Infallibility of the Individual

[QNDNNDQDCE]

One of my Protestant friends recently posed to me a view that all Christians can come to a perfect understanding of the Bible by listening to what the Holy Spirit tells them, basing this on John 16:13: “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.” I pointed out that this promise was given at the Last Supper in the presence of the Apostles alone, and that the most sensible interpretation (especially for a Protestant!) is that “all truth” refers to the deposit of faith which was “once for all delivered to the saints.” I pointed out also that this necessarily entails believing that everyone who disagrees with you about anything in the Bible is a false believer who does not know the Holy Spirit. In response, I brought up Ephesians 4 in which St. Paul talks about the unequally distributed graces (“some prophets… some pastors and teachers…”) for the perfecting of the Church.

Is this view that we can expect the Holy Spirit to lead us individually and privately into “all truth” in interpretation of the Bible a common view? I haven’t really encountered it before, which is not too surprising as it is at complete variance with the observable evidence. What are some counterexamples from the Bible or biblical arguments against this (preferably without appealing to the papacy)?

 

[LionHeart777]

I think you hit the nail on the head when you pointed out that this was spoken to the Apostles; the leaders of the Church. The burden of proof would be on your friend to show that this was promised to the individual Christian*, as opposed to the leaders of the Church which, as you pointed out, the context clearly shows.

(*obviously, we as Catholics believe that one individual Christian, the Pope, when in the exercising of his office is meeting the specific criteria laid in in Vatican I regarding Papal Infallibility, cannot error.)

Haydock’s Bible Commentary says:

Ver. 13. When he, the Spirit of Truth, is come, he will teach you all truth; will direct you and the Church, in the ways of truth. For he shall not speak of himself, or of himself only, because, says St. Augustine, he is not from himself, but proceedeth from the Father and the Son. Whatsoever he shall hear, he shall speak[3]; this his hearing, says St. Augustine, is his knowledge, and his knowledge is his essence, or being, which from eternity is from the Father and the Son. The like expressions are applied to the Son, as proceeding from the Father. (John v. 30. and viii. 16. &c.) (Witham) — If he shall teach all truth, and that for ever, (chap. xi; ver. 26.) how is it possible, that the Church can err, or hath erred in matters of faith, at any time, or in any point of doctrine? In this supposition, would not the Holy Ghost have forfeited his title of Spirit of Truth?

Source: haydock1859.tripod.com/id109.html (some italics and maybe more “removed” during the cut & paste.)

A quote from St. Irenaeus of Lyons comes to mind:

1. Wherefore it is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church—those who, as I have shown,** possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the certain gift of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. **But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, [looking upon them] either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth.

Source: newadvent.org/fathers/0103426.htm (emphasis mine)

 

[MarcoPolo]

Is this view that we can expect the Holy Spirit to lead us individually and privately into “all truth” in interpretation of the Bible a common view? I haven’t really encountered it before, which is not too surprising as it is at complete variance with the observable evidence. What are some counterexamples from the Bible or biblical arguments against this (preferably without appealing to the papacy)?

I’ve heard it mostly on internet forums. In theory, any individual could correctly understand any given passage in at least a correct way. For example, let’s say some person reads John 3:5 and understands “water and spirit” to be a reference to baptism. They would not err in reading the text this way. That interpretation would be “in” - “fallible,” i.e. without error. However, the idea of infallibility as a charism is a special guarantee, a protection of the Holy Spirit, given to the Magisterium as a function of their office. You see a similar privilege exercised by the high priest of the Old Covenant (John 11:51) when he prophesied about Jesus because of the office he held.

So as you say, the gifts of the Spirit are varied. Not every individual has a guarantee of interpreting infallibly. The very evidence of so many non-Catholic Christians claiming to be reading the Bible under the guidance of the Holy Spirit yet coming up with contradictory doctrines is itself evidence against the idea that individuals in a vacuum bear the charism of infallibility.

 

[pablope]

One

I pointed out that this promise was given at the Last Supper in the presence of the Apostles alone, and that the most sensible interpretation (especially for a Protestant!) is that “all truth” refers to the deposit of faith which was “once for all delivered to the saints.”

 

[DavidFilmer]

It’s kinda funny that protestants think that everybody is infallible EXCEPT the Pope.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Thanks for the responses. 1 John 4 is definitely a relevant passage and the quote by Irenaeus should make any Protestant think.

 

[TimothyH]

QNDNNDQDCE, the passage cited:

But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. (John 16:13)

This statement was spoken by Jesus at the last supper, after Peter questioned Jesus about washing his feet back in chapter 13. In the entire discourse all the way through Chapter 17, Jesus was speaking specifically to the 12 Apostles and no one else. Jesus was telling the 12 Apostles that the Spirit of Truth would guide them into all truth. Jesus did not promise this to everyone but only to whom he was speaking, the leadership of his Church as a group.

Whenever Jesus speaks, we have to be concious of whom he is speaking to. Here is an example.

All this Jesus said to the crowds in parables; indeed he said nothing to them without a parable. Then he left the crowds and went into the house. And his disciples came to him, saying, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds of the field.” (Matthew 13:34,36)

In Matthew 13, Jesus speaks to “The crowds” one way and to the Disciples another.

We have to pay attention to what the Bible actually says. In John 16, Jesus was not speaking to the greater group of “Disciples” nor was he speaking to “The Jews” nor to “The Crowds” nor to Gentiles or Samaritans or Greeks but to his chosen leaders of his Church specifically. It is that leadership of the Church therefor, to which infallibility has been promised, not you or I individually.

-Tim-

 

[TimothyH]

It just dawned on me that in my last post, Jesus speaks to the crowds outside the house but speaks to the Disciples inside the house - another metaphor for inside the Church and outside the Church.

-Tim-

 

[nicolakirwan]

So, I think that it’s always good to remember that the Holy Spirit can reveal any number of things to whomever He wills (for example, prophets) and thus such a person would have correct understanding directly from God. But, different gifts are given to different people for different purposes in the Body. I would point to passages from Ephesians and Corinthians speaking to the different ways the Spirit pours Himself out into different people for different purposes and that Scripture clearly states that not all are prophets or apostles:
1 Corinthians 12:

7
To each individual the manifestation of the Spirit is given for some benefit.

To one is given through the Spirit the expression of wisdom; to *another* the expression of knowledge according to the same Spirit;

9
to another faith by the same Spirit; to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit;
10
to another mighty deeds; to another prophecy; to another discernment of spirits; to another varieties of tongues; to another interpretation of tongues.
11
But one and the same Spirit produces all of these, distributing them individually to each person as he wishes.

and

Some people God has designated in the church to be, first, apostles; 6 second, prophets; third, teachers; then, mighty deeds; then, gifts of healing, assistance, administration, and varieties of tongues.
29
Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work mighty deeds?
30

(emphases mine) The answer to Paul’s rhetorical question is “no.” Not everyone has every gift. So not everyone is given the ability to open up Scripture and discern the mysteries of God correctly.

Also
"Ephesians 4:

7 But grace was given to each of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift.
…
11
4 And he gave some as apostles, others as prophets, others as evangelists, others as pastors and teachers,
12
to equip the holy ones for the work of ministry, 5 for building up the body of Christ,
13
until we all attain to the unity of faith and knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, 6 to the extent of the full stature of Christ,
14
so that we may no longer be infants, tossed by waves and swept along by every wind of teaching arising from human trickery, from their cunning in the interests of deceitful scheming.

So the unity of the faith and knowledge of Christ comes through the work of the ministers whom God has anointed to build up His Body. It’s not just every man for himself.

It’s kinda funny that protestants think that everybody is infallible EXCEPT the Pope.

Interesting thought when you put it that way.

It just dawned on me that in my last post, Jesus speaks to the crowds outside the house but speaks to the Disciples inside the house - another metaphor for inside the Church and outside the Church.

-Tim-

Great insight.