After reading the 19th century Protestant church historian, Philip Schaff on ecumenical councils of the NPN (Nicene/Post-Nicene) era, I would like to make a few concessions to the Roman Catholic side. I will post a few sections of Schaff and comment after each. In speaking of the ecumenical councils, Schaff notes:
“The authority of these councils in the decision of all points of controversy was supreme and final.
Their doctrinal decisions were early invested with infallibility; the promises of the Lord respecting the indestructibleness of his church, his own perpetual presence with the ministry, and the guidance of the Spirit of truth, being applied in the full sense to those councils, as representing the whole church. After the example of the apostolic council, the usual formula for a decree was: Visum est Sprirtui Sancto et nobis. Constantine the Great, in a circular letter to the churches, styles the decrees of the Nicene council a divine command; a phrase, however, in reference to which the abuse of the word divine, in the language of the Byzantine despots, must not be forgotten. Athanasius says, with reference to the doctrine of the divinity of Christ: "What God has spoken by the council of Nice, abides forever." The council of Chalcedon pronounced the decrees of the Nicene fathers unalterable statutes, since God himself had spoken through them. The council of Ephesus, in the sentence of deposition against Nestorius, uses the formula: "The Lord Jesus Christ, whom he has blasphemed, determines through this most holy council." Pope Leo speaks of an "irretractabilis consensus" of the council of Chalcedon upon the doctrine of the person of Christ. Pope Gregory the Great even placed the first four councils, which refuted and destroyed respectively the heresies and impieties of Arius, Macedonius, Nestorius, and Eutyches, on a level with the four canonical Gospels. In like manner Justinian puts the dogmas of the first four councils on the same footing with the Holy Scriptures, and their canons by the side of laws of the realm. The remaining three general councils have neither a theological importance, nor therefore an authority, equal to that of those first four, which laid the foundations of ecumenical orthodoxy. Otherwise Gregory would have mentioned also the fifth council, of 553, in the passage to which we have just referred. And even among the first four there is a difference of rank; the councils of Nice and Chalcedon standing highest in the character of their results.”
-Philip Schaff, The History of the Christian Church 3.5.65
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc3.iii.viii.xviii.html
Schaff states straightforwardly that many (if not most who made a comment on the subject) of the NPN fathers believed that the Christological decrees of the first four ecumenical councils were infallible.
Having made this concession, I’ve read in both Roman Catholic as well as Protestant church historians that the fathers state that Nicea only proclaimed what was already clear from Scripture (J.N.D. Kelly, Brian Tierney, Louis Bouyer, etc.).
This and statements like them are found in a number of passages from the fathers (Athanasius, Four Discourses Against the Arians, Discourse 1.4.13, De Synodis, 1.6, Against the Heathen 1.1, Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity 2.3, 8.43, Ambrose, On the Holy Spirit 3.14.94, Augustine, Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament, Sermon 2.1, Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Letters of the Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, Letter 99-To Claudianus the Antigrapharius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures 5.12 (though this refers to the Apostle’s Creed), John Cassian, On the Incarnation 6.4 (though this is on the creed of the Council of Antioch), etc., etc., etc.).
Could it be that they believed the Christological decree of the council to be infallible simply because it proclaimed a summation of the clear Biblical teaching? I’ll have to look into this topic.
Schaff goes on to make a partial exception:
“Augustine, the ablest and the most devout of the fathers, conceived, in the best vein of his age, a philosophical view of this authority of the councils, which strikes a wise and wholesome mean between the extremes of veneration and disparagement, and approaches the free spirit of evangelical Protestantism. He justly subordinates these councils to the Holy Scriptures, which are the highest and the perfect rule of faith, and supposes that the decrees of a council may be, not indeed set aside and repealed, yet enlarged and completed by, the deeper research of a later day. They embody, for the general need, the results already duly prepared by preceding theological controversies, and give the consciousness of the church, on the subject in question, the clearest and most precise expression possible at the time. But this consciousness itself is subject to development. While the Holy Scriptures present the truth unequivocally and infallibly, and allow no room for doubt, the judgment of bishops may be corrected and enriched with new truths from the word of God, by the wiser judgment of other bishops; the judgment of the provincial council by that of a general; and the views of one general council by those of a later. In this Augustine presumed, that all the transactions of a council were conducted in the spirit of Christian humility, harmony, and love; but had he attended the council of Ephesus, in 431, to which he was summoned about the time of his death, he would, to his grief, have found the very opposite spirit reigning there. Augustine, therefore, manifestly acknowledges a gradual advancement of the church doctrine, which reaches its corresponding expression from time to time through the general councils; but a progress within the truth, without positive error. For in a certain sense, as against heretics, he made the authority of Holy Scripture dependent on the authority of the catholic church, in his famous dictum against the Manichaean heretics: "I would not believe the gospel, did not the authority of the catholic church compel me." In like manner Vincentius Lerinensis teaches, that the church doctrine passes indeed through various stages of growth in knowledge, and becomes more and more clearly defined in opposition to ever-rising errors, but can never become altered or dismembered.”
-Philip Schaff, The History of the Christian Church 3.5.65
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc3.iii.viii.xviii.html
So, according to Schaff, Mike (in the combox) was probably right when he had at first said, “You quote Augustine as though he says that earlier plenary councils are corrected by later ones in the sense that the earlier could be erroneous. He does not say that. He says that later examples of conduct or practice or doctrinal teaching may not have been anticipated and therefore did not fall under the purview of the earlier council's pronouncements.” So, Augustine never actually stated that ecumenical councils could be corrected (though he did not say that they were infallible either). [Although, I must say that I am confused by Augustine’s writing style. He uses the same sort of language when referring to the fact that Cyprian was wrong concerning his belief in re-baptizing former heretics as he does in referring to plenary councils. Nevertheless, I concede that I am probably wrong and apologize.]
Having said that, Schaff (along with several other church historians on both sides) say that Augustine held the Scriptures to be clear and of the highest authority for the Christian (Augustine, On Christian Doctrine 2.9, 2.42, Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament, Sermon 2.1, St. Augustine on the Psalms 8:2.8, Letters of St. Augustine, Letter 82.1.3, Letter 82.2.5, Letter 137.5.18, City of God 11.3, Reply to Faustus the Manichaean 13.5, 23.9, On Baptism, Against the Donatists 2.3, On Nature and Grace, Against Pelagius, ch.71, Our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount 1.11.32).
Having said *that*, Schaff seems to acknowledge the Roman Catholic interpretation of the passage in Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental, ch.5. In fact, the footnote he gives in Augustine’s letter cites another church historian:
“[This is one of the earliest distinct assertions of the dependence of the Scriptures for authority on the Church.-A. H. N.]”
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf104.iv.viii.vi.html
Interesting. To what kind or degree of authority is not said, but nevertheless, I’ll have to research this a bit more.
The rest is on the Protestant view of the ecumenical councils if you are interested.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc3.iii.viii.xviii.html
Friday, October 12, 2007
Thursday, October 11, 2007
The Eisegeted Verses, Orthodoxy vs. Orthopraxy in Acts 15
A few of the comments made in regard to the last post on Acts 15 bring up two good questions:
Was the *issue that caused* the council about orthodoxy or orthopraxy?
and
Was the *decision and decree* of the council about orthodoxy or orthopraxy?
First of all, the issue was not over whether to include the gentiles. That was already a forgone conclusion after all the things that God had done with Paul and Barnabas in the conversion of the gentiles. Implied in their statement, even the believing Pharisees admitted as much (v.5).
Rather, the *issue that caused* the council was whether the gentiles should be circumcised in order to be saved (vv. 1 and 5). This is clearly an issue of soteriology, and thus, a matter of doctrine (i.e. orthodoxy).
As the debate progressed (vv.6-12), Peter gives his testimony about God’s revelation to him concerning the unclean foods and Cornelius the centurion (Acts 10:1-11:18), and Paul and Barnabas tell of how God used them to bring the Gentiles into the faith (Acts 11:25-30, 13:1-12, 44-52, etc.). Thus, it was made clear to everyone that the gentiles did not need to be circumcised in order to be saved since this was clearly evidenced by the regeneration of the Holy Spirit in them (Acts 10:47-48).
James then gets up and judges that they should write a letter stating that they should “not trouble…the gentiles” but that the gentiles should not participate in certain pagan idolatrous acts (vv.19-20).
The letter that was written (vv.23-29) makes two “decrees”:
a.) That the Pharisees were not, in fact, sent by the Jerusalem church and had no authority, but Paul and Barnabas were (vv.24-27). Thus, this decree was to affirm the ecclesiastical and doctrinal authority of both Paul and Barnabas.
b.) That the gentiles abstain from certain pagan idolatrous acts and other immoral practices (vv.28-29).
While the first decree affirmed Paul’s and Barnabas’ teaching authority, it did not specifically affirm their teaching. Though it was clear that everyone in the council approved of their teaching, this was not part of the decree. Instead, the council simply put it into the hands of the two apostles to teach by the Holy Spirit the doctrines of soteriology to the gentiles. Thus, both decrees were over orthopraxy, practice, not doctrine.
It is here that we turn to the debate over whether this council can be made an exact example for ecumenical councils. The letter containing the decree in this council is what is comparable to the canons of the ecumenical councils of later time. Since the decree in the letter did not touch on the issue of orthodoxy, but instead, on orthopraxy and handed the doctrinal part over to the two apostles, this council cannot be used as an exact example for the doctrinal authority of an ecumenical council.
I apologize for not being clear enough, and I will change my previous post and leave footnotes with the date of the change.
Was the *issue that caused* the council about orthodoxy or orthopraxy?
and
Was the *decision and decree* of the council about orthodoxy or orthopraxy?
First of all, the issue was not over whether to include the gentiles. That was already a forgone conclusion after all the things that God had done with Paul and Barnabas in the conversion of the gentiles. Implied in their statement, even the believing Pharisees admitted as much (v.5).
Rather, the *issue that caused* the council was whether the gentiles should be circumcised in order to be saved (vv. 1 and 5). This is clearly an issue of soteriology, and thus, a matter of doctrine (i.e. orthodoxy).
As the debate progressed (vv.6-12), Peter gives his testimony about God’s revelation to him concerning the unclean foods and Cornelius the centurion (Acts 10:1-11:18), and Paul and Barnabas tell of how God used them to bring the Gentiles into the faith (Acts 11:25-30, 13:1-12, 44-52, etc.). Thus, it was made clear to everyone that the gentiles did not need to be circumcised in order to be saved since this was clearly evidenced by the regeneration of the Holy Spirit in them (Acts 10:47-48).
James then gets up and judges that they should write a letter stating that they should “not trouble…the gentiles” but that the gentiles should not participate in certain pagan idolatrous acts (vv.19-20).
The letter that was written (vv.23-29) makes two “decrees”:
a.) That the Pharisees were not, in fact, sent by the Jerusalem church and had no authority, but Paul and Barnabas were (vv.24-27). Thus, this decree was to affirm the ecclesiastical and doctrinal authority of both Paul and Barnabas.
b.) That the gentiles abstain from certain pagan idolatrous acts and other immoral practices (vv.28-29).
While the first decree affirmed Paul’s and Barnabas’ teaching authority, it did not specifically affirm their teaching. Though it was clear that everyone in the council approved of their teaching, this was not part of the decree. Instead, the council simply put it into the hands of the two apostles to teach by the Holy Spirit the doctrines of soteriology to the gentiles. Thus, both decrees were over orthopraxy, practice, not doctrine.
It is here that we turn to the debate over whether this council can be made an exact example for ecumenical councils. The letter containing the decree in this council is what is comparable to the canons of the ecumenical councils of later time. Since the decree in the letter did not touch on the issue of orthodoxy, but instead, on orthopraxy and handed the doctrinal part over to the two apostles, this council cannot be used as an exact example for the doctrinal authority of an ecumenical council.
I apologize for not being clear enough, and I will change my previous post and leave footnotes with the date of the change.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
The Eisegeted Verses, Acts 15 and the Jerusalem Council
[This is part of an ongoing series. See my introduction.]
“15:1 Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them, the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas and some others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue. 3 Therefore, being sent on their way by the church, they were passing through both Phoenicia and Samaria, describing in detail the conversion of the Gentiles, and were bringing great joy to all the brethren. 4 When they arrived at Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they reported all that God had done with them. 5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed stood up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses.”
6 The apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter. 7 After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; 9 and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11 But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.” 12 All the people kept silent, and they were listening to Barnabas and Paul as they were relating what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles. 13 After they had stopped speaking, James answered, saying, “Brethren, listen to me. 14 Simeon has related how God first concerned Himself about taking from among the Gentiles a people for His name. 15 With this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written, 16 ‘AFTER THESE THINGS I will return, AND I WILL REBUILD THE TABERNACLE OF DAVID WHICH HAS FALLEN, AND I WILL REBUILD ITS RUINS, AND I WILL RESTORE IT, 17 SO THAT THE REST OF MANKIND MAY SEEK THE LORD, AND ALL THE GENTILES WHO ARE CALLED BY MY NAME,’ 18 SAYS THE LORD, WHO MAKES THESE THINGS KNOWN FROM LONG AGO.’ 19 Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, 20 but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. 21 “For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”
22 Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them to send to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas--Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren, 23 and they sent this letter by them, “The apostles and the brethren who are elders, to the brethren in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia who are from the Gentiles, greetings. 24 Since we have heard that some of our number to whom we gave no instruction have disturbed you with their words, unsettling your souls, 25 it seemed good to us, having become of one mind, to select men to send to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 Therefore we have sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will also report the same things by word of mouth. 28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials: 29 that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell.” 30 So when they were sent away, they went down to Antioch; and having gathered the congregation together, they delivered the letter. 31 When they had read it, they rejoiced because of its encouragement. 32 Judas and Silas, also being prophets themselves, encouraged and strengthened the brethren with a lengthy message. 33 After they had spent time there, they were sent away from the brethren in peace to those who had sent them out. 34 [But it seemed good to Silas to remain there.] 35 But Paul and Barnabas stayed in Antioch, teaching and preaching with many others also, the word of the Lord…16:4 Now while they were passing through the cities, they were delivering the decrees which had been decided upon by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem, for them to observe.” –Acts 15:1-35, 16:4 NASB
Exegesis
The context of the passage is that the some of the Pharisees were teaching that one must receive circumcision in order to be saved. Paul and Barnabas disagreed with them, and so, the brethren asked that they should go to the apostles and elders in Jerusalem to determine the issue.
Paul and Barnabas gave their side saying that God has been working through them in the conversion of the gentiles, but then, the Pharisees gave their side. The apostles and elders in Jerusalem then convened to decide on the matter.
After much discussion, Peter stands up and recalls to everyone his experiences in Acts 10 and 11. On this basis he agreed with Paul and Barnabas. The people participating in the council kept silent as each one took their turn speaking. As Chrysostom said:
““Then all the multitude kept silence,” etc. (v. 12.) There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently, not starts up (for the next word). Great the orderliness (of the proceedings). No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule, and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. “And after that they had held their peace, James answered,” etc. (v. 13.) (b) Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part.”
-John Chrysostom, Homilies on The Acts of the Apostles, Homily XXXIII
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf111.vi.xxxiii.html
[On a quick note, some Roman Catholics have argued that the people kept silent when Peter spoke in the sense that they fell silent when he gave his ‘Papal decree’: “That’s it, the Pope has spoken.” However, this is not what the text is saying. They kept silent for everyone out of politeness and wishing to hear everyone else’s opinion. This was Chrysostom’s interpretation. It is also interesting to note that he held that James was of higher authority than Peter (see the last sentence of the above quote)!]
Next, James gives his judgment. He sides with Paul and Barnabas citing the Old Testament prophecies of the New Covenant on the inclusion of the gentiles. From this, it was his judgment that the church assembled in Jerusalem write to the church at Antioch that circumcision was not necessary (as it was part of the ritual law fulfilled in Christ) but to abstain from idolatry and other pagan practices (as they were part of the moral law which endures forever). After hearing James’ decision, the apostles, the elders, and the whole church agreed.
“To the Holy Spirit and to Us”
The letter was written and went out. The authority for this decision was given: “For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…” (v.28). The decision was worked to by their reasoned judgment through the direction of the Holy Spirit. As Matthew Henry stated:
“They express themselves with something of authority, that what they wrote might be received with respect, and deference paid to it: It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, that is, to us under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, and by direction from him: not only the apostles, but others, were endued with spiritual gifts extraordinary, and knew more of the mind of God than any since those gifts ceased can pretend to; their infallibility gave an incontestable authority to their decrees, and they would not order any thing because it seemed good to them, but that they knew it first seemed good to the Holy Ghost.”
-Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible, Acts 15
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/MatthewHenryComplete/mhc-com.cgi?book=ac&chapter=015
Chrysostom gives a slightly different opinion as to why they added “and to us”:
“For it seemed good,” say they, “to the Holy Ghost and to us” (v. 28): not making themselves equal (to Him)-they are not so mad. But why does it put this (so)? Why did they add, “And to us,” and yet it had sufficed to say, “To the Holy Ghost?” The one, “To the Holy Ghost,” that they may not deem it to be of man; the other, “To us,” that they may be taught that they also themselves admit (the Gentiles), although themselves being in circumcision. They have to speak to men who are still weak and afraid of them: this is the reason why this also is added. And it shows that it is not by way of condescension that they speak, neither because they spared them, nor as considering them weak, but the contrary; for great was the reverence of the teachers also.”
-John Chrysostom, Homilies on The Acts of the Apostles, Homily XXXIII
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf111.vi.xxxiii.html
Either interpretation is valid though I prefer Henry’s.
Thus, Paul, Barnabas, Barsabbas, and Silas took the letter to the brethren in Antioch, and the gentiles accepted it with great joy.
Is the Jerusalem Council in a Paradigm Example for Ecumenical Councils?
Some Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox apologists argue that the council in Jerusalem was given as the model for the participation, proceedings, and extent of authority of ecumenical councils. Thus, ecumenical councils would be infallible and binding on the conscience.
However, Acts 15 isn’t exactly the example they’re looking for. As Philip Schaff stated so well:
“The most complete outward representation of the apostolic church as a teaching and legislative body was the council convened at Jerusalem in the year 50, to decide as to the authority of the law of Moses, and adjust the difference between Jewish and Gentile Christianity.
We notice it here simply in its connection with the organization of the church.
It consisted not of the apostles alone, but of apostles, elders, and brethren. We know that Peter, Paul, John, Barnabas, and Titus were present, perhaps all the other apostles. James—not one of the Twelve—presided as the local bishop, and proposed the compromise which was adopted. The transactions were public, before the congregation; the brethren took part in the deliberations; there was a sharp discussion, but the spirit of love prevailed over the pride of opinion; the apostles passed and framed the decree not without, but with the elders and with the whole church and sent the circular letter not in their own name only, but also in the name of "the brother elders" or "elder brethren" to "the brethren" of the congregations disturbed by the question of circumcision.
All of which plainly proves the right of Christian people to take part in some way in the government of the church, as they do in the acts of worship. The spirit and practice of the apostles favored a certain kind of popular self-government, and the harmonious, fraternal co-operation of the different elements of the church. It countenanced no abstract distinction of clergy and laity. All believers are called to the prophetic, priestly, and kingly offices in Christ. The bearers of authority and discipline should therefore never forget that their great work is to train the governed to freedom and independence, and by the various spiritual offices to build them up unto the unity of faith and knowledge, and to the perfect manhood of Christ.
The Greek and Roman churches gradually departed from the apostolic polity and excluded not only the laity, but also the lower clergy from all participation in the legislative councils.
The conference of Jerusalem, though not a binding precedent, is a significant example, giving the apostolic sanction to the synodical form of government, in which all classes of the Christian community are represented in the management of public affairs and in settling controversies respecting faith and discipline. The decree which it passed and the pastoral letter which it sent, are the first in the long line of decrees and canons and encyclicals which issued from ecclesiastical authorities. But it is significant that this first decree, though adopted undoubtedly under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and wisely adapted to the times and circumstances of the mixed churches of Jewish and Gentile converts, was after all merely “a temporary expedient for a temporary emergency,” and cannot be quoted as a precedent for infallible decrees of permanent force. The spirit of fraternal concession and harmony which dictated the Jerusalem compromise, is more important than the letter of the decree itself. The kingdom of Christ is not a dispensation of law, but of spirit and of life.” (emphasis mine)
-Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church 1.10.64
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc1.i.X.64.html
In a later chapter, Schaff goes on to note the polity of later councils which was eventually adopted by the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches:
“But with the advance of the hierarchical spirit, this republican feature gradually vanished. After the council of Nicaea (325) bishops alone had seat and voice, and the priests appear hereafter merely as secretaries, or advisers, or representatives of their bishops. The bishops, moreover, did not act as representatives of their churches, nor in the name of the body of the believers, as formerly, but in their own right as successors of the apostles…As the episcopate culminated in the primacy, so the synodical system rose into the oecumenical councils, which represented the whole church of the Roman empire. But these could not be held till persecution ceased, and the emperor became the patron of Christianity. The first was the celebrated council of Nicaea, in the year 325. The state gave legal validity to the decrees of councils, and enforced them if necessary by all its means of coercion. But the Roman government protected only the Catholic or orthodox church, except during the progress of the Arian and other controversies, before the final result was reached by the decision of an oecumenical Synod convened by the emperor.” (bold emphasis mine)
-Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church 2.4.54
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc2.v.vi.xiv.html
The Historical Dictionary of the Orthodox Church (obviously an Eastern Orthodox source) concurs:
“The appeal to the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) as paradigmatic for church decision-making procedure is frequently made by those emphasizing the importance of the hierarchy in the process of defining the faith…seemingly a perfect example…On closer examination, the example is problematical. Did the hierarchy really make the decision? First, Peter makes a speech and in it takes responsibility for the Gentile mission; but then James, the brother of the Lord, speaks and states, ‘I have reached a decision…’ Next, we find that ‘the apostles and the elders with the consent of the whole church decided…’ (v22); and again, when we read Paul’s account of what is ostensibly the same council (Gal 2:1-10), he states that he is the leader of the Gentile mission and the meeting in Jerusalem added nothing to his message or method…Finally, the Council was not really about orthodoxy at all, but about orthopraxy: The decision did not involve theology (q.v.) or the content of the faith, but only whether circumcision and certain types of abstinence would be practiced.” (emphasis mine)
-M. Prokurat et al. Historical Dictionary of the Orthodox Church (Scarecrow Press 1996), 49-50.
So, the council of Acts 15 cannot be used as a proof-text for supposedly infallible ecumenical councils for the following reasons:
a.) It was attended by the apostles which makes it more than an ecumenical council. Infallibility was guaranteed because of them. [Dave Armstrong tries to respond to this in his book which I will get to below.]
b.) As noted both by Schaff and the EO dictionary, it was attended by the elders (lit. presbyters) of the church in Jerusalem and agreed upon by both the elders and the whole church (thus including the laity) in Jerusalem making it less than an ecumenical council since an ecumenical council is strictly episcopal and excludes the lower clergy and especially the laity. [In the first seven (I believe) ecumenical councils, presbyters could be part of the council but only as proxies for the bishops they represented and had to cast their votes as their bishops had commanded. So, in effect, these councils were still for bishops alone.]
c.) As the Eastern Orthodox dictionary notes, **the decrees of the council (which are supposedly comparable to the canons of the ecumenical councils) only touched on orthopraxy (practice), not orthodoxy (doctrine). Instead, the council delegated the doctrinal authority to the two apostles, Paul and Barnabas.
d.) On what basis is this council a model for ecumenical councils alone? Why couldn’t this be a basis for local councils as well? Isn’t this what Matthew 18:18-20 teaches? In other words, if Acts 15 can be applied to local councils (which are fallible) as well, then how can it be used to prove the infallibility of ecumenical ones?
A Review of Dave Armstrong’s The Catholic Verses on Acts 15:28-29, 16:4
[Unless otherwise stated, all of these quotes come from Dave Armstrong, The Catholic Verses: 95 Bible Passages That Confound Protestants (Manchester, NH: Sophia Institute Press, 2004).]
After citing the two passages mentioned above, Mr. Armstrong then states:
“These passages offer proof that the early Church held to a notion of the infallibility of Church councils, and to a belief that they were especially guided by the Holy Spirit (precisely as in Catholic Church doctrine concerning ecumenical councils).” (Armstrong, op. cit., p.7)
Other than the fact that this passage proves no such thing. [See the “Is the Jerusalem Council in a Paradigm Example for Ecumenical Councils?” section above.] Also, aren’t local councils also “guided by the Holy Spirit” and yet, not infallible (Matthew 18:20)?
Moving on:
“A Protestant might reply that since this Council of Jerusalem referred to in Acts consisted of apostles, and since an apostle proclaimed the decree, both possessed a binding authority that was later lost (as Protestants accept apostolic authority as much as Catholics do).” (ibid. p.8)
Actually, this is incorrect. While James made the decision and the other apostles agreed, it was also agreed upon by the church elders (lit. presbyters) and the laity as well (v.22).
Continuing:
“But this is a bit simplistic, since Scripture is our model for everything, including Church government, and all parties appeal to it for their own views. If Scripture teaches that a council of the Church is authoritative and binding, it is implausible and unreasonable to assert that no future council can be so simply because it is not conducted by apostles.” (ibid. p.8)
How can the Jerusalem council serve as an exact model for later councils if they don’t include apostles? It can never be directly analogous (i.e. the exact same).
Armstrong should prove that the post-apostolic authority is directly analogous to apostolic authority. The apostles were an unrepeatable group.
Are bishops, the so-called successors of the apostles, independently infallible as the apostles were? Do they each possess the miracle power that the apostles had? Under the presupposition of Mr. Armstrong’s statement above, why is this not directly analogous but councils are?
Acts 15 proves that we should have church councils, but it never proves that post-apostolic councils would be infallible.
Lastly, and again, the decision was made by the entire church: apostles, presbyters, and laity, not just the apostles (or the apostles’ successors as Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy teach). So, it proves the exact opposite of what Mr. Armstrong wants it to, namely a presbyterian or congregational style of church governance.
“The Bible does not exist in an historical vacuum, but has import for the day-to-day life of the Church and Christians for all time.” (ibid. p.9)
Yes, and this is why the apostles penned the gospels at the end of their lives and the churches made sure to preserve their letters all so that the New Testament Church would not need infallible apostles or have the need for an infallible church congregate. They had divine Scripture which was sufficient above all things. As Athanasius wrote:
Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith's sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture.
-Athanasius, De Synodis 1.6
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-04/Npnf2-04-64.htm#P7323_2907659
And Augustine, who denied the infallibility of plenary (i.e. ecumenical) councils in favor of Scripture being the only *infallible* authority:
But who can fail to be aware that the sacred canon of Scripture, both of the Old and New Testament, is confined within its own limits, and that it stands so absolutely in a superior position to all later letters of the bishops, that about it we can hold no manner of doubt or disputation whether what is confessedly contained in it is right and true; but that all the letters of bishops which have been written, or are being written, since the closing of the canon, are liable to be refuted if there be anything contained in them which strays from the truth, either by the discourse of some one who happens to be wiser in the matter than themselves, or by the weightier authority and more learned experience of other bishops, by the authority of Councils; and further, that the Councils themselves, which are held in the several districts and provinces, must yield, beyond all possibility of doubt, to the authority of plenary Councils which are formed for the whole Christian world; and that even of the plenary Councils, the earlier are often corrected by those which follow them, when, by some actual experiment, things are brought to light which were before concealed, and that is known which previously lay hid, and this without any whirlwind of sacrilegious pride, without any puffing of the neck through arrogance, without any strife of envious hatred, simply with holy humility, catholic peace, and Christian charity?
-Augustine, On Baptism, Against the Donatists 2.3
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-04/npnf1-04-53.htm#P3163_1843900
Next, Mr. Armstrong states:
“St. Paul told us to imitate him (e.g. 2 Thess. 3:9). And he went around proclaiming decrees of the Church. No one was at liberty to disobey these decrees on the grounds of conscience, or to declare by “private judgment” that they were in error (per Luther).” (Armstrong, op. cit., p.9)
First of all, the passage cited, although pertaining to us imitating him, has to do with his work ethic (vv.7-12), not with his authority.
Secondly, where does Paul say to imitate his authority as an apostle? Again, Mr. Armstrong commits the fallacy of the over-extended conclusion (see my intro. to this series, part g.) by trying to extend apostolic authority into the post-apostolic church.
Again, if true, this would prove too much. Are we (or even a bishop) supposed to run around like we have *apostolic* authority (i.e. infallible individually) and the ability to write Scripture and perform as many miracles as they did? This was what some of the Anabaptists argued for. Rather than arguing for Roman Catholicism, if right, Mr. Armstrong’s argument would argue for Anabaptistry.
So, no one was allowed to disobey “these decrees” specifically because Paul was an *apostle*.
“It would be foolish to argue that the way the Apostles conducted the governance of the Church has no relation whatsoever to how later Christians engage in the same task.” (ibid. p.9)
Correct.
“It would seem rather obvious that Holy Scripture assumes that the model of holy people (patriarchs, prophets, and apostles alike) is to be followed by Christians.” (ibid. p.9)
How does this prove that post-apostolic church councils (which *are* given precedent and authority in Acts 15) are infallible (something that only the apostles possessed)? Again, he commits the over-extended conclusion. He has to show that they are the exact same instead of simply being similar but not exactly the same.
“The binding authority of the Church was present here…” (ibid. p.9)
Yes, because there were apostles present.
Of course, something else should be said at this point. Protestants don’t deny that the covenant community is to convene church councils at times (as the Schaff quote above says), and we don’t deny that they possess the authority to excommunicate based on their judgment of what Scripture says. However, this decision is fallible. Basically, we see church councils in the same way that the early church saw local church councils.
Mr. Armstrong goes on to attempt a critique of Calvin’s commentary on Acts 15:28:
“This strikes me as somewhat desperate. First, Catholics have never argued that the Pope has power to make decrees contrary to the Bible (making Calvin’s slanderous charge a straw man).” (ibid. p.10)
Obviously, Mr. Armstrong doesn’t know how to tell when one is making an assertion and accusation and when one is trying to give the other side’s position. Of course Calvin knew that Roman dogma never stated that the Popes had the right to decree something contrary to Scripture! He was making an accusation that they in fact did and forced it upon men’s consciences.
“Calvin goes on to use vivid language, intended to resonate with already strong emotions and ignorance of Catholic theology.” (ibid. p.10)
Kind of like the use of the term, “anti-Catholic”?!
Secondly, Calvin didn’t write his commentaries back in the 1950’s. He wrote them in the mid-sixteenth century when Protestant congregations were mostly former Roman Catholics. He was hardly playing on ignorance, but instead, he was making an assertion.
He goes on to quote Barnes’s Notes, a commentary, saying that the decision of the council of Jerusalem was inspired and that this was to fulfill the promise of Christ in Matthew 18:18-20 and John 14:26. Mr. Armstrong then states:
“In this instance, it was the decision of the council in a case submitted to it; and it implied an obligation on the Christians to submit to that decision. Barnes actually acknowledges that the passage has some implication for ecclesiology in general.” (ibid. p.10)
Of course, what Barnes was noting by citing John 14:26 was that the promise of the Spirit in this special sense was made to the apostles. So, again, for the umpteenth time, the council at Jerusalem was infallible because it was attended and decided upon by apostles.
Secondly, Matthew 18:18-20 states that when “two or three gather”. Why wouldn’t this apply to local councils as well?
He goes on to misrepresent Calvin:
“It is remarkable, on the other hand, that Calvin seems concerned about the possibility of a group of Christians – in this case, a council – being led by the Holy Spirit to achieve a true doctrinal decree, whereas he has no problem with the notion that individuals can achieve such certainty.” (ibid. p.10)
First of all, Calvin didn’t deny that a congregate of Christians as a whole could be led by the Spirit and be moved by Him providentially toward the truth. He simply denied them infallibility. He consistently applied the same to the reader of Scripture. [There are a number of reasons why a Spirit-led person or group can arrive at the wrong outcome: lack of prayer and meditation on Scripture, misinterpreting personal emotions for the work of the Spirit, personal traditions, lack of knowledge of the subject matter, sinful pride, etc. all come into play.] Calvin covered all of this in his Institutes (IV.9.1-14).
Again, Mr. Armstrong is inconsistent since, when we apply the same standard to local councils, he denies them infallibility but yet, believes that they were moved by the Spirit as well.
“For Catholics, the import of Acts 15:28 is clear and undeniable.” (ibid. p.11)
Yes, Mr. Armstrong, because of your overriding presupposition which your Church tells you to bring to Scripture, you have managed to ignore that the Jerusalem Council was:
a.) More than an ecumenical council since it was attended and decided upon by apostles.
b.) Less than an ecumenical council since it was attended and decided upon by the presbyters and laity of Jerusalem making it more presbyterian or congregational.
c.) ****Indeed over doctrine. However, its decrees found in the letter sent to Antioch (which are supposedly comparable to the canons of the ecumenical councils) did not touch on the doctrines of soteriology but on the practices of obeying the apostles, Paul and Barnabas, and not participating in immoral acts. The decrees of the council were over orthopraxy, not orthodoxy.
d.) Would give precedent to local councils as well as ecumenical ones. [Thus, under Mr. Armstrong’s assumptions about the implications of this passage, why aren’t local councils infallible as well?]
BTW: I encourage my readers to give comments on what I can add to these posts to make my arguments/counter-arguments more complete, and of course, I encourage criticism as well.
**This paragraph used to read, "...the issue at hand was one of orthopraxy (practice), not orthodoxy (doctrine)." It was corrected in order to be more accurate. The change was made on October 11, 2007.
****This paragraph used to read, "More over an issue of practice, not doctrine." It was corrected in order to be more accurate. The change was made on October 11, 2007.
“15:1 Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them, the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas and some others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue. 3 Therefore, being sent on their way by the church, they were passing through both Phoenicia and Samaria, describing in detail the conversion of the Gentiles, and were bringing great joy to all the brethren. 4 When they arrived at Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they reported all that God had done with them. 5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed stood up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses.”
6 The apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter. 7 After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; 9 and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11 But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.” 12 All the people kept silent, and they were listening to Barnabas and Paul as they were relating what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles. 13 After they had stopped speaking, James answered, saying, “Brethren, listen to me. 14 Simeon has related how God first concerned Himself about taking from among the Gentiles a people for His name. 15 With this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written, 16 ‘AFTER THESE THINGS I will return, AND I WILL REBUILD THE TABERNACLE OF DAVID WHICH HAS FALLEN, AND I WILL REBUILD ITS RUINS, AND I WILL RESTORE IT, 17 SO THAT THE REST OF MANKIND MAY SEEK THE LORD, AND ALL THE GENTILES WHO ARE CALLED BY MY NAME,’ 18 SAYS THE LORD, WHO MAKES THESE THINGS KNOWN FROM LONG AGO.’ 19 Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, 20 but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. 21 “For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”
22 Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them to send to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas--Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren, 23 and they sent this letter by them, “The apostles and the brethren who are elders, to the brethren in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia who are from the Gentiles, greetings. 24 Since we have heard that some of our number to whom we gave no instruction have disturbed you with their words, unsettling your souls, 25 it seemed good to us, having become of one mind, to select men to send to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 Therefore we have sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will also report the same things by word of mouth. 28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials: 29 that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell.” 30 So when they were sent away, they went down to Antioch; and having gathered the congregation together, they delivered the letter. 31 When they had read it, they rejoiced because of its encouragement. 32 Judas and Silas, also being prophets themselves, encouraged and strengthened the brethren with a lengthy message. 33 After they had spent time there, they were sent away from the brethren in peace to those who had sent them out. 34 [But it seemed good to Silas to remain there.] 35 But Paul and Barnabas stayed in Antioch, teaching and preaching with many others also, the word of the Lord…16:4 Now while they were passing through the cities, they were delivering the decrees which had been decided upon by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem, for them to observe.” –Acts 15:1-35, 16:4 NASB
Exegesis
The context of the passage is that the some of the Pharisees were teaching that one must receive circumcision in order to be saved. Paul and Barnabas disagreed with them, and so, the brethren asked that they should go to the apostles and elders in Jerusalem to determine the issue.
Paul and Barnabas gave their side saying that God has been working through them in the conversion of the gentiles, but then, the Pharisees gave their side. The apostles and elders in Jerusalem then convened to decide on the matter.
After much discussion, Peter stands up and recalls to everyone his experiences in Acts 10 and 11. On this basis he agreed with Paul and Barnabas. The people participating in the council kept silent as each one took their turn speaking. As Chrysostom said:
““Then all the multitude kept silence,” etc. (v. 12.) There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently, not starts up (for the next word). Great the orderliness (of the proceedings). No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule, and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. “And after that they had held their peace, James answered,” etc. (v. 13.) (b) Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part.”
-John Chrysostom, Homilies on The Acts of the Apostles, Homily XXXIII
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf111.vi.xxxiii.html
[On a quick note, some Roman Catholics have argued that the people kept silent when Peter spoke in the sense that they fell silent when he gave his ‘Papal decree’: “That’s it, the Pope has spoken.” However, this is not what the text is saying. They kept silent for everyone out of politeness and wishing to hear everyone else’s opinion. This was Chrysostom’s interpretation. It is also interesting to note that he held that James was of higher authority than Peter (see the last sentence of the above quote)!]
Next, James gives his judgment. He sides with Paul and Barnabas citing the Old Testament prophecies of the New Covenant on the inclusion of the gentiles. From this, it was his judgment that the church assembled in Jerusalem write to the church at Antioch that circumcision was not necessary (as it was part of the ritual law fulfilled in Christ) but to abstain from idolatry and other pagan practices (as they were part of the moral law which endures forever). After hearing James’ decision, the apostles, the elders, and the whole church agreed.
“To the Holy Spirit and to Us”
The letter was written and went out. The authority for this decision was given: “For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…” (v.28). The decision was worked to by their reasoned judgment through the direction of the Holy Spirit. As Matthew Henry stated:
“They express themselves with something of authority, that what they wrote might be received with respect, and deference paid to it: It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, that is, to us under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, and by direction from him: not only the apostles, but others, were endued with spiritual gifts extraordinary, and knew more of the mind of God than any since those gifts ceased can pretend to; their infallibility gave an incontestable authority to their decrees, and they would not order any thing because it seemed good to them, but that they knew it first seemed good to the Holy Ghost.”
-Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible, Acts 15
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/MatthewHenryComplete/mhc-com.cgi?book=ac&chapter=015
Chrysostom gives a slightly different opinion as to why they added “and to us”:
“For it seemed good,” say they, “to the Holy Ghost and to us” (v. 28): not making themselves equal (to Him)-they are not so mad. But why does it put this (so)? Why did they add, “And to us,” and yet it had sufficed to say, “To the Holy Ghost?” The one, “To the Holy Ghost,” that they may not deem it to be of man; the other, “To us,” that they may be taught that they also themselves admit (the Gentiles), although themselves being in circumcision. They have to speak to men who are still weak and afraid of them: this is the reason why this also is added. And it shows that it is not by way of condescension that they speak, neither because they spared them, nor as considering them weak, but the contrary; for great was the reverence of the teachers also.”
-John Chrysostom, Homilies on The Acts of the Apostles, Homily XXXIII
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf111.vi.xxxiii.html
Either interpretation is valid though I prefer Henry’s.
Thus, Paul, Barnabas, Barsabbas, and Silas took the letter to the brethren in Antioch, and the gentiles accepted it with great joy.
Is the Jerusalem Council in a Paradigm Example for Ecumenical Councils?
Some Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox apologists argue that the council in Jerusalem was given as the model for the participation, proceedings, and extent of authority of ecumenical councils. Thus, ecumenical councils would be infallible and binding on the conscience.
However, Acts 15 isn’t exactly the example they’re looking for. As Philip Schaff stated so well:
“The most complete outward representation of the apostolic church as a teaching and legislative body was the council convened at Jerusalem in the year 50, to decide as to the authority of the law of Moses, and adjust the difference between Jewish and Gentile Christianity.
We notice it here simply in its connection with the organization of the church.
It consisted not of the apostles alone, but of apostles, elders, and brethren. We know that Peter, Paul, John, Barnabas, and Titus were present, perhaps all the other apostles. James—not one of the Twelve—presided as the local bishop, and proposed the compromise which was adopted. The transactions were public, before the congregation; the brethren took part in the deliberations; there was a sharp discussion, but the spirit of love prevailed over the pride of opinion; the apostles passed and framed the decree not without, but with the elders and with the whole church and sent the circular letter not in their own name only, but also in the name of "the brother elders" or "elder brethren" to "the brethren" of the congregations disturbed by the question of circumcision.
All of which plainly proves the right of Christian people to take part in some way in the government of the church, as they do in the acts of worship. The spirit and practice of the apostles favored a certain kind of popular self-government, and the harmonious, fraternal co-operation of the different elements of the church. It countenanced no abstract distinction of clergy and laity. All believers are called to the prophetic, priestly, and kingly offices in Christ. The bearers of authority and discipline should therefore never forget that their great work is to train the governed to freedom and independence, and by the various spiritual offices to build them up unto the unity of faith and knowledge, and to the perfect manhood of Christ.
The Greek and Roman churches gradually departed from the apostolic polity and excluded not only the laity, but also the lower clergy from all participation in the legislative councils.
The conference of Jerusalem, though not a binding precedent, is a significant example, giving the apostolic sanction to the synodical form of government, in which all classes of the Christian community are represented in the management of public affairs and in settling controversies respecting faith and discipline. The decree which it passed and the pastoral letter which it sent, are the first in the long line of decrees and canons and encyclicals which issued from ecclesiastical authorities. But it is significant that this first decree, though adopted undoubtedly under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and wisely adapted to the times and circumstances of the mixed churches of Jewish and Gentile converts, was after all merely “a temporary expedient for a temporary emergency,” and cannot be quoted as a precedent for infallible decrees of permanent force. The spirit of fraternal concession and harmony which dictated the Jerusalem compromise, is more important than the letter of the decree itself. The kingdom of Christ is not a dispensation of law, but of spirit and of life.” (emphasis mine)
-Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church 1.10.64
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc1.i.X.64.html
In a later chapter, Schaff goes on to note the polity of later councils which was eventually adopted by the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches:
“But with the advance of the hierarchical spirit, this republican feature gradually vanished. After the council of Nicaea (325) bishops alone had seat and voice, and the priests appear hereafter merely as secretaries, or advisers, or representatives of their bishops. The bishops, moreover, did not act as representatives of their churches, nor in the name of the body of the believers, as formerly, but in their own right as successors of the apostles…As the episcopate culminated in the primacy, so the synodical system rose into the oecumenical councils, which represented the whole church of the Roman empire. But these could not be held till persecution ceased, and the emperor became the patron of Christianity. The first was the celebrated council of Nicaea, in the year 325. The state gave legal validity to the decrees of councils, and enforced them if necessary by all its means of coercion. But the Roman government protected only the Catholic or orthodox church, except during the progress of the Arian and other controversies, before the final result was reached by the decision of an oecumenical Synod convened by the emperor.” (bold emphasis mine)
-Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church 2.4.54
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc2.v.vi.xiv.html
The Historical Dictionary of the Orthodox Church (obviously an Eastern Orthodox source) concurs:
“The appeal to the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) as paradigmatic for church decision-making procedure is frequently made by those emphasizing the importance of the hierarchy in the process of defining the faith…seemingly a perfect example…On closer examination, the example is problematical. Did the hierarchy really make the decision? First, Peter makes a speech and in it takes responsibility for the Gentile mission; but then James, the brother of the Lord, speaks and states, ‘I have reached a decision…’ Next, we find that ‘the apostles and the elders with the consent of the whole church decided…’ (v22); and again, when we read Paul’s account of what is ostensibly the same council (Gal 2:1-10), he states that he is the leader of the Gentile mission and the meeting in Jerusalem added nothing to his message or method…Finally, the Council was not really about orthodoxy at all, but about orthopraxy: The decision did not involve theology (q.v.) or the content of the faith, but only whether circumcision and certain types of abstinence would be practiced.” (emphasis mine)
-M. Prokurat et al. Historical Dictionary of the Orthodox Church (Scarecrow Press 1996), 49-50.
So, the council of Acts 15 cannot be used as a proof-text for supposedly infallible ecumenical councils for the following reasons:
a.) It was attended by the apostles which makes it more than an ecumenical council. Infallibility was guaranteed because of them. [Dave Armstrong tries to respond to this in his book which I will get to below.]
b.) As noted both by Schaff and the EO dictionary, it was attended by the elders (lit. presbyters) of the church in Jerusalem and agreed upon by both the elders and the whole church (thus including the laity) in Jerusalem making it less than an ecumenical council since an ecumenical council is strictly episcopal and excludes the lower clergy and especially the laity. [In the first seven (I believe) ecumenical councils, presbyters could be part of the council but only as proxies for the bishops they represented and had to cast their votes as their bishops had commanded. So, in effect, these councils were still for bishops alone.]
c.) As the Eastern Orthodox dictionary notes, **the decrees of the council (which are supposedly comparable to the canons of the ecumenical councils) only touched on orthopraxy (practice), not orthodoxy (doctrine). Instead, the council delegated the doctrinal authority to the two apostles, Paul and Barnabas.
d.) On what basis is this council a model for ecumenical councils alone? Why couldn’t this be a basis for local councils as well? Isn’t this what Matthew 18:18-20 teaches? In other words, if Acts 15 can be applied to local councils (which are fallible) as well, then how can it be used to prove the infallibility of ecumenical ones?
A Review of Dave Armstrong’s The Catholic Verses on Acts 15:28-29, 16:4
[Unless otherwise stated, all of these quotes come from Dave Armstrong, The Catholic Verses: 95 Bible Passages That Confound Protestants (Manchester, NH: Sophia Institute Press, 2004).]
After citing the two passages mentioned above, Mr. Armstrong then states:
“These passages offer proof that the early Church held to a notion of the infallibility of Church councils, and to a belief that they were especially guided by the Holy Spirit (precisely as in Catholic Church doctrine concerning ecumenical councils).” (Armstrong, op. cit., p.7)
Other than the fact that this passage proves no such thing. [See the “Is the Jerusalem Council in a Paradigm Example for Ecumenical Councils?” section above.] Also, aren’t local councils also “guided by the Holy Spirit” and yet, not infallible (Matthew 18:20)?
Moving on:
“A Protestant might reply that since this Council of Jerusalem referred to in Acts consisted of apostles, and since an apostle proclaimed the decree, both possessed a binding authority that was later lost (as Protestants accept apostolic authority as much as Catholics do).” (ibid. p.8)
Actually, this is incorrect. While James made the decision and the other apostles agreed, it was also agreed upon by the church elders (lit. presbyters) and the laity as well (v.22).
Continuing:
“But this is a bit simplistic, since Scripture is our model for everything, including Church government, and all parties appeal to it for their own views. If Scripture teaches that a council of the Church is authoritative and binding, it is implausible and unreasonable to assert that no future council can be so simply because it is not conducted by apostles.” (ibid. p.8)
How can the Jerusalem council serve as an exact model for later councils if they don’t include apostles? It can never be directly analogous (i.e. the exact same).
Armstrong should prove that the post-apostolic authority is directly analogous to apostolic authority. The apostles were an unrepeatable group.
Are bishops, the so-called successors of the apostles, independently infallible as the apostles were? Do they each possess the miracle power that the apostles had? Under the presupposition of Mr. Armstrong’s statement above, why is this not directly analogous but councils are?
Acts 15 proves that we should have church councils, but it never proves that post-apostolic councils would be infallible.
Lastly, and again, the decision was made by the entire church: apostles, presbyters, and laity, not just the apostles (or the apostles’ successors as Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy teach). So, it proves the exact opposite of what Mr. Armstrong wants it to, namely a presbyterian or congregational style of church governance.
“The Bible does not exist in an historical vacuum, but has import for the day-to-day life of the Church and Christians for all time.” (ibid. p.9)
Yes, and this is why the apostles penned the gospels at the end of their lives and the churches made sure to preserve their letters all so that the New Testament Church would not need infallible apostles or have the need for an infallible church congregate. They had divine Scripture which was sufficient above all things. As Athanasius wrote:
Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith's sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture.
-Athanasius, De Synodis 1.6
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-04/Npnf2-04-64.htm#P7323_2907659
And Augustine, who denied the infallibility of plenary (i.e. ecumenical) councils in favor of Scripture being the only *infallible* authority:
But who can fail to be aware that the sacred canon of Scripture, both of the Old and New Testament, is confined within its own limits, and that it stands so absolutely in a superior position to all later letters of the bishops, that about it we can hold no manner of doubt or disputation whether what is confessedly contained in it is right and true; but that all the letters of bishops which have been written, or are being written, since the closing of the canon, are liable to be refuted if there be anything contained in them which strays from the truth, either by the discourse of some one who happens to be wiser in the matter than themselves, or by the weightier authority and more learned experience of other bishops, by the authority of Councils; and further, that the Councils themselves, which are held in the several districts and provinces, must yield, beyond all possibility of doubt, to the authority of plenary Councils which are formed for the whole Christian world; and that even of the plenary Councils, the earlier are often corrected by those which follow them, when, by some actual experiment, things are brought to light which were before concealed, and that is known which previously lay hid, and this without any whirlwind of sacrilegious pride, without any puffing of the neck through arrogance, without any strife of envious hatred, simply with holy humility, catholic peace, and Christian charity?
-Augustine, On Baptism, Against the Donatists 2.3
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-04/npnf1-04-53.htm#P3163_1843900
Next, Mr. Armstrong states:
“St. Paul told us to imitate him (e.g. 2 Thess. 3:9). And he went around proclaiming decrees of the Church. No one was at liberty to disobey these decrees on the grounds of conscience, or to declare by “private judgment” that they were in error (per Luther).” (Armstrong, op. cit., p.9)
First of all, the passage cited, although pertaining to us imitating him, has to do with his work ethic (vv.7-12), not with his authority.
Secondly, where does Paul say to imitate his authority as an apostle? Again, Mr. Armstrong commits the fallacy of the over-extended conclusion (see my intro. to this series, part g.) by trying to extend apostolic authority into the post-apostolic church.
Again, if true, this would prove too much. Are we (or even a bishop) supposed to run around like we have *apostolic* authority (i.e. infallible individually) and the ability to write Scripture and perform as many miracles as they did? This was what some of the Anabaptists argued for. Rather than arguing for Roman Catholicism, if right, Mr. Armstrong’s argument would argue for Anabaptistry.
So, no one was allowed to disobey “these decrees” specifically because Paul was an *apostle*.
“It would be foolish to argue that the way the Apostles conducted the governance of the Church has no relation whatsoever to how later Christians engage in the same task.” (ibid. p.9)
Correct.
“It would seem rather obvious that Holy Scripture assumes that the model of holy people (patriarchs, prophets, and apostles alike) is to be followed by Christians.” (ibid. p.9)
How does this prove that post-apostolic church councils (which *are* given precedent and authority in Acts 15) are infallible (something that only the apostles possessed)? Again, he commits the over-extended conclusion. He has to show that they are the exact same instead of simply being similar but not exactly the same.
“The binding authority of the Church was present here…” (ibid. p.9)
Yes, because there were apostles present.
Of course, something else should be said at this point. Protestants don’t deny that the covenant community is to convene church councils at times (as the Schaff quote above says), and we don’t deny that they possess the authority to excommunicate based on their judgment of what Scripture says. However, this decision is fallible. Basically, we see church councils in the same way that the early church saw local church councils.
Mr. Armstrong goes on to attempt a critique of Calvin’s commentary on Acts 15:28:
“This strikes me as somewhat desperate. First, Catholics have never argued that the Pope has power to make decrees contrary to the Bible (making Calvin’s slanderous charge a straw man).” (ibid. p.10)
Obviously, Mr. Armstrong doesn’t know how to tell when one is making an assertion and accusation and when one is trying to give the other side’s position. Of course Calvin knew that Roman dogma never stated that the Popes had the right to decree something contrary to Scripture! He was making an accusation that they in fact did and forced it upon men’s consciences.
“Calvin goes on to use vivid language, intended to resonate with already strong emotions and ignorance of Catholic theology.” (ibid. p.10)
Kind of like the use of the term, “anti-Catholic”?!
Secondly, Calvin didn’t write his commentaries back in the 1950’s. He wrote them in the mid-sixteenth century when Protestant congregations were mostly former Roman Catholics. He was hardly playing on ignorance, but instead, he was making an assertion.
He goes on to quote Barnes’s Notes, a commentary, saying that the decision of the council of Jerusalem was inspired and that this was to fulfill the promise of Christ in Matthew 18:18-20 and John 14:26. Mr. Armstrong then states:
“In this instance, it was the decision of the council in a case submitted to it; and it implied an obligation on the Christians to submit to that decision. Barnes actually acknowledges that the passage has some implication for ecclesiology in general.” (ibid. p.10)
Of course, what Barnes was noting by citing John 14:26 was that the promise of the Spirit in this special sense was made to the apostles. So, again, for the umpteenth time, the council at Jerusalem was infallible because it was attended and decided upon by apostles.
Secondly, Matthew 18:18-20 states that when “two or three gather”. Why wouldn’t this apply to local councils as well?
He goes on to misrepresent Calvin:
“It is remarkable, on the other hand, that Calvin seems concerned about the possibility of a group of Christians – in this case, a council – being led by the Holy Spirit to achieve a true doctrinal decree, whereas he has no problem with the notion that individuals can achieve such certainty.” (ibid. p.10)
First of all, Calvin didn’t deny that a congregate of Christians as a whole could be led by the Spirit and be moved by Him providentially toward the truth. He simply denied them infallibility. He consistently applied the same to the reader of Scripture. [There are a number of reasons why a Spirit-led person or group can arrive at the wrong outcome: lack of prayer and meditation on Scripture, misinterpreting personal emotions for the work of the Spirit, personal traditions, lack of knowledge of the subject matter, sinful pride, etc. all come into play.] Calvin covered all of this in his Institutes (IV.9.1-14).
Again, Mr. Armstrong is inconsistent since, when we apply the same standard to local councils, he denies them infallibility but yet, believes that they were moved by the Spirit as well.
“For Catholics, the import of Acts 15:28 is clear and undeniable.” (ibid. p.11)
Yes, Mr. Armstrong, because of your overriding presupposition which your Church tells you to bring to Scripture, you have managed to ignore that the Jerusalem Council was:
a.) More than an ecumenical council since it was attended and decided upon by apostles.
b.) Less than an ecumenical council since it was attended and decided upon by the presbyters and laity of Jerusalem making it more presbyterian or congregational.
c.) ****Indeed over doctrine. However, its decrees found in the letter sent to Antioch (which are supposedly comparable to the canons of the ecumenical councils) did not touch on the doctrines of soteriology but on the practices of obeying the apostles, Paul and Barnabas, and not participating in immoral acts. The decrees of the council were over orthopraxy, not orthodoxy.
d.) Would give precedent to local councils as well as ecumenical ones. [Thus, under Mr. Armstrong’s assumptions about the implications of this passage, why aren’t local councils infallible as well?]
BTW: I encourage my readers to give comments on what I can add to these posts to make my arguments/counter-arguments more complete, and of course, I encourage criticism as well.
**This paragraph used to read, "...the issue at hand was one of orthopraxy (practice), not orthodoxy (doctrine)." It was corrected in order to be more accurate. The change was made on October 11, 2007.
****This paragraph used to read, "More over an issue of practice, not doctrine." It was corrected in order to be more accurate. The change was made on October 11, 2007.
Sunday, October 7, 2007
A Response to Dave on 1 Timothy 3:15
I believe that I will only be doing one of these replies to his replies for each one of the verses he cited in his book (if that). I simply don’t have the time to do more. Also, I’ll try to make it brief and to the point.
“I find it a bit amusing, however, that S&S (being an adherent of Reformed "low church" presbyterian ecclesiology) wants to avoid the term bishop, even though that is the usual translation of the Greek words episkope and episkopos, found in 1 Tim 3:1 and 3:2.”
This is a semantic anachronism. The translation of episkopos into “bishop” is fine as long as one understands that, in the New Testament, it refers to a church elder, the office one place higher than a deacon. Under this definition, my local church pastor would be given the title, “bishop”. Also, the associate pastor in the same church would be called “bishop” as well. Thus, there could be as many as 4-5 “bishops” in a local church congregation numbering as few as 200 members. It does not mean (as it later came to mean) the head of several pastors/priests in a city or district.
The definition of “bishop” that Dave wants to read into the text is anachronistic.
“He mistranslates episkope / episkopos as elder because that is more amenable to his low-church Reformed ecclesiology.”
I did not mistranslate it since it is the meaning of the text. Of course, we’d have to go into what the Bible says about church government in order to settle this dispute, and so, he is now guilty of committing a red herring from the real issue of the interpretation of 1 Timothy 3:15 by distracting us with another issue, the Biblical form of church office. [Though the two issues are connected, whether the church has “bishops” in the RC sense is a separate issue from whether the church is declared to be infallible in 1 Tim. 3:15.]
He then goes on to the translations of the Bible which translate episkopos as bishop. Of course, they translate it this way because it has historically been translated this way since the Middle Ages (in English). Thus, if his argument is that it should mean “bishop” because it has meant “bishop” since the Middle Ages, a time period long after the term episkopos lost its Biblical meaning, then he is guilty of circular reasoning.
So, just for the record:
“The terms Presbyter (or Elder) and Bishop (or Overseer, Superintendent) denote in the New Testament one and the same office, with this difference only, that the first is borrowed from the Synagogue, the second from the Greek communities; and that the one signifies the dignity, the other the duty.
1. The identity of these officers is very evident from the following facts:
a. They appear always as a plurality or as a college in one and the same congregation, even in smaller cities) as Philippi.
b. The same officers of the church of Ephesus are alternately called presbyters and bishops.
c. Paul sends greetings to the "bishops" and "deacons" of Philippi, but omits the presbyters because they were included in the first term; as also the plural indicates.
d. In the Pastoral Epistles, where Paul intends to give the qualifications for all church officers, he again mentions only two, bishops and deacons, but uses the term presbyter afterwards for bishop.
Peter urges the "presbyters" to "tend the flock of God," and to "fulfil the office of bishops" with disinterested devotion and without "lording it over the charge allotted to them."
e. The interchange of terms continued in use to the close of the first century, as is evident from the Epistle of Clement of Rome (about 95), and the Didache, and still lingered towards the close of the second.
With the beginning of the second century, from Ignatius onward, the two terms are distinguished and designate two offices; the bishop being regarded first as the head of a congregation surrounded by a council of presbyters, and afterwards as the head of a diocese and successor of the apostles. The episcopate grew out of the presidency of the presbytery, or, as Bishop Lightfoot well expresses it: "The episcopate was formed, not out of the apostolic order by localization, but out of the presbyteral by elevation; and the title, which originally was common to all, came at length to be appropriated to the chief among them." Nevertheless, a recollection of the original identity was preserved by the best biblical scholars among the fathers, such as Jerome (who taught that the episcopate rose from the presbyterate as a safeguard against schism), Chrysostom, and Theodoret.”
-Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church 1.10.61
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc1.i.X.61.html
Even the commentary on the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops website explains:
“Overseers: the Greek term episkopos literally means "one who oversees" or "one who supervises," but since the second century it has come to designate the "bishop," the official who heads a local church. In New Testament times this office had not yet developed into the form that it later assumed, though it seems to be well on the way to such development in the Pastorals; see 1 Tim 3:2 and Titus 1:7, where it is translated bishop. At Philippi, however (and at Ephesus, according to Acts 20:28), there was more than one episkopos, and the precise function of these officials is uncertain. In order to distinguish this office from the later stages into which it developed, the term is here translated as overseers.”
-Commentary on Phil. 1:1 NAB
http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/philippians/philippians1.htm#foot2
He then remarks about me being a young-earth creationist. I don’t really see what this has to do with issue at hand. I have heard that Dave can go all over the place when responding to someone, and now my faith has become sight! I may post on this topic in the distant future but not now.
“Other than this trivial aside, I have no beef with what S&S wrote about verses 14 and 15. It doesn't really prove anything against my position (and I wonder why S&S would think that it does do so?).”
That’s because I wasn’t giving a critique of your book yet. To make my exegesis complete, I was going through the entire chapter.
He then asks how the presbyterian (with a lower-case “p” referring simply to a plurality of elders) form of church government works. For that, he can pick up a systematic theology such as Robert Reymond’s.
But again, this is another red herring. The issue here is whether 1 Timothy 3:15 can be used as a proof-text for Roman Catholicism that supposedly “confounds Protestants”. Since it is his book making the positive claim, the burden of proof is on him to prove that this verse says what he thinks it means.
He then goes into a discussion he had with Dr. White in the past. Of course, many of his counter-arguments against Dr. White give a question begging response, and Dr. White probably got tired of Dave’s long-winded, question begging, red-herring rants. Perhaps in the later future (much later!), I’ll respond to the philosophical and historical arguments (which are mostly ipse dixits) put forward by Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox apologists.
Next, he goes into a long quote on the topic of what is usually termed “doctrinal chaos”. Of course, this gets into a philosophical argument which was never the topic at hand, and yet again, Dave has merited the red-herring award.
“S&S has also assumed certain things above without proving them; namely, that "church" here means simply all believers.”
Actually, if one reads what I wrote, I made this case in the third paragraph after my first citation of Dave’s book. I didn’t want to go into a long-winded dissertation (like Dave) on the meaning of the word, “church”, in Scripture.
“He also blithely assumes without evidence that "truth" in 1 Timothy 3:15 refers to the gospel only, not all spiritual matters. This is not at all obvious, and I see nothing in the immediate context that proves it beyond any doubt. The gospel is certainly a very important part of Christian truth, but not the sum and total of it.”
This is actually a fair criticism. The church was entrusted with and given the duty of proclaiming the whole counsel of God (2 Timothy 2:15). Of course, the gospel encompasses all these things (compare 2 Timothy 2:15 with Colossians 1:5). Nevertheless, I will make a change to my original post with a footnote and the date of the change.
He then goes on to use more RC proof-texts against my reading of 1 Timothy 3:15. I’ll get to these in later posts. [In fact, Acts 15-16 is next.]
“Fundamental to any interpretation of an author's work is an understanding of the purpose of that work…The book itself, however, made no pretense of being an elaborate commentary of biblical evidences for Catholic positions. I had done that already in my first book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism. The purpose here was to examine how Protestants try to exegete verses that we Catholics believe don't fit particularly well into a Protestant framework.”
But how can you say that these verses don’t fit into the Protestant framework without showing what they mean in their context?! You could, at the very least, have given mention in one or two short paragraphs of how verses 1-14 and verse 16 fit together with verse 15. Context is everything, and a verse without a context is simply a pre-text.
“Technically speaking, I wouldn't say that the Church is the "source" of Christian truth, if by that one means “origin.””
I didn’t mean to imply that, and many of the readers understood what I meant. Perhaps I shall change that too.
“Even his crony "theojunkie", writing…”
Great. Now I’m a crime lord, and all my Protestant brethren are my ‘crony’ mobsters. [Eyes rolling.]
He then goes into the translation of hedraioma. Of course, it wasn’t so much the translation that was the issue as the extent of the theology one could derive from that translation.
He again goes into Acts 15 (which I will get to in the next post). It should be noted that he is using one disputed text in order to interpret another disputed text, and thus, commits the fallacy of circular reasoning.
“Yet I am accused of equating the "Church" with "just the clergy" as if I were not even myself part of it (if I am not, how could I be "received" into it?). This is ludicrous. Catholics believe also in the consent of the faithful or the sensus fidelium.”
As Turretinfan pointed out, this is an unworkable rule of faith since the Popes and councils are believed to be infallible and thus irreformable.
“It may very well mean that. But that doesn't let S&S off the hook, because he still has to explain how the entire mass of Christians can be the pillar and support / foundation / bulwark / ground, etc. of the truth, when Protestants cannot even agree amongst themselves on so many things.”
Again, this is a red-herring. I was giving a critique of Dave’s exegesis, and so, he bears the burden of proof of showing how 1 Timothy 3:15 proves the infallibility of the church. This goes into a philosophical argument which was not the issue under discussion.
“In OT times, the Jewish assembly was not yet given the gift of infallibility. Things change after Jesus comes and the Holy Spirit indwells believers. Is this not elementary?”
I am indwelt with the Holy Spirit but am not infallible, and all the passages that he normally cites to prove that the church is infallible don’t really prove that (I’ll get to them eventually).
He then quotes my paragraph on the perspicuity of the Old Testament and gives several quotes from his past writings. However, all of his points/Scripture citations either prove too much or too little. Also, one of the points he made in application to sola Scriptura commits the straw-man + false antithesis fallacy (see the introduction to this series, part d.). I will get to all of this when I critique the use of Nehemiah 8 in his book.
“Furthermore, the only ones who believed in "Bible alone" in Jesus' time were the Sadducees, or theological liberals.”
This is false since they rejected the rest of the Old Testament due to a pre-commitment to Greek philosophy.
“We also saw earlier how Jesus and the New Testament writers cite approvingly many tenets of Jewish oral (later talmudic and rabbinic) tradition, according to the Pharisaic outlook.”
This is incredibly false. See my post, Alfred Edersheim on Matthew 15 and Tradition.
“As I have contended above, even if we grant this invisible church, the problem remains of identifying the doctrines of this ethereal, nebulous, mysterious entity.”
Again, as I noted in my second post on the invisible church, this is a category error that plays off of a straw-man.
“The fact is that he contradicted himself: sometimes speaking of the invisible church and other times of a visible one (Lutheranism, after all, adopted a state church model and gave secular princes the power that bishops once had, and this was quite concrete and "visible" indeed).”
Again, the two are not mutually exclusive since they are different *kinds* of churches.
“It's a falsehood to say that Catholic visible authority "died" during the Arian crisis. It may have among eastern bishops, but not at Rome, which always held the correct faith and supported St. Athanasius in it.”
It was more resistant to the heresy of Arianism, but that did not prevent an Arian bishop, Felix II, from ascending the papal throne and promulgating the heresy. It also did not prevent Liberius (though under pain of torture) to profess semi-Arianism (as proven in the Collectanea Antiariana Parisina). Since Dave is fond of appeals to authority (which is not necessarily wrong, especially in the case of the many nuances of history), Klaus Schatz, a (seemingly conservative) Roman Catholic professor of church history, writes:
“The further course of the Arian controversy seems to present the picture of a conflict in which Rome by no means prevailed; in fact, it appears that Rome did not even make an energetic and deliberate attempt to counteract the increasing deviation from Nicea. The Roman bishops Julius and his successor Liberius (352-366) did at first belong to the small group of those who remained true to Athanasius. Over time this certainly contributed to the strengthening of Rome’s authority, especially in the East, but we can by no means speak of anything like success at first. Even the Roman church had its weak moments: Bishop Liberius, under imperial pressure (he was separated from his community, sent into exile, and replaced by an antibishop) accepted a formula of faith that, while not expressly denying the formula of Nicea, deviated from and practically abandoned it. Liberius also broke communion with Athanasius.” (emphasis mine)
-Klaus Schatz, Papal Primacy, English trans. (Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1996), p.26.
Lastly, your analysis of Sardica is overblown as Schatz also points out.
[As an as aside, one of the posters in DA’s combox, Randy, wrote:
“Even their own example of St Athanasius does not work. He is help up as a remnant but he is hardly protestant. How can your remnant be wrong about Mary, the eucharist, the papacy, etc. In fact, it was the authority of the pope that saved his bacon. So he wan't a successful remnant in spite of his belief in the pope but rather because of that belief. So how can you put him up as the small, true church and still say he was so wrong.”
Whether he was a Protestant is irrelevant since I was presenting an internal critique of Dave’s claims. Secondly, he was a Christian and part of the true orthodox catholic Church which I claim to be part of as well even though we differ in theology in some areas. So, the example of Athanasius is perfect for the point I am trying to make. Thirdly, Athanasius did not believe in many of the things that you ascribe to him in your post. This is a classic case of a patristic ananchronism, reading a modern idea into the words and deeds of the church fathers.]
“Al this is secondary. I was simply trying to show that both Luther and Calvin applied 1 Timothy 3:15 to a supposed "hidden" or "invisible" church that was to be regarded as the primary meaning of "church" over against the apostolic, patristic, Catholic visible conception.”
Again, this is the category error + straw-man that I pointed out above. Secondly, Dave did not just note their beliefs, he dismissed them as being ahistorical which both Calvin and Luther actually gave arguments that it wasn’t. I realize that he was limited in space, but he could have at least dealt with this somewhere in his book since it was a key argument for the Reformation’s dismissal of Rome’s authority.
“The contradiction, however, lies in the assertion that great men of the past "agreed with Rome on almost everything" yet were still somehow Christians. Today, the standard anti-Catholic line is that in order to be a good Christian, a man has to be a bad Catholic; i.e., dissent on any number of doctrines that Protestants don't like.”
Well, since I’m not an “anti-Catholic” but a historic Protestant, I guess this doesn’t apply.
“I find it a bit amusing, however, that S&S (being an adherent of Reformed "low church" presbyterian ecclesiology) wants to avoid the term bishop, even though that is the usual translation of the Greek words episkope and episkopos, found in 1 Tim 3:1 and 3:2.”
This is a semantic anachronism. The translation of episkopos into “bishop” is fine as long as one understands that, in the New Testament, it refers to a church elder, the office one place higher than a deacon. Under this definition, my local church pastor would be given the title, “bishop”. Also, the associate pastor in the same church would be called “bishop” as well. Thus, there could be as many as 4-5 “bishops” in a local church congregation numbering as few as 200 members. It does not mean (as it later came to mean) the head of several pastors/priests in a city or district.
The definition of “bishop” that Dave wants to read into the text is anachronistic.
“He mistranslates episkope / episkopos as elder because that is more amenable to his low-church Reformed ecclesiology.”
I did not mistranslate it since it is the meaning of the text. Of course, we’d have to go into what the Bible says about church government in order to settle this dispute, and so, he is now guilty of committing a red herring from the real issue of the interpretation of 1 Timothy 3:15 by distracting us with another issue, the Biblical form of church office. [Though the two issues are connected, whether the church has “bishops” in the RC sense is a separate issue from whether the church is declared to be infallible in 1 Tim. 3:15.]
He then goes on to the translations of the Bible which translate episkopos as bishop. Of course, they translate it this way because it has historically been translated this way since the Middle Ages (in English). Thus, if his argument is that it should mean “bishop” because it has meant “bishop” since the Middle Ages, a time period long after the term episkopos lost its Biblical meaning, then he is guilty of circular reasoning.
So, just for the record:
“The terms Presbyter (or Elder) and Bishop (or Overseer, Superintendent) denote in the New Testament one and the same office, with this difference only, that the first is borrowed from the Synagogue, the second from the Greek communities; and that the one signifies the dignity, the other the duty.
1. The identity of these officers is very evident from the following facts:
a. They appear always as a plurality or as a college in one and the same congregation, even in smaller cities) as Philippi.
b. The same officers of the church of Ephesus are alternately called presbyters and bishops.
c. Paul sends greetings to the "bishops" and "deacons" of Philippi, but omits the presbyters because they were included in the first term; as also the plural indicates.
d. In the Pastoral Epistles, where Paul intends to give the qualifications for all church officers, he again mentions only two, bishops and deacons, but uses the term presbyter afterwards for bishop.
Peter urges the "presbyters" to "tend the flock of God," and to "fulfil the office of bishops" with disinterested devotion and without "lording it over the charge allotted to them."
e. The interchange of terms continued in use to the close of the first century, as is evident from the Epistle of Clement of Rome (about 95), and the Didache, and still lingered towards the close of the second.
With the beginning of the second century, from Ignatius onward, the two terms are distinguished and designate two offices; the bishop being regarded first as the head of a congregation surrounded by a council of presbyters, and afterwards as the head of a diocese and successor of the apostles. The episcopate grew out of the presidency of the presbytery, or, as Bishop Lightfoot well expresses it: "The episcopate was formed, not out of the apostolic order by localization, but out of the presbyteral by elevation; and the title, which originally was common to all, came at length to be appropriated to the chief among them." Nevertheless, a recollection of the original identity was preserved by the best biblical scholars among the fathers, such as Jerome (who taught that the episcopate rose from the presbyterate as a safeguard against schism), Chrysostom, and Theodoret.”
-Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church 1.10.61
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc1.i.X.61.html
Even the commentary on the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops website explains:
“Overseers: the Greek term episkopos literally means "one who oversees" or "one who supervises," but since the second century it has come to designate the "bishop," the official who heads a local church. In New Testament times this office had not yet developed into the form that it later assumed, though it seems to be well on the way to such development in the Pastorals; see 1 Tim 3:2 and Titus 1:7, where it is translated bishop. At Philippi, however (and at Ephesus, according to Acts 20:28), there was more than one episkopos, and the precise function of these officials is uncertain. In order to distinguish this office from the later stages into which it developed, the term is here translated as overseers.”
-Commentary on Phil. 1:1 NAB
http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/philippians/philippians1.htm#foot2
He then remarks about me being a young-earth creationist. I don’t really see what this has to do with issue at hand. I have heard that Dave can go all over the place when responding to someone, and now my faith has become sight! I may post on this topic in the distant future but not now.
“Other than this trivial aside, I have no beef with what S&S wrote about verses 14 and 15. It doesn't really prove anything against my position (and I wonder why S&S would think that it does do so?).”
That’s because I wasn’t giving a critique of your book yet. To make my exegesis complete, I was going through the entire chapter.
He then asks how the presbyterian (with a lower-case “p” referring simply to a plurality of elders) form of church government works. For that, he can pick up a systematic theology such as Robert Reymond’s.
But again, this is another red herring. The issue here is whether 1 Timothy 3:15 can be used as a proof-text for Roman Catholicism that supposedly “confounds Protestants”. Since it is his book making the positive claim, the burden of proof is on him to prove that this verse says what he thinks it means.
He then goes into a discussion he had with Dr. White in the past. Of course, many of his counter-arguments against Dr. White give a question begging response, and Dr. White probably got tired of Dave’s long-winded, question begging, red-herring rants. Perhaps in the later future (much later!), I’ll respond to the philosophical and historical arguments (which are mostly ipse dixits) put forward by Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox apologists.
Next, he goes into a long quote on the topic of what is usually termed “doctrinal chaos”. Of course, this gets into a philosophical argument which was never the topic at hand, and yet again, Dave has merited the red-herring award.
“S&S has also assumed certain things above without proving them; namely, that "church" here means simply all believers.”
Actually, if one reads what I wrote, I made this case in the third paragraph after my first citation of Dave’s book. I didn’t want to go into a long-winded dissertation (like Dave) on the meaning of the word, “church”, in Scripture.
“He also blithely assumes without evidence that "truth" in 1 Timothy 3:15 refers to the gospel only, not all spiritual matters. This is not at all obvious, and I see nothing in the immediate context that proves it beyond any doubt. The gospel is certainly a very important part of Christian truth, but not the sum and total of it.”
This is actually a fair criticism. The church was entrusted with and given the duty of proclaiming the whole counsel of God (2 Timothy 2:15). Of course, the gospel encompasses all these things (compare 2 Timothy 2:15 with Colossians 1:5). Nevertheless, I will make a change to my original post with a footnote and the date of the change.
He then goes on to use more RC proof-texts against my reading of 1 Timothy 3:15. I’ll get to these in later posts. [In fact, Acts 15-16 is next.]
“Fundamental to any interpretation of an author's work is an understanding of the purpose of that work…The book itself, however, made no pretense of being an elaborate commentary of biblical evidences for Catholic positions. I had done that already in my first book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism. The purpose here was to examine how Protestants try to exegete verses that we Catholics believe don't fit particularly well into a Protestant framework.”
But how can you say that these verses don’t fit into the Protestant framework without showing what they mean in their context?! You could, at the very least, have given mention in one or two short paragraphs of how verses 1-14 and verse 16 fit together with verse 15. Context is everything, and a verse without a context is simply a pre-text.
“Technically speaking, I wouldn't say that the Church is the "source" of Christian truth, if by that one means “origin.””
I didn’t mean to imply that, and many of the readers understood what I meant. Perhaps I shall change that too.
“Even his crony "theojunkie", writing…”
Great. Now I’m a crime lord, and all my Protestant brethren are my ‘crony’ mobsters. [Eyes rolling.]
He then goes into the translation of hedraioma. Of course, it wasn’t so much the translation that was the issue as the extent of the theology one could derive from that translation.
He again goes into Acts 15 (which I will get to in the next post). It should be noted that he is using one disputed text in order to interpret another disputed text, and thus, commits the fallacy of circular reasoning.
“Yet I am accused of equating the "Church" with "just the clergy" as if I were not even myself part of it (if I am not, how could I be "received" into it?). This is ludicrous. Catholics believe also in the consent of the faithful or the sensus fidelium.”
As Turretinfan pointed out, this is an unworkable rule of faith since the Popes and councils are believed to be infallible and thus irreformable.
“It may very well mean that. But that doesn't let S&S off the hook, because he still has to explain how the entire mass of Christians can be the pillar and support / foundation / bulwark / ground, etc. of the truth, when Protestants cannot even agree amongst themselves on so many things.”
Again, this is a red-herring. I was giving a critique of Dave’s exegesis, and so, he bears the burden of proof of showing how 1 Timothy 3:15 proves the infallibility of the church. This goes into a philosophical argument which was not the issue under discussion.
“In OT times, the Jewish assembly was not yet given the gift of infallibility. Things change after Jesus comes and the Holy Spirit indwells believers. Is this not elementary?”
I am indwelt with the Holy Spirit but am not infallible, and all the passages that he normally cites to prove that the church is infallible don’t really prove that (I’ll get to them eventually).
He then quotes my paragraph on the perspicuity of the Old Testament and gives several quotes from his past writings. However, all of his points/Scripture citations either prove too much or too little. Also, one of the points he made in application to sola Scriptura commits the straw-man + false antithesis fallacy (see the introduction to this series, part d.). I will get to all of this when I critique the use of Nehemiah 8 in his book.
“Furthermore, the only ones who believed in "Bible alone" in Jesus' time were the Sadducees, or theological liberals.”
This is false since they rejected the rest of the Old Testament due to a pre-commitment to Greek philosophy.
“We also saw earlier how Jesus and the New Testament writers cite approvingly many tenets of Jewish oral (later talmudic and rabbinic) tradition, according to the Pharisaic outlook.”
This is incredibly false. See my post, Alfred Edersheim on Matthew 15 and Tradition.
“As I have contended above, even if we grant this invisible church, the problem remains of identifying the doctrines of this ethereal, nebulous, mysterious entity.”
Again, as I noted in my second post on the invisible church, this is a category error that plays off of a straw-man.
“The fact is that he contradicted himself: sometimes speaking of the invisible church and other times of a visible one (Lutheranism, after all, adopted a state church model and gave secular princes the power that bishops once had, and this was quite concrete and "visible" indeed).”
Again, the two are not mutually exclusive since they are different *kinds* of churches.
“It's a falsehood to say that Catholic visible authority "died" during the Arian crisis. It may have among eastern bishops, but not at Rome, which always held the correct faith and supported St. Athanasius in it.”
It was more resistant to the heresy of Arianism, but that did not prevent an Arian bishop, Felix II, from ascending the papal throne and promulgating the heresy. It also did not prevent Liberius (though under pain of torture) to profess semi-Arianism (as proven in the Collectanea Antiariana Parisina). Since Dave is fond of appeals to authority (which is not necessarily wrong, especially in the case of the many nuances of history), Klaus Schatz, a (seemingly conservative) Roman Catholic professor of church history, writes:
“The further course of the Arian controversy seems to present the picture of a conflict in which Rome by no means prevailed; in fact, it appears that Rome did not even make an energetic and deliberate attempt to counteract the increasing deviation from Nicea. The Roman bishops Julius and his successor Liberius (352-366) did at first belong to the small group of those who remained true to Athanasius. Over time this certainly contributed to the strengthening of Rome’s authority, especially in the East, but we can by no means speak of anything like success at first. Even the Roman church had its weak moments: Bishop Liberius, under imperial pressure (he was separated from his community, sent into exile, and replaced by an antibishop) accepted a formula of faith that, while not expressly denying the formula of Nicea, deviated from and practically abandoned it. Liberius also broke communion with Athanasius.” (emphasis mine)
-Klaus Schatz, Papal Primacy, English trans. (Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1996), p.26.
Lastly, your analysis of Sardica is overblown as Schatz also points out.
[As an as aside, one of the posters in DA’s combox, Randy, wrote:
“Even their own example of St Athanasius does not work. He is help up as a remnant but he is hardly protestant. How can your remnant be wrong about Mary, the eucharist, the papacy, etc. In fact, it was the authority of the pope that saved his bacon. So he wan't a successful remnant in spite of his belief in the pope but rather because of that belief. So how can you put him up as the small, true church and still say he was so wrong.”
Whether he was a Protestant is irrelevant since I was presenting an internal critique of Dave’s claims. Secondly, he was a Christian and part of the true orthodox catholic Church which I claim to be part of as well even though we differ in theology in some areas. So, the example of Athanasius is perfect for the point I am trying to make. Thirdly, Athanasius did not believe in many of the things that you ascribe to him in your post. This is a classic case of a patristic ananchronism, reading a modern idea into the words and deeds of the church fathers.]
“Al this is secondary. I was simply trying to show that both Luther and Calvin applied 1 Timothy 3:15 to a supposed "hidden" or "invisible" church that was to be regarded as the primary meaning of "church" over against the apostolic, patristic, Catholic visible conception.”
Again, this is the category error + straw-man that I pointed out above. Secondly, Dave did not just note their beliefs, he dismissed them as being ahistorical which both Calvin and Luther actually gave arguments that it wasn’t. I realize that he was limited in space, but he could have at least dealt with this somewhere in his book since it was a key argument for the Reformation’s dismissal of Rome’s authority.
“The contradiction, however, lies in the assertion that great men of the past "agreed with Rome on almost everything" yet were still somehow Christians. Today, the standard anti-Catholic line is that in order to be a good Christian, a man has to be a bad Catholic; i.e., dissent on any number of doctrines that Protestants don't like.”
Well, since I’m not an “anti-Catholic” but a historic Protestant, I guess this doesn’t apply.
Friday, October 5, 2007
The Eisegeted Verses, The Invisible Church, Part II
Since some of the Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox continue to post straw-man attacks on the Protestant doctrine of the invisible church, I thought I would post one last time on this topic before moving on.
When Christ and the apostles spoke of the “church”, almost always, they were referring to a group set called the “elect”, those who had been predestined unto eternal life from the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:1-4, 2 Timothy 2:10, 1 Peter 1:1-2, Jude 1, etc.). The “invisible” church (which may be a bad term for it) at any one time consists of all those elect men and women who have come to a knowledge of the truth, repented, and are redeemed. It was to this “church” that the promises of the New Covenant were made in the Old Testament and to which the promises of Christ were made. This church is indestructible and will triumph in invading Satan’s dominion in its proclamation of the gospel of the grace of God (Matt. 16:18, 2 Cor. 4:3-4, 15). [Note: Matthew 16:18 will be exegeted later.]
The visible church is the congregate of the invisible church plus the unbelieving who may profess the faith with words but who are unregenerate (Matthew 13:24-30). This is indeed the “church” where the ordinances/sacraments are administered. However, since no such promise was made to the visible church as was made to the invisible church, out of all possible worlds (to use philosophical terminology), it is possible for the visible church to be taken over by the unregenerate or at least influence the doctrines of the body as a whole to a point where it is no longer a church at all but a “synagogue of Satan” (Matt. 24:24, Jude 4, Revelation 2:9, etc.). God will then send one or many of His servants to correct the error in the already existing visible church or to start a new visible church altogether using the same indestructible “invisible” church. This is what the Reformers were claiming. [Of course, this is not to say that none of those still in the false church are elect. Sometimes, there is enough truth still preached in that old structure so that one can come to a saving knowledge of the truth, repent, and be saved.]
The invisible church and the visible church are two different *kinds* of churches, and so, to say that Protestants believe that the invisible “replaced” the visible is to commit a straw-man that stems from a category error.
P.S. I noted in my post on 1 Tim. 3:15 that Dave likes to quote Protestant exegetes who agree with him as if “the scholars” are finally coming to an agreement that the Roman Church has been right all along. I then noted that this is false by pointing out that I could probably find as many or more modern Roman Catholic exegetical scholars who agree with me. I have recently found out that there are two such scholars, Monsignor Quinn and Luke Timothy Johnson, who give such an interpretation of 1 Timothy 3:15.
I do not have the money to go around purchasing these commentaries just for the sake of getting a couple quotes to post on the internet. So, if anyone has these commentaries or access to them, I would like to have a relatively short quote or two from each to add to my post on 1 Timothy 3:15.
I only do this so as to counter Dave’s argument from authority. Personally, I usually don’t like arguments from authority myself, but this is a point that needs to be made.
P.P.S. Here’s Dave’s attempted rebuttal. I would encourage everyone (who has the time!) to read my post, write down the specific points/arguments/counter-arguments that I made, read Dave’s post, and see if he actually responded meaningfully with anything I said. Good luck!
Voluminous writing tends to obscure the real issues, divert the topic elsewhere, and make one’s opponents look like they said something they didn’t.
Also, here is Turretinfan’s analysis of Dave’s ‘rebuttal’.
When Christ and the apostles spoke of the “church”, almost always, they were referring to a group set called the “elect”, those who had been predestined unto eternal life from the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:1-4, 2 Timothy 2:10, 1 Peter 1:1-2, Jude 1, etc.). The “invisible” church (which may be a bad term for it) at any one time consists of all those elect men and women who have come to a knowledge of the truth, repented, and are redeemed. It was to this “church” that the promises of the New Covenant were made in the Old Testament and to which the promises of Christ were made. This church is indestructible and will triumph in invading Satan’s dominion in its proclamation of the gospel of the grace of God (Matt. 16:18, 2 Cor. 4:3-4, 15). [Note: Matthew 16:18 will be exegeted later.]
The visible church is the congregate of the invisible church plus the unbelieving who may profess the faith with words but who are unregenerate (Matthew 13:24-30). This is indeed the “church” where the ordinances/sacraments are administered. However, since no such promise was made to the visible church as was made to the invisible church, out of all possible worlds (to use philosophical terminology), it is possible for the visible church to be taken over by the unregenerate or at least influence the doctrines of the body as a whole to a point where it is no longer a church at all but a “synagogue of Satan” (Matt. 24:24, Jude 4, Revelation 2:9, etc.). God will then send one or many of His servants to correct the error in the already existing visible church or to start a new visible church altogether using the same indestructible “invisible” church. This is what the Reformers were claiming. [Of course, this is not to say that none of those still in the false church are elect. Sometimes, there is enough truth still preached in that old structure so that one can come to a saving knowledge of the truth, repent, and be saved.]
The invisible church and the visible church are two different *kinds* of churches, and so, to say that Protestants believe that the invisible “replaced” the visible is to commit a straw-man that stems from a category error.
P.S. I noted in my post on 1 Tim. 3:15 that Dave likes to quote Protestant exegetes who agree with him as if “the scholars” are finally coming to an agreement that the Roman Church has been right all along. I then noted that this is false by pointing out that I could probably find as many or more modern Roman Catholic exegetical scholars who agree with me. I have recently found out that there are two such scholars, Monsignor Quinn and Luke Timothy Johnson, who give such an interpretation of 1 Timothy 3:15.
I do not have the money to go around purchasing these commentaries just for the sake of getting a couple quotes to post on the internet. So, if anyone has these commentaries or access to them, I would like to have a relatively short quote or two from each to add to my post on 1 Timothy 3:15.
I only do this so as to counter Dave’s argument from authority. Personally, I usually don’t like arguments from authority myself, but this is a point that needs to be made.
P.P.S. Here’s Dave’s attempted rebuttal. I would encourage everyone (who has the time!) to read my post, write down the specific points/arguments/counter-arguments that I made, read Dave’s post, and see if he actually responded meaningfully with anything I said. Good luck!
Voluminous writing tends to obscure the real issues, divert the topic elsewhere, and make one’s opponents look like they said something they didn’t.
Also, here is Turretinfan’s analysis of Dave’s ‘rebuttal’.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
The Eisegeted Verses, The Invisible Church
Just so that everyone’s clear…
According to Protestant theology, the visible church is composed of all who call themselves ‘Christian’ and profess the essential doctrines of the faith.
On the other hand, the invisible church is composed only of the elect. This is why Peter, instead of addressing his letter to the ‘Church’, addresses it instead to the ‘elect’ (1 Peter 1:1). This is also why Paul says that he endures all things for the sake of the ‘elect’ (2 Timothy 2:10). According to Protestant theology (and the Scriptures!), the non-elect within the visible church are interlopers.
As to the charge that this doctrine cannot be found in church history (as if the Bible isn’t part of church history!), I cite two of the fathers:
“For it is not now the place, but the assemblage of the elect, that I call the Church.” –Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata 7.5
“The second rule is about the twofold division of the body of the Lord; but this indeed is not a suitable name, for that is really no part of the body of Christ which will not be with Him in eternity. We ought, therefore, to say that the rule is about the true and the mixed body of the Lord, or the true and the counterfeit, or some such name; because, not to speak of eternity, hypocrites cannot even now be said to be in Him, although they seem to be in His Church.” – Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 3.32
According to Protestant theology, the visible church is composed of all who call themselves ‘Christian’ and profess the essential doctrines of the faith.
On the other hand, the invisible church is composed only of the elect. This is why Peter, instead of addressing his letter to the ‘Church’, addresses it instead to the ‘elect’ (1 Peter 1:1). This is also why Paul says that he endures all things for the sake of the ‘elect’ (2 Timothy 2:10). According to Protestant theology (and the Scriptures!), the non-elect within the visible church are interlopers.
As to the charge that this doctrine cannot be found in church history (as if the Bible isn’t part of church history!), I cite two of the fathers:
“For it is not now the place, but the assemblage of the elect, that I call the Church.” –Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata 7.5
“The second rule is about the twofold division of the body of the Lord; but this indeed is not a suitable name, for that is really no part of the body of Christ which will not be with Him in eternity. We ought, therefore, to say that the rule is about the true and the mixed body of the Lord, or the true and the counterfeit, or some such name; because, not to speak of eternity, hypocrites cannot even now be said to be in Him, although they seem to be in His Church.” – Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 3.32
Monday, October 1, 2007
The Eisegeted Verses, 1 Timothy 3:15
[This is part of an ongoing series. See my introduction.]
“I am writing these things to you, hoping to come to you before long; but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.” -1 Timothy 3:14-15 NASB
Exegesis
Paul begins verse 14 by telling us that he wrote “these things”. This begs the question: what are “these things”? They are the subject of the previous 13 verses: the qualifications and proper behavior for church leaders in the local church (3:1-13).
Verses 1-13
He starts off chapter 3 with the qualifications for an overseer (i.e. an elder): he must be monogamous, slow to anger, loving, a good teacher, not an alcoholic, not a new convert, and have a good reputation. Paul then moves on to the qualifications for a deacon: he must be a man of dignity, a non-alcoholic, etc. He also mentions female leaders within the church: they must not be gossips but temperate and faithful.
Verses 14-15
He wrote the things mentioned above so that the leaders within Timothy’s church would know how to conduct themselves. After all, this isn’t something like a college fraternity. Rather, it is the remnant that God chosen to redeem (Romans 9:22-27), to purchase their salvation with His own blood (Acts 20:28). It is the group that God has called out of the world for His own eternal glory (Ephesians 1:12) and to be the chosen ambassadors (2 Corinthians 5:20) by which to spread the word of His covenant lawsuit against the heathen (Acts 17:22-31).
The church is to be the salt of the earth and the light of the world (Matthew 5:13-16) in that we are the representatives of God to a world in rebellion against Him and bearers of the truth now revealed to us at the first coming of Christ (John 17:14-21). As such, the church is to “conduct” itself worthy of such a calling by its Master (1 Thessalonians 2:12, cf. 1 Timothy 3:15).
The next verse should also be noted: “By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He [i.e. Jesus] who was revealed in the flesh, was vindicated in the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory” (v.16). Here, Paul recites what is believed to be an ancient Christian hymn, and he cites this to show that the proper behavior we are to imitate (i.e. “the mystery of godliness”) is that of Christ Himself. In other words, because we are Christ’s representatives to the world, we are to act like Christ before the world so as not to bring reproach upon the truth of God’s Word** (cf. v.7).
“The Pillar and Support of the Truth”
This brings us to the phrase we are inquiring as to its meaning. From the context I explained above, the church, the entire body of Christ and not just the clergy, is the “pillar and support of the truth” in that it is the representative of God and bearer of the truth of God’s Word**. The church is to conduct itself so that it will not bring disrepute on Him who gave it such a mission. Instead, it is to hold up the truth of the living God so that the unbelieving would either: a.) be convicted of their rebellion and repent or b.) be judicially hardened in their unbelief and bring greater condemnation upon themselves, storing it up for the judgment.
Conclusion
The church (i.e. the body of all Christians) is the bearer (“pillar and support”) of the whole counsel of God** (“the truth”) to the unbelieving world. The church is to behave in such a manner as to not bring disrepute upon the One whom they serve, but instead, they are to act like Christ seeing that they are His representatives.
The High Church [Mis]interpretation
Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, and various cult apologists will cite “the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth” in v.15 to allegedly prove their doctrine that their church is either infallible or that the clarity of the truths of the Christian faith depend upon their church’s pronouncements. Since this is part of a review of Dave Armstrong’s book, The Catholic Verses, I shall use him as an example and review the other minor arguments put forth in the section of his book dealing with 1 Timothy 3:15.
A Review of Dave Armstrong’s The Catholic Verses on 1 Timothy 3:15
[Unless otherwise stated, all of these quotes come from Dave Armstrong, The Catholic Verses: 95 Bible Passages That Confound Protestants (Manchester, NH: Sophia Institute Press, 2004).]
After quoting only verse 15, Dave writes his commentary on the verse:
“Catholics accept this passage at face value: the Church is the ground or foundation (the word used in the New International Version [NIV] translation) of the truth; it is infallible; it is specially protected by the Holy Spirit so that it can be the Guardian and Preserver of apostolic tradition and truth and doctrine.” (emphasis original; Armstrong, op. cit., p.3)
That’s it!!! There was neither a discussion of the entire previous passage, an entire 14 verses that preceded verse 15, nor of verse 15’s connection to verse 16! The context of the previous verses is primarily ethical/moral, not epistemological. This should have some bearing on one’s interpretation (if not an overriding one). This is a classical case of Text Isolation (see my intro. to this series, part f).
Second, the term “foundation” in the Greek text, hedraioma, can be translated as either “foundation” or “support”, neither of which necessarily mean (in this context) “source of knowledge” or “dependent upon for clarity”***. Even apart from the previous verses, the phrase “pillar and support of the truth” could mean any number of things only one of which is “source of knowledge” or “dependent upon for clarity”***. It was Armstrong’s underlying presuppositions that caused him to see in this verse a proof for infallibility. Thus, this is also a case of Superficial Reading (see intro., part i.).
Likewise, he commits the fallacy of anachronism (see intro., part a.) when he equates the word “church” with the clerical orders. The word ecclesia in the New Testament referred to the entire people of God (laity and clergy), not just the clergy as it came to mean in later times. This is quite manifest by the fact that the phrase referred to in this very verse, “the household of God, which is the church of the living God,” is used elsewhere and in equivalent phrases (1 Cor. 3:16, 2 Cor. 6:16, Eph. 2:21, 1 Peter 2:5, and 4:17) all of which refer to the entire body of the redeemed. This fact also shows quite clearly in the inclusion of women in this “church” (v.11).
Lastly, even under the assumption that “pillar and support of the truth” means that the church is the source of the truth, this does not necessarily mean that the church is *infallible* as Mr. Armstrong claims. The Old Testament clerical authority, the Levites, were given the task of being the guardians and teachers of the Torah, but yet, they fell into grave error time and again resulting in God sending the prophets. [Although it should be noted that the Levites weren’t the only ones given the task of teaching the Torah since it was given to every head of each household to teach their sons and daughters God’s law privately (Deut. 6:7-9), another proof that God intended His word to be perspicuous to the common man. However, I’m getting off track, and that shall be saved for a later discussion.] Thus, Armstrong commits the fallacy of the overextended conclusion (see intro., part g.).
Moving on:
“Reluctant to acknowledge the Catholic Church headed by the Pope in Rome, Protestants must fall back on an alternative notion of an invisible, spiritual church that cannot be identified in earthly, historical, concrete terms.” (ibid., p.4)
This is a straw-man. The invisible church manifests itself visibly when it congregates, but not every one who congregates is truly a member of the redeemed. This can hardly be denied since the New Testament witnesses to it (Acts 20:28, 2 Cor. 11:13-15, 1 John 2:19, Rev. 2:14-15, 2:20, etc.)
He notes Martin Luther’s stance on the subject of the visibility of the church, but yet, he never deals with the Reformer’s defenses of it. To quote Luther himself:
“Under Elijah the prophet, all the people and every public institution among them had gone astray into idolatry, so that he thought he was the only one left; yet, while the kings and princes, priests and prophets, and all that could be called the people and church of God, were going to ruin, God had reserved seven thousand to Himself (1 Kings 19:18). But who saw them, or knew them to be the people of God? And who will dare to deny that in our day, under these principal men of yours (for you only mention persons of public office and of great name), God has kept to Himself a church among the common people, while allowing all whom you mention to perish like the kingdom of Israel? For it is God’s prerogative to bring down the chosen ones of Israel, and, as Psalm 77 says, to slay their fat ones (Psalm 78.31); but to preserve the dregs and remnant of Israel, according to Isaiah’s words (Isaiah 10.22).” –Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will, trans. J.I. Packer and O.R. Johnston (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1957), p.120.
And again:
“Look at the time of the Arians, when scarcely five catholic bishops were preserved in the whole world, and they were driven from their sees, while the Arians reigned everywhere, taking to themselves the public name and office of the church. Yet under these heretics Christ preserved His church; though in such a way that it was not for a moment thought or held to be the church.” –Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will, trans. J.I. Packer and O.R. Johnston (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1957), p.121.
Thus, Mr. Armstrong fails to take into account the very Biblical and historical doctrine of the “remnant” (Romans 9:24-33). The visible succession of office does not necessarily guarantee the truthfulness of the teaching authority. To quote John the Baptist speaking to the Pharisees:
“…do not suppose that you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham for our father’; for I say to you, that from these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham” -Matthew 3:9
[As with modern Jews, the Pharisees supposed themselves to be not only God’s chosen people but also His spiritually redeemed people, those that would receive the resurrection unto eternal life (Dan. 12:2), simply because they were genealogically descended from Abraham. Some modern Jews even believe that atheists will be saved as long as they’re ethnically Jewish!]
Moving along:
“According to sola Scriptura, the Protestant is ultimately free to pick and choose his doctrines in a sort of “cafeteria Christianity” – so long as he can reconcile them with his own interpretation of Scripture.” (Armstrong, op. cit., pp.4-5)
This is a straw-man. What Mr. Armstrong just described, “cafeteria Christianity,” (which sadly, is all too common not only among Protestants but Catholics as well) is not sola Scriptura, but a perversion of it, solo Scriptura.
Does Mr. Armstrong deny the individual believer the right of conscience? Didn’t he join the RCC because “he can reconcile” its teachings “with his own interpretation” of church history and Scripture?
Moving on:
“But because Calvin disagrees with the theology of the Catholic Church (and causally assumes the prerogative to judge that Church), he manages to believe that it “died” and that somehow a “new church” (of course, the one he advocates) has arisen to take its place…” (ibid., p.5)
This is also a straw-man. The true remnant of God never died and cannot die (Matthew 16:18), but the visible/outward authority can just as it did under Elijah the prophet or under Athanasius during the Arian ascendancy (see the Luther quotes above). This is clearly what Calvin meant. Again, Mr. Armstrong cites Calvin’s opinions but never deals with the arguments Calvin presented: the instances in which the Old Testament “Church” became corrupted and God had to send the prophets (a remnant in themselves) to restore the “Church” (Institutes 4.2.10). [I realize that he has limited space in his book, but he could have at least spent a page or even a paragraph dealing with the Reformer’s main arguments.]
Also, it is *NOT* the position of historical Protestantism that the church didn’t exist for 1,400 years. Rather, there were many great and godly men in all ages and not just a few of them within the Church of Rome itself (including a few Popes, no doubt!) who, although they agreed with Rome on almost everything, were part of that Remnant. We still hold that there are still many within the RC and EO communions.
Finally, didn’t Mr. Armstrong have to “judge that Church” in order to determine it was the true Church and become a Roman Catholic? Why should we limit private judgment to the Scriptures? [I suppose that one could argue at this point that the data from church history is much clearer than the Scriptures. However, that is a debatable point and makes the separation of perspicuity between ‘T’radition and Scripture one of degree, not of kind.]
Continuing:
“Almost by logical necessity, then, Calvin too must appeal to an invisible church, a concept not taught in Scripture at all…” (emphasis original; ibid., p.6)
Of course, this is plainly false. The concept of the Remnant is found all throughout Scripture and is termed a number of things: the “remnant” (obviously; Romans 9:27), the “Israel of God” (Galatians 6:16), “servant” in Isaiah (through chapters 40-53, the term oscillates in reference between the nation of Israel as a whole, the remnant, and the Messiah), etc. The Remnant was an Israel within Israel, an Israel of God.
Moving on:
“Methodist commentator Adam Clarke, in his commentary, illustrates Protestant confusion and mixed feelings over this seemingly easily understood verse…” (ibid., 6)
First of all, just because you are a Protestant commentator doesn’t mean that you’re a good commentator. There are plenty of Protestant commentators who try to interpret a verse in isolation from its surrounding text (just like Mr. Armstrong :) ). It amazes me how many Calvinist commentators get stumped by 2 Peter 3:9, but that’s a different discussion.
Second, Mr. Armstrong likes to cite Protestant commentators in favor of the Catholic interpretation all throughout this book as if *everyone* is finally coming to the realization that the Roman Catholic teaching on the Bible has been right all along. Yeah right!
He’s blithely unaware of the many (if not most) modern Roman Catholic scholars who give the same interpretation of the Bible as Protestants. I’ll try to note that throughout this series.
** I had originally said “gospel” which is true since all of God’s Word is contained in it (compare 2 Timothy 2:15 with Colossians 1:5). However, God has given all of His truth to the Church, not just evangelism, and so, I felt that I should change it to be more clear. This change was made on October 7, 2007.
*** I had originally said, “…‘source’ or ‘dependent upon’.” Though it was not my intention, I can see how one might assume that it meant that the Roman Church was the source of truth as if it made it up. This, of course, would be an error since Roman Catholicism teaches that God is the source of all truth, but He has set up the Church to be the epistemic source through which He mediates His truth for Christians. This change was made on October 7, 2007.
“I am writing these things to you, hoping to come to you before long; but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.” -1 Timothy 3:14-15 NASB
Exegesis
Paul begins verse 14 by telling us that he wrote “these things”. This begs the question: what are “these things”? They are the subject of the previous 13 verses: the qualifications and proper behavior for church leaders in the local church (3:1-13).
Verses 1-13
He starts off chapter 3 with the qualifications for an overseer (i.e. an elder): he must be monogamous, slow to anger, loving, a good teacher, not an alcoholic, not a new convert, and have a good reputation. Paul then moves on to the qualifications for a deacon: he must be a man of dignity, a non-alcoholic, etc. He also mentions female leaders within the church: they must not be gossips but temperate and faithful.
Verses 14-15
He wrote the things mentioned above so that the leaders within Timothy’s church would know how to conduct themselves. After all, this isn’t something like a college fraternity. Rather, it is the remnant that God chosen to redeem (Romans 9:22-27), to purchase their salvation with His own blood (Acts 20:28). It is the group that God has called out of the world for His own eternal glory (Ephesians 1:12) and to be the chosen ambassadors (2 Corinthians 5:20) by which to spread the word of His covenant lawsuit against the heathen (Acts 17:22-31).
The church is to be the salt of the earth and the light of the world (Matthew 5:13-16) in that we are the representatives of God to a world in rebellion against Him and bearers of the truth now revealed to us at the first coming of Christ (John 17:14-21). As such, the church is to “conduct” itself worthy of such a calling by its Master (1 Thessalonians 2:12, cf. 1 Timothy 3:15).
The next verse should also be noted: “By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He [i.e. Jesus] who was revealed in the flesh, was vindicated in the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory” (v.16). Here, Paul recites what is believed to be an ancient Christian hymn, and he cites this to show that the proper behavior we are to imitate (i.e. “the mystery of godliness”) is that of Christ Himself. In other words, because we are Christ’s representatives to the world, we are to act like Christ before the world so as not to bring reproach upon the truth of God’s Word** (cf. v.7).
“The Pillar and Support of the Truth”
This brings us to the phrase we are inquiring as to its meaning. From the context I explained above, the church, the entire body of Christ and not just the clergy, is the “pillar and support of the truth” in that it is the representative of God and bearer of the truth of God’s Word**. The church is to conduct itself so that it will not bring disrepute on Him who gave it such a mission. Instead, it is to hold up the truth of the living God so that the unbelieving would either: a.) be convicted of their rebellion and repent or b.) be judicially hardened in their unbelief and bring greater condemnation upon themselves, storing it up for the judgment.
Conclusion
The church (i.e. the body of all Christians) is the bearer (“pillar and support”) of the whole counsel of God** (“the truth”) to the unbelieving world. The church is to behave in such a manner as to not bring disrepute upon the One whom they serve, but instead, they are to act like Christ seeing that they are His representatives.
The High Church [Mis]interpretation
Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, and various cult apologists will cite “the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth” in v.15 to allegedly prove their doctrine that their church is either infallible or that the clarity of the truths of the Christian faith depend upon their church’s pronouncements. Since this is part of a review of Dave Armstrong’s book, The Catholic Verses, I shall use him as an example and review the other minor arguments put forth in the section of his book dealing with 1 Timothy 3:15.
A Review of Dave Armstrong’s The Catholic Verses on 1 Timothy 3:15
[Unless otherwise stated, all of these quotes come from Dave Armstrong, The Catholic Verses: 95 Bible Passages That Confound Protestants (Manchester, NH: Sophia Institute Press, 2004).]
After quoting only verse 15, Dave writes his commentary on the verse:
“Catholics accept this passage at face value: the Church is the ground or foundation (the word used in the New International Version [NIV] translation) of the truth; it is infallible; it is specially protected by the Holy Spirit so that it can be the Guardian and Preserver of apostolic tradition and truth and doctrine.” (emphasis original; Armstrong, op. cit., p.3)
That’s it!!! There was neither a discussion of the entire previous passage, an entire 14 verses that preceded verse 15, nor of verse 15’s connection to verse 16! The context of the previous verses is primarily ethical/moral, not epistemological. This should have some bearing on one’s interpretation (if not an overriding one). This is a classical case of Text Isolation (see my intro. to this series, part f).
Second, the term “foundation” in the Greek text, hedraioma, can be translated as either “foundation” or “support”, neither of which necessarily mean (in this context) “source of knowledge” or “dependent upon for clarity”***. Even apart from the previous verses, the phrase “pillar and support of the truth” could mean any number of things only one of which is “source of knowledge” or “dependent upon for clarity”***. It was Armstrong’s underlying presuppositions that caused him to see in this verse a proof for infallibility. Thus, this is also a case of Superficial Reading (see intro., part i.).
Likewise, he commits the fallacy of anachronism (see intro., part a.) when he equates the word “church” with the clerical orders. The word ecclesia in the New Testament referred to the entire people of God (laity and clergy), not just the clergy as it came to mean in later times. This is quite manifest by the fact that the phrase referred to in this very verse, “the household of God, which is the church of the living God,” is used elsewhere and in equivalent phrases (1 Cor. 3:16, 2 Cor. 6:16, Eph. 2:21, 1 Peter 2:5, and 4:17) all of which refer to the entire body of the redeemed. This fact also shows quite clearly in the inclusion of women in this “church” (v.11).
Lastly, even under the assumption that “pillar and support of the truth” means that the church is the source of the truth, this does not necessarily mean that the church is *infallible* as Mr. Armstrong claims. The Old Testament clerical authority, the Levites, were given the task of being the guardians and teachers of the Torah, but yet, they fell into grave error time and again resulting in God sending the prophets. [Although it should be noted that the Levites weren’t the only ones given the task of teaching the Torah since it was given to every head of each household to teach their sons and daughters God’s law privately (Deut. 6:7-9), another proof that God intended His word to be perspicuous to the common man. However, I’m getting off track, and that shall be saved for a later discussion.] Thus, Armstrong commits the fallacy of the overextended conclusion (see intro., part g.).
Moving on:
“Reluctant to acknowledge the Catholic Church headed by the Pope in Rome, Protestants must fall back on an alternative notion of an invisible, spiritual church that cannot be identified in earthly, historical, concrete terms.” (ibid., p.4)
This is a straw-man. The invisible church manifests itself visibly when it congregates, but not every one who congregates is truly a member of the redeemed. This can hardly be denied since the New Testament witnesses to it (Acts 20:28, 2 Cor. 11:13-15, 1 John 2:19, Rev. 2:14-15, 2:20, etc.)
He notes Martin Luther’s stance on the subject of the visibility of the church, but yet, he never deals with the Reformer’s defenses of it. To quote Luther himself:
“Under Elijah the prophet, all the people and every public institution among them had gone astray into idolatry, so that he thought he was the only one left; yet, while the kings and princes, priests and prophets, and all that could be called the people and church of God, were going to ruin, God had reserved seven thousand to Himself (1 Kings 19:18). But who saw them, or knew them to be the people of God? And who will dare to deny that in our day, under these principal men of yours (for you only mention persons of public office and of great name), God has kept to Himself a church among the common people, while allowing all whom you mention to perish like the kingdom of Israel? For it is God’s prerogative to bring down the chosen ones of Israel, and, as Psalm 77 says, to slay their fat ones (Psalm 78.31); but to preserve the dregs and remnant of Israel, according to Isaiah’s words (Isaiah 10.22).” –Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will, trans. J.I. Packer and O.R. Johnston (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1957), p.120.
And again:
“Look at the time of the Arians, when scarcely five catholic bishops were preserved in the whole world, and they were driven from their sees, while the Arians reigned everywhere, taking to themselves the public name and office of the church. Yet under these heretics Christ preserved His church; though in such a way that it was not for a moment thought or held to be the church.” –Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will, trans. J.I. Packer and O.R. Johnston (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1957), p.121.
Thus, Mr. Armstrong fails to take into account the very Biblical and historical doctrine of the “remnant” (Romans 9:24-33). The visible succession of office does not necessarily guarantee the truthfulness of the teaching authority. To quote John the Baptist speaking to the Pharisees:
“…do not suppose that you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham for our father’; for I say to you, that from these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham” -Matthew 3:9
[As with modern Jews, the Pharisees supposed themselves to be not only God’s chosen people but also His spiritually redeemed people, those that would receive the resurrection unto eternal life (Dan. 12:2), simply because they were genealogically descended from Abraham. Some modern Jews even believe that atheists will be saved as long as they’re ethnically Jewish!]
Moving along:
“According to sola Scriptura, the Protestant is ultimately free to pick and choose his doctrines in a sort of “cafeteria Christianity” – so long as he can reconcile them with his own interpretation of Scripture.” (Armstrong, op. cit., pp.4-5)
This is a straw-man. What Mr. Armstrong just described, “cafeteria Christianity,” (which sadly, is all too common not only among Protestants but Catholics as well) is not sola Scriptura, but a perversion of it, solo Scriptura.
Does Mr. Armstrong deny the individual believer the right of conscience? Didn’t he join the RCC because “he can reconcile” its teachings “with his own interpretation” of church history and Scripture?
Moving on:
“But because Calvin disagrees with the theology of the Catholic Church (and causally assumes the prerogative to judge that Church), he manages to believe that it “died” and that somehow a “new church” (of course, the one he advocates) has arisen to take its place…” (ibid., p.5)
This is also a straw-man. The true remnant of God never died and cannot die (Matthew 16:18), but the visible/outward authority can just as it did under Elijah the prophet or under Athanasius during the Arian ascendancy (see the Luther quotes above). This is clearly what Calvin meant. Again, Mr. Armstrong cites Calvin’s opinions but never deals with the arguments Calvin presented: the instances in which the Old Testament “Church” became corrupted and God had to send the prophets (a remnant in themselves) to restore the “Church” (Institutes 4.2.10). [I realize that he has limited space in his book, but he could have at least spent a page or even a paragraph dealing with the Reformer’s main arguments.]
Also, it is *NOT* the position of historical Protestantism that the church didn’t exist for 1,400 years. Rather, there were many great and godly men in all ages and not just a few of them within the Church of Rome itself (including a few Popes, no doubt!) who, although they agreed with Rome on almost everything, were part of that Remnant. We still hold that there are still many within the RC and EO communions.
Finally, didn’t Mr. Armstrong have to “judge that Church” in order to determine it was the true Church and become a Roman Catholic? Why should we limit private judgment to the Scriptures? [I suppose that one could argue at this point that the data from church history is much clearer than the Scriptures. However, that is a debatable point and makes the separation of perspicuity between ‘T’radition and Scripture one of degree, not of kind.]
Continuing:
“Almost by logical necessity, then, Calvin too must appeal to an invisible church, a concept not taught in Scripture at all…” (emphasis original; ibid., p.6)
Of course, this is plainly false. The concept of the Remnant is found all throughout Scripture and is termed a number of things: the “remnant” (obviously; Romans 9:27), the “Israel of God” (Galatians 6:16), “servant” in Isaiah (through chapters 40-53, the term oscillates in reference between the nation of Israel as a whole, the remnant, and the Messiah), etc. The Remnant was an Israel within Israel, an Israel of God.
Moving on:
“Methodist commentator Adam Clarke, in his commentary, illustrates Protestant confusion and mixed feelings over this seemingly easily understood verse…” (ibid., 6)
First of all, just because you are a Protestant commentator doesn’t mean that you’re a good commentator. There are plenty of Protestant commentators who try to interpret a verse in isolation from its surrounding text (just like Mr. Armstrong :) ). It amazes me how many Calvinist commentators get stumped by 2 Peter 3:9, but that’s a different discussion.
Second, Mr. Armstrong likes to cite Protestant commentators in favor of the Catholic interpretation all throughout this book as if *everyone* is finally coming to the realization that the Roman Catholic teaching on the Bible has been right all along. Yeah right!
He’s blithely unaware of the many (if not most) modern Roman Catholic scholars who give the same interpretation of the Bible as Protestants. I’ll try to note that throughout this series.
** I had originally said “gospel” which is true since all of God’s Word is contained in it (compare 2 Timothy 2:15 with Colossians 1:5). However, God has given all of His truth to the Church, not just evangelism, and so, I felt that I should change it to be more clear. This change was made on October 7, 2007.
*** I had originally said, “…‘source’ or ‘dependent upon’.” Though it was not my intention, I can see how one might assume that it meant that the Roman Church was the source of truth as if it made it up. This, of course, would be an error since Roman Catholicism teaches that God is the source of all truth, but He has set up the Church to be the epistemic source through which He mediates His truth for Christians. This change was made on October 7, 2007.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)