy Spirit ministers to us personally and transforms head knowledge into heart knowledge. The Holy Spirit gives us the spiritual “ah-ha!” moments when we really “get” something. But once again, personal interpretation of scriptures is the highest level of certainty that you have as a Protestant. That isn’t good enough, and it isn’t God’s plan.

I find the idea of dogma bewildering: real thought has become incarnate in the teachings of the Catholic church, and instead of a representation of truth, there is objective truth splayed for the world to see. Strange. Odd. Intriguing.

No, real thought (I’m assuming you mean the thoughts of God) became incarnate in Jesus Christ. He is the Word. He instituted a visible Church and entrusted to the Church all revelation that the Church would need through the millennia. Absolutely, it is objective, and absolutely it is there for the world to see. The Church is a spiritual city set on a hill. It is visible and it is a light that points to Christ.