This story was referenced in the post that follows this one. ed.
Cover Story, Christian Century, April 12, 1995 by Thomas C. Oden
AN INTERLOPER who steals property must be caught and charged. Thinly disguised atheism and neopaganism are interlopers in liberated" church circles. They have engaged in the theft of church property. The stolen property must be reclaimed and the thieves brought to justice.
To point this out means raising the issue of heresy. But in the "liberated" church circles of oldline denominations heresy simply does not exist. After centuries of struggle against recurrent heresies, Christians have found a quick way of overcoming heresy: they have banished the concept altogether. With absolute relativism holding sway, there is not only no concept of heresy, but no way even to raise the question of where the boundaries of legitimate Christian belief lie.
This is like trying to have a baseball game with no rules, no umpire, and no connection with historic baseball. Only we continue to insist on calling it baseball because a game by the name of baseball is what most people still want to see played.
By "liberated" church circles I refer to the sexual experimenters, the compulsive planners of others' lives, the canonical text disfigurers, and ultrafeminists (as distinguished from the great company of godly Christian women who are found at many different points along the scale of feminist reflection). The liberated characteristically understand themselves to be free from oppressive, traditional constraints of all sorts and shapes. "Liberated" is not a term applied from outside, but a term they frequently apply to themselves. By liberated they usually imply: doctrinally imaginative, liturgically experimental, disciplinarily nonjudgmental, politically correct, muticulturally tolerant, morally broad-minded, ethically situationist, and above all sexually permissive.
I am not speaking merely of liberation theology in its more thoughtful manifestations as argued by Gustavo Gutierrez or Jurgen Moltmann or Mary Stewart van Leuwwen. I am referring rather to an engulfing attitude that proclaims: we have been liberated from our classic Christian past, from the patriarchalism of Christian scriptures, from benighted Jewish and Christian traditions, and from their oppressive social systems. As a former full-time liberator, I know from experience how mesmerizing this stance can be. The intellectual ethos I am describing is not liberal in the classic sense of that word, but intolerant and uncharitable when it comes to traditionalists of any sort, all of whom are capriciously bundled under the dismissive label of "fundamentalists."
I have the dubious honor of having recently been categorized in someone's computer bulletin board as a heresy-hunter. This gives me the comic occasion to embrace the misapplied description in a specific ironic sense: I am earnestly looking for some church milieu wherein the sober issue of heresy can at least be examined. I am looking, like Diogenes with his sputtering lamp, for a church or seminary in which some heresy at least conjecturally might exist. I have sought for some years to find a theological dialogue where a serious methodological discussion is taking place about how to draw some line between faith and unfaith, between orthodoxy and heresy. But almost everywhere that I have asked about the subject I have found that the very thought of inquiring about the possibility of heresy has itself become marked off as the prevailing archheresy. The archheresiarch is the one who hints that some distinction might be needed between truth and falsehood, right and wrong.
Just at this point, however, we can glimpse a faint sign of hope: a growing recognition among laity of the need for criteria to recognize orthodoxy, which therefore require some reference to heterodoxy. Just as the impatient adolescent is searching for boundaries, so liberated church leaders are unwittingly pressing their constituency for boundaries. This search for boundaries is essentially what was despairingly attempted at the 1993 "Re-Imagining" conference in Minneapolis. The most anxiety-creating fantasy is that there are no boundaries whatever and never have been.
The rediscovery of boundaries in theology will be the preoccupation of the 21st century of Christian theology. Some within the church-a party I call postmodern paleo-orthodoxy--are increasingly gaining the courage to inquire: Is pantheism heresy? Is reductive naturalism as reliable as any other assumption? Can Christianity make friends with absolute relativism? What would the church look like if it were apostate?
The word "heresy" derives from the Greek term hairesis, which has as its root the word meaning "choice" or "assertive self-will." It implies choosing one's own personal will over against the truth. It is a term that was early applied to interpretations of Christianity that differed markedly from apostolic testimony. It was a term that became important during persecution of Christians who were willing to die for the truth of the apostolic testimony. Under conditions of severe persecution under state tyranny, Christians found it necessary carefully to distinguish the apostolic recollection of salvation from counterapostolic accounts.
BUT WHAT KIND of assertion qualifies as self-willing against the truth" Since the truth is worth dying for, this is not a negligible question, even if it has been largely neglected since the Enlightenment. Anyone attempting to answer this question since then has had first to fend off hysterical assertions that the question itself is unraisable because of the sordid history of abuses committed since the Counter-Reformation Inquisition. The calm defense of the truth, which is embodied in Jesus Christ, truly God, truly human, requires intellectual patience.
Heresy is less the assertion of statements directly hostile to classic Christian faith than it is the assertion of fragments of apostolic teaching, an assertion of segments that lack the cohesion and wholeness of classic Christian faith. Heresy occurs when some legitimate dimension of faith is elevated so unsymmetrically and so out of equilibrium as to become a decisive principle of interpretation for all other aspects of faith. To do so denies the unity and equilibrium of the ancient ecumenical consensus. Every hairesis against apostolic testimony gives the church a new opportunity to clarify the equilibrium of faith of the ancient Christian apostolic consensus.
As long as the apostles were alive they held church teaching together by their shared memory and variegated but complementary and internally congruent witness. Although they spread in all directions, their testimony under the power of the Spirit attested one Lord, one faith, one baptism. Their witness to the living Lord and the oneness of the body of Christ constituted the center of authority for teaching and community.
As the apostles faced martyrdom and death, the need for a continuing, clear, cohesive textual teaching authority was increasingly felt. More attention had to be given to the transgenerational guardianship of the sacred testimony to Jesus'life, death and resurrection.
The need for firm governance was increased by the early emergence of divisive heresies, notably Docetism, Gnosticism and Montanism. Unable to trace their origin to the apostles, heresies were by definition later additions or amendments to the apostolic tradition. Tertullian argued that any heresy would proclaim by its diversity and contrariety that it originates neither from an Apostle nor from an apostolic voice; for the Apostles would not have diverged from one another in doctrine; no more would the apostolic individual have put out teaching at variance with that of the Apostles.... This test will be applied to those churches of a later date, which are daily being founded."
Gnosticism, which had its chief influence in the middle of the second century, claimed to pass on the secret knowledge of salvation through mystical knowers who viewed themselves as guardians of secret traditions of sayings of Jesus. The consensual church was forced to declare to the Gnostics that all authentic memories and traditions concerning Jesus were known to those attestors who stand in succession to the apostles and were not erratically passed on by idiosyncratic prophets or charismatics. The recognized and reliable early church teachers were able to trace their succession in each urban seat of ecclesiastical authority back to the apostles, often within living memory, often through a series of highly public successions over several generations. The reliable record of events surrounding Jesus was thought to be adequately known and remembered by the succession of overseers, not by secretive groups like the Gnostics.
In response to the Gnostics' secrecy and flight from the world, Irenaeus argued that the church had from its beginnings publicly set forth a historically demonstrable succession of overseers in a given locale as a means of ensuring the valid memory of apostolic teaching. The premise of historic succession of apostolic rememberers hinges upon the basic assumption that God came into history. Christianity does not speak of a redemption that takes place apart from history in an esoteric circle of initiates who seek purity by separation from the world. The historic succession of apostolic Christian leaders was, for Irenaeus, an implication of historic revelation, and the scandal of particularity, stressing the public, visible transmission of teaching through intergenerational succession. In response to heretical challenges, the church gradually developed a defense characterized by the monarchical episcopate, the rule of faith, and the canon. Heresy is any self-willing choice that departs from apostolic teaching. Wherever a heresy has led to a breach of unity of the body, it is called a schism, meaning either strife within the community or more particularly separation from it.
In baptism the rule of faith was learned by heart and personally confessed (often under great hazard) by word of mouth. The prototypes of the Apostles' Creed were memorized baptismal formulae and hymns and summarizing confessional statements. These had received generally accepted form shortly after the last of the writings that became the New Testament canon. Meanwhile the lists of received apostolic writings began to circulate, and in due time became consensually defined. These became the bulwark of the church's defense against hairesis.
Those who did not accept the rule of faith and the canon of apostolic teachings and who were not under the discipline of apostolic teachers were not considered reliable guardians of ecumenical Christian doctrine. By the time of Irenaeus and Tertullian the church had a settled rule of faith, a body of documents widely received and repeatedly quoted as apostolic testimony, and well-documented lists of the succession of trustable attestors.
Thomas C. Oden teaches at Drew University Theological School. His most recent book is Requiem: A Lament in Three Movements (Abingdon).
25 comments:
Jesus gave authority over the church to Peter and the twelve.
Matthew 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on eart shall be loosed in heaven.
Matthew 18:18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
This authority didn't disappear after Peter and the twelve died, however, but they passed it on their successors and the line has been presereved down to the modern age. Peter's successor is the papacy and the apostles successors are the bishops of the roman catholic church.
As is becoming increasingly obvious through all the examples this article cites, there is no real objective spiritual authority in christian communities that have broken their ties to Rome and all sorts of false doctrines can be accepted on the basis that there is no 'one authority' that can counter them. Protestantism, to quote Shakespeare's Hamlet, is being 'hoist with their own pitard' (blown up with their own gunpowder) as the sane voices that try to stop the re-inventing of the religion are silenced on the grounds that they do not have the authority to judge. The fundamental problem of course is that the belief that Christ did not institute a spiritual authority to pass down after him and that it is up to believers and their own conscience to decide what is right or wrong... is itself a heresy. And unless that heresey is thrown out, there isn't going to be a way to combat all of these things that continue to grow out of it. And ultimately in order to do that they will need to return to Rome; otherwise they will perish.
"And now, overwhelmed with the deepest sadness, We ask Ourselves, Venerable Brethren, what has become of the Catholicism of the Sillon? Alas! this organization which formerly afforded such promising expectations, this limpid and impetuous stream, has been harnessed in its course by the modern enemies of the Church, and is now no more than a miserable affluent of the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity, would bring back to the world (if such a Church could overcome) the reign of legalized cunning and force, and the oppression of the weak, and of all those who toil and suffer. We know only too well the dark workshops in which are elaborated these mischievous doctrines which ought not to seduce clear-thinking minds." - Pope (St) Pius X, 1910
God Bless,
David, while I have deep respect for the Roman Catholic Church I do not believe that Rome adequately solves the problem of authority that you cite. There was a reason for the Reformation.
As you hopefully know there are other interpretations of the Scriptures that you cite. One interpretation is that Jesus gives the keys to the Church and not to one individual. We see this in action in Acts 15.
Personally, I view the collegial model of leadership of Orthodoxy to be more in accord with the biblical model that we see in the Book of Acts than the Roman practice. I also see in the Orthodox a church that didn't have to undergo a reformation or a counter-reformation.
Anglicanism, as the third major body of Christendom has the strengths of Orthodoxy with the Reformation emphasis on the priesthood of all believers. Anglicanism at its best exemplifies the collegial model of leadership among bishops that we see in Orthodoxy.
The writer of the article is Methodist and his view is from a protestantism that is without a catholic view of the episcopacy. Notice I use a small c which is to indicate that there is some commonality between the RCC, the Orthodox and Anglicanism pertaining to apostolic succession and the episcopacy.
Tony,
I have much respect for christians outside of Rome as well.
I don't mean to be too controntational but what you write is evidence for my point:
'Personally, I view the collegial model of leadership of Orthodoxy to be more in accord with the biblical model that we see in the Book of Acts than the Roman practice. I also see in the Orthodox a church that didn't have to undergo a reformation or a counter-reformation.'
And what if someone has a different opinion? What if you have the wrong interpretation? If the basis of church authority is simply what our personal opinions of it should be, then there isn't really an objective criteria here. If I was a christian outside of Rome I would not see a compelling reason to follow your interpretation.
Allow me to explain further:
I know that the roman catholic magisterium is the authority given by Christ because God has revealed to me by faith, but you claim that you have an opinion that anglicanism or orthodoxy fulfills Christ's authority on the basis of your interpretation... this is the difference: I know because God has shown me that it is true, but you know because you have reasoned that it may be true.
If God had meant that your interpretation is correct then why doesn't He reveal to us that it is? Why would He leave us in the dark as to relying only upon our reasoning, which is subject to error, as to what it was He required from us?
Ultimately unless you can claim personally infallibility on your interpretation, then you are not able to assert that that interpretation necessarily must be adopted because you could be wrong. If God has not shown you that anglicanism or orthodoxy is Christ's authority, then you don't really know that they are. The problem of authority cannot be solved through reason alone, but we need revelation and if God doesn't give you that revelation, then it has not been solved for you.
God Bless,
David, I based my opinion on Scripture, which I would guess is what the collegial model of Orthodoxy is based on. Maybe that is the wrong interpretation, but it is not just a personal opinion. Plus, I gave you an accepted alternate interpretation of the Scriptures you cited. All of what I said is not just personal opinion, it is all rooted in Scripture (or if you prefer, a long history of Scriptural interpretation) and Church Tradition.
The Revelation you say is essential (and I agree) is in Scripture. In the Anglican tradition Scripture is interpreted by Tradition and Reason. What I have said is rooted in both.
Tony,
Scripture is infallible but our interpretation of it is not, and therefore the fundamental problem remains.
For example in the Anglican church one person will claim that scripture condemns homosexual practice while another person will say it doesn't... and there's no infallible authority to decide between them. St Paul wrote that people who practice homosexuality will not inherit the kingdom of God, and therefore this is not a trivial point to leave open to interpretation. And the same paradigm is true of many other things.
Unless you can claim infallibility with regard to how you interpret scripture, then you do not have authority even with scripture, because you are not certain if your interpretation is correct. If you are not infallible then you are not speaking on God's behalf, as though what you are binding or loosing on earth is bound or loosed in heaven, because God can't be mistaken.
God Bless,
David, if you need human infallibility then the Roman Church is for you. Of course, as at least some of us believe, infallibility and humanity don't mix except for the God-man Jesus.
The church has operated well for centuries by putting infallible Scripture in first place and using tradition and reason to interpret Scripture. As our 39 Articles state councils and men do err but Scripture does not. Again, if you need human infallibility you will not find it in the Anglican Communion.
You will find in Anglicanism a conciliar approach that is similar to what has been used by the Church since the early centuries following the apostolic age. Granted, our Instruments of Communion are not infallible, but working together for Biblical orthodoxy and discipline they can provide Anglicanism with a way through the current crisis.
Tony,
How do you even know that the scriptures are infallible? Did God reveal this to you, or was it also decided by a fallible human authority?
The scriptures were written by human beings, but if human infallibility does not exist then they can't be the Word of God. If you accept, however, that the scriptures were written by human beings and that they are infallible, then you don't have a logically consistent basis for claiming that there is no such thing as human infallibility.
What makes you think that it is even probable that Matthew 16 means what you claim it means? Why would Jesus have said that what you bind or loose on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven, if He had in fact meant that your doctrines were not going to be necessarily correct? Can you present evidence that the church from its early days onwards has worked in the manner you describe? How do you reconcile the fact that several of the major councils were regarded as infallible and even recognized papal authority?
God Bless,
David, God revealed this to me through the Scriptures (e.g. 2 Tim. 3:16, etc.), through His Church, and through the testimony to the authority of the Hebrew Scriptures by our Lord in the gospels. As 2 Timothy says, the Scriptures were ""breathed out by God" (ESV). Their divine inspiration is the reason why the Church through the centuries has accepted them as the Word of God and not just the words of men.
In Anglicanism none of the ecumenical councils are considered infallible. As Article 21 says General Councils "may err, and sometimes have erred..." As I said previously, it is an accepted interpretation (although not accepted by the Roman Catholic Church) that Mt. 16 pertains to the authority Christ gave to the Church and not to one individual.
You may not know this, but infallibility in the Roman tradition has a very specific meaning and does not pertain to everything the Pope says. I do not accept papal infallibility, nor does the Anglican tradition accept papal infallibility.
Tony,
I feel like I am cluttering up your blog... if you would like to leave, please let me know.
God didn't reveal to you that this is His Word through His scriptures or tradition but He did it through the faith that He gave to you. If He didn't, then you don't really know that this is His word.
I am aware that papal infallibility does not extend to everything the pope says but only includes what the pope teaches on matters of faith and doctrine for the universal church.
I understand that you and your church have a different understanding of what kind of authority Christ laid down, although I challenge the reasoning behind that understanding, especially in light of the original post: 'can we talk about heresy'. If the authority of your church is fallible, then it couldn't really talk about heresy because according to its statements it doesn't have the capacity to judge what heresy is. If you have an interpretation of scripture which may be incorrect, how could you then claim that someone else is an heretic without being presumptious? Furthermore, why would anyone who held views called 'heretical' feel necessarily obliged to accept what the church then set down, considering that the church itself admits that it may be wrong?
God Bless,
David, the same Spirit of God that gives faith also teaches from the Scriptures.
So, since human beings are fallible there is no way to know truth? That sounds more like postmodernism than anything the Church has ever taught. The lack of infallibility is in no way a hindrance to a church declaring what is true and what is false. The church has erred and will err, but that doesn't mean that the church must therefore refrain from making judgements. Human truth is always contingent truth. Only God, not the pope or any human authority, is infallible.
If you want to believe that infallibility is absolutely necessary there is nothing I can say that will change your mind. I don't think that we need to keep repeating ourselves, but if there is something new that you want to the conversation we can continue.
Tony,
I don't assert that truth cannot be known. I assert that the revealed truths of the christian religion are revealed through faith and cannot be come to through human reason alone. Truth can be known with certainty, but to know that God has a Son, that that Son is fully-human and fully-divine, that He died on a cross for our sins, that He has given certain commandments about how we should live... all of these things cannot be known through reason alone but they require the revelation given by God or else they are not really known. If you don't know if God has revealed these things, but you merely know the church has simply taught it and the church might be wrong, then you don't really know that any of these things are true since reason alone is not able to discern this but only through faith can these things be known.
The same Spirit who gives faith teaches us from the scriptures, but according to what you say, you don't know when it is that Spirit is teaching you or not and therefore you don't really know what the meaning of the text is with certainty.
If God does not grant infallibility to human beings, then the bible cannot be infallible because it was written by human beings. If Paul or John can be infallible, then so can the Pope.
Human truth is not always contingent truth. Through faith, God can show us with certainty that these things are true. If the church commits errs then no one can have faith in what the church says on the basis that it has said so, because faith requires certainty. If you think that the truths of the christian religion are true, but that you might be wrong, then you don't have faith in these things.
If the church errs and condemns heretics, then it is like a criminal judge who is unsure of what the law says and yet still condemns criminals.
God Bless,
David: I don't assert that truth cannot be known. I assert that the revealed truths of the christian religion are revealed through faith and cannot be come to through human reason alone. Truth can be known with certainty, but to know that God has a Son, that that Son is fully-human and fully-divine, that He died on a cross for our sins, that He has given certain commandments about how we should live... all of these things cannot be known through reason alone but they require the revelation given by God or else they are not really known.
Response: we agree on this.
David: If you don't know if God has revealed these things, but you merely know the church has simply taught it and the church might be wrong, then you don't really know that any of these things are true since reason alone is not able to discern this but only through faith can these things be known.
Response: David, you can know these things by revelation of the Spirit and the Church has taught them.
David: The same Spirit who gives faith teaches us from the scriptures, but according to what you say, you don't know when it is that Spirit is teaching you or not and therefore you don't really know what the meaning of the text is with certainty.
Response: We all believe that the Spirit teaches us, and when what the Spirit teaches us is in accord with the teachings of the Church we can say that we are truly taught.
David: If God does not grant infallibility to human beings, then the bible cannot be nfallible because it was written by human beings. If Paul or John can be infallible, then so can the Pope.
Response: David, you still haven't dealt sufficiently with divine inspiration. Your repeating of the same refuted statement doesn't make it true. The Scriptures are true because they were written by men inspired by God.
David: Human truth is not always contingent truth. Through faith, God can show us with certainty that these things are true. If the church commits errs then no one can have faith in what the church says on the basis that it has said so, because faith requires certainty. If you think that the truths of the christian religion are true, but that you might be wrong, then you don't have faith in these things.
Response: Maybe this gets at the nub of our disagreement. I don't believe that infallibility is essential to Christian believing.
David: If the church errs and condemns heretics, then it is like a criminal judge who is unsure of what the law says and yet still condemns criminals.
Response: David, courts err also and hopefully through the appeals process wrongs can be made right. I believe that the Church has at different points wrongly condemned individuals. It happened in England and it has happened elsewhere. Some of the condemned are now celebrated as Saints.
Tony,
I admire and appreciate your patience and ability to engage in this discussion. I simply hope I'm not intruding, and you are free at any point to tell me you like to end this.
You write: 'David, you can know these things by revelation of the Spirit and the Church has taught them. '
R: But what do you mean then? Do you know that God has revealed them to you, or do you simply know them and think that God has perhaps revealed them to you? If it is the latter, then you don't really know them.
You say: David, you still haven't dealt sufficiently with divine inspiration. Your repeating of the same refuted statement doesn't make it true. The Scriptures are true because they were written by men inspired by God.
R: I don't understand how this statement has been refuted... you haven't refuted it as far as I have seen. The Pope is infallible because He is guided by the same Holy Spirit that inspired the writers of sacred scripture.
You write: Maybe this gets at the nub of our disagreement. I don't believe that infallibility is essential to Christian believing.
R: Do you mean this with regard to everything or simply with regard to specific doctrines? Would you consider there to be a possibility that you could be wrong that God exists, or that Jesus died on a cross?
Allow me to make an argument why it is that God leaving us uncertain about His revelation doesn't make sense:
If these things we believe are not known with certainty, then that means we admit that there is a possiblity that we may be wrong. If we admit that there is a possibility that we may be wrong, then we also admit that it possibly is rational to reject these things. If we admit this, then how could it be sinful to have doubts? And if it not sinful to have doubts, then how could God command us to believe and have faith in these things?
You write: David, courts err also and hopefully through the appeals process wrongs can be made right. I believe that the Church has at different points wrongly condemned individuals. It happened in England and it has happened elsewhere. Some of the condemned are now celebrated as Saints.
R: Yes, they do err, but this is usually because there is a disagreement about how the law should be interpreted or alternatively how the evidence should be weighed. A judge, however, who doesn't actually know what the law says is not fit to be a judge. Likewise, only an authority that knows what God commands is capable of judging heresy.
The RC church has wrongly condemned individuals, but it was never because the doctrines were wrong but rather it was because they misjudged according to those doctrines (and sometimes not even according to them). In the gospel, consider how Jesus says:
Matthew 23:1-3 Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; so practise and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practise.
Jesus told His disciples to listen to their instructions, even though they were wrongly condemning Him, because their doctrines were certainly true but they didn't follow those doctrines themselves. The same is true of the RC church, for everything it teaches is revealed infallible truth, but the pope and clergy who proclaim this teaching do not always do it themselves.
I suppose perhaps we should ask for help?
You are free to say this prayer with me if you choose:
Lord, look after Tony and I, and guide us to better know your Truth, especially with regard to these matters. Correct whatever mistakes we are making and make us grow in love together in Christ. We also pray on account of this situation in Tony's church, that it receive whatever help and wisdom it needs in overcoming its problems and guide it closer to you. We ask for these things, if it is your will, in Jesus' name, Amen
God Bless,
David, I'll respond after the CANA Council meeting that concludes on Saturday.
One question before the CANA Council: what is your justification in ascribing infallibility to the Pope. The apostles weren't infallible except as they were guided by the Holy Spirit. We see Paul rebuking Peter in Galatians, for example.
You seem to equate divine inspiration of the Scriptures, apostolic authority and the Pope. Perhaps this is the Roman Catholic way; I don't know that it is the way of the universal truth beyond the RCC.
Tony,
My justification for knowing this to be true comes from the faith that God has given me. I've seen evidence beyond this that supports that faith, although it is from my faith that I know this to be true.
Matthew writes that the apostles and Peter were given infallibility in chapters 16 and 18. From the days of the early church onwards one can find various writings that point to an understanding of the bishop of Rome's jurisdiction over the universal church. Furthermore every bishop of Rome prior to Constantine was martyred, which some have argued points to an understanding even among the romans of who was important in the church.
Peter is identified in a special place in the new testament, with Christ giving him the keys of the kingdom of heaven and telling him 'upon this rock I will build my church'. In Mark 16, the angel says 'but go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to galilee'. In the gospel of John, Jesus tell him, 'Peter, feed my sheep'. In Acts 15 Peter passes his judgment that the gentiles should not be forced to be circumcised and keep Moses' laws, and the church accepts it.
I do equate the teaching authority of the magisterium and sacred scripture because it is the same Holy Spirit who speaks through each. If the tradition of the church isn't infallible, then it is difficult to assert that scripture is as well, because you could never be certain that the text you have is the same one that as was originally inspired. Textual critics have identified something like 300,000 variations in the surviving copies of the greek new testament, and if the tradition of the church in preserving the text wasn't infallible, then you have no way of knowing when you are reading what the authors wrote and what some scribe or other middleman mistakenly or deliberately changed.
St Augustine of Hippo is quoted as having said, 'I would not believe sacred scripture lest it were for the infallible authority of the church.'
(you may say this with me if you like)
Lord, we pray for an answer to this issue of infalliblity, that we may be corrected of our mistakes and guided to know with certainty the truth of the matter. Look after Tony as he goes to his council meeting and make him fulfill whatever work you have planned for him. We ask for these things, if it is your will, in Jesus' name, Amen
Best wishes at your meeting and God Bless,
David, I'm back from vacation and ready to resume our conversation. First, let's start with the two verses from Mt. that you cited in your first comment and referred to in your last one. As I've already stated Mt. 16:19 and 18:18 are interpreted differently than the Roman Catholic Church in the rest of Christendom. Granted the RCC is the largest portion of the church catholic, but her interpretations are not universally held.
Secondly, I don't see either of these verses referring to infallibility either explicitly or implicitly. You will have to show me where this interpretation comes from.
Third, Peter is given a special place by Jesus and the Church, but again, only the RCC makes him a pope. btw, I don't see you dealing with what I mentioned in my last comment concerning Paul's rebuke of Peter in Galatians. Certainly Paul didn't consider Peter infallible.
You equate Scripture and the magisterium which again, is a RCC novelty. The magisterium is a development of the RCC and has erred. As for the pope, as you hopefully know, in at least one period we would have to ask which pope (the Avignon papacy). Irenaeus has an interesting section on the papacy in Heresies, p. 416 of the popular Church Father series published by Hendrickson and Eerdmanns. I. never names Peter as a Bishop of Rome. The development of the papacy is an interesting subject, and if you'd like to look at it, I'd be happy to do so.
Tony,
I know that christians outside of rome interpret the text differently from Rome and from each other. They also have different versions of the text and recognize different canons.
The text says that what you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and what you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. This is where Christ gives infallible authority to Peter in matt 16 and the apostles as a whole in matt 18. He doesn't say, you may or may not be right about what you bind or loose on earth, but He says what you bind or loose on heaven shall be bound or loosed in heaven.
I'm under the impression that several of the early reformers in the 16th century as well as many protestants today actually think that Peter was given authority over the church, but they disagree about that authority lasting beyond the first generation.
It's not clear that Paul did rebuke Peter in Galatians; he rebukes someone called Cephas, which is not necessarily the same as Simon Peter. In the book of Acts Peter is the apostle who judges that the old jewish law should not be held binding on the converts, and that isn't consistent with the person described in galatians who is trying to get the gentiles to live like jews. Furthermore consider how in the same chapter Paul refers to a 'Peter', whom he doesn't call Cephas:
Galatians 2:7-8 but on the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumicised, (for he who worked through Peter for the mission to the circumcised worked through me also for the Gentiles),
The magisterium was instituted by Christ and it does not err. Scripture would not have authority if the magisterium didn't exist, because as I mentioned, you would have no way of knowing whether any particular text was inspired or not.
Suppose someone in your communion claimed that parts of the new testament are manipulations to what was originally wrote and furthermore they produce evidence that supports their conclusion, although it doesn't prove it. Would you admit then that it is an open question as to whether those parts should be considered part of the bible or not and that ultimately you are unsure?
Has God revealed to you that the text you have is indeed exactly the correct one, without anything missing or anything added? And if not, how you are able to form judgments of heretics on the basis of it?
(anyone can say this herself if she chooses)
Lord, we thank you for what you have given us. We pray that you look after us and guide us to your truth concerning these things. Correct our errors and bring us together in your love. We ask for these things, if it is your will, in Jesus' name, Amen
God Bless,
Grammar corrected:
David, now you have me really confused. You write:
It's not clear that Paul did rebuke Peter in Galatians; he rebukes someone called Cephas, which is not necessarily the same as Simon Peter. In the book of Acts Peter is the apostle who judges that the old jewish law should not be held binding on the converts, and that isn't consistent with the person described in galatians who is trying to get the gentiles to live like jews.
So, Cephas may not be Peter, but Peter, who is infallible, judges that the OT law should be binding on Gentile converts and he is overruled by the Jerusalem Council.
Can you explain this one to me?
You also say,
The magisterium was instituted by Christ and it does not err.
Can you please give your basis for making this statement?
You ask: Suppose someone in your communion claimed that parts of the new testament are manipulations to what was originally wrote and furthermore they produce evidence that supports their conclusion, although it doesn't prove it. Would you admit then that it is an open question as to whether those parts should be considered part of the bible or not and that ultimately you are unsure?
Reply: What kind of evidence are you talking about? Are you familiar with the work of reputable translaters like that done by the United Bible Societies? The text that we have today is very reliable, much more reliable than any magisterium.
Tony,
Peter didn't judge that the OT law should be binding on gentile converts, but he judged that it shouldn't be binding on gentile converts and the jerusalem council agreed upon this.
Acts 15:10-11 Now therefore why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? but believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will."
I know by faith that the magisterium was instituted by Christ and does not error. God has revealed to me that this is true, and God is not mistaken. This is my basis for making that statement. However, there is also much evidence for this that may be perceived through reason, which we've only just begun to unlock in our conversation. For example in considering of the next point below...
You write: 'What kind of evidence are you talking about? Are you familiar with the work of reputable translaters like that done by the United Bible Societies? The text that we have today is very reliable, much more reliable than any magisterium.'
Well, for example most biblical scholars today have doubts that Mark 16:9-20 is part of the original text. A number of them doubt that the story of the woman caught in adultery in John's gospel was part of the original text as well. There is also evidence to support that certain references to the Trinity in various places were later additions. Interestingly enough it has even been proven that the King's James version of the bible was translated on the basis of an incorrect text of the final six verses of the book of revelations (this is because Erasmus, who produced the greek text that the KJV was based upon, didn't possess any greek manuscripts containing those verses and so he simply took what was in the latin vulgate and translated it back into greek, even though the reading he produced is not found in any other preceeding greek manuscript of that text). As I mentioned before, scholars have identified something like 300,000 different variations in the text of the new testament from the 2nd century onwards, many of them producing no change to the meaning of the text, but some of them do.
I'm not bothered by these things, because I have an infallible authority that can guarantee the inspiration of the text. But if this authority isn't infallible, then what guarantees that the text is as well? And if you can't guarantee that it is correct, how could you judge heretics on the basis of it?
Has God revealed to you that the text you have is wholly correct, without anything added, changed or removed?
(anyone can say this herself if she chooses)
Lord, look after both of us and help us overcome these difficulties so that we may come closer to your Truth. Correct our errors and bind us in your love. We ask for these things, if it is your will, in Jesus' name, Amen.
God Bless,
David: Peter didn't judge that the OT law should be binding on gentile converts, but he judged that it shouldn't be binding on gentile converts and the jerusalem council agreed upon this.
Reply: Thanks, I didn't have a Bible in front of me and was trying to understand from how you framed it. My bad, as the kids say.
David you call your position on the magisterium a faith position. Couldn't someone else call it subjectivism? Particularly since the RCC has suffered two schisms that were both partly because of disagreements on doctrine. There is much evidence from the Eastern Orthodox and the Church of England that the magisterium has errred.
Those in these communions have received by faith that the RCC magisterium has erred.
David: Well, for example most biblical scholars today have doubts that Mark 16:9-20 is part of the original text. A number of them doubt that the story of the woman caught in adultery in John's gospel was part of the original text as well. There is also evidence to support that certain references to the Trinity in various places were later additions.
Reply: yes this is all true to a point. First, the additions that you cite are in individual gospels and not an entire NT text. When the entire NT text was accepted by the Church as authoritative those passages were included.
David: Interestingly enough it has even been proven that the King's James version of the bible was translated on the basis of an incorrect text of the final six verses of the book of revelations (this is because Erasmus, who produced the greek text that the KJV was based upon, didn't possess any greek manuscripts containing those verses and so he simply took what was in the latin vulgate and translated it back into greek, even though the reading he produced is not found in any other preceeding greek manuscript of that text). As I mentioned before, scholars have identified something like 300,000 different variations in the text of the new testament from the 2nd century onwards, many of them producing no change to the meaning of the text, but some of them do.
Reply: Many better manuscripts and other less complete portions of texts have surfaced since the translation of the KJV. We can have a more accurate English language translation today than the KJV because of these better ancient texts.
David, since I don't believe that the pope or the magisterium is infallible I will take Scripture on the authority that Jesus gave it (that is, His Bible, the OT), and the authority that the Church
has given it (both testaments). I will also accept the findings and teachings of Bible translators concerning the faithfulness of our current translations (this refers only to preservation of the Biblical texts).
I judge heretics by the Scripture as it is read by the Church. I would suspect that you do so as well.
Tony,
I am most impressed by your patience.
Yes, my belief in the magisterium does come from faith. Someone else could call it subjectivism or whatever they chose, but that doesn't change anything. I don't believe that the split of the eastern orthodox church was really a matter of doctrine; the eastern bishops had recognized the authority of the papacy for centuries prior to 1054, and the fililoque clause was in use in the west since Charlemagne (which meant that it was being used for two hundred years before the split!) I tend to think that the split in 1054 was a matter of politics dressed under the guise of a doctrinal dispute that didn't really exist. In many ways what happened in England also was primiarily political in nature, since the church in England had accepted papal authority since St Augustine of Canterbury, and Henry VIII had even defended it before he changed his mind.
I don't see convincing evidence that the magisterium has errored from the splits that have broken off from it, nor do I believe that God has revealed to anyone through faith that the magisterium had errored. Are you claiming that God has revealed to you that the magisterium of the RCC is wrong?
You write: yes this is all true to a point. First, the additions that you cite are in individual gospels and not an entire NT text. When the entire NT text was accepted by the Church as authoritative those passages were included.
I should point out also that there are people who also dispute if certain books of the bible were originally accepted as canonical, and some think that certain texts were accepted as canonical but which were taken out. In addition to this I should state if you were not aware that both the eastern orthodox and roman catholic accept as canonical significant portions of the old testament which were edited out by most of the churches that originated in the 16th century (1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, additions to Esther, and I think also additions to Daniel).
You write: Many better manuscripts and other less complete portions of texts have surfaced since the translation of the KJV. We can have a more accurate English language translation today than the KJV because of these better ancient texts.
Yes, but this is the problem, because it is not supposed to be like this. If you admit that the text may be wrong from your perspective, then how are you able to be assured that you have the right text on which to base your judgment of heretics? Even if most of it was correct, if you admit that there is a possibility that errors may be present compromising the meaning, how can you be certain that any particular passage is the Word of God? And if you are not certain, how are you able to judge heresy on the basis of it?
You write that you trust the tradition of the church to preserve the bible, but if that were true should you not accept as canonical those parts of the old testament I mentioned that the church universally recognized before the reformers took it out?
I do my best never to judge on how things simply appear but only do judge correctly according to the Truth. I don't judge heretics on the basis of my own interpretation of scripture, but only on what the church has laid down as the proper understanding of the gospel. What scripture appears like it is saying to me may be incorrect and therefore I shouldn't pass judgment on that basis, and neither should anyone.
John 7:24 Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.
(anyone can say this herself if she chooses)
Lord, look after us and bring us together in your love. Help us to overcome the issues we discuss, correct our errors and bring us to more fully know your truth. We ask this, if it is your will, in Jesus' name, Amen.
God Bless,
No one will dispute that there were political reasons for the split between east and west and the split between the RCC and the CoE. However, to minimize the theological reasons is to push an incomplete picture of these two schisms.
We can go even further and discuss the elephant in the room in any discussion of church schism, the reformation. We can start with the writings of Martin Luther. For the English Reformation we can look at the writings of Thomas Cranmer, and later, Richard Hooker and Bishop John Jewel.
Thanks to the Prayer Book Society I have a copy of Hooker's treatise entitled On Salvation and the Church of Rome. On the question of the errors of the magisterium I would cite any of these sources. Hooker's treatise as well as Luther's writings are interesting in the face of the recent statement of the RCC on justification. Is the current position that is more in line with Lutheranism an admission that the RCC erred in the 16th century?
God has revealed that the magisterium erred to Calvin, Luther, and other reformation leaders. God has revealed to the Eastern Orthodox, the Anglicans and the Protestant world
that the magisterium continues to err. I'm a latecomer to this party.
David: I should point out also that there are people who also dispute if certain books of the bible were originally accepted as canonical, and some think that certain texts were accepted as canonical but which were taken out.
Reply: This is true, there are even some who argue for the inclusion of extracanonical writings today like the Gospel of Thomas. This doesn't change the fact that the canonical writings are accepted by the church today as they have been through the centuries.
David: In addition to this I should state if you were not aware that both the eastern orthodox and roman catholic accept as canonical significant portions of the old testament which were edited out by most of the churches that originated in the 16th century (1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, additions to Esther, and I think also additions to Daniel).
Reply: Yes, these are not understood by Protestants as canonical and in the Anglican Communion they are viewed as less than canonical (see the Articles of Religion). Since I am an Anglican I will abide by the understanding of Anglicans.
You write that the better manuscripts of today present a problem. Again, heretics are judged by the church and not by one individual. The Scriptures are accepted by the church and the viewpoint of one individual really isn't that important. In case I haven't said it previously, inerrancy pertains to the original manuscripts. It is a belief (by faith) that God has preserved the Scriptures and that the versions we have today are authoritative. If you can show how the doctrine of the church has changed on the basis of a newly discovered manuscript please do so.
David: I don't judge heretics on the basis of my own interpretation of scripture, but only on what the church has laid down as the proper understanding of the gospel.
Reply: this is what I have been saying.
Tony,
The church has not changed its position on justification. It is the same as what St Paul wrote two thousand years ago:
Romans 2:13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.
Luther taught that a person should sin boldly, even if it meant to commit murder or adultery a thousands times a day, because nothing could separate you from Christ's redemption, and I doubt there are many in the Lutheran church who would hold this understanding of justification today.
God has not revealed to anyone that the magisterium errored. Now firstly, this complicates your position, because you have been arguing that truth is contingent and that your judgment is fallible. Do you really mean this then? If God had revealed it to you, would you not be infallible in your judgment? Or do you mean to state that you are ultimately unsure if God has revealed this to you and that you simply think He might have?
You write: This is true, there are even some who argue for the inclusion of extracanonical writings today like the Gospel of Thomas. This doesn't change the fact that the canonical writings are accepted by the church today as they have been through the centuries.
But they haven't been accepted through the centuries if you mean the church as in the universal body of believers. The protestants rejected parts of the old testament, the ethiopian church considered the book of enoch to be canonical, the peshitta rejected several new testament texts.
You write: Yes, these are not understood by Protestants as canonical and in the Anglican Communion they are viewed as less than canonical (see the Articles of Religion). Since I am an Anglican I will abide by the understanding of Anglicans.
But why?
You write: You write that the better manuscripts of today present a problem.
There is not evidence that the manuscripts of today are better than what was known in the days of Jerome. In fact it is likely that Jerome had even better manuscripts to work with than modern biblical scholars.
You write: Again, heretics are judged by the church and not by one individual. The Scriptures are accepted by the church and the viewpoint of one individual really isn't that important. In case I haven't said it previously, inerrancy pertains to the original manuscripts. It is a belief (by faith) that God has preserved the Scriptures and that the versions we have today are authoritative. If you can show how the doctrine of the church has changed on the basis of a newly discovered manuscript please do so.
If God has preserved the scriptures, then which scriptures has He preserved? Has He preserved the ones read in the Anglican communion but not those read in other churches that differ from it?
There is evidence that the original manuscripts were changed in significant ways from their original form. I've already cited examples like the ending of Mark's gospel or the story of the woman caught in adultery in John. If these things were not part of the original text, would you consider them to be non-canonical and dismiss any theological conclusions formed on the basis of them? And if so, how could you feel guaranteed that any other part was canonical?
You write: this is what I have been saying.
You haven't been saying the same thing as I have. You've claimed that truth is contingent and that it is permissible to judge heretics on the basis of that which you do not have assurance for, while I've claimed that I judge on the basis of that which I do have assurance for. Jesus taught that we cannot judge on that which merely appears to be true:
John 7:24 Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.
(anyone can say this herself if she chooses)
Lord, look after both of us and help us overcome these issues we discuss. Bring us toghether in your love, correct our errors and bring us to more fully know your Truth. We ask this, if it is your will, in Jesus' name, Amen
God Bless,
David, I posted an explanation of Luther's sin boldly statement tonight. I hope you'll read it so that you will understand the context of his remark. It was too long to post as a comment.
I will respond more fully to your last comment tomorrow or later this week.
Post a Comment