Sunday, October 07, 2007

The Old Covenant and Infallibility

It seems that Saint and Sinner's Roman Catholic opponents, for whatever reason, simply don't get the Protestant argument from the Old Testament/Old Covenant against Sola Ecclesia and Papal infallibility.

The argument goes thusly: Since God Himself did not find it necessary to institute an infallible teaching authority under the Old Covenant, the Roman Catholic argument is thereby highly suspect unless it has exegetical support. Put another way:

If Christians require the services of a living Magisterium, wouldn’t the Old Covenant community be under the same necessity? Yet it’s clear from the Gospels that none of the rival parties spoke for God in any definitive sense. The priesthood was the only faction with any institutional standing under the Mosaic Covenant, and its members were frequently and fundamentally mistaken in their construal of its ethical obligations, such as the matter of putting to death their prophesied Messiah. So much for a divine teaching office to ensure unity and fidelity.

The typical Roman Catholic reply is rather too often something like this:

“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?”

Apparently, the argument has gone over Dave's head, so it appears we'll have to break it down for him.

1. His response assumes a great deal that it needs to prove. This should go without saying.

2. The Protestant argument is twofold:

a. It goes to God's historical modus operandi. Why is what was acceptable for God’s old covenant community unacceptable for God’s new covenant community? If you want to know God’s intentions for the future (e.g. the church age), a good place to start is with his historical modus operandi.

b. It is also exegetical:

3. Apropos 2b, a few notes:

a. Old Covenant polity and Roman Catholic polity parallel on several levels

i. The priestly class (the Magisterium) and a high priest (Pope).

ii. Mediate authority between God and man via this class.

iii. Outward mediation of grace via the Roman sacraments parallels the sacrificial system (the Eucharist), circumcision (baptism), Levitical priesthood (holy orders), feast days, etc.

iv. The Temple, some Romanists might say, would parallel the Vatican itself.

So, the Catholic who offers the argument for infallibility wants on the one hand to maintain some continuity with the Old Covenant's outward structures (including such things a Mary being a "Queen Mother"), but the appeal is, in reality, quite selective. The Protestant argument from the Old Covenant is, therefore, a way of answering the Romanist on his own level.

Of course, the Bible itself, namely Hebrews, is quite clear that the Old Covenant is simply signs and shadows of what was to come (the New Covenant). The New Covenant is also said to be disanalogous on several levels. For example, there is no more high priesthood except for that of Christ (Hebrews). The church as a whole is a holy nation, a royal priesthood, etc. (1 Peter), eg. a kingdom of priests (Hebrews 1:16, which - by the way is the fulfillment of Exodus 19, so this is also a point of analogy as well as disanalogy, for Israel ultimately failed), feast days and the Jewish liturgical calendar are abolished (Col. 2:16, 17), and, other than the Lord's Day no other liturgical calendar is given in Scripture.

So -

b. There is no infallible teaching authority under the Old Covenant, and, if the Romanist is going to make this argument, then the Romanist needs an exegetical argument that there is some sign / shadow in the Old Covenant that prefigures the need for an infallible authority in the New Covenant. It's not enough to say, "the gift of infallibility was not yet given," because:

i. The Bible nowhere names a spiritual gift called "infallibility," in the NT or in OT prophecy and
ii. The spiritual gifts in the New Covenant find analogues in the Old Covenant.

The Romanist can say, something like "the Levitical caste decided between difficult cases under the Law" - but this is not the same as saying "they were infallible teachers." They can say "Prophets spoke infallibly from God," but the Protestant simply replies that the Prophets, as to office, are analogous to the Apostles, and we have their extant teaching already. Thus, the Romanist makes the Pope the successor of Peter, and on and on the argument goes - yet what is always missing in the exegetical link to the need for and the promise of an infallible teaching office in the New Covenant.

Further, one of the discontinuities between the Old and New Covenants is that the mediate "gifts" like prophecy and teaching are given to individuals within the body of Christ as a whole, not a specific mediating office like "priest" or "Pope."

Thus, another of the points of disanalogy between covenant epochs is that these gifts are dispersed throughout the people of God widely, not concentrated within one or two classes of persons (priests, prophets). Teaching is immediate in the sense of not being mediated so much by an office as through individuals who are themselves from all "classes" and genders within the church. In fact, the intelligent Protestant would point out that the very office of "prophet" in the Old Covenant prefigures this distribution of gifts widely, for the Prophets were not all concentrated in the school of Samuel or Elisha, you know. They were not all priests or kings; rather the bulk of them were common people, what we'd call "laity" by today's standards. The exact level of dispersion will, of course show up with great variation within local churches - since not every local church in the same. Romanism, by way of contrast, comes off as trying to make the disperson of gifts artificially uniform. The contrast with Scripture could not be more stark.

Further "infallibility" is admittedly a "gift" in Romanism that is restricted to a specific class, for the "infallibility" of the "Church" (eg. the Roman Church - a visible, ecclesiastical body) is dependent on the Magisterium and the Pope - a specific class and a specific office. The Romanist who says that "the Church" is infallible can only do so by reference to these offices. This flies in the face of what was said by (ironically) Peter himself in his Pentecostal sermon:

7" 'In the last days, God says,
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your young men will see visions,
your old men will dream dreams.
18Even on my servants, both men and women,
I will pour out my Spirit in those days,
and they will prophesy.


And Paul's own discourse on gifts (1 Cor. 12, Eph. 4) does not lead us to the conclusion that the relevant gifts (teaching/prophecy) are restricted to a particular ecclesiastical class - and nowhere does he ever talk about the need for "infallibility."

In fact, he says that knowledge of sound doctrine is recognized and maintained not by a guarantee of infallibility that is attached to an office that administers particular gifts - rather, Paul speaks about division in the church in positive and negative light.

1 Cor. 11:18-19, "For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part, I believe it. 19 For there must also be factions among you, in order that those who are approved may have become evident among you."

1 Cor. 1:10, "Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree, and there be no divisions among you, but you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment."


1 Cor. 11:19 uses the Greek word "haireses" for "factions". "Heresy" is a false teaching, something that deviates from orthodoxy. If we see that the Scriptures declare something clearly (orthodoxy), and if someone teaches contrary to that clear teaching, then he or she is teaching heresy. The Scriptures teach that there is a place for division and that is when opposing teachings that are contrary to sound doctrine. But division can only occur when the truth is known and those who abide with the truth should correct those who do not. If there was one place for Paul to talk about the need for an infallible arbiter of truth, here is where it should be. It is nowhere to be found.

The point, of course, is that the place where one would expect to find it: the Old Covenant system does not have it, and the New Covenant widely distributes the gifts without distinction, which flies in the face of the Romanist's own logic, for he can't argue that, because of this wide distribution there is a new need generated - an infallible teaching office- only to restrict it, for the appeal to infallibility requires the restriction of - not the wide distribution of - the relevant gift. Thus, he's left to argue, if he chooses that route, for the wide distribution of a gift like teaching among the people generally but the restriction of the gift of infallibility to an office, but this is self-defeating, for the gift of infallibility would have to be attached to the gift of teaching in order to be of any use or effect.

Now, the Roman Catholic can argue that the clergy has the effect of concentrating these gifts into particular offices - but the Protestant can agree to this much - for, with a few exceptions like Quakers, we ordain or appoint ministers of the gospel (elders) and deacons and try to employ our members who manifest the teaching gift to that ministry either formally or informally in the churches. In addition, most of us recognize there are teachers that exist outside of these specific offices (elder/deacon), which seem to serve the purpose of calling those in those offices to account from time to time. Many a Protestant minister (and Catholic priest) can tell of the "wise woman" or "incredibly intelligent young man" who sits in their church very humbly, doesn't call attention to himself or herself, and yet is somebody to whom that minister can go to for wise counsel, to help them study, and who will even challenge their teaching from time to time - yet in terms of ecclesiastical office, they submit themselves to the authority of the elders and deacons of the local church as prescribed in Scripture.

Further, if the Old Covenant is greater than the New Covenant, and the New Covenant is written on the heart of the people (Jeremiah 31), why would there need to be an infallible teaching authority? In fact, the Protestant argument is that one of the things that makes the New Covenant "new" is not the writing of the Law on the heart via regeneration or justification by faith alone via grace alone (and certainly not the need for or gift of an infallible teaching office) but things like:

1. The extension of salvation from a single visible nation, Israel, to "the whole world." The curse of the Diaspora upon the covenant community is reversed in the New Covenant - it becomes a blessing (1 Peter). The curse of Babel is reversed (Acts 2).

2. The revelation of the mystery of (1) and the making plain of the fact that this is how this has been how men have been saved all along (Romans).

3. The distribution of teaching gifts outside of the classes of "prophet" and "priest."

He can say that an infallible teaching office is "better" than not having one, but how does this follow? If the covenant is "better" as a whole, why would it require an infallible teaching authority? Where is the supporting argument from for the need for such a thing? Wouldn't it make more sense to have an infallible teaching authority for a covenant written on tablets of stone and than one one written on hearts of flesh, and if one of the hidden mysteries of the whole covenant of grace is, in fact, that it has been written on tables of flesh all along, in the sense of individual salvation being via the same means - faith alone and grace alone - and the Old Covenant did not require an infallible external teaching office then, why would it now need one? That's what we're really talking about anyway isn't it - an external teaching office? This isn't about the phenomenology of the inspiration of Scripture or the illumination of the mind, rather it's about an external teaching office, and that too carries over between covenants - both have an external teaching office both include a teaching/prophecy component, but in the Old Covenant the office and gift is restricted; in the New Covenant it is widened. The responsibility of the teaching office itself continues - as elders - but the gift itself is not limited to the eldership.

The Catholic can point out that the Old Covenant teaching authority "failed," but how is this an argument for the necessity of an infallible teaching office under the New Covenant?

1. Wasn't this "failure" precisely what precipiated the institution of the New Covenant? Matthew, after all, among other things, presents Jesus bringing a lawsuit from God upon the nation - faulting the priestly class. Since the New Covenant was prophesied in Jeremiah, isn't this precisely the intention of the Old Covenant's "failure?" If the OT rule of faith "failed," that is not because it was flawed. To the contrary, if it failed, then it did so because it was designed to do so. In fact, the OT rule of faith was a success. It succeeded in achieving the purpose that God meant for it.

2. Signs and shadows are just that. The sacrifices did not take away sin either - and they were never intended to do so. Old Covenant believers had their sins taken away via the cross, not bulls and goats. Likewise, in the Old Covenant, promises are made to Abraham for example, and yet they are not all fulfilled until Christ.

3. The Bible tells us about a wholly sufficient, "infallible" sacrifice offered once for all time (Hebrews) - Christ's - but makes none for an infallible teaching office. Note that on the one hand, the Catholic wants to maintain an infallible teaching office but wants to deny the once for all, complete sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice by the perpetual sacrifice of Christ "on a thousand altars" in that abomination called the Mass, and this must be administered by a priest in a valid holy order, etc. Again, the contrast could not be more stark.

13 comments:

  1. Where did you get the New Testament from??????

    Answer in short---The Pope--the Catholic infallible one--- compiled the New Testament with the historical information gathered by the council of Carthage some 360+ years after the death of Jesus. So if the Pope is not infallible your Bible quoting maybe way off.

    So maybe you need to rethink your use of scripture and then maybe the whole point of your argument.

    ReplyDelete
  2. An anonymous poster wrote:

    "Answer in short---The Pope--the Catholic infallible one--- compiled the New Testament with the historical information gathered by the council of Carthage some 360+ years after the death of Jesus. So if the Pope is not infallible your Bible quoting maybe way off."

    The council of Carthage was a regional council that isn't infallible by Roman Catholic standards. It probably defined the books of Esdras differently than the Council of Trent did, meaning that it advocated a different Old Testament canon than Roman Catholicism does. And many Christians living after Carthage and before the Reformation, including Roman Catholic Saints, disagreed with the canon of Carthage. If Roman Catholicism infallibly taught a New Testament canon in the early centuries of church history, the Christian leaders of that era don't seem to have been aware of it.

    If Roman Catholicism can use "historical information gathered by the council of Carthage" without considering Carthage infallible, then Protestants can do the same with Carthage and other sources. Athanasius advocated the same New Testament canon nearly thirty years prior to Carthage, and he wasn't dependent on an infallible papal ruling for it. The fact that Protestants agree with the Roman Catholic New Testament canon doesn't prove that they derived that canon from Roman Catholicism, much less that they dependend on an acceptance of papal infallibility to arrive at that canon. There are historical and theological reasons for accepting the 27-book New Testament canon that aren't dependent on Roman Catholic infallibility. And we have no good reason to accept Roman Catholicism's authority claims.

    For those who are interested, we've discussed the canon in depth in many previous threads. Search the archives for Steve Hays' responses to Philip Blosser, for example.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Gene,

    Thanks for the plug again. I'll post a link to this on my website when I get back from my business trip.

    As to the anonymous poster...

    Why is it that I have no respect for those who utilize arguments that result in an infinite regress?

    ReplyDelete
  4. How is this supposed to be convincing? You say there are many things the same and many things different between the covenants. So is the infallibilty question one of the similarities or one of the differences?

    The need for an authority, perhaps not for the specific gift of infallibility but some sort or authority, is shown in the failure of the protestant experiment. Can you not see there is something gravely wrong about so many churches with so many important differences? If not, then you won't be convinced by much. BTW, I replied to S&S's post on my blog:

    http://purifyyourbride.stblogs.com/2007/10/10/saint-and-sinner-again/

    S&S doesn't allow non-google comments on his blog so I could not tell him there.

    ReplyDelete
  5. How is this supposed to be convincing? You say there are many things the same and many things different between the covenants. So is the infallibilty question one of the similarities or one of the differences?

    If you can't tell from what is written, we can assume you are either too ignorant to understand or mostly illiterate.


    The need for an authority, perhaps not for the specific gift of infallibility but some sort or authority, is shown in the failure of the protestant experiment.


    This is an assertion, not an argument. Catholicism argues for infallibility as a need. Where's the argument.

    Ultimately, you're reduced to posit an aprioristic set of conditions that a rule of faith must meet, but we're not concerned with that. We're concerned with the true rule of faith.

    And Protestants have a system of authority within their various polities. Protestants have a long confessional history too.

    So, what we have from you is a systematic misrepresentation of the opposing position.

    You also commit several level confusions. For example, "Protestant" is not interchangeable with "Lutheran," or "Presbyterian," or "Baptist." Each has a different polity and each comes with it's own set of tradeoffs.

    Further an outward authority structure like presbyterian polity is not synonymous with Sola Scriptura - the Protestant rule of faith.

    Can you not see there is something gravely wrong about so many churches with so many important differences? I

    Of course, the Reformed tradition distinguishes between different levels and kinds of error.

    And we can name many "differences" that are "important" within the Catholic Church too.

    So, what, specific "differences" would you have in mind? In my experience these are "important" only as pseudoproblems that the Catholic generates on the assumption that because they are important to the mediation of grace, for example, by the sacraments in Catholicism, the sacramental differences between, let's say Presbyterians and Baptists is of terrible "importance."

    ReplyDelete
  6. The council of Carthage was a regional council that isn't infallible by Roman Catholic standards.

    True - somewhat---however the list of the books settled on for the New Testament were sent to the Bishop of Rome for approval which was given by Pope Boniface I and then finalized by 2nd Council of Carthage in 419. The Council dealt with many issues that were not ruled on by Rome and are not infallible. So the council is not infallible.

    St. Athanasius set forth a set of books as did other early Fathers and Doctors of the Church however none of these list match exactly with the list approved of by the Vatican in 397. After the final Council of Carthage there was debate but it was limited and did not change the Cannon of Carthage in anyway.

    As an aside--I do believe that St. Athanasius list did contain all the book titles of the New Testament but there were several different versions of various book and the versions that he had listed were not the ones used in the final version of the Bible. These are some of the details that you guys like to gloss over but I'll point it out for those interested. And to avoid being called on it should you happen to know this.

    St. Athanasius said in his epistle on Holy Scripture that scripture was given to man as guide to salvation but to truly understand the meaning of them you must rely on the writings of the early church. I should note that these writing must be taken as a whole and in their primary forms not the one promulgated by your blogger here. Anyone can take a verse from the Bible or quote from this person or that and make it mean whatever they like. But I do believe I have used this in the manner in which the Doctor of the Church intended it.

    As for infallibility--- and the New and Old Covenant????
    Your argument which lacks any groundwork is at best simplistic. You can confuse the issue with your bulk of wordiness but you still lack any ground work for your claim based on the lack of infallibility in the Old Covenant.


    1st of all The New Covenant is just that the New Covenant. It brought the means of salvation back into the world. Man was cut off from the means of salvation by original sin and the New Covenant opened the path way to Heaven through the Church. The Old Covenant Jews were not on a direct path to heaven. They were given the covenants of the Old Testament to prepare the people for the coming of Jesus and the Holy Spirit. So why would the Old and New Covenant have to match in form and substance? But back to your line of argument..........

    "The gift of infallibility was not yet given," because:
    So here is your exegetical response to your UNEXEGETICAL argument.

    Isaiah 22:20-25
    5 On that day I will summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah;
    21
    I will clothe him with your robe, and gird him with your sash, and give over to him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah.
    22
    6 I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open.

    This the only reference to the Pope in the Old Testament but it clearly foreshadows an authority figure. He has the keys kind of like Peter huh......It doesn't say infallible but he is given the power to open and shut the gates.

    2nd ---There was no way for God to act infallible through man in the Old Covenants. The Holy Sprit had not entered the world. The Pope acts infallibly with the guidance of the Holy Spirit not with his own human faculties.

    I think you should also note that the Pope can only act infallibly in matters concerning faith and nothing else so the Pope can be a horrible man but he can not just make things up out of the blue and say it is so with out any backing of tradition.


    Why is it that I have no respect for those who utilize arguments that result in an infinite regress?

    I have little respect for those who have weak arguments built on falsehood that is a result of their own ignorance and lack of knowledge. So if I regress I apologize but it is impossible to argue the point at hand when its foundation is just plain crazy.

    It is also interesting that when you zealous protestant are called to task you attack instead of going and finding some more accurate information. I'll also note that you can find primary sources from the early writers of the church very accessibly online and on non catholic sites if you wish to look but these do need to be unedited editions that have been accurately translated because some editor have taken certain liberties to push their own agenda. I can only hope that this blogger and his buddies are not in this group and are just acting out of pure ignorance.

    So can you give me an exegetical reason for their not to be an infallible Pope in Rome?

    ReplyDelete
  7. "...but the Protestant simply replies that the Prophets, as to office, are analogous to the Apostles, and we have their extant teaching already."

    Ah. I see. And we're told in Scripture that everything in Apostolic Tradition got inscripturated... where? How did the contemporaries of the Prophets know they were hearing infallible prophecy? Many of the prophecies weren't fulfilled until centuries later, yet the Israelites put their recorded words in the canon before they could test them.

    By way of contrast in continuity, the Apostles had their teachings confirmed in ways the O/T prophets often did not. They are recorded in Scripture as handing on their office which was the fulfillment of the O/T office(s). The earliest witnesses in the writings of the Fathers clearly show that the authority which was passed on was viewed as irreformable in the conciliar realm and irreformable in the papal realm. I will briefly mention just the one passage among many which we already examined in a little detail on Saint & Sinner's blog from St. Augustine On Baptism Against the Donatists, Book 2, Ch. 3. I won't take up space here to mention any of the Petrine primacy references. I am well aware of the attempts to ignore or downplay them. No doubt things can occasionally be overstated, for example the misuse by some of "no prophecy of Scripture is of private interpretation," from II Peter, but the weight of the totality of the Patristic witness to conciliar and papal offices and infallibility is just beyond question.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous coward says "Where did you get the New Testament from?????? Answer in short---The Pope"

    When the Pope sought to "suppress the truth in unrighteousness" (Rom 1:18) we received the New Testament from God, via the agency of Erasmus, not the Pope. Now you know who's bones to dig up and burn like the pope did to Wycliffe back in the day for translating the Vulgate into English.

    "Ah. I see. And we're told in Scripture that everything in Apostolic Tradition got inscripturated... where?"

    Everything the RCC teaches that isn't in Scripture is either (1) directly the reverse of Scripture or (2) contrary to the spirit of Scripture. Examples of directly contrary to Scripture, "Call no man father" versus "call the priests father," and "Pray, Our Father..." versus "Hail. Mary, mother of God, save thy children." Examples of contrary to the spirit of Scripture , Jesus decries the phylacteries and long showy robes of the Pharisees but the Romish tradition makes the priests wear robes, Jesus decries religious titles but the priests love religious titles, Peter had not gold or silver but gave such as he had, but the pope swims in gold and silver and keeps all that he has. These extra traditions that didn't get 'inscripturated' clearly didn't come from the apostles, since they are clean contrary to the apostles' teachings.

    ReplyDelete
  9. True - somewhat---however the list of the books settled on for the New Testament were sent to the Bishop of Rome for approval which was given by Pope Boniface I and then finalized by 2nd Council of Carthage in 419. The Council dealt with many issues that were not ruled on by Rome and are not infallible. So the council is not infallible.

    So, the argument here is that the canon was determined by the Council of Carthage and then this was ratified by the Pope, therefore, the canon, but not the council was infallibly determined by the Pope. This is very cute, but:

    1. The Pope, of course, was not said to be infallible until the 19th century.
    2. You have to explain now why there were disputes about the NT canon well into the Middle Ages. It had been infallibly determined already, why were there those within Rome who disputed over the canonicity of the books. Why don't they just say that Bonface ratified Carthage and settled it?

    After the final Council of Carthage there was debate but it was limited and did not change the Cannon of Carthage in anyway.

    So, by your own admission you agree that there was debate. Why the debate if the council's determination was valid? Your arguents refute themselves.


    St. Athanasius said in his epistle on Holy Scripture that scripture was given to man as guide to salvation but to truly understand the meaning of them you must rely on the writings of the early church. I should note that these writing must be taken as a whole and in their primary forms not the one promulgated by your blogger here. Anyone can take a verse from the Bible or quote from this person or that and make it mean whatever they like. But I do believe I have used this in the manner in which the Doctor of the Church intended it.


    Why then don't you quote from Athanasius to that effect?

    . You can confuse the issue with your bulk of wordiness but you still lack any ground work for your claim based on the lack of infallibility in the Old Covenant.

    Actually, I am merely repeating the arguments offered by your communion.

    1st of all The New Covenant is just that the New Covenant. It brought the means of salvation back into the world. Man was cut off from the means of salvation by original sin and the New Covenant opened the path way to Heaven through the Church. The Old Covenant Jews were not on a direct path to heaven. They were given the covenants of the Old Testament to prepare the people for the coming of Jesus and the Holy Spirit. So why would the Old and New Covenant have to match in form and substance? But back to your line of argument..........

    So, according to Anonymous the Jews were graceless and unregenerate. Where is the supporting argument?

    Of course, the argument is not that the two covenants "match in form and substance" but there are continuities and discontinuties between them. Anonymous should bone up on covenant theology before leveling such inept criticisms.

    Isaiah 22:20-25
    5 On that day I will summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah;
    21
    I will clothe him with your robe, and gird him with your sash, and give over to him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah.
    22
    6 I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open.

    This the only reference to the Pope in the Old Testament but it clearly foreshadows an authority figure. He has the keys kind of like Peter huh


    Notice here - no exegesis at all. Mr. Ipse, Dixit just called and he has a commentary or two to which he would like to refer you.

    1. To get to the Pope you have to reason from the position that the Apostles received Jesus' authority, and that Peter was the chief of them, and thus this text refers to Peter through Jesus.. Alternatively, you can say it refers to Peter himself, and by extension to the papacy, or you can just bypass Peter and say it is about the office.

    2. Where has Rome infallibly determined the meaning of this text?

    3. The imagery of keys is used in all sorts of ways in scripture, so it can’t be assumed that the keys of Matthew 16:19 represent papal authority. Nobody would argue, for example, that the figures in Luke 11:52 and Revelation 20:1-3 are Popes because of their possession of keys

    4. This next does appear in the NT referring not to the Pope, but to JESUS, see Rev. 3.

    5. According to vs. 25, the bearer of this key would fall away. So, is it your argument that the Pope can fall away from the faith? If so, so much for infallibility.

    It doesn't say infallible but he is given the power to open and shut the gates.

    So, this text does not speak of infallibility. So why the farrago of words? Oh, to establish the papacy and then reason that the papacy is fallible. Uh-huh.

    There was no way for God to act infallible through man in the Old Covenants. The Holy Sprit had not entered the world. .

    If the Holy Spirit "had not entered the world,'" then why do the Prophets talk so profusely about the activity of the Spirit of God and why does Paul say all Scripture was inspired by God?

    Apparently, you were a classic dispensationalist before you were Catholic.

    The Pope acts infallibly with the guidance of the Holy Spirit not with his own human faculties

    No supporting argument is given. How do you know this is true?

    I think you should also note that the Pope can only act infallibly in matters concerning faith and nothing else so the Pope can be a horrible man but he can not just make things up out of the blue and say it is so with out any backing of tradition.

    Irrelevant to the argument.

    So, despite his bold claim to lay out the biblical evidence, Anonymous shows us nothing after all.

    Ah. I see. And we're told in Scripture that everything in Apostolic Tradition got inscripturated... where?

    Oh, so you hold to partim-partim and not material sufficiency? Where is the supporting argument?

    This isn't the argument. Rather, the argument is that we have what God has seen fit to give us and this takes written form. If there is some sort of unwritten oral tradition, it is up to you to substantiate it.

    How did the contemporaries of the Prophets know they were hearing infallible prophecy?

    This is a problem for your rule of faith, not mine.

    Many of the prophecies weren't fulfilled until centuries later, yet the Israelites put their recorded words in the canon before they could test them.

    Again, a problem for you, not me.

    They are recorded in Scripture as handing on their office which was the fulfillment of the O/T office(s).

    Really? None of them but perhaps one is known to have been of Levi. The OT priesthood was from a particular tribe. The Roman argument is that the gift of infallibility lies in the papacy. Where is the continuity? The Apostles? But the Apostles are analogous to the Prophets, not the Priests of Levi. That's a quandry for you, not me, so you're left to argue that the papacy is the successor of the Apostolic office. Do you have any non-question begging arguments?

    I won't take up space here to mention any of the Petrine primacy references.

    I'm sure you won't since Augustine locates the Chair in several sees, not just that of Rome, and I bet you won't see there are many views for and against Petrine primacy in the Fathers. How do you adjudicate between them?

    ReplyDelete
  10. You started your positive presentation with "Why is what was acceptable for God’s old covenant community unacceptable for God’s new covenant community? If you want to know God’s intentions for the future (e.g. the church age), a good place to start is with his historical modus operandi."

    Indeed. Why is the initial monergism and subsequent synergism we see in, e.g., David's ongoing justification unacceptable? That's part of His historical m.o. But apart from that, I pointed out that the Old Covenant believers had a magisterium which authoritatively canonized works which could not be totally verified in those points of history. The principle of an authority is manifest and then perfected in the New Covenant fulfillment. I don't understand why you insist upon narrowly equating the Apostles with the prophets and their successors with the Levites. The fact is, the Priesthood, Prophetic office, Kingship, authoritative magisterium, etc., were all fulfilled in Jesus Christ. He breathed upon the Apostles in bequeathing them His authority. He sent them as the Father sent Him. For what did the Father send Him? He inspired them to replace themselves with ones having authority in a perpetual office by the laying on of hands and bestowal of the Holy Spirit. Your counterargument is?

    "Oh, so you hold to partim-partim and not material sufficiency? Where is the supporting argument?"

    You asserted that all tradition got inscripturated, and you cannot show that that is the case from the records you limit yourself to in utilizing sola scriptura. My question is not an assertion. It is a question. I will say that I believe you are positing a false dichotomy.

    "Rather, the argument is that we have what God has seen fit to give us and this takes written form."

    So you keep saying.

    "If there is some sort of unwritten oral tradition, it is up to you to substantiate it."

    The liturgy. QED.

    "'How did the contemporaries of the Prophets know they were hearing infallible prophecy?'

    'This is a problem for your rule of faith, not mine.'"

    I see. I assert that the Old Covenant had an authoritative magisterium that could recognize and canonize infallible prophecy, et alia, and that this authoritative magisterium is perfected when bestowed upon the New Covenant community, and it's a problem for me. Mm hmm.

    "Really? None of them but perhaps one is known to have been of Levi. The OT priesthood was from a particular tribe. The Roman argument is that the gift of infallibility lies in the papacy. Where is the continuity? The Apostles? But the Apostles are analogous to the Prophets, not the Priests of Levi."

    You bifurcation makes no sense.

    ReplyDelete
  11. You started your positive presentation with "Why is what was acceptable for God’s old covenant community unacceptable for God’s new covenant community? If you want to know God’s intentions for the future (e.g. the church age), a good place to start is with his historical modus operandi."Indeed. Why is the initial monergism and subsequent synergism we see in, e.g., David's ongoing justification unacceptable?

    Monergism refers to regeneration. Justification in Pauline categories is by the instrument of faith. Which Reformed theologians deny that what we term "sanctification" is monergistic and not synergistic?. I have Robert Reymond's text before me, and he admits this. Since you, as usual misconstrue our doctrine, most of what you object here is irrelevant. According to Reformed theology, the means and mode of salvation has always been the same anyway - so your argument does not obtain.

    That's part of His historical m.o.

    Yes, God progressively sanctifies that which He forensically justifies. So, this objection does not touch Reformed doctrine.

    But apart from that, I pointed out that the Old Covenant believers had a magisterium which authoritatively canonized works which could not be totally verified in those points of history.

    This too, does not touch the argument against infallibility, and Protestants do not deny the teaching office in the churches.

    By the way, you need to establish that the Old Covenant authorities were a "Magisterium" in the Romanist sense.

    I don't understand why you insist upon narrowly equating the Apostles with the prophets and their successors with the Levites.

    A. Prophets was an extraordinary office.
    B. So is "Apostle."
    C. By your own admission, they appointed a teaching / governing office in the churches.
    D. Thus that office is an ordinary, not an extraordinary office. It is not unique. Nowhere does the NT call these elders "successors" of the Apostles. To say that smuggles an assumption into your question. If you think that they were "successors" then you'll have to mount an argument for that.
    E. So, the correct analog between the OT offices of Prophet and Priest would be Apostle and elder/presbyter respectively, or, in your parlance, Apostle and priest.

    The Apostles were not priests. Where priesthood is mentioned in the New Testament, it is in reference to all believers. Jesus was the Prophet like unto Moses. His priesthood was unique, so the Apostles inherited the office and gift equivalent to that of a Prophet, not priests. Since the priesthood of Jesus was unique, then the only valid order of succession left for you is that of Aaron.

    Perhaps you need to bone up on Catholic argumentation. Take a look @ Stapleton, who very clearly argues that after the people of God were collected and reduced to the form of a chruch, Moses sat as supreme judge; and afterwards judges were established, yet he reserved the more difficult case for his own decision. Therefore, now there should be one common supreme judge and moderator of all controversies, from whom no appeal is permitted. This office is the Pope. So, your side of the aisle is the one drawing the analogy between Moses and the Pope. Your side, as you demonstrate here, says that this teaching authority is in the priesthood, and the Pope is a priest, but where is Moses a priest?

    Moses was no priest. Aaron was high priest. So, if you want to invest the Apostles with the authority of a priest, what order would that be? Melchizedek? Hebrews confers that uniquely upon Christ and only Christ. So, you're left with Aaron, a Levite, and this office was abolished.

    You can argue that there is a new order established, but what order would that be? Where can I find this in Scripture invested in a particular set of ordained persons?

    The fact is, the Priesthood, Prophetic office, Kingship, authoritative magisterium, etc., were all fulfilled in Jesus Christ. He breathed upon the Apostles in bequeathing them His authority. He sent them as the Father sent Him. For what did the Father send Him? He inspired them to replace themselves with ones having authority in a perpetual office by the laying on of hands and bestowal of the Holy Spirit. Your counterargument is?

    A. The priesthood of Christ is unique, see Hebrews.

    B. The New Testament refers to the priesthood of all believers and never designates the Apostles as a set of priests with unique authority.

    C. The New Testament says that they appointed elders -not priests, not a "Magisterium," not a monarchial episcopate - elders in local churches, and we have a doctrine of eldership in our churches. I suggest you familarize yourself with it.

    D. The NT designates Christ alone as Head of the Church, not Peter, not a papacy. Nowhere does it call the elders appointed the Apostles' "successors" in the sense Rome maintains - or any other sense. We agree they "succeed" in a general sense in the teaching and governing of the church, but this does not select for a monarchial episcopate or a papacy - the meaning with which the term "successors" is so often pregnant in your view.

    E. Where is the definitive list of all these elders and their valid successors so that we may establish all the links in the chain to the present day? You will need to do this for each Apostle.

    F. Jesus is King of King and Lord of Lords, so is this authority invested in the Apostles and the Magisterium too? Does the Pope rule over the United States of America?

    G. Who after the last Apostle died was ever named into that office? That office has ceased.

    H. I take it your argument is that the Magisterium is self-perpetuating.

    Jerome believed that there were successors to the apostles, but he denied that any of those post-apostolic men, including the bishop of Rome, were as authoritative as the apostles:

    "I know that a difference must be made between the apostles and all other preachers. The former always speak the truth; but the latter being men sometimes go astray....It is for these virtues that I and others have left our homes, it is for these that we would live peaceably without any contention in the fields and alone; paying all due veneration to Christ's pontiffs--so long as they preach the right faith--not because we fear them as lords but because we honour them as fathers deferring also to bishops as bishops, but refusing to serve under compulsion, beneath the shadow of episcopal authority, men whom we do not choose to obey. I am not so much puffed up in mind as not to know what is due to the priests of Christ. For he who receives them, receives not them but Him, whose bishops they are. But let them be content with the honour which is theirs. Let them know that they are fathers and not lords, especially in relation to those who scorn the ambitions of the world and count peace and repose the best of all things." (Letter 82:7, 82:11)

    Cyprian tells us that church leaders are to be appointed by laymen:

    "a bishop is appointed into the place of one deceased, when he is chosen in time of peace by the suffrage of an entire people, when he is protected by the help of God in persecution, faithfully linked with all his colleagues, approved to his people by now four years' experience in his episcopate" (Letter 54:6)

    "On which account a people obedient to the Lord's precepts, and fearing God, ought to separate themselves from a sinful prelate, and not to associate themselves with the sacrifices of a sacrilegious priest, especially since they themselves have the power either of choosing worthy priests, or of rejecting unworthy ones....For which reason you must diligently observe and keep the practice delivered from divine tradition and apostolic observance, which is also maintained among us, and almost throughout all the provinces; that for the proper celebration of ordinations all the neighbouring bishops of the same province should assemble with that people for which a prelate is ordained. And the bishop should be chosen in the presence of the people, who have most fully known the life of each one, and have looked into the doings of each one as respects his habitual conduct. And this also, we see, was done by you in the ordination of our colleague Sabinus; so that, by the suffrage of the whole brotherhood, and by the sentence of the bishops who had assembled in their presence, and who had written letters to you concerning him, the episcopate was conferred upon him, and hands were imposed on him in the place of Basilides." (67:3, 67:5)

    The second citation above, from Letter 67, was written in the context of Cyprian opposing the Roman bishop Stephen in a dispute over church government. He criticizes Stephen for supporting the reappointment of a bishop who had been deposed by the people of the church:

    "Neither can it rescind an ordination rightly perfected, that Basilides, after the detection of his crimes, and the baring of his conscience even by his own confession, went to Rome and deceived Stephen our colleague, placed at a distance, and ignorant of what had been done, and of the truth, to canvass that he might be replaced unjustly in the episcopate from which he had been righteously deposed." (67:5)

    So, not only does Cyprian think that the approval of laymen is necessary for the appointing of a church leader, and not only does he think that the approval of the bishop of Rome isn't necessary, but he even thinks that laymen can appoint a bishop *in opposition to* the bishop of Rome.

    You asserted that all tradition got inscripturated,

    Which of these do you affirm?

    Catholic Material Sufficiency: The idea that the Scriptures are “materially sufficient” simply means the entire content of revelation is in the Scriptures, or that divine revelation is contained entirely in Scripture. That is, all the doctrines Christians are to believe are found in the Bible. Along with affirming totum in Scriptura, Catholics who maintain material sufficiency also hold “Tradition” likewise contains the entire content of revelation: “totum in traditione”. Thus, two vehicles carry God’s special revelation in total: Scripture and Tradition. Both are infallible in the Catholic view.

    Catholic Partim-Partim Sufficiency: Part of God’s special revelation is contained in the Scripture, and part is contained in tradition. In this view, the Bible is “materially insufficient”. The New Catholic Encyclopedia states of those who hold this view, “Neither tradition nor Scripture contains the whole apostolic tradition. Scripture is materially (i.e., in content) insufficient, requiring oral tradition as a complement to be true to the whole divine revelation” [Source: New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967) Vol 14, p.228].

    What you did above was invoke a particular definition of "Apostolic Tradition" from your own rule of faith, impose it upon what I stated, and then ask a question. What I said was that we have their extant teaching in Scripture - not that "all tradition" got inscripturated. We've argued that many times on this blog. If you dont'know the argument, then look in the archives.

    If you feel that there is *other* extant "Apostolic Tradition* that is different from what is in Scripture, the onus is on you to make the argument. So, where is your exegetical argument?

    Evangelicals don’t deny that apostolic tradition is authoritative. But we don’t have any oral apostolic tradition. Paul was writing in the 1C. All we have at this stage of the game is written apostolic tradition.

    and you cannot show that that is the case from the records you limit yourself to in utilizing sola scriptura.

    Are you saying that we are limited to Scripture and nothing else? If so, that's another straw man.

    And notice what I said: their extant teaching is enscripturated. Then I asked:

    I asked: If there is some sort of unwritten oral tradition, it is up to you to substantiate it."

    You replied:

    The liturgy. QED.

    Which liturgy? There are several. Where is the documentation that it is from the Apostles? What does it contain? If it's documented, it is written, not unwritten - and why isn't it canonized as Scripture? If it's not canonized how do you know it is infallible? Or is it fallible? Is this particular liturgy necessary for the faith and practice of the church? And why do other Catholics offer other traditions when asked this question? Where is this list of traditions?

    The easiest way for you to disprove that all the extant "apostolic tradition" we have is not in Scripture is to prove that there is apostolic tradition apart from Scripture that exists.

    i) You have misplaced the burden of proof. There can be no evidence for oral tradition qua oral. At best, there can only be evidence for oral tradition committed to writing. Otherwise, oral tradition wouldn’t survive intact over the centuries. So the onus is on the Catholic to literally document the existence of oral tradition. But if it’s documentary, it’s not oral.

    ii) In addition, how does Catholicism verify that an oral tradition is apostolic or dominical?

    I see. I assert that the Old Covenant had an authoritative magisterium that could recognize and canonize infallible prophecy, et alia, and that this authoritative magisterium is perfected when bestowed upon the New Covenant community, and it's a problem for me. Mm hmm.


    Yes, it is because the Romanists are claiming infallibility in this era while recognizing that they were not do in the previous era, not us You can't seem to follow your own argument:

    Since Rome recognizes that the Jewish "Magisterium" recognized "infallible prophecy" and were not themselves an infallible Magisterium, then, by your own argument it does not require an infallible Magisterium to recognize infallible Scripture.

    When I argue that the OT "Magisterium" as you call it was fallible, I am not arguing anything Rome itself has not already stipulated.

    If a fallible "Magisterium" recognized Scripture in that era, then why is that required in this one? The Roman argument is that it is necessary today.

    There were parallel divisions to modern "denominations" in second temple Judaism. If God didn’t see fit to install an OT magisterium to prevent doctrinal diversity in second temple Judaism, why is doctrinal diversity an argument for the necessity of a Magisterium under the New Covenant? If God didn't see fit to invest the Jewish authorities with infallibility - yet they recognized "infallible prophecy" and canonized it, why is an infallible Magisterium required in the New Covenant?

    By the way, it does not stop with the Mosaic administration. What about the covenant community in OT times? Did the covenant community from, say, Abraham to the time of Moses, have a Magisterium to keep it in check? Using that term is blatantly anachronistic. If you're going to draw such a distinction, then why not include everything about it - including its apostasy? What about an apostate high priest like Uriah, who collaborated with Ahab in introducing pagan idolatry into the official worship of Israel (2 Kg 16)?

    If not, how could the OT covenant community get along without a Magisterium, but not the NT covenant community? The people of God didn’t spring into being, ex nihilo, at Pentecost. They existed in Second Temple Judaism. In the Intertestamental period. In the postexilic period. In the Babylonian Exile. In the preexilic period. In the Monarchy. In the age of the Judges. In the wilderness. In Egypt. In the Patriarchal age. And the antediluvian era (Gen 4:26).

    Where was the papacy or episcopacy during all that time? How did they manage without a Magisterium?

    Your answer: Suddenly, according to you, the New Covenant "perfects" the teaching office. Where is the exegetical argument, and assuming for a moment that there is such a "perfection," then how am I to know that it rests with Rome and not the Orthodox Chruch or any other?


    You bifurcation makes no sense.


    If you are going to argue that they are the successors of Christ Christ was the successor of Moses not Aaron. He himself was of the tribe of Judah, not Levi. Christ established no levitical priesthood and, in fact, abolished it. The teaching office in the OT was invested not with the prophets but with the priests of Levi. Read the Books of the Chronicles. The official teaching office was invested in the Levites -priests, not prophets. Prophets were extraordinary.

    If your argument from the NT is going to correspond to the OT, it would correspond to the offices discharged by the sons of Aaron, not those who followed in the footsteps of Moses. You can argue for discontinuity, but if you do so, then it will require you, since Rome invests the teaching office in a priesthood to mount an argument that takes all of this into account - and it was Stapleton, et.al. who argued that the papacy is like to the office of Moses, while arguing that the Pope is supreme magistrate and priest, so I'm only showing the flaws from your own side.

    1. The Pope has not Moses' qualifications. What extraordinary gifts does he possess? Show them.

    2. Protestants affirm a teaching office in the several churches. For you to act as if we do not is to lie - but an argument from particular churches to the churches in aggregate does not thereby obtain.

    3. Moses was the judge of all things political as well as theological in his day, and Rome admits that this authority is divided to the present day.

    4. Aaron was the ordinary priest and had successors; not Moses, whose function was extraordinary, for he had no successors in his office. The prophets were never considered to be on par with Moses or his "successors." Joshua was not a prophet, he was a political leader. So, if this same authority of Christ, of whom Moses was a type, passed to the Apostles, where is the Pope's political authority over the world?

    5. Moses was no priest after the Law was published. Aaron was concecrated and anointed. Moses was a magistrate. I"ve been to Mass @ the Vatican when the Pope officiated. He discharges the duties of a priest, not a Prophet or Magistrate.

    6. By your own admission, Christ fulfilled all types. If Christ is supreme judge of all, you cannot argue from types.

    7. So, if you're going to draw analogies between the OC and the NT for an infallible Magisterium, you have to account for all of this. What I've seen from you amounts to ad hocery.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Jesus came with manifold authority. His authority is said to be "all authority in Heaven and on earth." His authority consists of various official aspects, to wit: priesthood after the order of Melchizedech, prophet, ambassador, teacher, king, etc. Christ gives to His Apostles His authority (JOhn 20:21-23). There is no forgiveness of sins without sacrifice. The One Who offers this sacrifice did so temporally, and that once for all, and He does so eternally (cf. Revelation 5:6, the Lamb standing as though slain, 5:12, the Lamb that was slain, 6:9, the altar in the Heavenly place upon which He presents Himself to the Father, under which His martyrs rest until vindicated even though His sacrifice accomplished their vindication, etc.). Mark 15:16 records Jesus' command to the Apostles.
    Peter is given a singular commission. The Apostles receive a similar collegial commision, and they are federally headed by the one given a singular commission, as we are federally headed by them collegially and him singularly, and this in a temporal aspect of His eternal federal Headship in which we participate (Hebrews 3: 14, II Peter 2:5, etc.). Acts 20:28 records the confirmation of the continuation of their office in the persons of the bishops who are to rule in their particular churches. This rule is specified to be over the New and everlasting covenant. This covenant is renewed in a new and perfect way because of a better participation in Christ. The Old Covenant participation was by way of anticipation, whereas the New is administered by Him in those to whom He promised to be until the end of the age. The Apostles' living ministry is continued because He is still working out in history that which He accomplished in history and in eternity. It is not yet the end of the age. The foundation stones lain by Him (Who is Himself the Chief cornerstone among the twelve foundation stones) are used to build up the House of God. We, the living stones, submit to the authorities set over us. I do not submit to a fallible Lord. He has given to me to participate in Him in communion with those in whom He reigns, and with whom, God willing, I will be a joint heir, but according to my station and calling which was not to the ordained continuum. This rule is of the Kingdom which shall have no end. It will be over the new heaven and the new earth, even as it is imperfectly over the kingdoms of this realm over which Satan had been given limited dominion. God's Law is "perfect," according to the Psalmist. The Law was set aside, according to Hebrews. We are under grace to be truly free to abide by the Spirit in the perfect way of the Lord. The teaching office of the Levitical priesthood was set aside when the Levitical priesthood was set aside. This does not mean there is no more teaching office. The translation to the Priesthood after the order of Melchizedech obtains, because the High priest has many sons in His lineage as Abraham had sons without number, as Aaron, and so on. The priesthood in which they participate is His which is and remains His forever. He established it and upholds it. Moses, who had his initial Lawgiving and teaching office confirmed by signs and wonders, was followed in the Old Covenant by some who had similar signs occasionally granted and some who did not.

    I am more than passingly familiar with the New Testament, thank you. Your condescension is no good witness. I never "lied," because I never "acted like" your various communions do not have teaching offices. You simply assert that they are in no way infallible, as there can be no infallible teaching magisterium. I dispute that. I resent the accusation of false witness and ask that you retract it.

    All the of the liturgies which have been established (and all of which are sacrificial) reflect the glories of the heavenly Liturgy of which Christ is the Host and Victim. Therefore, all of the various recognized liturgies are valid, of course. The diversity is unity because One Lord authored and sustains them. The diachronic unity which we possess is not to the exclusion of the synchronic unity we possess. I simply do not have time to give you detailed presentation concerning the bona fides for the liturgies which have been handed down. There is plenty of material which will be useful for your edification in this regard, I suggest you familiarixe yourself with it. It is worth noting that they have heritages and historical witness earlier than some key Christological explications which you hold are authoritative and necessary.

    I am going to refrain at this time from addressing the confusion and misstatements in your latest comment point by point in favor of making the above my reply. I hope shortly to return to it and methodically interact.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice." (Mt 23:2-3)

    How do you interpret this passage? I see Jesus acknowledging that those on the Chair of Moses actually DO have teaching authority. The problem is, they're hypocritical in their actions. Would Jesus tell people to observe fallible teaching?

    Taking this a step further...presumably the imperfection was that there were many Chairs of Moses in many different synagogues. Keep in mind, the Old Testament had not been fulfilled - the OT was an imperfect reflection of the NT. In the NT, there is ONE chair...that which is Peter's...for him alone does Jesus give the authority to "bind" or "loose."

    A couple of other points:

    - Notice that Jesus mentions Pharisees in the chair of Moses, never Sadducees. The Sadducees were a sect that followed a "sola scriptura" type of approach to theology. The Pharisees believed in an Oral Torah, or Oral Divine Revelation that had been handed down with with the Torah - a precursor to Sacred Tradition today.

    - Notice that the "Chair of Moses" is never referenced in the Old Testaent. It's extra-scriptural, it's part of Oral Tradition. And yet, we see that Jesus considers Oral Tradition a vehicle for infallibility.

    One last point, even if you disregard the authority of the Councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage...you're still acknowledging you got the Canon from St. Athanasius - an extra-biblical source (and a man, at that). Are you placing infallibility upon St. Athanasius?

    ReplyDelete