Not the same God?

[pablope]

And yet amazingly, it took until the 16th century for the RCC to “infallibly” decide for itself the contents of Scripture. And what happened when it did?..it contradicted many if not most of the ECFs and even some prior councils.

.

Because your great great grandfather…Martin Luther…started tinkering with the Canon. Prior to ML…there was no question as to what was in the Bible. It was not used for establishing different religions, sects and denominations…one of the main purpose for the Biblel initially was for a standard set of readings for the Mass.

Your grandfather ML…wanted to take out some of the NT books. rearranged the order of the NT, and started questioning some of the OT books as well.

When he rebelled against the authority of the Church and the pope…what was left for him was the Bible…and so was born Sola Scriptura. Can you even find an official definition of what ML thought of as SS? Protestants cannot even agree on what is SS. From what I learned, ML did not even define SS, he just asserted it.

Trent was a reaction to prevent the desecration of the Bible by your ancestors.

 

[jmj1984]

Because your great great grandfather…Martin Luther…started tinkering with the Canon. Prior to ML…there was no question as to what was in the Bible. It was not used for establishing different religions, sects and denominations…one of the main purpose for the Biblel initially was for a standard set of readings for the Mass.

Your grandfather ML…wanted to take out some of the NT books. rearranged the order of the NT, and started questioning some of the OT books as well.

When he rebelled against the authority of the Church and the pope…what was left for him was the Bible…and so was born Sola Scriptura. Can you even find an official definition of what ML thought of as SS? Protestants cannot even agree on what is SS. From what I learned, ML did not even define SS, he just asserted it.

Trent was a reaction to prevent the desecration of the Bible by your ancestors.

Indeed. Rather the point I was trying to make by quoting the much earlier canons.

 

[Contarini]

And yet amazingly, it took until the 16th century for the RCC to “infallibly” decide for itself the contents of Scripture. And what happened when it did?..it contradicted many if not most of the ECFs and even some prior councils.

Which councils?

How do you think the members of the early churches recognized Scripture?..afterall, there was no human “infallible” authority around to tell them.

I agree that the way RC apologists put this often muddies the issue.

It’s not a question of an authority somehow separate from the Church-as-body-of-believers. Rather, it’s about the Spirit guiding the early Church in its recognition of Scripture, in its interpretation of Scripture, and in its preservation of apostolic teaching in various forms other than (though never separate from) Scripture (worship, preaching, etc.).

There is amazing unity in faith and practice especially of those churches which profess and actually seek to practice sola Scriptura.

I entirely fail to be amazed by this. I am in fact amazed by exactly the opposite phenomenon, as are most observers, whether Catholic/Orthodox, Protestant, or non-Christian. The plethora of Protestant groups, and the bitterness with which they have historically fought each other over quite small points while all claiming to be following sola scriptura, is one of the most remarkable features of the history of religion.

Which churches exactly are you talking about? It’s pretty hard to list any points of unity among sola scriptura churches that they do not share with non-sola-scriptura churches. Sola fide, for instance, is emphatically not something that all sola scriptura churches agree on.

Of course, you can always argue that only the churches that hold to what you regard as essential doctrine are “actually seeking to practice” sola scriptura. But that’s simply special pleading–or, in other words, the “no true Scotsman” fallacy.

So, I’d say the Holy Spirit has been doing His job just fine. Otoh, what of the two ancient communities who insist they alone are “the” one true church?..they both make claims to apostolic succession and yet they are remarkably far apart in many important doctrines.

Again, my perception is radically different from yours. I see Catholicism and Orthodoxy as remarkably similar in spite of a millennium, more or less, of separation.

Did the Lord inform anyone that there was to be a “second” head to His church? Do you really think some other man can fulfill the husbandly role with his wife while the husband is bodily absent?..most of Christianity doesn’t believe that’s possible.

The headship of Christ is incarnational. Local pastors/bishops embody the headship of Christ, although always in a broken and inadequate way and only by grace. Hence, it is not unreasonable to say that the Pope also embodies this in some sense for the universal church, although I am uncomfortable with the way RCs have often expressed this. I think the first-millennium understanding of the Pope as the vicar of Peter is much superior to the second-millennium understanding of the Pope as the vicar of Christ, and I welcome suggestions from the RC side that the first-millennium papacy might be taken as a model.

Edwin

 

[Portrait]

And yet amazingly, it took until the 16th century for the RCC to “infallibly” decide for itself the contents of Scripture. And what happened when it did?..it contradicted many if not most of the ECFs and even some prior councils.

In any case, Scripture was penned by members of the universal church – not the RCC. The church did not “create” Scripture – it is the work of God, it is His creation, He is the author of it. Therefore, no mere mortal can have authority over the mind of God. God alone is the authority on what the original books of the Bible contained and mean, and also on how those things should be understood and applied. It is by God’s authority, power and providence that we have Scripture.

Dear kelman,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for the above response.

The members of the Church who wrote the N.T. were the Apostles or those Apostolic men closely associated with the Apostles, what we would today term the hierarchy. God certainly did inspire the Apostles when they penned the N.T. but they were not only members of the Church but leaders of the Church also. At any rate, the word of Scripture did emerge from the Church in the sense that it was written by the Apostles for the people of God. Remember it was to the Apostles only that our Lord said, “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” (S. Jn. 14: 26, emphasis mine). This was surely fulfilled when the N.T. was written and upon this passage rests the perfect truthfulness of the Gospel narratives.

Sacred Scripture may be the work of God, but it still requires interpretation and the question to be answered is, to whom do we turn for an authoritative interpretation, our fellow fallible men or the one true Church founded by Christ upon St. Peter? If it be said by way of reply, why we turn to the Holy Spirit, then we respond by saying, then why is there so much diversity of opinion if this is the case, even over fundamental doctrines? Is the Holy Spirit guiding some men but not others and how is a man supposed to know who He is truly guiding? In other words to whom do we look to for a correct and authoritative interpretation of the bible? These are perfectly reasonable questions, but I have yet to hear a Protestant give a satisfactory answer, which is one of the reasons why I converted to the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church was responsible for the formation of the N.T. canon. A number of lists of recognised books survive from the early centuries of the Christian era, but the earliest one that lists all the N.T. books as we have them today is in a letter of St. Athanasius written in 367 AD. An identical list was promulgated by a council of Rome under Pope Damasus in 382 AD. The same list was recognised by the local councils of Hippo (393 AD), Carthage III (397 AD), Carthage IV (419 AD), and in a letter of Pope Innocent in 405 AD. Whilst none of these individuals or local councils claimed to be settling the canon definitively for the universal Church, gradually this was the list which became universally recognised and finally canonised by the Council of Trent.

Please note, dear friend, that the lack of formal definition until the Council of Trent is not indicative of anything, nor is it to be construed as something negative. There simply was no necessity to formally define the canon, since it was accepted by the Church without demur or dissension. However, as has been said already, Martin Luther changed all of that in the 16th cent. when he had a serious problem with seven deuterocanonical books, which contradicted his new fangled theology. Thus he eliminated them from the official bible of the Church and in due course that practice spread to the whole of Protestantism. What had heretofore been accepted was now brought into question and so at the Council of Trent, called to address the Protestant revolt, the canon of the bible was formally defined. This occured in 1547 and the Council affirmed the canon as developed by St. Athanasius, affirmed by those earlier councils and Pope Innocent. They also affirmed Jerome’s Vulgate as having the correct canon. Thus while the original decisions of earlier local councils was not a formal defintion of the canon as far as being dogma and binding upon the entire Church, the later re-affirmation at Trent of those earlier local councils most decidedly was.

Formal definition usually occurs when some controversy arises within the Church. It is then that the Church examines the issues and with the proper guidance of the Holy Spirit promulgates a definition. This could be by the Pope himself or by a General Council. For many Christian doctrines there have been no controversies and therefore no formal definitions. Thus there is milage to be made out of the fact that there was no formal definition of the canon from 400 AD to 1547 AD. It is of no consequence since no formal definition was needed.

More to follow. God bless and goodbye for now.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

All believers indiscriminately are commanded to search the Scriptures - 2 Tim. 3:15,17; Acts 17:11; John 5:39. Add to this the overwhelming message of the OT that God’s Word is to light the path of His children.

Dear kelman,

Hello again, have a spare moment, so I thought I would respons briefly to the above.

II Tim. 3: 15,17

There is no command here for the Christian to “search the Scriptures”, but I agree that all Christians should read, mark, learn and inwardly digest the word of God. However, that does not give them carte blanche licence to interpret Sacred Scripture contrary to the fundamental teachings of the Catholic Church.

Acts 17: 11

This passage excludes the very conclusion that so many Protestants wish to draw from it. The Bereans are commended as opposed to the Thessalonians because the Bereans at least listened to the Gospel proclamation and examined references to the Scriptures where the Thessalonians would not give any attention, but instead persecuted the preachers of Christ. However, my dear friend, the passage commends their eager interest, not their searching of the Scriptures as such. Moreover, the passage cannot possibly be interpreted as favouring individual private interpretation as a guide to truth. The Berean Jews turned to the Scriptures to see if what was said of Christ as the Messiah was true. Yet with what result? The very next verse (12) tells us - “Many of them therefore believed”. Many, not all, of those who so eagerly scanned the Scriptures discovered the truth and received the grace of Christ. Those who failed to believe did not profit much by their reliance on private individual interpretation - their decision for themselves was erroneous! No. Private interpretation is not a sure and certain guide to truth and Christ wisely established an infallible Church to be the guide of men in matters appertaining to religion. The Bereans who were soundly converted to Christ and added to the Church, accepted wholeheartedly and preserved in the teaching of the Apostles, that is to say the one true visible Church of Christ.

St. John 5: 39

This was a retort, not a command, and you cannot turn a particular rebuke into some universal law. Were it a universal law, it would have been impossible of fulfillment by the vast majority during the the fourteen centuries prior to the invention of the printing press. However, let us look at the context. The Jews, who boasted of their fidelity to the Mosaic Law, would not believe in Christ. He challenged them: “You search the Scriptures, for you think in them that you have everlasting life; and the same are they that give testimony of me”. The Catholic Church could say in the same way to Protestants: “You are ever speaking of searching the Sacred Scriptures as opposed to my methods, and think in them to have everlasting life independently of me; yet the same are they which give testimony of me”.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[kelman]

Which councils?

The councils of Hippo and Carthage listed 1 and 2 Esdras found in the Septuagint as canonical. “In this version 1 Esdras is the Apocryphal additions to Ezra while 2 Esdras is the Jewish verion of Ezra-Nehemiah from the Jewish canon. The Council of Trent however states that 1 Esdras is actually Ezra from the Jewish canon and 2 Esdras is Nehemiah from the Jewish canon. Trent omits the Septuagint version of 1 Esdras. Secondly, Hippo and Carthage state that Solomon wrote 5 books of the Old Testament when in actuality he wrote only 3.”

It’s not a question of an authority somehow separate from the Church-as-body-of-believers…

Of course, the Holy Spirit led the early church to recognize inspired books. However, there is no authoritative apostolic teaching other than inspired Scripture. To claim that the apostles did not write down all God’s revelation to them is to claim that they were not obedient to their prophetic commission not to subtract a word from what God revealed to them.

I entirely fail to be amazed by this. I am in fact amazed by exactly the opposite phenomenon, as are most observers, whether Catholic/Orthodox, Protestant, or non-Christian.

While there are differences, just as the RCC and EO have their differences, nevertheless, all agree with the essential tenets of Christianity and are in true spiritual unity with other believers in contrast to mere external organizational uniformity. For example, I am not a Reformed Baptist and yet I’m able to attend their services with complete trust that we agree in all that is essential to Christianity. For example, while not agreeing with their practice of believer’s baptism, this would not affect our spiritual unity.

The plethora of Protestant groups, and the bitterness with which they have historically fought each other over quite small points while all claiming to be following sola scriptura, is one of the most remarkable features of the history of religion.

Liberalism has invaded all churches including the RCC. When we compare the differences with orthodox Roman Catholics and orthodox Protestants or with all Roman Catholics and all Protestants on the more essential doctrines, there is no significant edge for Roman Catholicism. Besides, ** all** men are fallible sinful creatures, some with faulty hermeneutics, and filled with their traditions, therefore, we cannot lay the blame for these divisions at the feet of the doctrine of sola Scriptura or the need for an “infallible” authority. Especially, since one does not exist.

The proof that sola scriptura is true is straightforward - since the Bible is God speaking to us, and since God is the highest authority, no authority can be higher than the Bible, and only God can be equal in authority to the Bible. That’s not “rationalism,” it is simply the acknowledging of reality.

Which churches exactly are you talking about? It’s pretty hard to list any points of unity among sola scriptura churches that they do not share with non-sola-scriptura churches. Sola fide, for instance, is emphatically not something that all sola scriptura churches agree on.

Most non sola Scripture churches are Arminian at heart. I don’t claim to know all true sola Scriptura practicing churches but of the ones I know they are very definitely sole fide churches. What churches are you referring to?

Of course, you can always argue that only the churches that hold to what you regard as essential doctrine are “actually seeking to practice” sola scriptura. But that’s simply special pleading–or, in other words, the “no true Scotsman” fallacy.

Not at all, if all sola Scriptura churches agree on what is “essential”. You can’t lump together all non-Catholic denominations that are not Reformational churches.

Again, my perception is radically different from yours. I see Catholicism and Orthodoxy as remarkably similar in spite of a millennium, more or less, of separation.

Nothing to do with perception – it is simply fact. These two churches don’t agree on the canon of the Bibles, Purgatory & Indulgences and the Treasury of Merit, the Immaculate Conception, created grace, original sin, Marian Dogma of the Bodily Assumption, teachings on Mary as Co-Redemptrix and Co-Midiatrix, priestly celibacy, teaching on mortal and venial sins, teaching on Holy days of obligation, the teaching on Transubstantiation from Thomas Aquainas use of substance and accidents, the practice of eucharistic adoration, the Roman Catholic teaching/practice on Confession as opposed to the Orthodox teaching/practice of Confession, just to mention a few. They are not permitted to commune in the Eucharist in Roman Catholic Churches. They do not have a first Holy Communion or practice Confirmation. The EO has no altar “girls” or eucharistic ministers. They do not sing happy, clappy praise and worship songs, they don’t support a Charismatic “movement”/

And, of course, the 800 pound elephant in the room – the papacy.

The headship of Christ is incarnational. Local pastors/bishops embody the headship of Christ, although always in a broken and inadequate way and only by grace. Hence, it is not unreasonable to say that the Pope also embodies this in some sense for the universal church, although I am uncomfortable with the way RCs have often expressed this.

The “headship of Jesus” has other applications, but yes, Jesus gave authority to the churches and also listed the ecclesiastic offices and placed authority in them. However, it is more than “unreasonable” when you then make an astounding illogical leap to attempt a case for “one” individual. That assumption is simply not support by Scripture or the early church.

 

[Shannon9791]

The proof that sola scriptura is true is straightforward - since the Bible is God speaking to us, and since God is the highest authority, no authority can be higher than the Bible, and only God can be equal in authority to the Bible. That’s not “rationalism,” it is simply the acknowledging of reality.

I just want to make sure I’m understanding what you’re saying here. You’re saying that the Bible is equal to God?

 

[StevenFrancis]

Greetings~
Well, here I am in a mess again.
My husband is a Lutheran and he was deeply offended when I told him that Catholics have a different God than Lutherans have because the way I saw it, there was no way it ever could be the same one, the qualities are too disimilar. Protestants are too quick to say we make everything up.
It’s a bit strange because if our God *is the same *then either we are all going to hell or they are all going to hell. Better choose wisely. I knew I needed to find out for sure…
My husband said oh sure, go to CAF and ask the Catholics but I told him that the people on these forums are completely unbiased and have schooled me when I have been wrong and enlightened me about things when I needed to know the truth. So that’s why I posted here again
Thanks so much for reading this thread,
Jen

Different Gods? Well, that seems a bit extreme. Lutherans are Christians for sure. Sharing not just God the Father, but Jesus, the Chirst and the Holy Spirit as well. They celebrate sacraments. They believe in the communion of Saints. Some venerate Mary. they operate on the same liturgical calendar. Infant baptism, real presence in the Euchariest, (though they believe it fades away after their service).

They have a different idea about the confection of the Eucharist.
They allow themselves to become adultrated by the world, giving in sometimes to cultural modernism, i.e. homosexual marriage, and female clergy. They have carried forward Luther’s woefully unfounded “sola scriptura” maxim. They lost apostolic succession and authority soon after Luther. They don’t accept the Primacy of Peter, the apostle, and therefore don’t accept the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.

But make no mistake. Lutherans are children of God. They are baptised, confirmed, make a profession of faith, profess Jesus Christ crucified, have the same understanding of role of the Trinity. They worship, love, adore the same God, (in three persons), that Catholics do. Next to Anglicans, they are perhaps our closest cousins. The God, and all the characters are the same. The emphasis on certain doctrine is different, and some few doctrines are practiced in heresy.

There is but one God. What is different, is that the people following the heresies of Martin Luther are separating themselves from the fullness of the Christian deposit of the faith. For many of them, it’s cultural, (as in the case of the family I am from). It was all I had ever known of Christianity. We were Lutherans. That’s all. Everybody we knew were Lutherans, (till I joined the Army). There were some Catholics, Methodists and Baptists around, but I just thought of them as different groups of Christians who shared different cultures. Like the Moose lodge vs. the Elks Lodge. I knew they believed in God and Jesus and the Holy Ghost.

Rather than provoke your husband with statement such as he worships a different God, perhaps ask about his traditions, where they come from. Why he identifies himself with Lutheranism. Chances are, it will be something cultural. They find out what obstacles he finds with Catholic doctrine. Then, address each of his objections to Catholocism in a gentle way. Prayer would help. If you can show him some of the literature on the new mass, perhaps, and have him help you study it. See if you can get him to a mass or two. Perhaps there would be enough interest to get to RCIA, and then who knows. But saying that there are two God’s is just simply not theologically correct, and it’s a bit taunting too.

Jesus left one Church. History is pretty clear that it is the Church referred to today as the Catholic Church. It is confirmed to the best of man’s ability. People are democratic by nature, and don’t seem to want unchanging law and truth. It doesn’t fit in well with progressive thought, and modernity. So man steps in and changes the nature of God, with a stroke of the pen, to suit the current cultural and moral issues, because man also desires to live immorally without guilt or repentance. So men have traditionally thrown out what makes them feel bad or immoral, (rather than conform their morality to the Church),

Anyway, the different God argument is contentious, and will likely just lay fuel to fire and result in further negative arguments. I’d search instead for what your husband finds to be wonderful about Lutheranism, and then relate how it differs in Catholicism, of course, but also, WHY it is different in Catholicism. And then you can discuss why the Church is the deposit of the faith, and point to history, etc., but all respectfully, and with your own genuine zeal and love for the Church.

Best wishes to you in your discussions. I will pray for his conversion. Please pray for my ongoing conversion.

Blessings,

Steven

 

[Portrait]

I’m surprised that you deny the ability of the Holy Spirit to illuminate God’s words to His people. Clearly, Scripture is given to the members of the church – not to a hierarchy. The Scriptures are addressed immediately, either to all men indiscriminately, or else to the whole body of believers as such - Deut. 6:4-9; Luke 1:3; Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 1:1; 4:2; Gal. 1:2; Eph. 1:1; Phil. 1:1; Col. 1:2; James 1:1; 1 Peter 1:1; 2 Peter 1:1; 1 John 2:12,14; Jude 1:1; Rev. 1:3,4; 2:7. The only exceptions are the epistles to Timothy and Titus.

Dear kelman,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for the above response.

By what test do we decide that it is really the Holy Spirit who is leading or illuminating a man? How do we know that a man just thinks what he wants to think according to his ‘tradition’ and then persuades himself that his opinions are the voice of the Holy Spirit? The fact is that other equally devout and equally bible-believing Christians arrive at other conclusions. Why is it wiser to accept one man’s understanding and insights more than another man’s? All a manner of bizzare religions have been given to the world by men who have declared with the utmost confidence that the Holy Spirit is responsible for their strange ideas. It is not difficult to find biblical support for one’s opinions, so claiming to be enlightened by the Spirit as to the true interpretation of Sacred Scripture is not of much help.

Whilst it is perfectly true to say that Catholics are guided by what the Church teaches, it would not be true to say that they are not guided by the bible. All that is taught in Sacred Scripture is included in the teaching of the Catholic Church. Thus any notion that there is some conflict between the teachings of the Catholic Church and the bible is owing to mistaken or defective beliefs respecting Catholic teaching, or the meaning of Sacred Scripture.

My dear brother, you would not have the bible except for the Catholic Church, as I and others here have shown. Moreover, the bible simply cannot be a sufficient guide when it requires others to explain its meaning. Remember that the first Christians owed their faith, not the written Gospels, but to the Church. The divine authority of the Church was the first fact as far as men were concerned in the order of proof. Before a line of the N.T. was written it was the Church that preached Christ to the first converts. Our Lord commanded nothing to be commited to writing, but told the Apostles to preach the the truth, saying, “teach all nations” and He promised them, “he that hears you, hears Me”. The Apostles had to win belief in themselves and in their mission before they could would win belief in their Master. It was on their testimony that the first converts believed in Christ. Had you lived at that time and had you gone to one of the apostles demanding proof from the written word of God, he would have been quite unable to provide proof from the Gospels which had not yet been written. He would have said to you, “Kelman, such is the unanimous teaching of the Apostles as we have received it from Christ”, and either you would have accepted that teaching authority of the Church represented by the Apostles, or you would have been without the Christian faith.

The Sacred Scriptures are indeed given to members of the Church to read, mark, learn and inwardly digest and as a means of grace to enable them to live a godly, righteous and sober life. Meditating upon their contents will stir up holy thoughts and a desire for sanctity and separation from the godless world. All of this is very true, but the bible is decidedly not given to members of the Church to interpret contrary to the teaching of the Church on faith and morals. This office has only been given to the authorised successors of St. Peter and the magisterium.

Goodbye for now and have a jolly splendid weekend, whatever you plan to do. God bless, my dear friend and thankyou for an interesting discussion.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait:tiphat:

Pax

 

[kelman]

The members of the Church who wrote the N.T. were the Apostles or
those Apostolic men closely associated with the Apostles, what we
would today term the hierarchy.

The Apostles taught the Gospel messsage and began the original churches so in that sense they can be considered “hierarchy” along with the prophets, preachers, evangelists, teachers, etc. However, that is not the RCC idea of “hierachy” so what God established in the beginning is not what RCC has today. You have not proven, either by means of Scripture or early church history, that the pope and the magisterium have the same authority as the Apostles – let alone “infallibility”.

Remember it was to the Apostles only
that our Lord said, “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” (S. Jn. 14: 26,
emphasis mine).

I wholeheartedly agree. It was the Apostles alone who were led into “all truth”. Too many, both Roman Catholics and even some Protestants claim this for themselves while it is clearly meant only for the Apostles.

Sacred Scripture may be the work of God, but it still requires
interpretation and the question to be answered is, to whom do we turn
for an authoritative interpretation, our fellow fallible men or the
one true Church founded by Christ upon St. Peter?

When you turn to your church you are turning to fallible men – just like everyone else is. And no, the church was not founded upon Peter. All accounts point to parity never supremacy for the Twelve. They shared a single office being led of the Holy Spirit in unity. The Scriptures and the early church is very clear about this.

If it be said by way
of reply, why we turn to the Holy Spirit, then we respond by saying,
then why is there so much diversity of opinion if this is the case,
even over fundamental doctrines?

We may never hope to learn any truth from Scripture without the Holy Spirit. However, God has given us the teaching ministry of the church. Although, there is no scriptural evidence demonstrating God giving His church any human “infallible” teachers(excepting the Twelve). Now, did someone eventually claim “infallibility”?..sure, however, it remains an unsupported claim from both a biblical and historical standpoint.

Is the Holy Spirit guiding some men
but not others and how is a man supposed to know who He is truly
guiding? In other words to whom do we look to for a correct and
authoritative interpretation of the bible? These are perfectly
reasonable questions, but I have yet to hear a Protestant give a
satisfactory answer, which is one of the reasons why I converted to
the Catholic Church.

I’m sure satisfactory answers have been given, however, there are some people who cannot endure not knowing something “infallibly”. For this reason they turn to those who claim they are “infallible”. Unfortunately, there is no “authoritative or infallible” interpretation of Scripture and you can find no place where God says that He has given such to any other than the inspired writers of Scripture. We readily see from the writings of the ECFs that there was no “authoritative or infallible” interpretation of Scripture….more evidence the early churches recognized no universal jurisdictional authority.

A number of lists of recognised books survive from the early
centuries of the Christian era, but the earliest one that lists all
the N.T. books as we have them today is in a letter of St. Athanasius
written in 367 AD. An identical list was promulgated by a council of
Rome under Pope Damasus in 382 AD. The same list was recognised by the
local councils of Hippo (393 AD), Carthage III (397 AD), Carthage IV
(419 AD), and in a letter of Pope Innocent in 405 AD. Whilst none of
these individuals or local councils claimed to be settling the canon
definitively for the universal Church, gradually this was the list
which became universally recognised and finally canonised by the
Council of Trent.

The OT canon was received and recognized very early on and the Apocrypha was rejected. Athanasius did not recognize the Apocrypha (367AD); he rejected those books from the canon of inspired Scripture. And before that it was rejected by Origen (210AD) and even before that by Melito of Sardis(170AD). And it continued to be rejected by many, if not most, right up until the Reformation.

After listing the twenty-seven books of the NT, Athanasius affirmed the present day Protestant OT canon: ”These are the fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness.”

However, as has been said already, Martin Luther
changed all of that in the 16th cent. when he had a serious problem
with seven deuterocanonical books, which contradicted his new fangled
theology.

Rather, as had been incorrectly “said already” and continued here. The Apocrypha was never established canon in the church. It’s true some accepted it but by and large most did not. Jerome completely rejected those books as being inspired. As for Luther, he simply followed the early church concerning the Apocrypha – and rejected it. Even Cardinal Cajetan, a leading RCC scholar and an opponent of Luther, rejected the Apocrypha. And in his * Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament* he wrote that Augustine did not accept the Apocrypha as inspired Scripture. Therefore, it was Trent which engaged in its own “new fangled theology”.

 

[kelman]

All believers indiscriminately are commanded to search the Scriptures - 2 Tim. 3:15,17; Acts 17:11; John 5:39. Add to this the overwhelming message of the OT that God’s Word is to light the path of His children.

Do you think what we find in Scripture are suggestions and not commands? Verse 15 says “from a child” so obviously Scripture has been studied(searched) from childhood on. Especially considering how it is through Scripture we become saved ”… which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” So, downplaying Scripture, or sometimes even just dismissing it, does a grave disservice to those seeking salvation.

In Acts 17:11 we see how the Bereans were commended because they: ”…searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” And here the explicit imperative to: ”Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.” So, yes by God’s mercy, we are commanded to “search the Scriptures.”

John 5:39 is no “retort”, at least according to many theologians - The word may be either in the indicative or imperative mood. In our translation it is in the imperative, as if Jesus commanded them to search the Scriptures, Cyril, Erasmus, Beza, Bengel, Kuinoel, Tholuck, De Wette, and others, give it as in the indicative; Chrysostom, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Wetstein, Stier, Alford, and others, regard it as in the imperative, or as a command.

However, that does not give them carte blanche licence to interpret Sacred Scripture contrary to the fundamental teachings of the Catholic Church.

No one needs any license, cart blanche or otherwise, to reject the RCC’s interpretation of the few verses it has actually interpreted. The RCC is not mentioned in Scripture, ditto for the pope, magisterium, “infallibility” and a host of other RCC specific dogmas.

Did the Bereans seek interpretation from anyone?..no, they searched for themselves which is in fact what God commands. God gives plenty of commands(not suggestions) to “search the Scriptures” ourselves because it is in them we find Him. And as Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, told Timothy it is God’s words which bring salvation. Throughout the entirety of the Bible, God speaks of His holy words, His commandments, His statutes and Jesus does the same in the NT. Over and over He says "it is written". To “search the Scriptures” is no less a command than to “believe and repent”.

“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2Tim 2:15)

“Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail, none shall want her mate: for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them.” (Isa.34:16)

“Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you.” (Proverbs 1:23)

“These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee.” (Titus 2:15)

“Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.” (Psalm 119:11)

“I will meditate in thy precepts, and have respect unto thy ways. I will delight myself in thy statutes: I will not forget thy word.” (Psalm 119:15-16)

“Every word of God is tried and purified; He is a shield to those who trust and take refuge in Him. Add not to His words, lest He reprove you, and you be found a liar.”( Proverbs 30:5-6)

“I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name"(Psalm 138:2)

 

[PRmerger]

I wholeheartedly agree. It was the Apostles alone who were led into “all truth”. Too many, both Roman Catholics and even some Protestants claim this for themselves while it is clearly meant only for the Apostles.

And yet, curiously, you have accepted the testimony of the “early Christians” (NOT Apostles, IOW), in discerning for you, infallibly, the canon of Scripture.

 

[kelman]

i just want to make sure i’m understanding what you’re saying here. You’re saying that the bible is equal to god?

No, that’s not what I was trying to say. The Bible isn’t “equal” to God just as no book is “equal” to its author. Still, what is the best way to learn about an “author”?..by the words He has written. We are told that the Bible is the revelation of Jesus Christ….that in its entirety it is about Jesus Christ. The Bible, from beginning to the end, tells of how God fulfills His redemption story through Jesus Christ. The Bible is therefore all about Jesus. There is no better way to learn about the Lord than from very God Himself.

What I meant was that the Bible is from the mind of God and there is no human organization who has authority over His mind by claiming to speak “infallibly” about the thoughts He conveys to us in inspired written Scripture. The Bible is the supreme authority and only God Himself is equal to biblical authority. If we want to know the mind of God, to know our condition before Him and what is required of us, there is only one place to go – to the written words He has given us.

 

[kelman]

I’m surprised that you deny the ability of the Holy Spirit to illuminate God’s words to His people. Clearly, Scripture is given to the members of the church – not to a hierarchy. The Scriptures are addressed immediately, either to all men indiscriminately, or else to the whole body of believers as such - Deut. 6:4-9; Luke 1:3; Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 1:1; 4:2; Gal. 1:2; Eph. 1:1; Phil. 1:1; Col. 1:2; James 1:1; 1 Peter 1:1; 2 Peter 1:1; 1 John 2:12,14; Jude 1:1; Rev. 1:3,4; 2:7. The only exceptions are the epistles to Timothy and Titus.

It’s true, man can convince himself of just about anything. There is no one who can claim his opinions are the “voice of the Holy Spirit” and that includes your church. Still, it is reasonable to hope for the leading of the Holy Spirit, this God promises His children (Rom 8:14).

God tells us to “test the spirits”(1Jn 4:1). How do we do that?..by the only way possible, by the only thing God has proclaimed to be inspired – His written Word. If we’re told to accept a doctrine as truth, it must first align with Scripture and if it does not – it must be rejected – if we are to be obedient to 1Jn 4:1. Said doctrine must always lead us toward the Lord Jesus and not away from Him. It is always God who illuminates His Word, who reveals the majesty and beauty of Christ to His children(Mat 16:16).

Rom 8:14 ”For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.”

The fact is that other equally devout and equally bible-believing Christians arrive at other conclusions. Why is it wiser to accept one man’s understanding and insights more than another man’s?

It is simply the human condition, God did not give us infallibility and though many won’t accept it, because they need “certainty”, they are in the same boat as everyone else and perhaps even worse. If there were an alternative where we would all just know perfect truth all the time, we would take it. Such a utopia does not exist.

All a manner of bizzare religions have been given to the world by men who have declared with the utmost confidence that the Holy Spirit is responsible for their strange ideas. It is not difficult to find biblical support for one’s opinions, so claiming to be enlightened by the Spirit as to the true interpretation of Sacred Scripture is not of much help.

Your church claims to be enlightened by the Holy Spirit, does it not? Why is its claim superior to Christians of all other denominations, the Eastern Orthodox or Protestant churches, who come to different conclusions?

In any case, yes man has done many bizzare things in and outside of religion. That’s no reason to believe you cannot trust the Holy Spirt if God’s commands are followed - if we don’t pick-over the Bible hoping to prove our presuppositions rather than coming humbly and prayerfully desiring to learn of Him and not insist on what He has not given. That reminds me of Ancient Israel. God had given them judges to rule over them, however, they demanded ”we will have a king”. God gave them what they wanted but He also punished them for their disobedience.

My dear brother, you would not have the bible except for the Catholic Church, as I and others here have shown.

This is simply arguing for one speculative doctrine on the basis of another. It has never been “shown” that the RCC gave us the Bible as they claim. Again, it didn’t exist at that time. Did the “universal” church receive and recognize Scripture? As I’ve previously demonstrated the entire canon was already listed by Melito in 120AD, followed by Origen, Athanasius, Jerome, etc., etc., btw, all rejected the present day RCC canon.

Moreover, the bible simply cannot be a sufficient guide when it requires others to explain its meaning. Remember that the first Christians owed their faith, not the written Gospels, but to the Church.

The Bible not a sufficient guide? Sorry, but this flies directly in the face of Scripture itself. God very plainly tells us that Scripture is how we come to salvation. We do not need others to explain this or anything else pertaining to salvation and leading a good Christian life. God has plainly written so that all can understand these things. The Gospel itself preceded the church, in fact, the church is a direct result of the Gospel. Scripture is simply the Gospel written down so that effectively we can say that Scripture preceded the church.

The divine authority of the Church was the first fact as far as men were concerned in the order of proof. Before a line of the N.T. was written it was the Church that preached Christ to the first converts.

Yes, the Gospel message was “orally” preached and before their deaths the Apostles made sure it was written down so that we would always have the truth – according to Peter. With his death getting closer, Peter commends us to the written word – not to the church and certainly not to any apostolic “successor”.

 

[kelman]

Our Lord commanded nothing to be commited to writing, but told the Apostles to preach the the truth, saying, “teach all nations” and He promised them, “he that hears you, hears Me”.

Did Paul, and the other Apostles, wake up one day and decide to write themselves some books? Or were they following the inspiration of God?

Eph 3:3-5 ”how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, 4 by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), 5 which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed …”

Here Paul explains that it is through the written Word that we come to understand the mysteries of Christ. Does he say we need an “infallible” interpretor?..no, just the written Word. It is through the pen of the Apostles which the evangelist preaches that the great commission is fulfilled.

From the very beginning, with the finger of God, His words have been written down and He commanded His prophets over and over: ”to write it in a book”. And, of course, Christ commanded His words to be written down unless you’re going to say that the Apostles were acting “out” of the will of God. In the Book of Revelation God commanded John over and over to “write”. The Lord demonstrated that teaching comes from Scripture ”it is written”. To the Lord the unanswerable standard of right and wrong was the written Word – we dare to assert otherwise?

Since the Apostles are no longer with us, and they appointed no infallible apostolic successor who can speak under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, how do we “hear” the Apostles today?..the only way possible - by their inspired writings.

The Apostles had to win belief in themselves and in their mission before they could would win belief in their Master. It was on their testimony that the first converts believed in Christ.

And yet they needed to “prove” they had divine authority which they did with “signs and wonders”. If anyone wants to claim they succede the Apostles with the same divine authority they best demonstrate such as the Apostles did - with similar “signs and wonders”.

Had you lived at that time and had you gone to one of the apostles demanding proof from the w! ritten word of God, he would have been quite unable to provide proof from the Gospels which had not yet been written. He would have said to you, “Kelman, such is the unanimous teaching of the Apostles as we have received it from Christ”,

However, I didn’t live in that time and I do have the Bible and the Apostles are no longer around so the only place the unanimous teaching of the Apostles can be found today is in the Bible.

And had I lived at that time I would have seen the proof of the divine authority by the actions of the Apostles, by their “signs and wonders”. If you have a church today which claims the same infallible divine authority as the Apostles then it best be able to prove such “infallibility” instead of simply making assertions. Where are the apostolic signs and wonders of the popes and bishops?

…and either you would have accepted that teaching authority of the Church represented by the Apostles, or you would have been without the Christian faith.

God gave authority to the churches to teach, of that there is no doubt. However, He did not give an “infallible” ability to teach – we do not find that anywhere. I have accepted the teaching authority of the Apostles – the inspired Scriptures they penned. Why would I accept all sorts of doctrines, dogmas and practices that the Apostles did not pen?

All of this is very true, but the bible is decidedly not given to members of the Church to interpret contrary to the teaching of the Church on faith and morals. This office has only been given to the authorised successors of St. Peter and the magisterium.

I’m sure you’re aware that this statement simply begs the question and is circular. You have not proven either statement. You have not proven that God established a magisterium or an infallible apostolic successor to Peter. Nor does the historical early church add support for such claims.

 

[Contarini]

T
Rather, as had been incorrectly “said already” and continued here. The Apocrypha was never established canon in the church. It’s true some accepted it but by and large most did not. Jerome completely rejected those books as being inspired. As for Luther, he simply followed the early church concerning the Apocrypha – and rejected it. Even Cardinal Cajetan, a leading RCC scholar and an opponent of Luther, rejected the Apocrypha. And in his * Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament* he wrote that Augustine did not accept the Apocrypha as inspired Scripture. Therefore, it was Trent which engaged in its own “new fangled theology”.

The fatal flaw in your argument is the word “even.” You are implying that because Cajetan opposed Luther, therefore, his arguments must be taken as an authoritative “concession” of some sort on the Catholic side. That doesn’t follow. It’s certainly true that Trent reaffirmed a more conservative and less critical position than that maintained by scholars such as Cajetan. But Trent was reaffirming the common, historic usage of the Western Church over against the occasional qualifications of scholars who were influenced by regard for the Jewish example and by a concern for the historicity of canonical books.

Certainly one can make a case that Cajetan and the “Hieronymian” tradition he represented were right and the view stemming from Augustine and reaffirmed at the Council of Trent was wrong. Indeed, this is an example of the sort of thing that, on the intellectual level (obviously there are other reasons as well), keeps me Anglican (rather than Roman Catholic). However, you simply don’t have a case that Trent was engaging in “new-fangled” theology, and Cajetan is not an authoritative interpreter of what Augustine and the fourth-century local councils meant. He wants them to agree with Jerome, naturally. That doesn’t mean that they did.

Also, if Jerome and Cajetan and other pre-Tridentine Catholic scholars were right (and as an Anglican I think they may well have been), then that upsets your view of Scripture even more than the Catholic view does, arguably. It means that there are canonical writings, which can and should be read liturgically in church, which have a secondary status and can’t be used to prove doctrine. It messes up the neat distinction you want to draw between what is Scripture and what isn’t.

Hence, most Protestants who cite Cajetan and Jerome don’t follow them in practice. It’s somewhat disingenuous to appeal to the “middle” view when you yourself utterly reject the Apocrypha as canonical, which these figures did not.

Edwin

 

[Portrait]

F.A.O. kelman

Dear kelman,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hope all is well and that you had a pleasant weekend. Thankyou for your recent dispatches, my dear friend, and my apolgies for not be ing able to respond to them today. God willing, I will post replies this week, so please stand by.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait:tiphat:

Pax

 

[kelman]

The fatal flaw in your argument is the word “even.” You are implying that because Cajetan opposed Luther, therefore, his arguments must be taken as an authoritative “concession” of some sort on the Catholic side.

I think you are making some “flawed” inferences. What I was implying was that “even” as late as the 16th century we could see from the arguments of Cajetan that there was no concensus concerning the Apocrypha and that the RCC had not yet “infallibly” defined its own canon.

That doesn’t follow. It’s certainly true that Trent reaffirmed a more conservative and less critical position than that maintained by scholars such as Cajetan.

Nothing “conservative” about including books that had been historically rejected by many many theologians. Indeed “less critical”. Trent “settled” the NT canon based on certain assumptions regarding the authorship of the canonical books which modern Roman Catholic Bible scholars reject. Did Paul write the Epistle to the Hebrews? Did the Apostle James write the Epistle of James? Did Peter write 2 Peter? Trent certainly made some errors in their method of determining inspired books – at least according to RCC biblical scholars. I thought the council’s findings were supposed to be “infallible”?

But Trent was reaffirming the common, historic usage of the Western Church over against the occasion al qualifications of scholars who were influenced by regard for the Jewish example and by a concern for the historicity of canonical books.

Yes, scholars were influenced by the Jewish canon, as well they should have been, especially if they had any interest in biblical accurancy. God gave the OT to the Jews not to 16th century Christians. When Trent defines the scope of the canon, it appeals to the testimony of the church fathers. But in that event, the Roman church is reliant on the same basic sources as are the Protestant churches.

Indeed, this is an example of the sort of thing that, on the intellectual level (obviously there are other reasons as well), keeps me Anglican (rather than Roman Catholic). However, you simply don’t have a case that Trent was engaging in “new-fangled” theology, and Cajetan is not an authoritative interpreter of what Augustine and the fourth-century local councils meant. He wants them to agree with Jerome, naturally. That doesn’t mean that they did.

If Luther’s rejection of the Apocrypha is “new fangled” theology, Trent’s is no less “new fangled”. Why attack Luther’s canon when a leading Roman Catholic scholar held similar views and when the canon had not yet even been made “official”? Cajetan’s interpretation of Augustine should hold significant weight since he was a leading RCC scholar.

Also, if Jerome and Cajetan and other pre-Tridentine Catholic scholars were right (and as an Anglican I think they may well have been), then that upsets your view of Scripture even more than the Catholic view does, arguably. It means that there are canonical writings, which can and should be read liturgically in church, which have a secondary status and can’t be used to prove doctrine. It messes up the neat distinction you want to draw between what is Scripture and what isn’t.

The only view it upsets is the Roman Catholic view and tragically so. It is not the Protestant churches establishing binding dogmas from very fallible uninspired books that so many patristic texts and church scholars rejected. We have many lines of evidence for the widespread acceptance of the books of the Protestant canon, for one, Eusebius’ comments about the degree of acceptance of the books among the churches.

Hence, most Protestants who cite Cajetan and Jerome don’t follow them in practice. It’s somewhat disingenuous to appeal to the “middle” view when you yourself utterly reject the Apocrypha as canonical, which these figures did not.

Except I’m not appealing to the “middle” view. I’m “appealing” to the fact that both these men, and many others, utterly rejected the Apocrypha as inspired books. And in doing so I’m under no obligation to agree or promote whatever other views they may have held. Besides, there’s no intrinsic value in reading uninspired books especially when errors can be readily seen in some of them. It’s a full-time occupation just reading and studying what God really did inspire.

 

[Portrait]

Do you think what we find in Scripture are suggestions and not commands? Verse 15 says “from a child” so obviously Scripture has been studied(searched) from childhood on. Especially considering how it is through Scripture we become saved ”… which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” So, downplaying Scripture, or sometimes even just dismissing it, does a grave disservice to those seeking salvation.

In Acts 17:11 we see how the Bereans were commended because they: ”…searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” And here the explicit imperative to: ”Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.” So, yes by God’s mercy, we are commanded to “search the Scriptures.”

John 5:39 is no “retort”, at least according to many theologians - The word may be either in the indicative or imperative mood. In our translation it is in the imperative, as if Jesus commanded them to search the Scriptures, Cyril, Erasmus, Beza, Bengel, Kuinoel, Tholuck, De Wette, and others, give it as in the indicative; Chrysostom, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Wetstein, Stier, Alford, and others, regard it as in the imperative, or as a command.

No one needs any license, cart blanche or otherwise, to reject the RCC’s interpretation of the few verses it has actually interpreted. The RCC is not mentioned in Scripture, ditto for the pope, magisterium, “infallibility” and a host of other RCC specific dogmas.

Dear kelman,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. At last I am able to respond to your recent posts, or at least some of them. So very sorry for the delay and thankyou for your patience.

Young Timothy’s knowledge of the O.T. Scriptures did indeed stretch back to his earliest years, but that surely was due to the fidelity of his teachers, especially to the formative influence exercised upon him by his mother and grandmother (see II Tim. 1: 5), rather than any personal search on his part. The text does not say that he searched the scriptures, but only that he was “acquainted with the Sacred Writings”. It does not inform us of how he aquired his knowledge. In fact II Tim. 3: 14, suggests strongly that he recieved his kowledge of the O.T. from the living voice of his teachers, especially his family and this is how it is in most Christian households today, we receive our knowledge first from our parents and then from the Church or ‘tradition’ that we are reared in. Philo, a contemporary of our Lord, says, “They are taught, so to speak, from their swaddling clothes by their parents, masters and teachers, in the holy laws, and in the unwritten customs, and to believe in God, the Father and Creator of the world”. Please do not misunderstand me, dear friend, I am not saying that it is wrong to search or examine the scriptures, but it is wrong to do so with the intent of rejecting the God given authority of those who “sit in Moses Seat”. This Timothy did not do and neither must we.

The Bereans and early Christians first received the true doctrine from the teaching Church (ecclesia docens) and then confirmed the veracity of that teaching from the Sacred Scriptures. Nothing irregular about that, for it is the correct procedure and Catholics today do the very same thing. However, the Protestant method is not first to be taught by the Church and then verify, but to try to make their own religion from the bible with an untrained mind, based on a private interpretation, an entirely different matter altogether. This is grave error which leads to a multitude of denominations and a mulltiplicity of interpretations. In short, the doctrinal chaos which is Protestantism.

As regards St. John 5: 39, “It will never be settled beyond dispute whether the verb here is imperative or indicative. As far as the Greek shews it may be either, “search” or “ye search”, and both make sense. The question is, which makes the best sense, and this the context must decide. The context seems to be strongly in favour of the indicative, ye search the Scriptures. All the verbs on either side are in the indicative; and more especially the one with which it is so closely connected, “and ye will not come”. Ye search the Scriptures, and (insead of their leading you to me) ye are not willing to come to Me…The reproach lies not in their searching, but in their searching to little purpose” (Alfred Plummer (Anglican), St. John, Cambridge Bible for Schools & Colleges, CUP 1889, p. 134). Moreover, the Jews hardly needed to be exhorted to study the Sacred Scriptures and the imperative makes it difficult to understand the causal clause which follows. In fact, those who assume that the verb is imperative are obliged to regard the words “because you think that in them you have eternal life” as parenthetic, and construe the words “it is they that bear witness to me” with for, thus giving thereason for which the command is given.

At any rate we can see that understanding the bible with an untrained mind is not quite as simple as Protestants often allege. The bible is not a simple story for simple people. We live thousands of years after the bible was written. A knowledge of Hebrew and Greek (as I have shown above) soon shows that translators do no always find an English word to express the exact sense of the original. God inspired the original autographs, not the work of various translators and so if one reads a sense into Scripture which God did not intend at all, then one no longer has God’s Word.

More to follow, please stand by.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

F.A.O. kelman

Dear kelman,

Hello again.

Whilst the Apostles themselves are dead, according to the terms of His assurance, they must in some sense remain in the world until the end of time. Now they can remain in the world only through representatives chosen in the manner which, under divine direction, they themselves prescribed. They must, therefore, have made provision that their authority should be passed on to others and transmitted down the whole line of their successors, so that in every generation the rulers of the Church could say, "Our authority is the ever living authority of Christ Himself; our aunthority is the authority of the Apostles, for we are one with them by lawful and proper succession.

The words of our Lord make it clear that the Apostles are the last envoys whom God will send to mankind. The authority which He gave them and their successors He will never give to any others. That the Apostles elected others to assist them in their labours is plain from the N.T. itself. That they went further and made definite provision for their succession for all time, can, my dear brother, be proved by many authorities, for example, St. Clement, who died around 100 AD, says, “Christ was sent by God, the Apostles by Christ. They appointed bishops and deacons…and they made order that when they (the bishops & deacons) died, other men of tried virtue should succeed in their ministry” (Ist Epistle of Clement, 42, 44). St. Irenaeus, writing towards the end of the second century, speaks of “the bishops and their successors down to our time who have been appointed by the Apostles” (*Against *Heresies, 3,3).

The promise of the Primacy to St. Peter is directly stated in the words: “I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven”, that is to say, the keys of the Church. The ‘keys’ were regarded by the Jews, as they are regarded by us, as a symbol of ownership and supreme authority. He who holds the keys is the master of the house. St. Peter and his successor, therefore, shall be master and ruler of the Church. Not all of the Apostles were given the keys, so St. Peter had a supremacy and authority that the others simply did not have.

Moreover, St. Peter shall receive the powers of “binding” and “loosing”, that is to say, he and his successors in the Church shall have the power to issue decrees; to make laws or annul them; to judge, condemn, or aquit; to grant or withold absolution from sin. True, the self-same powers of binding and loosing are, indeed, promised to all the Apostles in St. Matthew’s Gospel (18: 18), but because they were first promised to St. Peter, the rock and the holder of the keys, it is clear that his fellow-Apostles are to exercise them subordinately to his authority. A similar comment could be made respecting the words of St. Paul that the Church is bulit “upon the foundations of the Apostles” (Eph. 2: 20). It is bulit upon them as forming a united body under the Primacy of St. Peter.

We can prove the infallibility of the Church from the absurdity of the contrary, for if it be allowed that His Church can err in exacting the assent of faith for her doctrine, then it surely follows that God has bound men on pain of eternal damnation to believe what is false, for Christ said, “He who does not believe will be condemned”. It would also follow that there can be no certainty whether any particular doctrine is the true doctrine. To believe that Christ established a Church of this sort is, to say the very least, most unsatisfactory, but Protestantism asks men to believe that in matters appertaining to their eternal welfare, there can be no certainty in this world! We must accept God’ Word, but as to the correct interpretation of that Word, there really can be no certitude.

We can also prove the infallibility of the Church from the unity of faith. His Church must at all times teach and believe the same body of divine truths. Possessing unity of faith, she must also possess the means by which that unity may be preserved or defended. Now owing to the waywardness or wickedness of men, which you freely admit, the plainest doctrines of our religion, as we know from history, and even the writings of St. Paul, are liable to constant misinterpretation. The Church of Christ, therefore, is always threatened with error and error is fatal to any unity worthy of the name. Thus it is quite inconceivable that Christ did not empower His Church to declare with an infallible voice whether a doctrine has been revealed or not, and not to expel from her fold and threaten with damnation all who reject her decision.

You state that “God has given us the teaching ministry of the church”, but of which ‘church’ do you speak Presbyterian, Baptist, Methodist, Seventh Day Adventist, Pentecostal or Anglican, to name but just a few? To whom do we turn for an authoritative and unerring “teaching ministry”? That there is such a teaching ministry in the world today, I do not stop to deny, I only ask where you think it is to be found, my dear brother? All of the churches of the Reformation, for example, emerged late on the eccesiastical scene with their ‘rediscovered truths’. Why should anyone of them be believed and how am I to know that they teach the truth without error?

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax