2000 Issue 2 - The Roman Catholic Church's Claim of Infallibility - Counsel of Chalcedon

8/12/2019 2000 Issue 2 - The Roman Catholic Church's Claim of Infallibility - Counsel of Chalcedon

1/17

According

to Roman

Catholicis'm the main cause

o

misery,

fragmentation and

l

awlessness

in

the

world is

the rejectin

of

the

infalli

bility

of

the

Roman CathoJic

Church, the

claim

that

the

Roman

Catholic

Church has

supreme, infallible,

unac,

countabJ'e judgment in mat

ters

of faith

to wh.ich

every

person is hound to submit

himself without

question

and

in

blind obedience , The

living

voice of the infallible

Church is heard in the

infallible Vicar of Chris't,

i.e., tpe pope in

Rome.

Savior .. Suppose again the man

we are imagining had written

down much

of

what he heard

Christ and the Apostles say, but

had not fully reported all, and

was able to supplement what

was lacking by personal explana

tions which he gave from his

perfect memory: that again is a

figure of the Catholic Church.

She wrote down much, indeed,

and the most important parts of

Our

Lord's

teaching, and of the

Apostolic explanation

of

it in

Scripture; but nevertheless she

did not intend it to be a complete

and exhaustive account, apart

No one has stated

this d o t r ~ n e m o r ~

clearly that the Roman

Catholic priest, Henry

G.

Grahame,

in

his

book,

WHERE WE

The

Roman Catholic

Church's

Claim

of

Inhtllibility

Rey Joe Morecraft

GOT THE BIBLE, which

has gone '

through

at least 17

printings

since its

publica

tion

in 191 L

... he Catholic Church is like

a person who was present. at the

side of Our Blessed Lord when

He

walked and talked in Galilee

and Judea. Suppose, for a

moment,

that

that man was

gifted with perpetual youth

...

and

also with perfect memory, and .

heard all

the

teaching and

explanations

of

Our Redeemer

and

of

His Apostles, and re

tained them; he would be an

invaluable witness and authority

tei conStilt, surely, so as to

discover exactly

what

was the

doctrine

of

Jesus Christ and of

the Twelve. But such undoubt

ediy is the Catholic Church; not

an indiv'idual person, l?ut a .

corporate personality who lived

with, indeed was called into

being by, Our Divine

from her own explanation

of

it; .

and, as a matter of fact, she is

able from her own perpetual

memory to give fuller and

clearer accounts, and to add

some things that are either

omitted from the written report,

or are.only hinted at, or partially

recorded, or mentioned merely

in

passing.- pp. 42-43.

...we have a 'Teacher sent

from

God,' above and indepen

dent

of all Scripture, who,

assisted by the Holy Ghost,

speaks with Divine authority, and

whose voice to us is the Voice

of

God .. We rather take

that

Guide,

who is 'yesterday and today and

the same forever,' and who

speaks to us with a living voice,

and who can never make a

mistake; who is never uncertain

or doubtful or wavering

in

her

utterances, n'ever denying.today

what she affirmed

yesterday

..

This is the Catholic

24 _ THECOUNSEL ofChalcedon -FebJuarylM'l ch, 2000

Church, established by Almighty

God as His organ and mouth

piece and interpreter, unaffected

by

the changes and unshaken by

the discoveries

of

the ages. To

her

we

listen; her we obey; to

her we submit our judgment and

our intellect, knowing she will

never lead us wrong. In her we

find peace and comfort, satisfac

tion ,and solution ofall our '

difficulties, for she is the one

infallible Teacher and Guide

appointed by God. - p. 66

And so,

according the

Rome, in this age

of

chaos,

unbelief,

tyranny and

lawlessness, only one

rock stands unmovable

a,bove

the surging

waves: the

infallible

Roman Catholic

Church.

According to Rome,

the authority

of the

Church

is infallible, ultimate and

final. When

t

gives its

official

verdict

on

an issue

through its infallible

Vicar

speaking ex

cathedra ,

the

matter is settled,

the

irrevo

cable decision in the verdict

of the Church

has

been

reached and

in this

verdict

there is not the faintest

doubt. For all intents and

purposes, thus

says the

Church is equivalent to

thus

says the Lord.

The necessity for Rome's

infallibility she

sees

in

the

fact

that mankind needs

two

things to

be

rightly guided

t6

God

in

this

world: an infal

lible Bible and aninfallibie

Interpreter of

the Bible.

Without an infallible inter

preter of the Bible the final

interpreter

becomes indi

vidual

autonomy and

subjec

tivity

as is seen

in

the con-


2/17

tinuing

fragmentation

of

Protestantism with its thou

sands of sects and

doc

trines.

For

Rome,

the Bible

alone

is an

insufficient anchor

.

Without the infa

llible

Inter

c

preter, the Bible in the

hands

of the Protestants

becomes a plaything of

different

tendencies. Is the

Bible not as inseparable

from the

Church

as the Law

was from the Temple?

Rome

offers

the world

with

all

its doubts

and

fears

a

gospel of

certainty and

confidence in her doctrine

of

the infallibility

of

the

Church

that

she claims

the

Reformation

cannot offer.

In the irrevocability of the

Church's decisions is

found

the

stability,

riches

and

power of the Church's

blessing

for our

confused

and uncertain world.

Were

it not

for

her infallible

authority

everything

would

be

dark

and uucertain. In

testing or examining or

rejecting

that

authority

all

certainty is

goue,

and all

that is left

is

the subjectivity

of the

autonomous indi

vidual.

For

the Church ever

to

go

back on her

decisions

and testimonies undermines

the

faith

that it seeks to

protect

and opens the door

for the sovereignty of the

individual.

Allured by

this

promise of

absolute

certainty

and the

.

ultimacy

of

the Church

as .

the

voice

of Christ, and

frightened by the

divisions

and disagreement

s

of Prot

estantism, many ; have

returned to the seemingly

safety and comforting sta-

bility

of

the

Roman Catholic

Church. One Catholic

writer went so far as to say

that according to the Ro

man Catholic doctrine the

reading of

the

Scriptures

is

not

necess

ary but useful,

because for the believers

the

preaching

of

the Church

is the nearest and final rule

of faith. Another said that

just as a man need

not

learn the civil code by heart

to be a

good citizen, be

cause he leaves the mainte

nance of law and order

to

the

lawful

authorities, in the

same way a

man can

do

without

the

study of

the

Scriptures; and be a

good

subject in

God's kingdom, if

he accepts the entire rev

elation that

the

Church

guarantees. - Berkouwer,

THE

CONFLICT

WITH

ROME, pp. 31-32.

How are we

as

Reformed

Protestants

to

answer

these

positions?

First

of

al l , we

must confess honestly and

sadly that 20' Century

Protestantism

does

appear

to be guilty

of

Rome's

charges

against

us. We are

tragically fragmented with

thousands of divisions in

organization, doctrine ,

worship and ethics. t does

appear that Protestantism is

in fact based

, not on

the

ab

so lute

authority

of the

Word of

God,

but on the

autonomy

and

subjectivity of

the

i

ndividual.

And

for

that

we heartily

seek the for

giveness of

God

and the

renewal of

His Spirit.

We

also ask forgiveness of the

world for

the

uncer

tain

sound

of our

modern

Protes

tant

trumpet

. We abhor our

inexcusable

sins

and

we

repent

in dust and ashes .

Although modern Protes

tantism

uses many

correct

theological

words, Christ the

Lord

and the Word of God

are no longer concrete

realities

to much of Protes

tantism,

rather

as

Berkouwer once said, they

vanish in the

mists

of indi

vidual sUbjectivity. - p. 18.

Second, although Protes

tants have many internal

disagreements

ahout the

meaning of

the

Bible , when

it comes

to the basics

of the

Christian

faith,

their

confes

sional

and

creedal state

ments

are

generally

in

agreement.

Third, some Protestant

denominations have aposta

tized from

the basics of the

faith as defined

by the

Bible

and the Protestant

Reform

ers , and are

therefore

no

longer truly Protestant.

Fourth, all

Protestants

who are self-conscious heirs

of the

6

th

Century

Refor

mation

are generally united

in their understanding

of the

gospel and in respecting

one

another as brothers

in

Christ.

Fifth,

although

Rome

is

united organizationally,

it

is

just ad divided theologically

as

is Protestantism .

The

Roman

Catholic Church is

torn wi

th as

much

theologi

cal

variety

as

any

of

the

mainline

Protestant denomi

nation s. Some Catholic

authors are producing booles

defending

classic

Tridentine

theology, such

as

Ludwig

Ott's

FUNDAMENTALS OF

CATHOLIC

THEOLOGY,

FebruarylMarch, 2000 -THE COUNSEL ofCbalcedon- 25


3/17

others produce

radical

representations of

Christian-

ity based

on evolutionism

and existentialism, Such as

Teilhard de Chardin, Still

others

are liberati.on theolo-

gians, reinterpreting Biblical

terms with

Marxist content,

such

as

Jon Sobrino and

his

book, CHRISTIANITY AT

THE CROSSROADS.

Catholic Raymond Brown

writes

from a higher

critical

approach to the Bible in his

book, THE

CHURCHES

THE APOSTLES LEFT

BEHIND .

And

time forbids

us

to speak

of

Hans Kung,

Karl

Rahner, and Edward

Schillebeeckx

.

Sixth,

our

differences

should humble

us,for as

Paul

said , no doubt there

have to be

differences

among yoU to show which of

you have God's approval, I

Corinthians 11: 19 . Our

differences should drive us

back

to the

Bible

to

test

all

claims to truth.

. i(we 'do 'not accept the

Scriptures as our standard and

judge, there is indeed no hope for

unity. The church must have i

standardby which to judge all .

claims to truth. The church must

have a standard

of

truth by

which to reform and pUrify itself

when divisions arise: The

church cannot claim that it is

that standard and defend that .

claim by appealing to itself.

Such circular reasoning is not

only unconvincing; it is self

defeating. Rome's argument

boils down to this: we must

believe Rome because Rome

says so.-SOLA SCRIPTURA, p.

Seventh

, the fact that

doctrinal

disagreements

exist

in

Protestantism

does

not refute

Protestantism

, for

it

does

not

refute

the

fact

that

one of the interpreta-

tions

of the

Bible

in Protes-

tantism might be true amidst

all the

misinterpretations.

We

must

.

face

up

to the

fact that the danger

of

subjectivism is real.

On

every side

we

hear Protes-

tant speakers making

charismatic

claims,

an-

nouncing

that they

are

prophets or

even apostles,

and commanding

the

alle-

giance,

and

money, of multi-

tudes. How

do

we protect

ourselves against

this dan

ger?

Rome's

answer

is that

the

huge

void

in

the

church left

by

Christ's departure

from

this earth must be filled by

an infallible teacher

of

revealed

truth , which

teacher is the Roman Catho '

lic Church. Its unshakable

authority and its

infallibility

form the only basis for unity

of

truth and

of fellowship .

However, this is

in

reality

no answer

at

all.

Rather

i t

is an

intensifying

of the

danger.

Stability, objectiv-

ity,

certainty

and

unity

in

the truth are

not

to be found

in

Rome's rigid and

static

identity of herself with the

living Christ

so

that

s

he is

His

voice,

which is itself a

doctrine created by her

own

corporate

subj

ectivi

ty.

Rather, as G.C. Berkouwer

as

pointed

out:

Such an authoritative founda

tion is found in the living actual

ity of true faith according to the

Scripture (and through the

influence also in the Reforma

tion), in subjection

of

the hearts

26

-THE COUNSEL ofChaIcedon -Febi uary/Marcb,

2000

to the Lord of the Church, and

by ceaseless prayer and listening

to His Word. Butthere in Rome

it is abstracted from this correla

tion and ascribed to the church

as a static 'a priori' datum.- p.

29.

So

then,

what

is

the

answer to the needs and

voids connected with

Jesus

Christ's

departure from this

earth

in His

Ascension to

God's

right hand? t is to

be

found

in this series of

truths and relationships that

lie

at the heart

of

true

and

consistent Protestantism:

1 The Spirit

of

Christ

2. The Canon

of

Scripture

3. The Ministry

of

the fusen

Christ

4. The Holy Scripture and

Holy Spirit

First,

after

His

Ascension

Jesus filied

the

void in His

Church with His own

Pres-

ence by

the Spirit of

Christ.

When He left this world to

God's tight

hand , He

did not

a

bandon

His Church.

He

sent the

divine Helper,

the

Spirit of truth on the Day of

Pentecost to

lead the

Church

into

all truth, to

unite

the

Church in the truth

of God, to sanctify her by

the truth, and to bring the

presence

of the risen

and

reigning Christ to

the

Church so believers

would

not be left as

orphans. In

sending

His

Spirit

to

them

,

Jesus

Himselfwould

be

coming to live wi th and in

them in a new, more

dy-

namic

and

more intimate

way than they ever could

have

known as long as

he

was physically with them

before His resurrection. As


4/17

Jesus Himself said: And I

will

ask

the Father and He

will give you another

Helper,

Ihal He may

be

with you forever; Ihat is

the

Spirit

of

truth

whom

the world cannot

receive,

because

t

do es not

behold

Him

or

know

Him

but you

know Him because He

abides

with you and

will

be

in you. I will not

leave

you as orphans; I

will

come 1 you.

After

a little

while the world will behold

Me no more; but you wili

behold

Me because I

live,

you

shall

live also. In Ihat

day you

shall know

that I

am in My Fath e

r

and

you

in Me

and

I in you.

-

John 14:16-20.

Pentecost was virtually a

parousia.

t

established the

presence of Christ with His

Church for all time

and

made

poss ible the fulfilling ofHis

promise I am with you all the

days to the end

of

the world,

Matt. 28:20. In the light of it we

are fully entitled

to

say that the

Holy Spirit, not the Pope,

is

the

Vicar [one who acts as an agent

of or who represents another] of

Christ.- Donald MacLeod,

ROME AND CANTERBURY:

A VIEW FROM

GENEVA

p.

21

Second,

lest

one think

that this view

of

the Spirit

creates

the

threat of subjec

tivism,

we must remember

that the

risen

Christ has

given

us

not only

the

Holy

Spirit,

He has also given us

His

Word, the Canon of

Holy Scripture. At the

first

this

Canon was

the Old

Testament, which

originated

not with human reason or

experience or initiative , but

which came

into

existence

as

men moved by the

Holy

Spirit spoke from God, II

Peter I :20-21,

so that

all

Scripture is God-breathed,

II Timothy

3: 16. Such a

high view

of

the Old Testa- '

ment that

is embedded in

the

apostolic

epistle

s

was

rooted

not in

rabbinical

tradition

but

in

the

teaching

of Jesus Himself.

By

the Spirit of Christ

this

O.T. Canon was grow

ing: Jesus' teaching

was

received as

divine

com

mandments,

Matthe

w 28 :20;

then the Canon kept growing

through

the teaching of the

apostles,

originally

orally

given,

then pnt in written

form for

the

better preserv

ing

and

propagating

of

th e

'

truth and for

the

more sure

establishment and

comfort

of the church, WCF, 1:1, so

that

from

the beginning the

Spirit-inspired

writings

of

the apostles

were received

by the Church as Holy

Scripture , I Timothy, II

Peter

,

on

par

with

the

Old

Testament as

her rule

of

faith and practice. In this

divinely revealed writings

the

churcb

of

Christ still

hears the

voice

of

the living

Christ by His Spirit in the

ministry

of the

prophets and

apostles,

speaking

to

us

with the utmost

directness

in the pages of the New

Testament. - MacLeod, p.

24.

Third, the Church of

Christ enjoys

the

continuing

ministr

y

of Jesus Christ.

That is th e point of

the

book

of

Acts:

the

history

of

the

Church

is

the

continuing

ministry

of the

risen

Jesus

Christ which He beg n

when

He

walked upon

the

earth, Acts I: 1-5. Christ

gave His ap.

ostles

a

message

to

proclaim-Spirit-produced

thoughts in Spirit-produced

words, I Corinthians 2 :13,

they received

it

and taught

it with divine

authority

to

their

hearers

and readers

. .

As Paul testified: For

would have

you

know, breth

ren, that

the gospel

which

was

preached

by me is not

according

to

man. For r

neither

received it from

man,

nor was

I taught

it,

but

I received it through a

revelation

of

Jesus Christ,

Galatians 1:

II.

Or as he

said with reference to the

Lord's

Supper:

I received

from

the

o ~ d

what

I

also

delivered to

you

. , I Corin

thians

11:23f.

Such statements fully justify

Cullmann $ claim that the

exalted Lord is the real author of

the whole tradition developing

itself within the apostolic

Church. For

in

Christ alone can

there be a tradition which is not

a 'tradition of men' (THE

EARLY CHURCH, pp. 62, 66.

In fact, the gi ving

of

the tradition

belongs to the series of redemp

tive acts performed by the Lord

for the Church, so that Cullmann

is again quite correct when he

says that tbe apostolate does

not belong to the period of the

Church but to that of the incar

nation. - p. 78. The risen Lord

is

present and active in the

apostolic pronouncements, even

in those which relate to appar

ently non-central issues sucb

as

women speaking in church. Panl

gives his views on this in I

Corinthians 14:32-40 and con

cludes: f anyone thinks that he

February/March,2000 _THE COUNSEL ofCha1cedon -27


5/17

is a prophet, or a spiritual man,

he should acknowledge that the

things I am writing to you are the

commandments

of

the Lord.

MacLeod, p.

5

Fourth,

consisienl Protes

tantism has always held to

the

inseparable

connection

between the

Holy Scripture

and the Holy Spirit. When

the

apostolic

word of Christ

was preached

or

written

i t

came in demonstration

of

the

Spirit and

of power, I

Corinthians 2:4.

When

dealing with the subject of

divine revelation the New

Testament does not make

any

firm

distinction between

the

work

of

the risen Christ

and

the

work

of

the

Spirit

of

Christ,

II Corinthians 3: 17.

This refusal to separate

the Word

of

Christ and the

Spirit of Christ

is

seen

clearly in

Letters

to the

Seven Churches

in Revela

tion

2

and

3.

Each

letter is

introduced with

some state

ment

identifying the risen

Jesus

elirist astliti ;uth

or

of

the letter,

therefore it

is

to

be received

as

His

au

thoritative word; and each

letter is concluded with an

equally clear statement that

the

Holy Spirit

is the

origi

nator of

the

letter

and its

contents: He who

has an

ear, let

him

hear what the

Spirit says to

the

churches,

2:29.

So

then, what

Christ

says,

the

Spirit says.

This is vital to our under

standing oflhe ministry

of

the

Holy Spirit

as

the Vicar of

Christ. He never leads

us

against Scripture. [And I might

add, He never leads us without

Scripture.]

He

leads

us

by

means of it. This includes the

fact that the Spirit is the One

who interprets Scripture,

al-

though the point has to be made

at once that He does not do this

autonomously or unilaterally. He

uses the ministry

of

human

interpreters who are called by

Him ...But there is also a minis

try

of

the Spirit in the hearts

of

the hearers and readers

of

the

Word. He opens our hearts,

removing our prejudices and

overcoming our human aversion

to the truth. He keeps us

from

...

bending and twisting [the

Scriptures o suit our own

purposes. Above all, He gives

us the proper perspective,

enabling us to approach the

Word on its own terms and to

see things from God's point

of

view.- MacLeod, p. 26.

Hence,

the

Bible

is the

living Word of God, words

of life and

power

and

light.

Christ

Himself still speaks it

to

us

by

His Spirit, and

He

speaks

it

with

finality and

ultimacy and self-evident

authority. The

Westminster

Confession

of

Faith

makes

this important

point

in

chap

ter

one paragraph ten:

The supreme Judge, by which

all controversies of religion are

to be determined, and all decrees

of

councils, opinions

of

ancient

writers, doctrines of men, and

private spirits, are to be exam

ined, and in whose sentence we

are to rest, can be no other but

the Holy Spirit speaking in the

Scripture.

The phrase , the Holy

Spirit

speaking in

the Scrip

ture,

teaches us two truths:

I).

The Holy

Spirit

who

speaks

in

every

part

of

Scripture

is the

Supreme

Judge

in all

controversies of

religion. -

B.B. Warfield,

28

THE COUNSEL ofChaIcedon. February/March, 2000

SHORTER WORKS ,

II,

p.

570, and (2). Scripture is

not

a dead

word but

the

living and abiding speech

of

the Holy Spirit. The Re

formers needed to empha

size this

quality

of

Scripture

in order to offset the

pleas

of Rome that a living voice

is

necessary

for the faith

and guidance of the Church

and

also

to meet the same

argument

of

the

enthusiasts

for the

inner

voice of the

Spirit in the believer. - John

Murray,

COLLECTED

WRITINGS;

I, p. 17. This

means that when we have

doctrinal disagreements,

ignorance

and

confusion,

Christians

are not to depend

ultimately

upon

the conciliar

or

synodical

statements

of

the past, but upon the Holy

Spirit's enlightenment,

therefore

we are to keep on

praying for the guidance

of

the

Spirit

and the

studying

of the Bible together.

The intention of this

phrase in the Confession is

not to draw a distinction

between

what the

Scripture

says and what the Spirit

says, but to assert

that it

is

in

Scripture

the Spirit

speaks.

This

again assumes

that

Scripture is

not

merely

an

inert

record

of

a

once

vibrant revelation.

t

speaks; and

in

it the Spirit

speaks. All merely human

pronouncements are

subject

to Him, whey

they

come

from the Father, General

Councils

or

the

Vatican.

IF

what these say lacks biblical

warrant it cannot bind any

human conscience.

In fact,

the

only way

the

Pope

himself can

know the

truth


6/17

is from Scripture. What is

more, the

only way

he can

now the meaning of

Scrip

ture

is from

Scripture: 'the

infallible rule of interpretll

tion

of Scripture is the

Scripture itself; an4 there

fore,

when there

is

any

question about

the

trlie and

full

sense

of Scripture

(which

is not

nianifold

bVt

one), it must be searched

out and

known by other

places

that speak

more

clearly.' (WCF I,9)

MacLeod, p. 29.

At thig point Roman '

Catholicism protests

vigor-

.

ously, for

it

distinguishes

between the standard of

truth and .the judge of truth.

The

Bible may be the rule;

but the

Church

is the

judge

,

who

tells

.us

infallibly

what

constitutes Scrip.ture, what

Scripture means and how it .

is to be applied. This is .

probably the

main

reason

,

.

writes

MacLeod,

why

Roman

Catholic theologians

are

so fond of

maximising

the difficulties

in

interpret

ing

the Bible

and why it

has

been so happy to align itsel f

with

radical

schools of

biblical criticism

(despite its

official commitment to a

high doctrine of

inspiration).

The greater the obscurity,

the

more

inadequate

the

scriptures and

the greater

the

complexities of biblical

scholarship

the greater

the

need

for

the

judge. -

p. 27. '

Because the

work

of

drawing truth for

faith

from

the

Bible is

difficult, requir

ing

long

study by trained '

experts, Rome believes, an

urgent

need exists

for

a

clear,

unanimous and au-

thoritative interpretation,

this

authority

is invested in

the Roman

Catholic Church

which possesses infallibility

in her

ministry

of

interpret

ing

the

Word '

of

God, .and

because

it

is a

human

orga

nization, it must have a head

on

e'arth

who is able

'

to

decide 'and teach with

Christ's

authority a'n'd i r i f l ~

Jibility 01 immunity from,

error. -

BulJough'g ROMAN

CATHOLICISM,

p. 164,

quoted by MacLeon, p. 28,

Roman Catholicism tells

us ,that a

private

study of

the

Bible will certainly lead .

different

people to

different

conclusions

about

critical

issues

relating

to theology

and ethics.

The

Bible mes

sage

is

sometimes too ob

scure, too unclear,

tOQ

,

complex, too undeveloped

for anyone by infallible

experts

to understand,

But the Bible is.not at all

as ambiguous

and

obscure

as Rome suggests, and it is

simply mischievous to claim

that without expert guidance

ordinary

Christians can

make nothing of

it.

MacLeod, p, 3D, Our West

minster

Confession explains:

All things in Scripture are not

alike plain in theinselves, nor

alike clear unto all; yet those

things which are necessary to be

known, believed, and observed

for salvation, are so clearly

propounded in some place

of

Scripture or other, thllt not only

the learned, but the unlearned, in

a due sense

of

the ordinary

means, may attain unto a suffi

cient understanding ofthem.- I;8

Our

Confession

recog

nizes ,that some Scripture ,

texts

are

more difficult to

interpret than

others,

and

that ihe doctrines we need

to know to

glorify

and enj oy

God forever are

revealed

in

the

Bible ~ i t

cryst(ll

clar

ity. The Bible as a

whole

states the

basics

of

the

Christian faith with such

unambiguous clari ty that,'

what it teaches is

bey()od

. ,

dispute, nor are these

basics

accessible

only

to the theo

logical and eccles

iastical

experts.

The clarity is such that even

the unlearned can get a

perfectly adequate grasp

of

'

them, To do so they need not

the guidance

of

an infallible

church or the unan imous

consent

of

the Fathers or some

special revelation. What they ,

need is a due use

of

the ordi

miry means, These include '

what are called Bible study aids:

dictionaries, concordances, ,

lexicons and commentaries, .But

their primary reference is to '

what Protestantism called the

means

of

grace and particularly

to preaching, Thro\lgh prayer,

fellowship and preaching, the

humblest believer can become

proficient in the truth. - Yet

this is never an autonomous '

human achievement, far less a

merely intellectual one. The

Word is effective only in con

junction with the Spirit: We

acknowledge the inward illumi

nation

of

the Spirit

of

God to be

necessary for the saving under

standing

of

such things as are

revealed in the Word. -,WCF,

'I,

6, Some understanding of

biblical truth is possible apart

from the Spirit's ministry, but'

there can be no saving under

standing unless He works in our

hearts. . Equally, however, the

February/March, 2000 -

THE

COUNSEL

of

Chalcedon

9


7/17

combination

of

his ministry and

the Bible 's own perspicuity

means that the believet.is not

beholden to any human institution

when seeking to learn God's

mind from the Scriptures. The

Bible is the book

of the

laity: tbe

book ofthe people of God. They

must have

t in

their own

language. : They must be told

that every page in t

was

meant

for them and, with the Spirit's

help, is within their

gr;lSp

And

they must be urged to read

it .. Anything which erects

barriers between the people and

the Book is to be condemned.-

11acLeod,pp.31-32

On what ba.sis does Rome

claim infallibility?

On

the

ba

sis

of

the

unanimous

consent of

the early

church

fa thers and

the teaching

of

the Bible .

Before we seek

to

refute

Rome's

basis for its

claim

of infallible

authority,

it

must be pointed

out .

that

the

Reformation

was

not .a

rejection of ecclesiastical

auth()rity and

asurrend'

er

to

autonomOllS

individual

sub

jectivity.

Protestants

have

sometimes left this impres

sion

by describing the

Prot

estant Reformation of the

16

th

Century as the

hirth

of

individual

freedom and of

the

sovereignty

and au

tonomy of the

individual

conscience, ultimatelY

rooted in the depth

of the

human mind which cannot

be

bound by any exterior

and

objective

authority.

Berkouwer,

p. 16.

This view of Protestant

ism

is

inaccurate,

flying

in

the face of its repeated

confess

i

ons,

catechisms

and

commentaries.. This view

that the Reformation re

jected authority for au

tonomy is a

caricature

of

,the real struggle of the 16

th

Century.

The Reformers did

recognize

and

submit them

selves

to the

divine

author

ity of the

Church

of

Christ.

Although they

revolted

against Rome

's

claim

of

infallible

authority,

they

most

certainly

did

not

revolt

against the absolute and

infallible authority

of

Christ

and

His

Word expressed

in

His Church .

Rome

contends

that the Reformed Church's

claim of

a

relative and

qualified authority is a

contradiction in terms

in a

church.

This complaint is an

oversimplification

of

the

meaning of

the

Reformation,

perhaps because we have

failed

to

clarify that when

we speak

of

the relative

authority of the Church,

we

do

not mean

relativism ,

which holds

that

nothing

is

absolute.

By

relative

au-

thority

we

do

not

mean less

firm or less

reliable.

By

relative we

are

not

saying

that we

prefer subj ectivism

and relativism to

absolutism.

Rather we are saying

that

the Church's authori ty is

relative

in that it

must

be

s n in relation to or

relative

to the written

Word o God, a

viewpoint

entirely

different

from that

of

Rome. As

Berkouwer

has written:

The Reformation refused to

detach the structure

of

the

church from the revelation

transcending it. Ecclesiastical

authority was relative,

I e

, it

stood in an absolutely dependent

30 -

THE

COUNSEL

()fChalcedon - Fehhtary/MJlich, 2000

relation to the Word of God

which alone made it possible for

the church

to

exist.

On this point the Reformation

denied the Roman view. The

struggle of the Reformers was

not directed against authority and

.stability. IT was not a revolution

of

ndividualism, but the estab

lishment of the life of the church

in the Word

of

the living

GOd

The issue was the truly free and

. liberating authority of God. The

Reformation did not aim at the

devaluation

of

all so-called

secondary causes, in favor of the

sole causality

of

God, depriving

human activity aud human

agencies

of

any functions. -

The salient point is the effort

of

, the Reformation to gain a real

recognition of God as exercising

authority in His church on earth.

Such was the issue in the Refor

mation conflict concerning the

nature of authority in the

church.- pp. 16-17

Now

then, we turn to an

a

ttempt

to

answer the

two

r e s o ~ \ o m e g i v e s for her

claim of

infallibility: (I).

the unanimous

consent

of

the fathers ,

THl;:

COUN

CIL OF TRENT, Fourth

'Session, The Canonical

Scripture

s, (Rockford: Tan,

1978,

pp .

18-19), and DOG

-

11ATIC DECREES OF THE

VATICAN COUNCIL,

found

in

THE

CREEDS OF

CHRIStEND011, Vol. II by

Philip

Schaff,

(NY: Harper,

1877,

p. 242),

and

(2).

The

.

teaching of

the Bible, most

particularly Matthew 16:18-

19,

John

21:15-17,

and Luke

22:32. So then, we can test

the

legitimacy

of

Rome's

claim by the test

of history

'and the test of Scripture.

First,

the

test

of

history,


8/17

holds a

fatal

problem for

Rome

, when

one

tries to

find this unanimous con

sent

of the early church

fathers regarding the infalli

bility ofthe

Roma

n Catholic

Chnrch

and of

her Pope.

The

problem is this: This

'unanimous consent

of

the

Fathers

'

on

which

the

Ro

man Catholic Church's

authority rests is a complete

illusion

, because such a

consent is historically non

existent.

The very

test

by

which

the

Church of

Rome

says

that

its

teachings can

be

validated undermines the

authority of its tradition for

none of the

distinctive

teachings

which

embody

the

content

of

the tradition can

he

upheld by the

unanimous

consent

of

the Fathers.

Unanimous consent on the

major doctrines

of the

Christian

creed

does exist.

But

unanimous consent for

the teachings of the

Roman

Catholic tradition

does

not

exist . - Both in the con

cept

and

in

the

content

of

tradition, the Roman Catho

lic

Church has departed

from

the

teaching of the

early

Church,

with

the result

that

it

has departed from tbe

practice of the

early

Church

regarding the authority

of

Scripture. -

William

Webster, TH

E CHURCH OF

ROME AT THE BAR OF

HISTORY, pp.

31-32

Such

a

claim can be

and

has been amply

substanti

ated. Tbe

evidence is

available for anyone

to

see

for

himself. t is

not diffi

cult to sbow that the

early

church

fathers did not

be

lieve in

the

infallibility of

the church or

of the pope.

For

three of many early

church

fathers whose

teach

ing

contradict Rome's

claim,

I

would

recommend to you

Clement

' s First Epistle to

the Corinthian

church

writ

ten

around

96, A.D

.,

Ignatius'

epistle

to

the

church

at

Rome,

written

sometime

before

he died

between 112 and 116 ,

A.D.,

and Irenaeu

s' work,

AGAINST HERESIES

written

also in the early part

of

the 2' Century.

Further

more the

early

fathers often

opposed

the

bishops of

Rome both in their teaching

and ruling capacity, refusing

to

submit

to

their

decrees.

The

No rth

African

Church

had

a dispute

with

Pope

Zosimus

in

417-418 ,

A.D.

In 424, A.D.

a

synod of

Carthage forbade all a p ~

peals

in

ecclesiastical

con

troversie s to

the See of

Rome, and

any other Sees

apart from

the

local one.

In

342, A.D . a conflict arose

between Pope Julius and the

Eastern bishops

at the

Sardican

Council. In 256,

A.D., The

Council of

Carthage,

including

the

great Cyprian

and 86 other

bishops

formally opposed

the

teaching

of

Pope

Stephen on baptism.

Pope

Liberius,

352-366,

confessed

Arianism

and agreed on the

excommunication

of

.

Athanasium, he

later re

versed his position. Pope

Zosimns, 417-418, rebuked

Augustine for condemning

Pelagius, declaring Pelagius

and his chief disciple,

Celestius, to

be

orthodox,

done

in opposition to

Zosimus predecessor,

Pope

Innocent.

In

418, a

North

African synod at C arthage ,

at which

200 bishops

were

present,

condemned

Pelagianism in defiance of

the

decrees

of

Zosimus. J

In 553, A.D., the Fifth

Ecumenical

Conncil

at

Constantinople was

called

by

Emperor Justinian

to

examine

the

orthodoxy

of

the writings of Theodore of

Mopsuestia,

Theodoret

of

Cyrrhus, and

lbas

of

Edessa. Earlier Pope

Vigilius issued an official

papal decree anathematizing

these men and their writings

as heretics.

But

while

the

council was

meeting

he

reversed

his

first de.cree

and issued

another

refusing

to condemn

them as her

etics. The Council ignored

the papal decree,

con-

demned the three authors as

heretics and anathematized

them

along

with anyone

who refused to condemn

them-an

implicit attack on

Pope Vigilius himself. So

the

pope

gave in to the

Council

and reversed his

decree a third time.

Pope

Honorius, 6 2 5 - 6 ~ 8

embraced the heresy of

monothelitism , which

taught

that Christ had only one

will,

the

divine, not a human

one. For this the Sixth

Ecumenical

C;ouncil, 680-

681, condemned him as a

heretic, which condemnation

was

ratified by two suc

ceeding

ecumenical

coun

cils. He was also con

demned by Pope Leo II

as

well

as by every pope until

the

eleventh century

who

took the oath of papal of

fice: - Webster,

p.

67.

FebruarylMarch, 2000

THE

COUNSEL

of

Chalcedon -31


9/17

,

Time

prohibits

(0 speak

of

the errors

oJ'1 qpes laJer ,

contradicted

by papal bulls

and the

decisions

,

of

official

councils, popes such as

Boniface

VIII; Eugenius

IV,

Paul

V

and Urban

VIII, etc

"

In

1864

the Roman

Catholic publication,

SYL

LABUS

OF

ERRORS,

"condemned virtually every

aspect of

the

contemporary

intellectuallffe

of

Europe ,

[such as

the

' idea tliat there

was

some

,hope

of

salvation

for

those

who

were not

Catholics,

the idea

that

Protestantism WaS an

au-

,

thentic

form, of the Christian

religion,

the

ideaof,qiblical

criticism, etc,],"- MacLeod ,

p, 36, 100 years later the

Second

Vaticlln

Council

"endorsed virtually

e'

very

thing the

Syllabus had, con

demned.

-

The

united

front is an illusion, One age

of the church

contradi 'ts

another. One d'

octor

contra

dicts another. One province

contradicts_a other."-'

MacLeod,

p. 36

Augustine ,

disagreed

with Aquinas,

Aquinas

disagreed

with

Anselm, the

Janenists

dis

agreed with the Jesuits, and

so

on .

The point of all this is ,

obvious: there is no such

thing

as

"the

unanit;nous

consen

t

of the fathers"

,

regarding the

contenLof the

distinctive teachings of

the

Roman Catholic

,

Ghllrch,and

So its claim of infallibility

fails

the

test of hIstory.

Second, the '

test

of

Scrip

ture

also proves to' be fatal

to

RDme's, claims

Df

infalli

bility. Why? The Bible

contains no

such promise of

infallibility to

the

Church

I f the

,church

isinfallible,

urely the Holy

Spidt would

:

have

sO,mewhere

told

believ

' ers about such a

blessing,

.because

the

knowledge

of

the infallibility

of

the,church

,is o gr,eatest important to

,

confirm t4e faith

o

Chris

tians

and

to guard them

from all seductions to false

. o c t r i i

Not

only does

:

the:elble

contain no

such

doctrin

e ,

but also Paul

admonishes

the

church

of

the

real

danger

of

defection,

false

doctrine and apostasy:

Be,cause '

f unbelief

they

'wete broken Dff, and you

standby

faith.

Be not

highminded, but fear: for if

:

God spared not the natural

branches , take

heed lest

He

',

also

sp,(lre not thee, Romans

1 1 : 2 0 , 2 t : ~

Francis Tutretin,

' INSTITUTES OF

ELENCiIC THEOLOGY

,

I I I p. , 73 Paul also ilrges

the cllurch

at

Rome

to

mark

'

them which cause

divisions

,and

offenses contrary

to

the

:

doctrine which they had

learned ; and avoid them,

Romans 16:17.

"Now why

shOUld the apostle have said

this if

he

believed the

gift

of

infallibility

had been be

stowed upon

it?"- Turretin,

.

p. 73. ,

Furthermore, the experi

,

ence

of

the

Church

of

God

in

the Old

Testament

and

New

're ,stalI)ent argues

agains

,t ROlI)e's

doctrine

of

the

, infa)libility of the

Church.

TheChuTch

often

erred in

the

Old Testament.

I t

erre'd

grievously when

,Aaron, the head ofthe

Levitical

p r i ~ s t h o o d , made

the

gold

' ca,lf before ,which

32 "TIlE COUNSEL ofChalcedon - FebruaryiMaI'cb,

2

the

people

worshipped, '

Exo

_dus

32:2,5. The Israel

ite

church

tilI)e and again

'

under the Judges,after

the

death

of Joshua, deserted

Jehovah to worship Baal,

Judges

2. The

Jewish

Church erred in

the

life'

of

Jesus,

invalidating the

Wor'd

of Godby their traditions,

Matthew

15:3, "twisting the

,

Law

by

their

corruptions,

Mat. 5, tainting the purer

doctrine with the deadly

leaven

of

vari.ous eriots ...

"-

'

Turretin, p.

74.

Those guilty

'of

these

errors

and heresies

were not only

the

people,

they were

the

leaders

of

the

church: the priests, s'cribes,

Pharisees and Saducees', "

They even decreed

the

'condemnation and

death

of

Jesus as aldmposter, John

11

:50, Matthew 26:65';66.

,Such errors prove that the

Church

is riot infallible.

Moreover, the Church

cannot

be

infallible

because

the Bible

contains various

prophecies

t l i a ~ the church

,

,

of

the New Testament

would err, In II

Thessalonians 2, ,Paul

prophesies that

the

day

of

,

the Lord

shall not

come,

,except

there

,

come

a falling

away [an apostasy] first..

.

J


10/17

wolves enter in

among you ,

not sparing

the

flock; and

from your

own selves men

will arise, speaking perverse

things,

to

draw away the

disciples

after

them,

Acts

20:28-30. Peter warns the

church

that

tbere shall

be

false teachers among

you,

who privily

shall bring

in

damnable heresies, Peter

2: 1.

Since

these

prophecies

show

that

deadly errors will

appear in

the Church,

even

taught by

those

who are

ordained in the

Church,

infallibility

cannot be predi

cated

of the Church.

Aud

finally, the Biblical

exhortation to

believers

to

examine

and test

the

doc

trine imposed on

them

by

church

leaders

argues

against the

infallibility

of

the church.

In the

Old

Testament

members

of the

church

of Israel

are in

structed to examine

and test

everything

that is

handed

down to

them

as

truth by

the

standard of the written

Law

of

God:

To

the law and

to the testimony IF

they

do

not speak according to this

word,

it is

because they

have

no

dawn

,

Isaiah 8:20.

Why wonld such an exhorta

tion need to be made to the

members of

the

church if

the

church is infallible?

In

the New

Testament

mem

bers

of the church

are

exhorted to search

the

Scriptures, John 5:39, and

rather than blindly believing

every doctrine handed down,

to

test

the spirits to

see

whether they are from

God;

because

many false

proph

ets have gone out into the

world,

I John

4:1,

and

we

are to test

them by the

Biblical standard. When

Paul and

Silas came to

Berea to preach and teach,

the

Bereans received

the

Word with great

eagerness,

examining

the

Scriptures

daily

to

see whether these

things were so, Acts

17: 11.

And

so

Turretin asks:

Now why should this exami

nation and judgment be enjoined

upon believers so earnestly, if

infallibility had been given to the

church? Would it not have been

sufficient to put believers in mind

of this privilege that by absolute

submission and without examina

tion they should receive what

ever was delivered to them by

the church? And since this is

nowhere done (nay, on the

contrary each one is ordered to

live by his faith), it hence clearly

appears that the comment of

infallibility is obtruded falsely and

without foundation.- p. 8

And

so

,

Rome

fails

the

test

of Scripture ;

for

no

where therein

is it taught or

even hinted at that

the

Church

is infalIib'Je,

rather,

the

Scripture directly con

tradicts such a

notion. And

without the endorsement

of

the

God

in His Word, the

Church can claim no author

ity f m Him. As William

Cunningham

pointed out

in

1845: ... every argument

used by Roman Catholicism

to' prove that there must be

an infallible interpreter

of

Scripture

'equally

proves

the

necessity

of

a statement

distinctly

asserting that

the

Church, and the

Church

of

Rome, has been

invested

with that office ... The right

of the

Church

of Rome to

interpret infallibly

the

Scrip-

tures

must

be founded

upon

the

express

testimony

of

God,

else

i t

cannot be re

ceived: and

as

no such

testimony

can

be produced,

the

pretended right

of that

Church to interpret

Scrip

ture has,

in

point

of fact,

just

as

completely failed

in

guiding men to

correct and

,harmonious

views of

God's

revealed will

as

the exercise

of

private judgment.

' ' '

quoted by

MacLeod,

p.39

Nothing, therefore, can be

mOre absurd than the fiction, that

the power of udging Scripture is

in the church, and that on her

nod its certainty depends. When

the church receives it, and gives

it the stamp of her authority, she

does not-make

that

authentic '

which was otherwise doubtfui ,or

controverted, but acknowledging

it

as

the truth

of

God, she

as

in

duty bound, shows her reverence

by an unhesitating assent. As

to

,

the question, How shall we be

persuaded that it came from God

without recurring to a decree of

the Church? it is just the same

as

if

it were asked, How shall be '

learn to distinguish light fTOm

,darkness, white from black,

sweet from bitter? Scripture

bears upon the face

of it as clear

evidence of its truth, as white

and black do of their color, sweet

and bitter of their taste.- John

Calvin, INSTITUTES OF THE

CHRISTIAN RELIGION, Vol.

I,

p.

69, Beveridge translation,

quoted in SOLA SCRIPTURA,

p.81.

So then, Rome would ask,

without an infallible church

identifying

authoritatively

what is the Word of God,

how

is a

humble

believer to

know

what

is the Word of

God anq what is

not? t

is

February/March,2000 - THE COUNSEL ofChalcedon -33


11/17

its natural condition, man's mind

will always fail to receive the

words of God's Spirit: the

natural m"n receives not the

things of the Spirit ofGod .. he

cannot know them because they

are Spiritually discerned, I

Corinthians 2:14.

the objective self-witness of the

Scriptures themselves.

Moreover, this work of the

Spirit is not an individual or

idiosyncratic matter, as though

the internal testimony operated

uniquely upon one person by

himse

lf

. Thus it is the corporate

church, not mystical religious

mavericks, which recognizes

thr()ugh the Spirit's gracious,

internal testimony- that the

objective self-witness of the

Scriptures is genuine.

the inspiration of the

Holy

Spirit

that

renders

a

hook

canonical,

n ot the Church. '

The

church

has

no

author- .

ity

to

control , create,

or

define the Word of God.

Rather , the canon controls,

creates and defines the

church

of

Christ.

-

Au

thority is inherent

in

those

writings

from

the outset,

and the

church simply

con

fesses this

to

be the case.

Greg Bahnsen , ANTITH

ESIS , Vol. I , No.5,

p.

43.

But how

then does

the

believer know what

books are inspired of

God?

Greg

Bahnsen

answered this question

with

his usu

a l

precision

Only God can identify His

own word. Thus God's word

must attest to itself-must

witness to its own divine charac

ter and origin.

And

;you

do not

have His

word

abiding in you,

for

whom e sent you believe

not. You search the

That

Jesus

believed in the

self-authenti eating

authority of Word of God

"I t is the inspiration

of

the is cle r from his state

mentsin John 10:14-

Holy Spirit that

renders

27 1

am the good shep-

a book

canonical

, not herd; I know My

sheep

1 , ; ; ; = = = . ; t ~ h " , e ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; i C i i ; ; h ~ u " , r . ; c ; i i i h i ; ; i ' ; ; ; ; " = = = . . . . J and

My sheep

know

Me.

and clarity in his expla- .

nation of

the

s l f ~ t t s t -

ing

authority

of the Bible

and

the

witness

of the HolY

Spirit in the

believer's

- My sheep hear

My

heart, (ANTITHESIS, Vol.

I, No.5, pp. 43-44).

Scripture teaches us that only

God is adequate to witness to

Himself. ..There_

s_nO created

person

or power

which is in a

position to

judge

or verify the

word of God. Thus: when God

made promise to Abraham, since

He

could swear by none greater,

He swore by Himself .. - He

brews 6:13.

Accordingly, men are not

qualified or authorized to say

what God might be expected to

reveal

or

what can count as His

communication. Thatis why

Scripture draws such a sharp

distinction between words which

man's wisdom teaches and those

which the Spirit teaches, I .

Corinthians 2:13. The wisdom of

man cannot be relied upon to

judge

the wisdom of God, I

Corinthians

I

:20-25. Indeed, in

Scriptures ...

and

these are what

bear witness

of Me " -

Jaim

5:38-39.

The self-attestation of Scrip

ture as God 's Word makes it

objectively authoritative in itself

but such authority will not be

subjectively receivedwithout an

internal, spiritual change in man.

The Holy Spirit must open our

sinful eyes and give us personal

conviction concerning the

Scripture's self-wituess: Now

we have not received the spirit

of the world, but the Spirit which

is

from

God, in order that we

might know the things that are

freely given taus by God,

Corinthians 2:12

We

must be especiaily careful

not to confuse this with subjec

tivism, which is ultimately

relativistic. The internal testi

mony of the Holy Spirit does not

stand by

itself or

operate in a

vacuum; . t must be teamed with .

34,

TIlECOUNSEL

ofChajcedon -Febrl arylMarch, 2000

voice, and I

know them, and

they follow Me.

But Rome does claim that

the Dible

is

her basis

for

helleving

in the infallibility

and primacy of the pope in

Rome

..

Vatican

I

pro

nounced

that all people must

believe:

that the Apostolic See and the

Roman Pontiff hold primacy over

th

lli whole world, and th"t ,the

Pontiff of Rome himself is the

successor of the blessed Peter,

the chief of the apostles, and is

thp true [vicar] of Christ and

head of the whole Church and

faith , and teacher of liJ Chris

tians; and that to

hirO

was

handed down in blessed Peter,

by our Lord Jesus Christ, full

power to feed, rule and guide the

universal Church.,. when he

speaks ex cathedra, that is, when

carrying out the duty of the

pastor and teacher

of

all Chris

tians in accord with his supreme


12/17

apostolic authority he explains a

doctrine of faith or morals

to

be

held

by the

Universal Church,

through the divine assistance

promised him in blessed Peter,

operates with that infallihility

with which the divine Redeemer

wished that His church

be

instructed

in

defining doctrine on

faith

and

morals; and so such

definitions of the Roman Pontiff

from himself, but not from the

consensus of the Church, are

unalterable. But if anyone

presumes to contradict this

definition of Ours, which may

God forbid: let him be anath

ema. (emphases added]

And

the biblical

texts

Rome usually gives

to

sup

port this doctrine are Mat

thew 16:18-19,

John21:15-

17

and Luke 22:32. But

do

they?

In Matthew

16:18-19,

Jesus says to

Peter:

And I

also

say

to you that you are

Peter, and upon this rock I

will build

My

church

... I will

give

yO\ the keys

of

the

kingdom of heaven ; and

whatever you shall

bind

'

on

earth shall have been bound

in heaven

,

and

whatever

you

shall

loose on earth shall

have

been loosed in heaven.

Although

Roman Catho

lics

use Jesus'

statement

to

Peter

to

support

the

primacy

and

infallibility

of the pa

pacy as

the

success 'ors

of

Peter, this passage falls far

short of

supporting the

doctrine of papal

infallibility

for

many reasons.

Many

Protestants

insist

that Jesus

was

not referring to

Peter

wben

He

spoke of this rock

being

the foundation of

the

cburch. They note that: (1).

In

this passage Peter

is

spoken

to in

the second

person

you, but this

rock

is in

the third person;

(2). Peter, petros

in

Greek

, is a masculine

singu

lar and rock , petra, is

feminine singular,

therefore

they

are

not

referring to

the

same

subject. Even

if

they

were speaking in Aramaic,

which

does not

distinguish

genders,

the inspired

Greek

text does make such distinc

tions.

(3). The

keys

of the

kingdom given to

Peter

by

Jesus in

Mat.

16:18 are

later

given to all

the apostles in

Matthew

18:18. (4).

The

early church fathers, such

as John

Chrysostom

and

Augustine, did not under

stand

tbis rock in the

Roman

Catholic sense.

These

Protestants

would

understand this rock as

referring to Christ Himself

or to

the

confession

of faith

in Christ Peter had just

made.

Although other

Protes

tants understand this

rock

as

referring

to

Peter, he is

not to be viewed as

the

only

rock in the foundation of the

church. As we have said,

Jesus

gave all

the apostles

the same

authority

to bind

and

loose that

He gave

Peter, Matthew

18:18.

These were common

rab

binic phrases used

of

'for

bidding' and' allowing.'

These

'keys' were

not some

mysterious

power given

to

Peter alone

but

the

power

granted by Christ to

His

church

by which, when they

proclaim Christ, they can

proclaim God's forgiveness

of

sin to all

who

believe.

Norman 1.

Geisler and

Ralph

E. MacKenzie ,

WHAT

THINK YE OF ROME ?,

Part 4.

When

the

Bible

says that

the church

is

built

on the

foundation

of

the apostles

and prophets,

with

Christ

Jesus Himself

as the

chief

cornerstone, Ephesians

2:20,

we are being taught two

truths: (1).

All

the apostles,

not just Peter,

as

vehicles

of

revelation, are the founda

tion

of the

church; and (2).

The

only person who is

given a place

of

unique

prominence is Jesus Christ

Himself.

Peter

himself

referred to Jesus as

the

cornerstone

in

his first

epistles, 2:7 , and the

rest

of

believers

, including

himself

as living ~ t o n e s , 2:4. He

gives himself no primacy

over

the other ~ t o n e s

in

the foundation.

Furthermore,

Peter's

ministry in

tbe New

Testa

ment is not what one would

expect from a

pope.

Throughout

the

book

of

Acts

,

he

is

never

seen

as

the head apostle , but

as

one

of the most

eminent

apostles , i Corinthians

12:11.

Peter is rebuked by

the apostle Paul who is not

Peter's inferior, Galatians

1:12,2:2,8-14.

Although

Peter

addressed

the

Jerusa

lem Council, he held no

primacy over

the

other

apostles in attendance. The

decision

made

by

that

coun

cil was

made

because it

seemed

good to the apostles

and the elders ,

with

the

whole

church , Acts

15:22-

23.

t appears that James

not Peter exercised

leader

ship over that council, vv.

February/March, 2000 - THE COUNSEL ofChalcedon

-35


13/17

13-21. Peter himself admit

ted that he was not the

chief

shepherd

, but your

fellow elder, I Peter 5: 1-2.

He was not THE pillar, but

only

one of the

pillars

of

the

church, Galatians 2:9.

The point is

that the

New

Testament contains

no

evidence at all

in any

text,

expressly stated or drawn

from

honest

inference that

suppor ts the

Roman

Catholic

dogma of the primacy and

infallibility of Peter as pope,

or

that

his

papal successors

inherit that primacy and

infallibility.

Peter

did playa

significant role in the apos

tolic

church and

he did

write

two infallible books, i.e., I

Peter,

under

the inspira

tion of the Holy Spirit, but

he

was

not looked upon as

pope . Francis Turretin

makes a convincing

case

that

Peter was never in

Rome, much less the pastor

or bishop of the

church

in

that city, INSTITUTES OF

ECLENCTIC THEOLOGY,

VoL

III ,

pp.

169ff.

In John 21:15-17, Jesus

again

addresses

Peter:

So

when they had finished

breakfast, Jesus said

to

Simon Peter, Simon ... Feed

My

lambs.,.Shepherd

My

sheep ...

Tend My

sheep.

Roman Catholicism teaches

that this text proves that

Jesus made

Peter

the su

preme pastor of the Catholic

Church , whose responsibility

it was to protect the Church

from error, and to do

so

he

must

be

infallible. This

interpretation

goes far

beyond the words, context

and intention of the

text, for

it does not contain one word

or hint of infallible papal

authority.

Jesus ' concern

is

merely

the

matter of pasto

ral care, which is a God

given ministry of

all apostles

and non-apostles,

including

minister s of the gospel and

elders, Acts 20:28,

Eph

esians 4:11-12,

I

Peter

5:1-

2. A person does not have

to

be an infallible shepherd

in order to feed the

flock

committed to him by the

Head of the Church, i.e.,

Christ

.

Anglican scholar, Leon

Morris, writes of this text:

There

can

be

little doubt

but that

the

whole

scene

is

meant to

show

us Peter as

completely restored to his

position

of leadership . He

has three times denied his

Lord. Now he

has three

times affirmed his love for

Him, and three times he has

been commissioned

to

care

for the flock. This

must

have

had the

effect

on

the

others

of a demonstration

that, whatever had

been

the

mistakes of the

past, Jesus

was restoring Peter

to

a

place of t rust . - THE

GOS

PEL

ACCORDING TO

JOHN, NICNT, P 875 .

Earl ier in his commentary

Morris says

that this

issue

of

Peter's

restoration

to

his rightful place of

leadership .. . should not

be

pressed too hard in

the

manner of some

exegetes.

Peter

is

accorded

no

abso

lute primacy, and in particu

lar there

is nothing

in this

passage

to indicate

that he

was

in

any way

superior to

John.

Throughout

this

chapter John is regard as

specially close to his

Lord. -

p. 870

36 - THE COUNSEL ofChalcedon -February/March, 2000

Lutheran

Bi

ble scholar,

R.C.H . Lenski also makes

some pertinent

comments on

this text : The dealings of

Jesus with Peter are no

special

exaltation

of Peter

but a seri ous reminder of his

grave defection.

The Lord

nowhere places Peter above

the other apostles. Just as

the other apostles

had

no

apostolic

successors,

so

Peter had ilOne . When John

wrote

his

Gospel , Peter had

been dead

for

about

35

years ,

and

John knows of

no

successor to Peter. - THE

INTERPRETATION

OF

JOHN, p. 1427.

In

Luke

22

:31-32,

Jesus

again speaks

to

Peter:

Simon, Simon, behold, Satan

has demanded permission

to

sift you like

wheat;

but I

have prayed

for

you, that

your

faith

may not

fail;

and

you, when once you have

turned again, strengthen

your brothers. Rome uses

this

text to support its

belief

in the primacy and infallibil

ity

of

Pet

er as

the

first

pope. However the correct

interpretation

is

almost the

oppos

ite

of

Rome's interpre

tation . Because Peter fell

so deeply, fell as none of

the rest

fell,

there

fore,

when he

recovered, he

was

the

one

who

could

help the

others by

means

of his own

sad

experience

, could make

the

wavering faith of the

others firm

again so

that t

would not give

way

as his

own faith had

given

way

almost

completely.

His

brethren are the other ten.

The

fact

that Simon

would

aid

his bre

thren in

the

wider

sense in a

similar

way


14/17

throughout

his ministry

is

only a deduction. Jesus

deals only

with the ordeal of

the apostles . .We see that

he

is

thus

preparing the

means

for

their recovery, in

the case of

each

one the

means which he needs and

that will be

most

effective,

special means

for Simon's

special case

and his

recov

ery

as an effective means to

help

them

all

to

recover.

Lenski,

pp

. 1064-65.

And so,

in conclusion,

when

the Reformation

rej ected

the doctrine

of the

infallibility of

the

church

and

began to understand and

preach the

pristine

gospel

of

the New Testament, a tre

mendous conflict broke out

in

church

history. The

Reformers

declared

that

if

the church

is

to be

THE

TEACHING CHURCH, she

must first of all be THE

LISTENING CHURCH, or

rather than preaching the

powerful

voice of God, she

would preach the impotent

voice

of

man.

To

teach and

preach with divine authority,

the church must listen to

God's Word with humility

and

submission.

The church

must become a listening

church in the

fullest

sense

of the word- a church that

listens believingly,

submis

sively, and obediently to the

written Word of

her Head

and

Savior, preaching

and

teaching only what

slle

is

taught by Him , neither

adding

to

or

subtracting

from His

Word.

This

was the aim of

the

Reformation, and althongh

it

may

sound like an

oversim

plification, it comprises

everything

fundamental

that

can be said.

As

Berkouwer

has

written:

This listening is not opposed

to the teaching

of

the church but

is indissolubly bound up with it.

In such listening everything is set

in motion. The time of the

Reformation reminds us of the

dark times of Israel when the

young Samuel stood intently

listening to the Eternal [God]:

Speak, a LORD, for Your

servant is listening. Thus

[Samuel] became an immeasur

able blessing for his people and

presently the doors of the sacred

place were opened and the

divine light shone in the dark

night

of

Israel. In Reformation

times it was again discovered,

right across a tradition of many

centuries, what it meant to be

under the Word of grace and to

bring one's thoughts into

captiv

ity to Christ. e should guard

against immediately placing this

tremendous event in the twilight

of the dissensions. In spite of all

differences and even in them we

can speak, and we ought to

continue to speak,

of

the funda

mental structure of the Reforma

tion. A comparison of Luther's

exegesis of

the Epistle

of

Ro

mans, which he published before

1517, and Calvin's INSTITUTES

will immediately reveal the

profound communion of the new

"discovery." - Between the

Reformed attitude towards the

Scriptures and the "sola fide"

there is no tension or separation

but the profoundest harmony. A

new religion reflection, a new

authority asserted itse lf and

conquered thousands

of

hearts

when the good tidings were

proclaimed as the liberating

signal in the listening church.

That is why the Reformation has

never admitted that it did not

ascribe any authority to the

chinch.

With rare acumen Calvin

touched the essential point when

he wrote that all authority and

dignity given by the Spirit to men

"is properly speaking not

at

all

given to these men themselves,

but to the office conferred upon

them; or (to speak more plainly)

to the Word whose ministry has

been entrusted to them." Calvin

carries this viewpoint through

with great consistency. The

boundary line for the authority of

the church is not fixed on the

basis ofan individualistic con

ception, but from the divine

Word entrusted to the church.

"Let the church, therefore, not

be wise in itself and invent

something on its own account,

but let

it

fix the boundary line for

its wisdom at the point where He

stops speaking."

Thus-while

recognizing this boundary l n -

the church will have sufficient

reason to base its faith on the

comprehensiveness of the

promises, so that it need not

have any doubt that the Holy

Spirit, the best guide to the right

way, will always support it. t is

extremely important that Calvin's

words are found in the same

context in whicl Jle rejects the

Roman foundation that the

church call1lot err, and that

wherever it goes it call1lot mean

or speale anything but that which

is true because it is led by the

Holy Spirit.

Calvin's reference to the

"comprehensiveness of the

promises," in this velY same

context, as the frrm ground of

the church, is due to the fact that

in his conception the issue is not

subjectivism verses objectivism.

The issue is ti,e relation between

FebruarylMarch, 2000 -THE COUNSEL ofChalcedon -37


15/17

the Holy Spirit, the Church and

the divine Word,

as

compared

with the Roman view of the

relation between Christ and the

Church.' This is the decisive

point in the debate. t renders

the appeal and the reference

to

the promises of the Holy Spirit,

in the case

of

Rome, and in that

of the Reformation, into some

thing of a different quality. The

different might be worded thus:

In Roman Catholicism the

promise (of the leading of the

Holy

Spirit) falls outside the

relation

of

faith,

as

an a priori)

gift; but with the Reformation

that promise is inside this rela

tion.- pp. 34-35.

Berkouwer

continues:

This is not in the least a

subjectivization of salvation, but

the recognition of the way

of

faith as the way of the church;

the only way in which it can

speak with authority to the

world. - The coherence

between Spirit, Word and Church

is essential to the Church.

t

prevents the l ~ t e r from

beCOm-

ing a Church which seeks its

security outside of the faith that

clings to the Word

of

the Gospel.

What Rome considers an abyss

ofuncertainty iii the Reformation

has nothing to do with uncer

tainty.- p. 35.

As a matter of fact,

Rome s

doctrine of

the

infallibility

of the church is

no

basis

at all

for

certainty,

whereas the Reformation ' s

doctrine

of

the

coherence

of

the Spirit,

the

Word and

faith

is

such a foundation.

Berkouwer

explains:

The authority in the Church

cannot start by proving its

legacy-and

go on to demand

faith on the basis of this proof.

The authority of the church can

only manifest itself in the mes

sage and confession of the

church. A priori sanctions are

excluded. In the history of the

church decisions are.made only

in the action and the life

of

the

church, in its subjection to the

gospel of grace and its recogni

tion of the sovereign grace of the

Lord

of

the chu

Date post:	03-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	chalcedon-presbyterian-church
View:	220 times
Download:	0 times

2000 Issue 2 - The Roman Catholic Church's Claim of Infallibility - Counsel of Chalcedon

Documents