Infallibility? Paul didn't think so

[WatchfulPilgrim]

I tried asking this in another thread but it was somewhat off-topic and I didn’t even get a response.

One scripture and one thought repeatedly come to mind when I consider the idea of an infallible earthly authority (aside from the Bible):

The Scripture is this: But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
Paul’s statement here definately seems to dispel the idea that he is or is part of an infallible magisterium. If even Paul is capable of preaching “another gospel” in stands to reason that a lineage within a church organization is not a guantee of infallibililty.

And my thought is this: When Jesus was amongst us there was no one between He and common man - no one to help explain things. And at times people did misunderstand Him. Many times people simply walked away because His were “hard sayings”. Considering this, I tend to believe that the discontinuity within Christendom arises from our inability or unwillingness to believe and/or obey what is contained within Scripture. Man sees what he wants to see and hears what he wants to here. “He who has ears to hear let him hear…” Of course these thoughts can equally apply to the Catholic Church in her claims. Perhaps those from the outside are the ones not “seeing”.

But Paul did not consider it impossible for him to preach another gospel. People failed to understand or obey God even when He walked this earth. The fact that the gospels were written at all indicates some concern that the truth might be lost had they not written them **3It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
4That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed. **Scripture also says error and deception will arise from within and there will be (or would be) a great falling away. It does not say when this will or did happen. So although it seems good and necessary for there to be an infallible, earthly interpreter/authority, I also see the distinct possibility that God intended for Scripture to be that “certainy of those things” which, if looked at in humility and honesty can be believed, understood and obeyed sufficiently for our salvation.

Does this make sense? If not, what am I missing?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I tried asking this in another thread but it was somewhat off-topic and I didn’t even get a response.

One scripture and one thought repeatedly come to mind when I consider the idea of an infallible earthly authority (aside from the Bible):

The Scripture is this: But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
Paul’s statement here definately seems to dispel the idea that he is or is part of an infallible magisterium. If even Paul is capable of preaching “another gospel” in stands to reason that a lineage within a church organization is not a guantee of infallibililty.

I don’t see the verse above as a statement against infallibility. If it were to be taken that way, it contradicts a teaching from Christ Himself.

Mat 23:1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples,
Mat 23:2 Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses.
Mat 23:3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not.

It seems Christ is giving an assurance, that matters of faith and morals are given infallibly from the men with authority of the old Church. Christ knew He would be building a Church soon and I feel he was giving an example of rule with the above statement.

**Joh 16:13 When 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.

Joh 14:26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

Luk 10:16 “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.**

Was Christ saying he’d be with the Apostles, men He knew would eventually die a fleshly death, until the consummation of the world, or was He speaking about His Church, which Christ had power, not only to start, but protect until the consummation of the world?

1Ti 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Does St. Paul contradict himself by saying, “…the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth?”

The verse you provided, seems to be a warning for those who taught a different Gospel, such as was and has been taught since the Protestant reformation, that took place in the 1500s.

And my thought is this: When Jesus was amongst us there was no one between He and common man - no one to help explain things. And at times people did misunderstand Him. Many times people simply walked away because His were “hard sayings”. Considering this, I tend to believe that the discontinuity within Christendom arises from our inability or unwillingness to believe and/or obey what is contained within Scripture. Man sees what he wants to see and hears what he wants to here. “He who has ears to hear let him hear…” Of course these thoughts can equally apply to the Catholic Church in her claims. Perhaps those from the outside are the ones not “seeing”.

But Paul did not consider it impossible for him to preach another gospel. People failed to understand or obey God even when He walked this earth. The fact that the gospels were written at all indicates some concern that the truth might be lost had they not written them **3It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
4That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed. **Scripture also says error and deception will arise from within and there will be (or would be) a great falling away. It does not say when this will or did happen. So although it seems good and necessary for there to be an infallible, earthly interpreter/authority, I also see the distinct possibility that God intended for Scripture to be that “certainy of those things” which, if looked at in humility and honesty can be believed, understood and obeyed sufficiently for our salvation.

Does this make sense? If not, what am I missing?

It seems you’re overlooking the many doctrines, based on private interpretation of scriptures. Of all the different Protestant denominations, all with different doctrines/teachings based on someone’s private interpretation, which one is giving the correct Gospel? Which are giving a different Gospel?

2Pe 3:15 And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation: as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you:
2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.
2Pe 3:17 You therefore, brethren, knowing these things before, take heed, lest being led aside by the error of the unwise, you fall from your own steadfastness.

2Pe 1:20 Understanding this first: That no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.
2Pe 1:21 For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.

 

[chenry]

WatchfulPilgrim,

God bless you. Yes, infallibility for me, a Protestant for 31 years, is one of the teachings that I had a hard time with as well. How can we accept a teaching such as infallability of a Church? The surprising answer for me was when I realized that I already had, and you have as well.

We accept the infallability teaching when it comes to the culmination of the New Testament. It is a historical fact that the Catholic Church determined what the cannon of the New Testament is. There were many books that were being tossed around that people were claiming to be inspired. Not all of those books were included in the New Testament (for example Didache, Shepherd of Hermes, Letters of Clement). The Church determined which books of the Bible made up the official cannon of scripture circa 380, and lo and behold 1600 years later, both Protestant and Catholic alike carry the same New Testament Cannon.

Overall, what I am trying to share is that Christ did not leave us a book. He left us a Church and within the Church He promised the Holy Spirit to lead into all areas of truth. This authority is what produced an authoritative book. Authority begot Authority. It is all the same source - the Holy Spirit. This same Holy Spirit is what guides the Church today.

God bless…

 

[Genesis315]

The fact that Paul is casting out those who reject the Gospel he and the other Apostles have authoritatively preached, shows he considers his preaching to be certainly true and without error when preaching in union with Peter and the other Apostles.

Of course, Paul himself could fall away and preach heresy, but not in union with the other Apostles united to Peter, the immoveable rock who’s faith Our Lord ensured would not fail (even if Peter himself sometimes sinned againt the very faith he preached).

 

[Dori1]

Pilgrim,

It is good that you question, we all should question to be certain of the truth of our faith. I have been a believer for nearly 30 years now, but am only now coming in to the Catholic Church. I am in this position because I have faithfully and diligently questioned and studied the old and new testaments and the histories written by authors of the time. I have literally studied my way in to the firm belief that the Catholic Church is the one, true church that Christ established with authority to teach in His stead until He should come again. He did place an authority who could, when necessary, speak infallibly on His behalf. That authority was the papacy.

One flaw in your reasoning is that you are stating that Paul seemed to think that he could teach error. He could. He was not the first pope. Peter was the apostle that Christ established as the first Pope. In addition, even the pope can speak in error. There is no evidence that everything the pope says is infallible. The pope IS, however, infallible when he speaks infallibly. (This has happened rarely over the last hundred years). Christ stated that the “gates of hell shall not prevail against thee.” The pope, and through him, the church, is proteced from error (in doctrine and dogma, not in action) by Christ Himself.

We are taught in sacred scripture to test all things against scripture. The pope, when speaking infallibly about some doctrine, does so after exhaustive study and with decades of education and scholarly research behind him. He is protected by Christ from speaking error in such cases (not in his everyday speach, only when he is making an infallible declaration), but that does not release him from the duty to remain scholarly and rigorous in his reasoning and his study.

I cut my spiritual teeth on the doctrine of “sola scriptura.” Everything I have read or heard, from or about the Catholic church, has been tested against the scriptures. I spent years fighting it and trying to disprove the solid foundation of the church. However, I have found that the Catholic church is the only institution that is fully founded in scripture with a scholarly, reasoning, intellectually rigorous interpretation.

You are correct to take Paul at his word when he says that anyone who teaches a gospel other than that which was taught from the beginning should be accursed. There is nothing, however, in that statement to indicate that Peter, the first pope, taught a gospel other than that which was taught from the beginning. Peter was capable of error. In fact he was a real screw-up, if you read the scriptures thoroughly. However, he was divinely protected from error when teaching the doctrines of the church, and testing against the scriptures will demonstrate that. Each successive pope, ordained by the authority of the church, is similarly protected. The office is an enormous burden of responsibility. That is why the pope so rarely speaks infallibly; and only when some need arises to clarify a doctrine. The pope does not, in general, create doctrine from this infallible perspective. He clarifies it. He interprets the scriptures to be applied to the situation that requires the establishment of dogma.

I hope this missive has clarified the infallibility question a little for you. I am hoping to come in to the one, true Church this coming spring. I continue to pray, to study, and to learn daily. I pray that you continue to do the same.

In Christ’s love and care, may you be blessed.

 

[JRKH]

The fact that Paul is casting out those who reject the Gospel he and the other Apostles have authoritatively preached, shows he considers his preaching to be certainly true and without error when preaching in union with Peter and the other Apostles.

**Of course, Paul himself could fall away and preach heresy, but not in union with the other Apostles **united to Peter, the immoveable rock who’s faith Our Lord ensured would not fail (even if Peter himself sometimes sinned againt the very faith he preached).

I think this response really speaks to the core of Paul’s statement. I highlighted the one part simply because it shows that Paul is speaking in terms of the Truth being, not of a person, but of God through His Church.
So if Paul, or any other person, were to fall into heresy - teach a different gospel - the faithful must reject the teaching of that person and remain faithful to the teachings of the Church.
Didn’t Paul also teach that the faithful should test things against scripture? (meaning the OT). I believe he did and thus he would be telling his audience in this verse that they should not simply take his word for something but check it against other teachings recieved through the “Pillar and Foundation of Truth”, that is The Church.

Peace
James

 

[mich2]

I tried asking this in another thread but it was somewhat off-topic and I didn’t even get a response.

One scripture and one thought repeatedly come to mind when I consider the idea of an infallible earthly authority (aside from the Bible):

The Scripture is this: But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
Paul’s statement here definately seems to dispel the idea that he is or is part of an infallible magisterium. If even Paul is capable of preaching “another gospel” in stands to reason that a lineage within a church organization is not a guantee of infallibililty.

It seems the “we” he speaks of are those within the church. The church in Galatia had been deceived by an adulterated gospel (most probably gnostic in essence) which had come from within it’s own church. However, Paul does not seem to claim that his own teaching of the gospel might be erroneous since he also wrote:

…I certify that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man

How is this not an infallible statement? It seems clear that he claims his own teachings coming directly from Christ and is therefore to be received as an infallible teaching.

Next, Paul, although receiving the gosple directly from Christ, eventually goes to Jerusalem in order to be received by the apostles. Notice that Paul is received by the apostles, not the other way around.

And my thought is this: When Jesus was amongst us there was no one between He and common man - no one to help explain things. And at times people did misunderstand Him. Many times people simply walked away because His were “hard sayings”. Considering this, I tend to believe that the discontinuity within Christendom arises from our inability or unwillingness to believe and/or obey what is contained within Scripture. Man sees what he wants to see and hears what he wants to here. “He who has ears to hear let him hear…” Of course these thoughts can equally apply to the Catholic Church in her claims. Perhaps those from the outside are the ones not “seeing”.

But Paul did not consider it impossible for him to preach another gospel. People failed to understand or obey God even when He walked this earth. The fact that the gospels were written at all indicates some concern that the truth might be lost had they not written them **3It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
that thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed,that thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed. **Scripture also says error and deception will arise from within and there will be (or would be) a great falling away. It does not say when this will or did happen. So although it seems good and necessary for there to be an infallible, earthly interpreter/authority, I also see the distinct possibility that God intended for Scripture to be that “certainy of those things” which, if looked at in humility and honesty can be believed, understood and obeyed sufficiently for our salvation.

Does this make sense? If not, what am I missing?

Yes it does make sense,WatchfulPilgrim. However,the gift of infallibility is implied all over your comments. While you wrote:
Paul did not consider it impossible for him to preach another gospel, you also quote him saying: It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,that thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed,that thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed So which is it?Did he have a perfect understanding or not?

You also wrote
“The fact that the gospels were written at all indicates some concern that the truth might be lost had they not written them”. However, this needs to claim that the scriptures themselves are indeed infallible, including, for example,the decision within the council of Jerusalem, which was not a meaningless decision since it concerned the practice of circumcision as being non-essential for salvation. This was blasphemy according to the jewish theology of the day. Yet the decision was made “by the Holy Spirit”. If the council of Jerusalem is believed to have been guided by the Holy Spirit into Truth, why not believe the Holy Spirit as being present within the Church, guiding it into all truths, until the coming of Christ?

Andre

 

[edjco]

Pilgrim,
(I feel like John Wayne), I saw your post yesterday on the other thread and had written about 3 paragraphs when I had to leave suddenly, so I deleted it, but it seems the posters above did quite well.

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

You all raise very good points.

I just just JUST realized for the first time that I have absolutely no reason to accept the canon of the Bible. I can work it backwards but I can’t explain, historically, reasonable, why I should accept it at all unless I accept the authority.

 

[Evan]

And my thought is this: When Jesus was amongst us there was no one between He and common man - no one to help explain things.

Does this make sense? If not, what am I missing?

If you re-read the gospels you find that is not correct. Often Jesus would teach to the common man (the multitude) by parables. But later he would explain the meaning to the Apostles.

If someone wanted to know what the teaching meant, they would need to consult the Apostles, the bishops of the time. They received the fullness of the revelation and they were given the Holy Spirit so they could remain true to His teaching.

 

[JRKH]

You all raise very good points.

I just just JUST realized for the first time that I have absolutely no reason to accept the canon of the Bible. I can work it backwards but I can’t explain, historically, reasonable, why I should accept it at all unless I accept the authority.

Horray and Praise God!!
Tomorrow is the Feast of Christmas and not the Feast of the Epiphany but I think that you just had one.

A thought I had had earlier relating to your question is this.
Many of Paul’s letters were written before any of the accepted Gospels were set down. In addition, Paul never wrote a Gospel. Therefore one could ask how do we know that the “Gospel” Paul preached is the same one that is recorded in the Biblical Gospels?
The only answer to this can be that we accept this through the Church’s authority.

Peace
James

 

[Alethiaphile]

WatchfulPilgrim,
God bless you. Yes, infallibility for me, a Protestant for 31 years, is one of the teachings that I had a hard time with as well. How can we accept a teaching such as infallability of a Church? The surprising answer for me was when I realized that I already had, and you have as well.
We accept the infallability teaching when it comes to the culmination of the New Testament. It is a historical fact that the Catholic Church determined what the cannon of the New Testament is. There were many books that were being tossed around that people were claiming to be inspired. Not all of those books were included in the New Testament (for example Didache, Shepherd of Hermes, Letters of Clement). The Church determined which books of the Bible made up the official cannon of scripture circa 380, and lo and behold 1600 years later, both Protestant and Catholic alike carry the same New Testament Cannon.
Overall, what I am trying to share is that Christ did not leave us a book. He left us a Church and within the Church He promised the Holy Spirit to lead into all areas of truth. This authority is what produced an authoritative book. Authority begot Authority. It is all the same source - the Holy Spirit. This same Holy Spirit is what guides the Church today.
God bless…

That is a good post for shwoing the necessity of the Church, and some sort of infallibility in the church. It does not, however, prove infallibility of the Pope apart from the rest of the Church, as Vatican I and II assert.

 

[fhansen]

Paul’s statement here definately seems to dispel the idea that he is or is part of an infallible magisterium. If even Paul is capable of preaching “another gospel” in stands to reason that a lineage within a church organization is not a guantee of infallibililty.

Paul wasn’t admitting to the possibility of preaching error, otherwise how could he support the idea that the gospel they had previously received was infallibly preached? He was simply emphasizing, by literary device, that the gospel they’d heard was correct and so no one, no matter how authoritative, had the right to alter it.

And my thought is this: When Jesus was amongst us there was no one between He and common man - no one to help explain things. And at times people did misunderstand Him. Many times people simply walked away because His were “hard sayings”. Considering this, I tend to believe that the discontinuity within Christendom arises from our inability or unwillingness to believe and/or obey what is contained within Scripture. Man sees what he wants to see and hears what he wants to here. “He who has ears to hear let him hear…” Of course these thoughts can equally apply to the Catholic Church in her claims. Perhaps those from the outside are the ones not “seeing”.

This is precisely why we need the Magistereum-because Jesus no longer walks with us in the way He did 2 millennia ago and Scriptural interpretation is far from a sure thing, as witnessed to by the many different theologies resulting from Sola Scriptura.

 

[edjco]

It’s funny that Protestants tend to use this passage of Scripture to attack Papal/Church authority, yet they make no similar connection when confronted with Luther REMOVING OT and NT Scripture.

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

Paul wasn’t admitting to the possibility of preaching error, otherwise how could he support the idea that the gospel they had previously received was infallibly preached? He was simply emphasizing, by literary device, that the gospel they’d heard was correct and so no one, no matter how authoritative, had the right to alter it.

This is another realization I had today shortly after posing the question. :yup:

Tomorrow is the Feast of Christmas and not the Feast of the Epiphany but I think that you just had one.

Me thinks you are right

A thought I had had earlier relating to your question is this.
Many of Paul’s letters were written before any of the accepted Gospels were set down. In addition, Paul never wrote a Gospel. Therefore one could ask how do we know that the “Gospel” Paul preached is the same one that is recorded in the Biblical Gospels?
The only answer to this can be that we accept this through the Church’s authority.

Hahah! I also thought of this afterwards! Another goodie

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Alethiaphile,

That is a good post for shwoing the necessity of the Church, and some sort of infallibility in the church. It does not, however, prove infallibility of the Pope apart from the rest of the Church, as Vatican I and II assert.

I have answered this viewpoint several times before. I don’t recall if it was addressed to you.

NEITHER Vatican I NOR Vatican II assert that the infallibility of the Pope is apart from the rest of the Church. They BOTH explicitly teach that the infallibility of the Pope is the self-same infallibility witth which the Church is endowed.

More recently, I mentioned the fact in another thread that the very title of the Vatican I decree regarding papal infallibility was changed by the First Vatican Council Fathers from “The Infallibility of the Pope” to “The Infallible Magisterium of the Pope” (other translations have “the Infallible Teaching Authority of the Pope”). This change was to ensure that that it could not be misunderstood (as you and others apparently have) that papal infallibility is nothing different nor (especially) separate from that of the Church. The infallibility is in the MAGISTERIUM (i.e., in the authoritative teaching office), not in the Pope personally. This infallible Magisterium, as the Catholic Church explicitly teaches, is ALSO possesed by:

1. The Ecumenical Council
2. Sacred Tradition
3. Bishops individually even when scattered throughout the world when they teach definitively and in agreement on a matter of faith and morals.

Hope that helps. If you have any other questions about the matter, please feel free to ask.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I just just JUST realized for the first time that I have absolutely no reason to accept the canon of the Bible. I can work it backwards but I can’t explain, historically, reasonable, why I should accept it at all unless I accept the authority.

You are correct here, that it makes no sense to accept the infalibility of scripture while denying the infalibility of the Church. However, it does not follow that either is infallible, only that they are intimately connected.

The infallibility of Scripture (and Church) is essentially the issue I raised in this thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=293677

It seems perfectly reasonable to me to reject the infalliblity of both.

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

You are correct here, that it makes no sense to accept the infalibility of scripture while denying the infalibility of the Church. However, it does not follow that either is infallible, only that they are intimately connected.

The infallibility of Scripture (and Church) is essentially the issue I raised in this thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=293677

It seems perfectly reasonable to me to reject the infalliblity of both.

Right. I can see why you would. That is why, 6 years ago, when I told my confessor about my doubts, he told me I was on my way to rejecting Christianity, b/c the same line of reasoning I was using to doubt the CC was the same line of reasoning many used to deny Christ. I’ve come to faith in Christ from many different angles. I just had to work out finding the church.

 

[Randy_Carson]

You all raise very good points.

I just just JUST realized for the first time that I have absolutely no reason to accept the canon of the Bible. I can work it backwards but I can’t explain, historically, reasonable, why I should accept it at all unless I accept the authority.

Bingo!

This article confirms your thought…

Proving Inspiration
http://www.catholic.com/library/Proving_Inspiration.asp

The Catholic method of proving the Bible to be inspired is this: The Bible is initially approached as any other ancient work. It is not, at first, presumed to be inspired. From textual criticism we are able to conclude that we have a text the accuracy of which is more certain than the accuracy of any other ancient work.

An Accurate Text

Sir Frederic Kenyon, in The Story of the Bible, notes that “For all the works of classical antiquity we have to depend on manuscripts written long after their original composition. The author who is the best case in this respect is Virgil, yet the earliest manuscript of Virgil that we now possess was written some 350 years after his death. For all other classical writers, the interval between the date of the author and the earliest extant manuscript of his works is much greater. For Livy it is about 500 years, for Horace 900, for most of Plato 1,300, for Euripides 1,600.” Yet no one seriously disputes that we have accurate copies of the works of these writers. However, in the case of the New Testament we have parts of manuscripts dating from the first and early second centuries, only a few decades after the works were penned.

Not only are the biblical manuscripts that we have older than those for classical authors, we have in sheer numbers far more manuscripts from which to work. Some are whole books of the Bible, others fragments of just a few words, but there are literally thousands of manuscripts in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Coptic, Syriac, and other languages. This means that we can be sure we have an authentic text, and we can work from it with confidence.

The Bible as Historical Truth

Next we take a look at what the Bible, considered merely as a history, tells us, focusing particularly on the New Testament, and more specifically the Gospels. We examine the account contained therein of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.

Using what is in the Gospels themselves and what we find in extra-biblical writings from the early centuries, together with what we know of human nature (and what we can otherwise, from natural reason alone, know of divine nature), we conclude that either Jesus was just what he claimed to be—God—or he was crazy. (The one thing we know he could not have been was merely a good man who was not God, since no merely good man would make the claims he made.)

We are able to eliminate the possibility of his being a madman not just from what he said but from what his followers did after his death. Many critics of the Gospel accounts of the resurrection claim that Christ did not truly rise, that his followers took his body from the tomb and then proclaimed him risen from the dead. According to these critics, the resurrection was nothing more than a hoax. Devising a hoax to glorify a friend and mentor is one thing, but you do not find people dying for a hoax, at least not one from which they derive no benefit. Certainly if Christ had not risen his disciples would not have died horrible deaths affirming the reality and truth of the resurrection. The result of this line of reasoning is that we must conclude that Jesus indeed rose from the dead. Consequently, his claims concerning himself—including his claim to be God—have credibility. He meant what he said and did what he said he would do.

Further, Christ said he would found a Church. Both the Bible (still taken as *merely a historical *book, not yet as an inspired one) and other ancient works attest to the fact that Christ established a Church with the rudiments of what we see in the Catholic Church today—papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, and teaching authority.

We have thus taken the material and purely historically concluded that Jesus founded the Catholic Church. Because of his Resurrection we have reason to take seriously his claims concerning the Church, including its authority to teach in his name.

This Catholic Church tells us the Bible is inspired, and we can take the Church’s word for it precisely because the Church is infallible. Only after having been told by a properly constituted authority—that is, one established by God to assure us of the truth concerning matters of faith—that the Bible is inspired can we reasonably begin to use it as an inspired book.

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

A Spiral Argument

Note that this is not a circular argument. We are not basing the inspiration of the Bible on the Church’s infallibility and the Church’s infallibility on the word of an inspired Bible. That indeed would be a circular argument! What we have is really a spiral argument. On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history. From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded. And then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired. This is not a circular argument because the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired) is not simply a restatement of its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable), and its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable) is in no way based on the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired). What we have demonstrated is that without the existence of the Church, we could never know whether the Bible is inspired.

The advantages of the Catholic approach are two: First, the inspiration is really proved, not just “felt.” Second, the main fact behind the proof—the reality of an infallible, teaching Church—leads one naturally to an answer to the problem that troubled the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:30-31): How is one to know which interpretations are correct? The same Church that authenticates the Bible, that attests to its inspiration, is the authority established by Christ to interpret his word.