By Norman L. Geisler
It is the claim of the Church of Rome that it is the one and only true church on earth which is in direct continuity with the church established by Christ and His apostles in the New Testament. However, this conclusion faces serious challenges both governmentally and doctrinally.[1] For there is a radical, significant difference and discontinuity between the hierarchical authority of the present Roman See and that of the churches of the New Testament and early Christian centuries. First of all, in contrast to the claim of a divinely authoritative and infallible governmental and doctrinal structure of current Roman Catholicism, the immediate successors of the apostles followed the pattern of government laid down in the New Testament, namely, independent, autonomous local churches led by a plurality of elders (also called bishops).[2]
Second, it was not until the second century that even a basic episcopal form of government emerged with one bishop over each church. And even then there was no sole authority of this local leader over a given church, to say nothing of authority over even a group of churches. Further, this short step into episcopalism was still a long way from the later claim of Rome to have infallible authority over all churches.
Third, it took some time before more authority was given to bishops and before eventually there was a bishop over a whole region and ultimately a bishop over bishops, the bishop of Rome. Indeed, it was not until the late nineteenth century that the Papacy made the bold claim of infallible authority for the bishop of Rome in official pronouncements on faith and practice. The course of this gradual development is a fascinating study in the creeping authority that over took the autonomous, self-governing, Bible-based churches of the Apostles and their immediate successors. Our study begins with the apostolic Fathers who were contemporary with or immediate successors of the apostolic age itself and is thereby the most valuable historic testimony.
Apostolic Fathers on Church Government
The late first century apostolic Fathers and even most of the early second century Fathers followed the New Testament pattern of church government of a plurality of elders (synonymous with bishops) in independent, autonomous local churches that are united by a common apostolic authoritative doctrine expressed in the Old and New Testaments.
The Epistle of Barnabas (A. D. 70 and 90?)
Many scholars consider this work the earliest of all early extrabiblical sources. Lightfoot places the time of its writing between A. D. 70 and 132, preferring a date between A. D. 70 and 90.[3] In view of the Jewish temple in Jerusalem being destroyed, this epistle affirms that the church is the spiritual temple of God (16).[4] The “sons and daughters”[5] in the faith to whom he addresses the epistle (1) are urged to avoid any “schism” (19) and make peace between contending factions. This implies that the congregation had the authority to do this. There are no references to any bishop over a church or over any group of churches.
Clement of Rome (c. 94–95)
Clement of Rome is one of the earliest non-biblical writers. His epistle is written from “The Church of God which sojourneth in Rome” to “the Church of God which sojourneth in Corinth” (Intro). He exhorts believers to be “submitting yourselves to your rulers [plural] and rendering to the older men among you the honour which is their due” (1). He commends them because “Every sedition and every schism is abominable to you” (2). He speaks of the apostles Peter and Paul as “most righteous pillars of the Church” (5). He exhorts: “Let us set before our eyes [the example] of the good Apostles” (5). But there is no affirmation of the primacy of Peter over the other apostles. Indeed, Clement himself assumes no apostolic authority for himself but writes as a fellow “sojourner” in the faith (Intro). Believers are urged to “conform to the glorious and venerable rule which hath been handed down to us” from the apostles (7). They were admonished to “do that which is written” in the Scripture (13 cf. 23).
He opposed leaders exalting themselves over others, declaring, “For Christ is with them that are lowly of mind, not with them that exalt themselves over the flock” (16) which speaks against an authoritarian episcopalianism of one bishop over the whole congregation. Rather, “Let us reverence our rulers; let us honour our elders”( 21), clearly indicating a plurality of elders in the leadership of the church.
Clement speaks of “the Apostles [who] received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ.” When they established a church they “appointed. .. bishops and deacons” (42). He even went so far as to affirm that the apostles foresaw “that there would be strife over the name of the bishop’s office” and thus appointed “approved men [who] should succeed to their ministrations” (44). This belies any apostolic succession since the apostles did not appoint apostles to succeed them in every church (Acts 14:23). He rebuked those who got rid of their sound and godly bishops, saying, “These men we consider to be unjustly thrust out from their ministration” (44). This illegitimate action seems to imply that the congregations did have a legitimate role in choosing their own leaders which the Corinthian church was abusing. Clement speaks of the Corinthian church’s “sedition against its presbyters [elders]” (47). They were told, rather, to “submit yourselves unto the presbyters” (57).
In summary, just like the New Testament, no distinction is made here between an elder and a bishop. Each church has a plurality of elders (bishops). There is no sign of an episcopal form of government, even in a local church, lest it be found in the warning against those who wished to exalt themselves in authority over others. The true authority in the church is apostolic (13), and their teaching is inscribed in the Scriptures (13, 23, 42, 44, 53). Even Roman Catholic authority Ludwig Ott admits that “the letter contains neither a formal statement of the Primacy, that is, an express invocation of the pre-eminence of the Roman Church, nor juridical measures.”[6]
The Epistle of St. Polycarp to the Philippians (c. 69-c.155) [7]
The value of this epistle is that its author, Polycarp, was a disciple of John the Apostle. Thus, it brings us into immediate contact with the apostolic age. It begins: “Polycarp and the presbyters (elders) that are with him. . .” (Intro).
He declares that “the presbyters also must be compassionate, merciful toward all men. . .” (6). He speaks of “Valens, who aforetime was a presbyter among you” (11). That is, he was one among many. Indeed, Polycarp places himself alongside of the other “elders” in the introduction (cited above). He also makes reference to “deacons,” insisting they should be “blameless” (5).
The references are to a plurality of elders (bishops) and deacons and fit with the New Testament (Phil. 1:1; Acts 14:23), as does the fact that some, like Polycarp, were leaders among these elders (cf. Philemon 1:1).[8] There is no evidence, however, that Polycarp held any higher office than the rest of the elders. In short, the church government reflected here is not episcopalian.
Peter is not singled out in any special way. Indeed, he is not even mentioned by name. But Polycarp speaks of Paul four times (see 3, 9, 11 [twice]). He refers to “Paul himself and the rest of the Apostles” (9). He wrote of those who “are well trained in the sacred writings” (12) which Polycarp himself quotes numerous times in this short letter, showing his belief in their importance.
The Didache (The Teachings of the Apostles) (c. 80–120?)
Scholars date this work to the end of the first or the beginning of the second century. Most English and American scholars vary between 80 and 120.[9] Internal evidence for an early date includes its simplicity, undeveloped doctrinal expression, and its New Testament-like form of church government.
The Didache begins in a Proverbs-like way, “there are two ways, one of life and one of death, and there is a great difference between them.” All believers are exhorted to follow “according to the ordinance of the Gospel” as they have it from “the apostles and prophets” (11).
The form of church government was patterned after the New Testament (see Phil. 1:1; Acts 14:23). It commands: “Appoint for yourselves therefore bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord.. .. Therefore despise them not; for they are your honourable men along with the prophets and teachers” (15). While there is no affirmation of any episcopal kind of government, there is a hint of the conditions which led to the development of the primacy of bishops. It is found in the warning against any “schism” (4) the persistent presence of which led to later development of an episcopal form of government in an attempt to unify the visible church against divisions in doctrine and practice.
The Shepherd of Hermas (c. 90–100)
The “shepherd” is a divine teacher who communicates this allegory to Hermas for the instruction of the church. The “aged woman” is the church, indicating her eternal election by God before the world began. The story is geographically centered in Rome. Some claim the author was the Hermas mentioned by Paul in Romans 16:14. Others follow the Muratorian Canon (c. 180) which says it was by the brother of Pius I (c. 140–155), but this is inconsistent with the reference to Clement (Vision 4). To meet this objection, many place it around A.D. 90-100.[10]
The form of church government involves a plurality of elders and deacons. The author refers to “the elders that preside over the Church” (Vision 2.4 cf. Vision 3.1) and who are guided by “the book” (Vision 2.4). Another text (Vision 3.5) speaks of “the apostles and bishops and teachers and deacons.” Another text speaks of “the rulers of the Church” who “occupy the chief seats” (Vision 3.9). There is no reference to a bishop in the singular being over any church or churches.
An Ancient Homily (The So-called “Second Epistle of Clement”) (A. D. 120–140)
This ancient sermon by an unknown author is dated by Lightfoot between A. D. 120–140. Even though it is listed in all three manuscripts with Clement’s letter to the Corinthians and is sometimes called the “Second Epistle of St. Clement,” both external and internal evidence favors another author.[11]
The“scripture” is cited repeatedly as having divine authority (2, 3, 4, 5, 6. 7, etc.). Citations are prefaced with “He [God] Himself saith” or the like (e.g, 3, 4, 5). Believers are to “give heed to the things which are written” (19). Both “the Books [of the Bible] and the Apostles” declare God’s truth (14).
The form of church leadership was not episcopal but more presbyterian in so far as it had a plurality of elders. There is no mention of a single bishop in a church or over a group of churches. Rather, he speaks of the church being “admonished by the presbyters,” that is, elders (18). Indeed, woe is pronounced on those who “obeyed not the presbyters” (17).
In brief, in this tiny but early sermon we breathe the air of the apostles. In so doing we get a very New Testament picture of orthodox teaching, including an independent local church which has no awareness of the later development of a single bishop over the local church or a group of churches but rather a plurality of elders whose leadership is to be faithfully followed.
St. Ignatius (d. 107 or 117?)
Assuming the date and authenticity of Ignatius’ epistles, Ignatius manifests the earliest form of a minimal episcopal form of church government in which each church has a bishop in addition to elders and deacons. However, there are reasons to question these dates and the exact text.[12] But even if there are later interpolations in these books, they still reflect a relatively early form of the primacy of local Bishops over their congregation.
Ignatius speaks to the Ephesians about “your bishop” (1)[13] and of their need of “submitting yourselves to your bishop and presbytery” (2). He wrote, “Let us therefore be careful not to resist the bishop, that by our submission we may give ourselves to God” (5). He adds, “Plainly therefore we ought to regard the bishop as the Lord Himself” (6). And “Assemble yourselves together in common. .. to the end that ye may obey the bishop and the presbytery without distraction of mind” (20).
To the Magnesians he spoke of the bishop as one to whom “all reverence” should be rendered (3). Of course, this respect is to be paid ultimately to God who is “the Bishop of all” (3). He speaks of the bishop presiding after the likeness of God and the presbyters after the likeness of the council of the Apostles, with the deacons also “who are most dear to me. . .” (6); “therefore as the Lord did nothing without the Father [being united with Him], either by Himself or by the Apostles, so neither do ye anything without the bishop and the presbyters” (7).
In his letter to the Trallians Ignatius repeats his strong episcopal emphasis, saying, “In like manner let all men respect the deacons as Jesus Christ, even as they should respect the bishop as being a type of the Father and the presbyters as the council of God and as the college of Apostles” (3). Indeed, “he that doeth aught without the bishop and presbytery and deacons, this man is not clean in his conscience” (7). He speaks of not separating from “the ordinances of the Apostles” (7). It is noteworthy that he speaks of a group of “churches” (12) as independent entities which have their own elders and bishop (pastor) and of his being a “member” of a local church (13).
Another epistle is addressed to “the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans” (Intro).14 Ignatius disavowed apostolic status, saying, “I do not enjoin you, as Peter and Paul did.” He gave equal status to Peter and Paul,15 though he mentioned Peter as the first apostle (as did Paul in 1 Cor. 15:5) who saw Christ after His resurrection (Smyrneans, 3). “They were apostles, I am a convict; they were free, but I am a slave to this very hour” (Romans, 4). He says God is the “shepherd” of the church at Syria and “Jesus alone” is its bishop (9).
To the Philadelphians, Ignatius wrote: “Be ye careful therefore to observe one eucharist (for there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and one cup unto union in His blood; there is one altar, as there is one bishop, together with the presbytery and the deacons. . .), that whatever ye do, ye may do it after God” (4). For “I cried out, when I was among you; I spake with a loud voice, with God’s own voice, Give heed to the bishop and the presbytery and deacons” (7).
The Smyrnaeans were urged to “shun divisions, as the beginning of evil.. .. Let no man do aught of things pertaining to the Church apart from the bishop wither to baptize or to hold a love-feast” (8). He spoke of the apostles as “Peter and his company” (3) who witnessed the resurrection. For “it is good to recognize God and the bishop. He that honoureth the bishop is honoured of God; he that doeth aught without the knowledge of the bishop rendereth service to the devil” (9). And “let that be held a valid eucharist which is under the bishop or one to whom he shall have committed it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the people be; even as where Jesus may be, there is the universal Church” (8).
Finally, he wrote unto “Polycarp, who is bishop of the church of the Smyrnaeans or rather who hath for his bishop God the Father and Jesus Christ, abundant greeting” (Intro). Also, “give ye heed to the bishop, that God also may give heed to you. I am devoted to those who are subject to the bishop, the presbyters, the deacons” (6). Thus, “It becometh thee, most blessed Polycarp, to call together a godly council and to elect some one among you who is very dear to you and zealous also, who shall be fit to bear the name of God’s courier to appoint him, I say, that he may go to Syria and glorify your zealous love unto the glory of God” (7).
Several things are clear from these texts. First, it represents an incipient form of episcopal church government in which each church has one bishop, many elders, and many deacons. The Bishop is not just a leader of the elders but is in a position of authority above them to which they must submit. He controlled communion, baptism, and oversaw everything that occurred in his church.
Further, some bishops seemed to be over a whole “region” or group of churches (cf. Romans, Intro). However, there is no affirmation of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome over other bishops. Peter is given recognition alongside of Paul[16] but not over him. Likewise, the first century authority rested in the “apostles” (plural) who are called a “council of the Apostles” (Magnesians, 6), not in any one of them. Peter is only listed as one leader, along with Paul, among the apostles (Romans, 4) but not as the Bishop of Rome or the Vicar of Christ.
What is more, several times God is called the invisible “the Bishop of all” (Trallians, 3; Magnesians, 3), the “Shepherd” (Letter to the Romans, 9), and Christ alone as “Bishop.”[17] This fits with the biblical emphasis of Christ as the invisible head of the visible churches, just as the apostle John pictured in the Book of Revelation (chapters 1–3).
Nonetheless, Ignatius does represent another step in the evolution of the episcopate-one where a form of episcopal government exists in each local church, as opposed to the congregation overseen by a board of elders as found in the New Testament (Phil. 1:1; Acts 14:23). Also, Ignatius may represent the first step where a region is overseen by a bishop who is the bishop of the lead city in that area, i.e., of a regional episcopate.
Fragments of Papias (c. 130–140)
His famous Exposition of Oracles of the Lord has perished and only fragments of his writings survive. Irenaeus preserved two fragments. Other writings, including Eusebius, contain addition material about Papias. He is believed to be “a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp.”[18]
Papias confirms several New Testament teachings on church government. First, there is no primacy of Peter. His two lists of the apostles have Andrew first and Peter second in both cases (Fragments 3 and 7). Indeed, special attention is given to John (Fragments 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, 19, 20). While Polycarp is called a “bishop” by later writers, Papias refers to all the apostles as “Elders” (Fragment 3), showing the terms are used interchangeably as in the New Testament. He refers to “the Elder John” (Fragments 3, 7). There are no references to an episcopal form of government in the church or churches. This would indicate that the development of episcopalism was local, not universal, and that it was not following any New Testament apostolic mandate.
Irenaeus (c. 130-c. 200)
Irenaeus is an important witness in early Christianity. He was thought to be a native of Smyrna who studied at Rome. He claimed to have heard Polycarp, the disciple of the apostle John, when he was a boy. Irenaeus is said to have later become the Bishop of Lyons, France. He was the first great Father of the church in the West. His major work Against Heresies[19] is dated between 182 and 188.[20]
On the Apostolicity of the Church
It is evident from repeated statements that the final authority for the Church rests in the apostles, not in any one apostle. Even the founding of the Church at Rome was said to be by two apostles, Paul and Peter.[21] Irenaeus repeatedly speaks of “the apostolic tradition”[22] and “the blessed apostles” (plural) who “founded and built up the Church,”[23] the doctrine of the apostles,[24] and “the tradition from the apostles.”[25] He wrote: “these [apostles] are the voices of the Church from which every Church had its origin .. .; these are the voices of the apostles; these are the voices of the disciples of the Lord, the truly perfect, who after the assumption of the Lord, were perfected by the Spirit.. . .”[26] For “He [God] sent forth His own apostles in the spirit of truth, and not in that of error, He did the very same also in the case of the prophets.”[27]
On the Unity of the Church
Irenaeus strongly stressed the unity of the Christian Church. He wrote: “the Catholic [universal] Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world.. . .”[28] However, as just noted, this unity is not organizational but spiritual and doctrinal. He wrote:
The Church, though dispersed throughout the world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: She believes in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit. .. and the birth from a virgin, and passion, and resurrection from the dead, the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His future manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father.. . .[29]
He adds that “this one church, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it.”[30] There are many independent churches, but they are doctrinally united “as if” they were one house.[31] “Nor will any one of the rulers (Bishops) in the Churches, however highly gifted he may be in point of eloquence, teach doctrines different from these (for no one is greater than the Master).”[32] In short, Christ is the invisible Head of all the visible churches and Christ’s teaching through the authority of His apostles is the basis for the unity of the one true Church. Irenaeus declared: “The Word of God [Christ] is supreme, so also in things visible and corporeal He might possess the supremacy, and, taking to Himself the pre-eminence, as well as constituting Himself Head of the Church, He might draw all things to Himself at the proper time.”[33] Clearly, Christ has no Vicar on earth; He Himself heads His Church universal. As even Peter himself said, elders are only undershepherds who lead the local congregations to follow the “Chief Shepherd” (1 Peter 5:1–4).
Nonetheless, Irenaeus affirmed that God desires apostolic unity in all the churches based on “the doctrine of the apostles” (Acts 2:42). Thus, Irenaeus spoke repeatedly against schisms, once declaring of “A spiritual disciple” that “He shall also judge those who give rise to schisms, who are destitute of the love of God, and who look to their own special advantage rather than to the unity of the Church; and who for trifling reasons, or any kind of reason which occurs to them, cut in pieces and divide the great and glorious body of Christ.. . .” He then adds, “For no reformation of so great importance can be effected by them, as will compensate for the mischief arising from their schism.”[34]
On the Authority of the Church
A good deal of controversy revolves around a disputed text in Against Heresies, Book Three. Irenaeus refers to “that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also by pointing out the faith preached to men, which comes down to our times by means of the succession of the bishops.” For “it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree [Latin, Convenire] with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those faithful men who exist everywhere.”[35]
Kelly sets forth the dispute in these words: “If convenire here means “agree with” and principalitas refers to the Roman primacy (in whatever sense), the gist of the sentence may be taken to be that Christians of every other church are required, in view of its special position of leadership, to fall in line with the Roman church, inasmuch as the authentic apostolic tradition is always preserved by the faithful who are everywhere.”[36]
However, many scholars, including Kelly, have found fault with this translations for two reasons. First, the weakness of the final clause strikes them as “intolerable.”[37] Second, “the normal meaning of convenire is “resort to,” “foregather at,” and necesse est does not easily bear the sense of “ought.”[38] Indeed, the editor of the Apostolic Fathers volume in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, A. Cleveland Coxe, cites one candid Roman Catholic scholar who translates it as follows: “For to this Church, on account of more potent principality, it is necessary that every Church (that is, those who are on every side faithful) resort; in which Church ever, by those who are on every side, has been preserved that tradition which is from the apostles.”[39] Coxe adds, “Here it is obvious that the faith was kept at Rome, by those who resort there from all quarters. She was a mirror of the Catholic World, owing her orthodoxy to them; not the Sun, dispensing her own light to others, but the glass bringing their rays into focus.”[40] This is in direct contrast to the proclamation of Pope Pius IX (see below) who “informed his Bishops, at the late Council (in 1870), that they were not called to bear their testimony, but to hear his infallible decree.”[41] In short, what Irenaeus meant was that Rome is the center of orthodoxy since she, by virtue of being the capitol of the empire, was the repository of all catholic tradition — “all this has been turned upside down by modern Romanism.”[42]
Kelly concurs, observing that many scholars “have judged it more plausible to take Irenaeus’ point as being that the Roman Church [of that day] supplies an ideal illustration for the reason that, in view of its being placed in the imperial city, representatives of all the different churches necessarily (i.e., inevitably) flock to it, so that there is some guarantee that the faith taught there faithfully reflects the apostolic tradition.”[43] That is to say, Rome’s primacy is reflective and not authoritative.
As for Irenaeus’ question “How should it be if the apostles had not left us writing? Would it not be necessary to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the churches?”[44] Professor Payne’s comments are to the point. “First of all, the above statements by Irenaeus are theoretical; it was not necessary to follow the course of traditions, because the apostles had left writings.”[45]
“Second, the above statements have as their subject the facts which one must accept to be saved, and not the degree of authority which lies behind any given medium.”[46] In short, Irenaeus is not stressing the authority of the medium but the accuracy of it in transmitting the message of the apostles who alone possessed the God-given authority.
“Third, the above statements assume that the truths of the tradition are in fact those recorded in the Scriptures.”[47] Thus, the traditions are to be judged by the Scriptures, not the reverse. It is noteworthy that the apostles did not appoint more apostles to replace themselves after Pentecost where they became the “foundation” of the Church, Christ being the chief cornerstone (Eph. 2:20). Rather, they appointed “elders in every church” (Acts 14:23). Irenaeus himself speaks of “the disciples of the apostles” as “presbyters” (elders).[48] He wrote: “We refer them [heretics] to that tradition which originates from the apostles, and which is preserved by means of the successions of presbyters in the churches.”[49]
However, Irenaeus seemed to believe that each church has a single bishop over it for he spoke of Polycarp as “bishop of Smyrna” (cf. AH 3.3.4) and a line of bishops in Rome beginning with Linus.[50] But this is in contrast to the New Testament which is clear that every local church had its own “bishops and deacons” (cf. Phil. 1:1).[51] And it was they whose leadership was to be followed by their congregations (Heb. 13:7, 17, 24), not one authoritative bishop in a church or presiding over all churches from Rome. For Christ, the Chief Shepherd, was the invisible Head of the visible church (Eph. 1:22 cf. 1 Peter 5:4), and he commissioned the apostles to lay the doctrinal basis which is binding on all churches everywhere. For even John, the last living apostle at the end of the first century, speaks of Christ Himself walking among His “churches” and rebuking them for not recognizing His Headship (cf. Rev. 1–3).[52] Nonetheless, whatever the size, Irenaeus did provide the material for another step in the direction of a Roman centered episcopal authority, as unintentional as it may have been.
Cyprian (d. 258 A.D.)
Cyprian added a significant step to the evolution of the monarchial episcopate by insisting that “there is one God, and Christ is one, and there is one chair [episcopate] founded upon the rock by the word of the Lord.”[53] Under his system, “Each bishop in his place succeeded to and exercised the apostolic authority. Each bishop therefore had a right to a voice in the common concerns of the whole church.. . .” But “even the bishop of Rome-who certainly enjoyed a special dignity and a special right to leadership, as successor to St. Peter-was nevertheless, substantively, the colleague and therefore the equal of his brethren.”[54] However, even Roman Catholic authority Ludwig Ott admitted that “the Fathers did not expressly speak of the Infallibility of the Pope, but they attest the decisive teaching authority of the Roman Church and its Pontiff.”[55]
The Epistle of Diognetus (between c.150-c.325)
This brief epistle listed in Lightfoot’s The Apostolic Fathers is dated by him at c. A.D. 150. Some place it as late as Constantine (fourth century). It has no mention of church officers or church government. Hence, it provides no positive help in this discussion.
Eusebius (c. 260-c. 340)
The great church historian Eusebius records other important steps in the creeping ecclesiastical authority of the Roman Church. Eventually, bishops gained authority over their areas. Before the end of the second century (by c. 180–190) he lists bishops over various areas including Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea, Jerusalem, Corinth, and Ephesus.[56] There arose a contention as to when the Passion and Resurrection of Christ should be observed. Eusebius wrote: “Synods and assemblies of bishops were held on this account, and all, with one consent, through mutual correspondence drew up an ecclesiastical decree.. . .[57] ” “But the bishops in Asia, led by Polycrates, decided to hold to the old custom handed down to them” which was different.[58] “Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate.”[59] This early tendency for the Church at Rome, due to its size and location at the seat of Roman political power, to exercise widespread authority is a portent of things to come.
Disputes like this, and later more serious doctrinal ones, occasioned a stronger and more monolithic organization. In fact, they called for general councils of the church to decide on the matter. The first of these was the Arian dispute over the deity of Christ which occasioned the Council of Nicea (A.D. 325). While there is general agreement in Christendom over the first seven (between the Eastern and Western Churches), most Protestants accept only the first four. The reasons for this parallel the development of the increasing authority of the Bishop of Rome over the next centuries as indicated by the discussion below. He reported that the action of the emperor Constantine encouraging a unified action of the Christian Church to squelch dissent. In fact, he called the first ecumenical council (of Nicea, 325), and took an active part in it. In this way he used the heavy pressure of an imperial state to bring about a more monolithic church.[60] His motives can be seen in this citation from a “copy of an epistle in which the emperor commands another synod to be held for the purpose of removing all dissensions among the bishops.”[61] It reads,
Constantine Augustus to Chrestus, bishop of Syracuse (in Italy). When some began wickedly and perversely to disagree among themselves in regard to the holy worship and celestial power and catholic doctrine, wishing to put an end to such disputes among them, I formerly gave command that certain bishops should be sent from Gaul, and that the opposing parties. .. should be summoned from Africa; that in their presence, and in the presence of the bishop of Rome, the matter which appeared to be causing the disturbance might be examined and decided with all care.[62]
Little wonder a top-heavy and monolithic Roman Church soon emerged with a structure similar to the Roman Government, with a pope corresponding to the emperor at the top. Add to this the fact that Constantine put the church on the state pay roll which bound them with strong economic cords.[63]
General Church Councils
Church councils played an important role in the development of monolithic Roman episcopalism. Roman Catholics number 21 ecumenical councils. These, allegedly, are councils involving the whole church, even though sometimes major portions of the church were only sparsely represented. Local councils were only in specific geographical areas and are not held to be binding, unless affirmed by a later ecumenical council. The first eight councils were convened by emperors, whereas the last thirteen were convened by Popes.
From the very first council (of Constantinople, 325) called by emperor Constantine, there was pressure to form a more monolithic ecclesiastical structure (see Eusebius above). By the eighth council (the Fourth Council of Constantinople, A.D. 869), this was becoming more evident. And from the twelfth council (the Fourth Latern Council, A. D. 1215) on the structure of what is currently known as Roman Catholicism was taking shape. Of course, the counter-Reformation Council of Trent (A.D. 1545-1547) solidified Romanism and the First Council of the Vatican (1870) infallibly permanentized the imperial ecclesiastical structure known as Roman Catholicism forever. And the nineteenth and twentieth councils furthered the Roman dogmas.
1. First Council of Nicea (325) was called by the professing Christian emperor Constantine who desired to unite the church and solidify his empire. The council affirmed the Trinity, the full deity of Christ as eternal and of the same nature as the Father. The council formulated the famous Nicean Creed. This was a condemnation of the heresy of Arianism which denied the deity of Christ and thereby divided Christendom.
In addition, Nicea set forth numerous canons which claim to be universally binding on the whole church. These include that bishops should only be appointed by other bishops (Canon 4), that excommunication is to be done by a bishop (Canon 5), that the Bishops have jurisdiction over their own geographical areas (Canon 6).[64] Likewise, Canon affirms that “It is before all things necessary that they [who convert from Church] should profess in writing that they will observe and follow the dogmas of the Catholic and Apostolic Church.”[65]
2. First Council of Constantinople (381) was convened by emperor Theodosius I (379–395) to unite the church. It reaffirmed the Nicean Creed, proclaimed the deity of the Holy Spirit, and united the Eastern Church (divided by the Arian controversy). The emperor is said to have “founded the orthodox Christian state. Arianism and other heresies became legal offenses, sacrifice [to pagan gods] was forbidden, and paganism almost outlawed.”[66]
The practices of Theodosius I were later codified by emperor Theodosian II into the “Theodocian Code” (proclaimed in 438) which later was superseded by the Justinian Code (539) which added the “Novella” that provides the classic formula for the relation of church and state in which the church would take care of religious matters and the state civil matters. This code was later expanded into the Corpus Juris Civilis (Body of [Roman] Civil Law). During the later Middle Ages this became the basis for Canon Law in the West[67] which became binding on all churches under the administration of the Roman Church.
3. Council of Ephesus (431) condemned Nestorianism (which affirms there were two natures and two persons in Christ). Since Christ is only one person with two natures, then it concluded that Mary was truly the mother of God, i.e., the God-bearer or the one who gave birth to the person (Jesus) who is God as well as man. It reads: “This was the sentiment of the holy Fathers; therefore they ventured to call the holy Virgin, the Mother of God, not as if the nature of the Word or his divinity had its beginning from the holy Virgin, but because of her was born that holy body with a rational soul, to which the Word being personally united is said to be born according to the flesh.”[68]
4. Council of Chalcedon (451) was called by Emperor Marcian to deal with the Eutychianis (Monophysite) heresy which merge the two nature of Christ, making a logically incoherent combination of an infinite-finite nature. Of 500 plus bishops present only two were from the west plus two papal delegates. Eutyches had said, “I confess that our Lord was of two natures before the union, but after the union I confess one nature.”[69] The council agreed with Archbishop [Pope] Leo to “anathamatize” this as “absurd,” “extremely foolish,” “extremely blasphemous,” and “impious.”[70] The council reaffirmed the decisions of all three general councils before it (Session 4) as well as “the writings of that blessed man, Leo, Archbishop of all the churches who condemned the heresy of Nestorius and Eutyches, [to] shew what the true faith is.”[71] The presence of an “archbishop” or bishop over bishops, represents a new state in the long development of the Roman episcopal hierarchy which eventually culminated in the infallible authority of the Bishop of Bishops, the Bishop of Rome (i.e., the Pope) at Vatican I (1870).
The council also asserted its authority in the excommunication of Bishop Dioscorus, declaring, “on account of your disregard of the divine canons, and your disobedience to his holy ecumenical synod” that he was “deposed from the episcopate and made a stranger to all ecclesiastical order.”[72]
The most controversial canon (28) affirms that “Constantinople, which is New Rome. .. enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome” and hence “should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her.”[73] This canon was rejected by “Archbishop Leo” of the old Rome. But of historic importance is the statement which gives the reason any primacy was given to Rome in the first place, namely, “For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of the old Rome, because it was the royal city.”[74] This confirms the interpretation of Irenaeus’ statement (above) that the primacy of Rome was reflective, not authoritative. That is, Rome was given more respect, not authority, because it was the big church in the capital of the empire and, therefore, more reflective of the whole church since representatives from the whole empire would naturally consort there. Tillemont’s comment is to the point: “This canon seems to recognize no particular authority in the Church of Rome, save what the Fathers had granted it, as the seat of the empire.”[75]
5. Second Council of Constantinople (553) was convoked by Emperor Justinian. It has fourteen anathamas, the first twelve directed at Theodore of Mopsestia. A later insert places Origen’s name in the eleventh anathama, something accepted by later Popes. Among the heresies condemned are Arianism, Nestorianism, Eutychianism, Monophysitism (Statements I-XI), and Adoptionism (XII). The perpetual virginity of Mary was affirmed, being called the “ever-virgin Mary, the Mother of God” (Statements V and XIV).
One must agree with Hefele that this “Fifth Ecumenical Council should strike the name of the reigning Pope [Virgilius] from the diptychs [double-leafed tablets] as the father of heresy; and the Sixth Ecumenical Synod should anathamatize another Pope as a heretic.”[76]
6. Third Council of Constantinople (680) was convened by Emperor Constantine IV (Pogonatus). It affirmed the “Five holy ecumenical councils.”[77] In addition, it reaffirmed that Christ had two natures united in one person and that he had two wills, one human and one divine, which had a moral unity resulting from the complete harmony between the two natures of the God-Man (as opposed to the Monothelites). It also refers to Mary as “our Holy Lady, the holy, immaculate, ever-virgin and glorious Mary, truly and properly the Mother of God.”[78] Macarius, the Archbishop of Antioch was condemned, along with “Honorius some time Pope of Old Rome.”[79]
Catholic apologists did not agree on how to explain this dilemma of how an allegedly infallible Pope can err when teaching doctrine. One scholar (Pennacchi) thinks the Council erred and the Pope was right. Another (Baronius) holds, contrary to fact, that manuscripts have been corrupted. But even most Roman Catholic scholars reject this, pointing to the manuscript and citation evidence. Indeed, Schaff lists thirteen lines of evidence that the records are accurate.[80] Thus, most Catholic scholars are left with the claim that Pope Honarius was not speaking ex cathedra at the time. This, however, seriously undermines the claim of infallibility, since the Pope was teaching on doctrine at the time. And if it was not infallible, then it leaves no meaningful distinguishable criteria as to when the Pope is speaking ex cathedra. For if a Pope can be fallible sometimes when affirming doctrine, then how can we be sure he is really infallible at other times when affirming doctrine. In fact, how can we be sure he was infallible when he pronounced his own infallibility at Vatican I (in 1870).
This council claimed to be not only “illuminated by the Holy Spirit”[81] but also “inspired by the Holy Spirit.”[82] Thus, it claimed to provide “a definition, clean from all error, certain, and infallible.”[83] This would later be claimed by the Pope for himself at Vatican I (1870). What is of note from the Church/State standpoint is that following the council the Emperor posted an “Imperial Edict” in the Church, noting the “heresy” and warning that “no one henceforth should hold a different faith, or venture to teach one will [in Christ] and one energy [operation of the will]. In no other than the orthodox faith could men be saved.”[84] Punishments were listed.
7. Second Council of Nicea (787) was called by the Emperors Constantine and Irene and attended by legates of Pope Hadrain. It dealt with the iconoclastic controversy. It ruled in favor of venerating images, speaking of “receiving their holy and honorable reliques with all honor, I salute and venerate these with honour.. .. Likewise also the venerable images of the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. .. and of all the Saints-the Sacred Martyrs, and of all the Saints-the sacred images of all these, I salute, and venerate.. . .”[85] Further, it pronounced “Anathema to those who do not salute the holy and venerable images” and “Anathama to those who call the sacred images idols.”[86] And in a zealous overkill, it declared, “To those who have a doubtful mind and do not confess with their whole heart that they venerate the sacred images, anathama!”[87] It encouraged prayer to Mary and the Saints, saying, “I ask for the intercession of our spotless Lady the Holy Mother of God, and those of the holy and heavenly powers and those of all the Saints.”[88]
In theory the council distinguished between worship of God and veneration of images, saying, “The worship of adoration I reserve alone to the supersubstantial and life-giving Trinity.”[89] However, in practice there is no real way to tell the difference between the two. Further the Bible forbids making any graven images of God or heavenly beings and of even bowing down before them (Ex. 20:4–5). The contemporary iconoclasts’ objections to the council’s decisions are expressed in another council claiming to be the true seventh ecumenical council. They declared flatly that “Satan misguided men, so that they worshipped the creature instead of the Creator.”[90] They argued that the only admissible figure of the humanity of Christ, however, is bread and wine in the holy Supper.”[91] They cited Exodus 20:4: “Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven. . .”[92] and concluded that “Supported by the Holy Scriptures and the Fathers, we declare unanimously, in the name of the Holy Trinity, that there shall be rejected and removed and cursed out of the Christian Church every likeness which is made out of any material and colour whatever by the evil art of painters.”[93] The council concluded: “If anyone does not accept this our Holy and Ecumenical Seventh Synod, let him be anathama.. . .”[94] They condemned Emperor Germanus of Constantinople, calling him “the double-minded worshipper of wood!”[95]
The canons forbid the secular appointment of Bishops, thus solidifying the independent authority of the Church over against the State. Further, the primacy of Peter and of apostolic succession are emphasized, saying, “For the blessed Peter himself, the chief of the Apostles, who first sat in the Apostolic See, let the chiefship of his Apostolate, and pastoral care, to his successors who are to sit in his most holy seat for ever.”[96] It further speaks of “the holy Roman Church which has prior rank, which is the head of all the Churches of God.”[97]
8. Fourth Council of Constantinople (869) was the last council to be called by the Emperor. It explicitly affirmed the Second Council of Nicea (787) and condemned the schism of Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople. He challenged the filioque clause in the creed (that affirmed the Holy Spirit also proceeded from the Son), which later became a bone of contention between the Western and Eastern Churches (in 1054) which rejects any councils after the seventh.
9. First Lateran Council (1123) was the first one called by a Pope Callistus, which signals a further step in the development of the Roman Church. It confirmed the Concordat of Worms (1122) which granted the pope, not the emperor, the sole right to invest a Bishop-elect with a ring and staff and receive homage from him before his consecration.
10. Second Lateran Council (1139) convoked by Pope Innocent II for the reformation of the Church. It condemned the schism of Arnold of Brescia, a reformer who spoke against confession to a priest in favor of confession to one another.
11. Third Lateran Council (1179) convened by Pope Alexander III to counter anti-pope Callistus III. It affirmed the right to elect the pope was restricted to the College of Cardinals and a 2/3 majority was necessary for the election of a Pope.
12. Fourth Lateran Council (1215) was called by Pope Innocent III. It pronounced the doctrine of transubstantiation, the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, and seven sacraments. Many consider this a key turning point in the development of Roman Catholicism in distinction from non-Catholic forms of Christianity. It gave the Church (Dominicans) authority to set the Office of the Inquisitors which gave authority to the Church to investigate heresy and turn them over to the State for punishment.
13. First Council of Lyons (1245) was convened by Pope Innocent IV to heal the “five wounds” of the Church: (1) moral decadence of the clergy, (2) the danger of the Saracens (Arab Muslims against whom the Crusaders fought), (3) the Schism with the Eastern Church, (4) the Invasion of Hungary by the Tartars, and (5) the rupture between the Church and the Emperor Frederick II. The council condemned and formally deposed the emperor Frederick II for his imprisonment of Cardinals and Bishops on their way to the council. It instituted minor reforms but left the main issues of the Reformation untouched.
14. Second Council of Lyons (1274) was called by Pope Gregory X to bring about union with the Eastern Church, to liberate the Holy Land, and to reform morals in the Church. It unsuccessfully demanded affirmation of the double procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son which the Eastern Church rejects. Albert the Great and Boniventure attended, but Aquinas (d. 1274) died on way to the Council. It approved some newly founded orders including the Dominicans and the Franciscans. It defined the procession of the Holy Spirit (the Filioque clause). The union with the East was short lived, ending in 1289.
15. Council of Vienne (1311–1312) was convoked by Pope Clement V to deal with the Templars (a military order of the Church) who were accused of heresy and immorality. The council announced reforms, suppressed the Templars, provided assistance for the Holy Land, encouraged missions, and made decrees concerning the Inquisition which were instituted formally in 1232 by Frederic II but was claimed for the Church.
16. Council of Constance (1413–1418) was convened by Pope John XXIII in order to end the Great Schism of three simultaneous popes, to reform the church, and to combat heresy. It condemned over 200 propositions of John Wycliffe. Reformer John Hus, who held similar doctrines, refused to recant and was burned at the stake. The Council proclaimed the superiority of an ecumenical Council over the Pope, declaring (in “Haec Sancta”) that “this Council holds its power direct from Christ; everyone, no matter his rank of office, even if it be papal, is bound to obey it in whatever pertains to faith.. . .”[98] This culminated a long history of increased authority for the bishop of Rome which began gradually in the second century with the emergence of one fallible bishop in each church and ended with one infallible bishop over all the churches.
17. Council of Basel-Ferrara-Florence (1431–1437) was called by Pope Martin V. It is a series of councils beginning with Basel (1431), moving to Ferrara (1438–1439), then Florence (1439–43), and lastly to Rome (1443–1445). Its chief objective was union with the Eastern Church, which sought support from the West against the Turks who were nearing Constantinople. The controversy centered around Double Procession of the Holy Spirit, Purgatory, and the Primacy of the Pope. By July 1439 there was agreement on “the Decree of Union” in which the East agreed with the West on these issues. Subsequently many Bishops recanted and the union ceased when the Turks captured Constantinople in 1453. The Council of Basel and its members were pronounced heretical.
18. Fifth Lateran Council (1512–1517) was called by Pope Julius II to invalidate the decrees of the antipapal council of Pisa convened by Louis XII of France. It began a few minor reforms but did not treat the main issues of the Reformation. An Augustinian Monk named Luther did. He tacked up his 95 theses on October 31 of 1517 which started the great Protestant Reformation.
19. Council of Trent (1545–1563) was called to counter the Reformation. It declared many of the characteristic doctrines of Roman Catholicism, including the equal validity of tradition with Scripture, the seven sacraments, transubstantiation, and good works as necessary for justification, purgatory, indulgences, the veneration of saints and images, prayers for the dead, prayers to the dead (saints), and the canonicity of eleven Apocryphal books. Many Protestants believe Rome apostatized at this point by a denial of the true Gospel. Others see it as a significant deviation from biblical and historic orthodoxy but not a total apostasy.[99]
20. First Council of the Vatican (1869–1870) called by Pope Pius IX, denounced pantheism, materialism, and atheism. Pope Pius IX pronounced papal infallibility. It rejected St. Antonio of Florence’s formula that the Pope “using the counsel and seeking for help of the universal Church” cannot err. Instead it ruled that the Pope’s definitions are “irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church” when speaking ex cathedra, that is, as Pastor and Doctor of all Christians.
21. Second Council of the Vatican (1962–1963) attempted ecumenicity (with Eastern Orthodox and Protestant observers), instituted ritualistic changes (like Mass in local languages), pronounced reforms, and declared inclusivism of “separated brethren,” and salvation of sincere non-Christians.
The Nature and Authority of the Church Councils
Comments on the nature of these councils are now in order, with general comments on the nature of the councils first. Many consider the first seven councils as ecumenical since they occurred before the East-West split between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism.
However, even some of these did not have strong representation from both sections of Christianity. And some affirmed doctrines which many consider contrary to biblical teaching (such as the perpetual virginity of Mary and the veneration of images).[100]
Further, many pronouncements of later councils did not attain to the standard of orthodoxy as stated at the Roman Catholic Council of Trent which demanded “the universal consent of the Fathers” as a test for orthodoxy. For some later councils pronounced doctrines that have little or no consent, let alone universal consent, of the early Fathers whose views, one would have thought, should have, by virtue of their proximity with the apostles, been considered of great value in determining apostolicity.
The Roman Catholic View
The Roman Catholic view is that all twenty-one of these councils are ecumenical and binding on the whole Christian Church. They insist that it is inconsistent to accept some of these councils and reject others. However, there are serious problems with this view.
First of all, it entails the claim that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true Church on earth. This exclusivistic claim is implausible on the face of it, since there was a church in the East before there was one in the West. Why, then, should Eastern Orthodoxy be excluded from the true Church.
Second, it assumes wrongly that the true universal church must be identified with a single visible organization, rather than with a general category of all individual churches who confess historic biblical Christianity, including Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Reformed Churches, Methodists, Baptists, and others.
Third, some of the councils accepted by Rome had inconsistent pronouncements. For example, the sixteenth Council proclaimed the superiority of an ecumenical Council over the Pope, declaring (in “Haec Sancta”) that “this Council holds its power direct from Christ; everyone, no matter his rank of office, even if it be papal, is bound to obey it in whatever pertains to faith.. . .”[101] Yet, the twentieth council claimed that when speaking ex cathedra, the Pope’s definitions alone are “irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church.” Or, as Vatican I put it, “.. . such definitions of the Roman Pontiff from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable.”[102] Clearly, both cannot be true. For either the pope can make infallible proclamations alone or he cannot without the aid of the council.
Fourth, there are good biblical reasons to reject the teachings of many of these councils beginning with the fifth one.[103] These objectionable doctrines include the perpetual virginity of Mary (Council 5), the veneration of images (Council 7), the authority of the Pope (Councils 8 and 9), condemnation of those not confessing sin to a priest (no. 10), the authority of the college of cardinals to elect a pope (no. 11), the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, seven sacraments, transubstantiation (no. 12), and condemnation of reformers Wycliff and Hus (no. 13). This is to say nothing of the additional errors pronounced by Trent and later councils, including adding the Apocrypha to the Bible, approving of prayers for the dead, veneration of saints, worship of the consecrated host, the necessity of works as a condition for salvation, the infallibility of the Pope, and the bodily assumption of Mary.[104]
Fifth, there are no logical reasons why all twenty-one councils must be accepted. The history of many organizations reveals the same pattern as Rome, namely, they start out well and then deviate from its founders’ teachings somewhere along the line. The U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretations of the U.S. Constitution are a case in point, particularly on its interpretation of the First Amendment which did not even contain the words “separation of church and state” but have subsequently been taken out of context from a private letter in a revision of the framers intention of “Congress” (the federal government), making “no law respecting the establishment of religion.” Knowing it is not an uncommon occurrence of organizations to stray from their original intentions, other explanations than the Roman claim of the councils must be examined.
The Eastern Orthodox View
The Eastern Church is sometimes called “the church of the seven councils” since it agrees with Rome on the first seven councils which are believed to be infallible in their pronouncements. While they reject as heretical some of its pronouncements of Rome, for example, the infallibility of the pope, this does not tell the whole story. Tradition for them embraces the continuing presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church. Whereas the Bible is considered the inspired Word of God, it is also seen as part of the larger concept of tradition. As Timothy Ware put it, the Bible “must not be regarded as something set up over the Church, but as something that lives and is understood within the Church.”[105] Thus, the Bible is not over the Church nor the Church over the Bible. The Bible is understood within the Church and her traditions.
Protestants reject this view for several reasons. First, councils five through seven accept some unbiblical teachings, such as the perpetual virginity of Mary and the veneration of images which is a violation of the second commandment. Second, it is a rejection of the doctrine of sola Scriptura which was affirmed by early Fathers and reaffirmed by Reformers (see Keith Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura). Eastern Orthodoxy considers these seven councils as infallible, whereas Protestants do not, pointing to errors in them. Third, the Eastern view is highly mystical, setting forth no objective criteria by which the voice of the Holy Spirit is discerned in the traditions of the Church. Fourth, contrary to the Eastern Orthodox view the Church did not create the canon.[106] It simply recognized the prophetic books which God, by His inspiration, determined to be canonical.[107] Fifth, there are no objective criteria by which an ecumenical council is distinguished from a non-ecumenical one. Even Eastern Orthodox theologian, Timothy Ware, admits that “what it is that makes a council ecumenical is not so clear.”[108] Sixth is the orthodox view that the Fathers are an inspired source of apostolic tradition. But neither the Bible nor the Fathers themselves consider them to be inspired. Finally, their justification of the mind of the Fathers is circular, using the mind of the Fathers to justify what the mind of the Fathers on Scripture is.
The Protestant View
Most Protestants demur on the authority of any council after number four, since five speaks of Mary’s perpetual virginity and seven of venerating images, to say nothing of all the unbiblical pronouncements by the Council of Trent and beyond. Thus, according to Protestants and many Anglicans, only the first four ecumenical councils are binding in the Christian Church. Beginning with the fifth council which pronounces the perpetual virginity of Mary, most Protestants reject the ecumenicity and catholicity of the councils, though they may agree with many things said by later councils.
The Free Church View (Including Anabaptist)
Many churches in Christendom deny the authority of any council, though they agree with many things stated by them, particularly in the early ones. This they do by insisting strongly that only the Bible has binding authority. All creeds and confessions are man-made. Thus, no authority is attached to any church councils, whether they be local or so-called universal councils. This view is called “solo Scriptura” by Keith A Mathison[109] in contrast to the Reformed view of sola Scriptura, since the latter read the Bible in the light of the early Fathers and creeds whereas the former do not.
By holding a Free Church view, as we do, one does not need to deny there is any value to the creeds and councils. It is simply that there is no authority in them, either divine or ecclesiastical. In fact, all orthodox Christians, Catholic and non-Catholics, agree with the basic doctrines affirmed in the earlier so-called ecumenical councils, such as, the Trinity, Virgin Birth, Deity of Christ, and His hypostatic union of two natures in one person. Their main concern is with attributing any divine or even ecclesiastical authority to creedal and counciliar pronouncements.
Plymouth Brethrenism (Darbyism)
An even more radical view is found in John Nelson Darby, the founder of the Plymouth Brethren movement. Darby not only rejected any authority for church councils, but he also denied that there was any church over which they could have authority. For he held that the church Christ announced (in Matthew 16) was ruined.[110] In short, the apostles failed in their mission. Hence, there is no visible church of Christ. Instead, there are merely assemblies of believers to break bread and edify each other. But no organization that exists on earth can be identified as the visible church. Hence, so-called church councils are not binding. However, it is difficult to reconcile this view with Jesus’ prediction that the gates of hell would not prevail against the church (Mt. 16:18). This is to say nothing of other scriptures that indicate the church would continue after the time of the apostles (Jn. 17:20; 2 Tim. 2:2). Further, the fact is that there are still churches founded on the doctrine of Christ and the apostles that exist today all over the globe.
These are living proof that the New Testament church is still alive.
The Development of Roman Catholicism
In view of the above discussion, one can see the gradual development of Roman Catholicism, with its imperial governmental structure and the doctrinal beliefs it controls. It can also be observed that the claim that only the Catholic view that all councils should be accepted is based on an equivocal use of the term “Roman Catholic.” For Roman Catholicism as it is known today is not the same as the Catholic Church before 1215. Even though the split between East and West occurred in 1054, nonetheless, most non-Catholics today would have been able to belong to the Catholic Church before the thirteenth century. For regardless of certain things the church permitted, none of its official doctrinal proclamations regarding essential salvation doctrines were contrary to orthodoxy.
While the development of Roman Catholicism from the original church was gradual, beginning in early centuries, one of the most significant turning points came in 1215 at which point one can see the beginning of Roman Catholicism as it is subsequently known. For it is here that the seeds of what distinguishes Roman Catholicism are first pronounced as dogma. It is here that they pronounced the doctrine of transubstantiation, the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, and seven sacraments. Many consider this a key turning point in the development of Roman Catholicism in distinction from non-Catholic forms of Christianity.
The evolution of the doctrine of infallibility of the pope, a central doctrine of Roman Catholicism, illuminates the development of the Roman Church in general. It stands in stark contrast to the apostolic teaching recorded in the New Testament. As we have shown elsewhere (see Geisler, Systematic Theology, vol. 4, chapter 3), the visible New Testament church had no hierarchy, but each church was independent and congregational in form. There was no episcopal form of government where a bishop was distinct from and had authority over elders. The New Testament had a plurality of elders and deacons in each church (Acts 14:23; Phil. 1:1). And the terms bishop and elder refer to the same office (1 Tim. 3:1; Titus 1:5, 7; Acts 20:17, 28).
This form of government continued into the subapostolic period at the end of the first century and into the early second century (see above). Later the term “bishop” came to refer to a single leader among the elders in each church. Walker provided a plausible explanation of how this happened.
The Emergence of One Bishop Over a Church. — Namely, “it came about almost naturally, and certainly informally, as special status and responsibility in each church came to be assigned to an elder who regularly chaired meetings of what Ignatius calls ‘the presbytery.”[111] He offers several lines of evidence for his conclusion. First, “even after the development of the monarchial episcopate, bishops seem often to have been referred to as ‘elders.’” Second, “the third-century church order known as the Didascalia Apostolorum identifies the chief pastor of a local church as ‘bishop and head among the presbytery.. . .’” Third, “for a long time elders were regarded not as the bishop’s representatives or delegates but as his colleagues.” Fourth, “at least for a while the two different structures must have existed simultaneously.. . .”[112]
The Appearance of One Bishop Over a Region. — This informal and local episcopate gave way eventually to regional bishops and then to one bishop who was prime among the bishops, namely, the bishop of Rome. Eubesius speaks of “Silvanus, bishop of the churches about Emesa” during the wicked reign of Emperor Diocletian (c. A.D. 303). It is understandable that the growth of one church in an area might lead to many churches over which the bishop of the mother church would remain in charge. And Rome being the largest and capital city of the empire would naturally have a powerful and influential Bishop.
The Evolution of One Bishop Over the Whole Church. — Irenaeus (c. 130-c. 200) seems to have been a transition in this process for he took a key step in the direction of an authoritative bishop, namely, the bishop of bishops in Rome. He stated “that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also by pointing out the faith preached to men, which comes down to our times by means of the succession of the bishops.” For “it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree [Latin, Convenire] with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those faithful men who exist everywhere.”[113] While Irenaeus is probably not stressing the authority of the medium but the accuracy of it in transmitting the message of the apostles who alone possessed the God-given authority, nonetheless, he did believe that each church has a single bishop over it for he spoke of Polycarp as “bishop of Smyrna” (cf. Against Heresies, 3.3.4) and that there was a line of bishops in Rome beginning with Linus.[114] Likewise, he believed there was some sense of primacy in the Bishop of Rome, whether it was merely reflective or authoritative.
Irenaeus aside, at least by the time of Cyprian (d. 258 A.D.), the evolution of a more monarchial episcopate had occurred. For Cyprian insisted that “there is one God, and Christ is one, and there is one chair [episcopate] founded upon the rock by the word of the Lord.”[115]
The Emergence of the Coercive Authority of the Bishop of Rome. — St. Augustine added to the developing doctrine of the authority of the episcopacy when he concluded that heretics could be coerced by the Church to deny their unorthodox doctrine and accept the authority of the Church. In his book On The Correction of the Donatists he wrote: “Whence it appears that great mercy is shown toward them, when by the force of those very imperial laws they are in the first instance rescued against their will from that sect. .. so that afterwards they might be made whole in the Catholic Church, becoming accustomed to the good teaching and example which they find in it.”[116] And in his Against the Epistle of Manichaeus he wrote: “The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles.. . . The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate.”[117] Further, “For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.”[118] Thus, the church presided over by the Bishop of Rome, as the successor of St. Peter, has authority to coerce people to believe in its truth. Indeed, Augustine added, “The Catholic Church alone is the body of Christ, of which He is the Head and Saviour of the body. Outside this body the Holy Spirit giveth life to no one.. .. Therefore they have not the Holy Ghost who are outside the Church.”[119]
The Appearance of Monarchial Papal Authority to Formulate Creeds. — Another step was taken in the emergence of the doctrine of the Bishop of Rome in the late middle Ages by the time of Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274). He held that “there must be one faith for the entire Church.. .. This norm could not be followed unless every question arising out of faith were resolved by one having care over the whole Church. A new version of the creed, then, falls to the sole authority of the Pope, just as do all other matters affecting the whole church.. . .”120 However, Aquinas believed in the primacy of Scripture for he affirmed that “The truth of faith is sufficiently plain in the teaching of Christ and the apostles.”121 Further, “The truth of faith is contained in sacred Scripture, in diverse ways and, sometimes, darkly.. .. That is why there was a need to draw succinctly together out of the Scriptural teachings, some clear statements to be set before all for their belief. The symbol [i.e., creed] is not added to Scripture, but drawn from Scripture.”[122] Indeed, Aquinas never repudiated his earlier statement that “We believe the successors of the apostles only in so far as they tell us those things which the apostles and prophets have left in their writings.”[123] Likewise, the Pope does not have the authority to set forth new doctrines not found in Scripture but only to restate in clear form (e.g., by creeds) what the Scriptures teach.
However, even given this authority of the Pope, noted Roman Catholic authority Yves Congar admitted that “It is a fact that St. Thomas has not spoken of the infallibility of the papal magisterium. Moreover, he was unaware of the use of magisterium in its modern sense.”[124] He goes on to say that it is not certain that Aquinas would even have said that the Pope is without error “in his role of supreme interpreter of Christ’s teaching.”[125] He cites several texts in support of this conclusion (see On Truth 14.10, ad 11 just cited). Another reads: “The simple have implicit faith in the faith of their teachers only to the degree that these hold fast to God’s teaching.. .. Thus the knowledge of men is not the rule of faith but God’s truthfulness.”[126] Further, Congar refers to this text: “Note, however, that where there is real danger to the faith, subjects must rebuke their superiors even publicly. On this account Paul, who was subject to Peter, publicly rebuked him when there was imminent danger of scandal in a matter of faith.”[127]
So, while Aquinas believed in the authority of the Bishop of Rome to promulgate a creed based on apostolic truth,[128] it is evident from the foregoing quotation that he also held to sola Scriptura, a doctrine later repudiated by the Council of Trent. Of course, he proclaimed the sole and infallible authority of the bishop of Rome as Peter’s successor, saying, “I acknowledge that the holy Catholic and apostolic Roman Church as the mother and teacher of all churches; and the Roman Pontiff, the successor of the blessed Peter, chief of the Apostles and vicar of Jesus Christ, I promise and swear true obedience.”[129] Further, the faithful must confess that “this true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved (and) which of my own accord I now profess and truly hold.. . .”[130]
The Pronouncement of Infallible Authority of the Pope over the Whole Church. — The final step in the evolution of the primacy of the Roman episcopacy, however, awaited the pronouncement of Pope Pius IX that the bishop of Rome is infallible when speaking from Peter’s chair (ex cathedra) on matters of faith and practice. This occurred at the First Vatican Council (1870). In the words of the Roman dogma itself, it declared:
We, adhering faithfully to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith. .. teach and explain that the dogma has been divinely revealed, that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when carrying out the duty of pastor and teacher of all Christians in accord with his supreme apostolic authority he explains a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, through the divine assistance promised him in blessed Peter, operates with that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that His church be instructed in defining a doctrine on faith and morals; and so such definitions of the Roman Pontiff from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable.[131]
This declaration of papal infallibility, without the other bishops, was the climax of centuries of increasing authority for the bishop of Rome and his successors. This represents a macro leap from the role of a bishop/elder in the New Testament as one among many leaders in a local church to one God-appointed vicar of Christ over all Christian churches. As we have shown (chapter 3), there is no real foundation for this teaching in New Testament or in the earliest Fathers. Rather, it came as a result of a long process whereby more and more authority was given to fewer and fewer persons until at last it rested in one person, the alleged Bishop of all bishops, the Bishop of Rome.
There is here a great gulf between the New Testament and Papal infallibility. For there is an essential difference between the form of government in the New Testament and that of the post-Vatican I Roman Catholic Church. From its original independent, autonomous, local congregational church with a plurality of elders (bishops) to a monolithic hierarchy of bishops headed by a Bishop of bishops who is infallible in his official pronouncements is a gigantic evolutionary leap. In fact, it is an entirely new creation not genetically related to the original New Testament Church in governmental structure. And, as a consequence, this produced serious doctrinal deviations as well.
Summary and Conclusion
In summary, it took many centuries for the episcopal form of government to gradually emerge from the simple self-governing independent New Testament churches to the monolithic episcopalism of the Roman Catholic Church. This evolution can be traced in several steps.
First of all, the seeds were found in New Testament times when John the apostle spoke of it in his third epistle when he warned: “I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to have the preeminence among them, does not receive us” (3 Jn. 9).
Second, even in apostolic times a false tradition began based on a misinterpretation of some disciples of one of Christ’s statements which had to be corrected by the apostle John (see Jn. 21:22–23). If false traditions could spring up even during the time of the apostles, it is easy to see how quickly they could spread if there was no apostle there to squelch them. Tradition as such is neither authoritative nor reliable, except insofar as it is accurately transmitted. And written transmission (such as exists in Scripture and other writings based on it) are the only reliable source we have of apostolic teaching.
Third, by the mid-second century we are almost a century after most apostles had died-the very time that even apocryphal gospels were emerging. Indeed, Irenaeus wrote decades after the time of the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas (c. A.D. 140). So, there was plenty of time for false views to emerge, even among those who were otherwise orthodox.
Fourth, considering the attacks on Christianity at the time, there was strong motivation to develop an ecclesiology that would provide a united front against the divergent heretical groups emerging, which is reflected in Irenaeus’ emerging episcopal view of church government-a view that did achieve a more mature form in Cyprian (by the mid-third century).
Fifth, even if some second century writers can be shown to favor the primacy of Rome as the center of Christianity, this does not support the later Roman Catholic pronouncements on the infallibility of the Pope. The early fathers constantly appeal to the original “apostles” (plural) as the God-established authority. Further, Peter was not singled out by the early fathers as superior to other apostles. He, at best, was only a co-founder of the church at Rome along with Paul. He was in fact on the same level as Paul and the other “apostles” to whom he repeatedly refers. Furthermore, his stress on the primacy of Scripture as the final written authority of the Christian Faith demonstrates that all ecclesiastical authority is based on Scripture, not the reverse. Even Roman Catholic authority Ludwig Ott admits that “The Fathers did not expressly speak of the Infallibility of the Pope.. . .”[132] And as shown above, this was true up to the time of the greatest Catholic theologian, Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274).
Sixth, even if the disputed text of Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3.3.2) be understood that “every Church should agree with this Church [at Rome]” in his day, it does not follow that Rome could not later deviate from the truth and be an unreliable source for all essential Christian truth. Indeed, this is precisely what Protestants believe and point to numerous Catholic teachings which are supported neither by Scripture nor the early Fathers of the Church.[133]
Finally, the conversion of Constantine (fourth century) and his use of imperial power to influence the emergence of an imperial church structure was a most significant catalyst in the formation of the monolithic episcopal form of government. This combined with the natural penchant for power produced the Roman Church with its claim to papal infallibility and other unbiblical teachings. This was well under way by 1215 (Fourth Latern Council) and culminated in the doctrinal deviations of the Council of Trent (1545–1547) and the disastrous dogma of papal infallibility of Vatican I.
Notes
- There are, of course, other challenges as well, such as the lack of support for the primacy of Peter in the New Testament and the lack of support for apostolic succession. For a discussion of these see our book, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995), Part Two, especially chapters 11 and 14.
- See N. L. Geisler, Systematic Theology: The Church and Last Things, vol. 4 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005).
- See J. B. Lightfoot and J. R. Harmer, eds., The Apostolic Fathers (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1988), 240.
- Note, all numbers in parentheses refer to divisions of The Epistle of Barnabas. This spiritualizing of Scripture came from Alexandria, the source of the allegorical method, and it led ultimately to the rejection of a consistent literal interpretation of the Bible (see Geisler, ibid., chapter 13) and amillennialism in St. Augustine and the main Reformers (see ibid., chapter 16).
- They are also called “children of love and peace” (21).
- Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Rockford, IL: Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., 1960), 283.
- See F. L. Cross, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978), 1107.
- The fact that Polycarp is called a “bishop” by Ignatius is not unusual since in the New Testament these were merely different names for the same office (cf. 1 Tim. 3:1 cf. Titus 1:5, 7; Acts 14:23 cf. Phil. 1:1).
- See Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 7, revised by A. Cleveland Coxe (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1989), 375.
- See discussion in Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, 293–294.
- Lightfoot, 41.
- Many have challenged the authenticity of these works. But Anglican scholars, like Bishop Ussher and J. B. Lightfoot have strongly defended them. Nonetheless, a later date is not without reasons. First, there is no manuscript evidence forcing belief in an early date. Second, there are differing manuscript traditions, one of which is shorter, indicating changes that have been made from the original. Third, the more highly developed form of authoritarian Episcopal governments fits better at a somewhat later date. Fourth, the repetitive references to a single authoritative bishop found throughout these epistles seem a bit forced and contrived. Finally, if an earlier date is assumed, it contradicts other books from this period just discussed.
- Unless otherwise noted as from A. C. Coxe in the Philip Schaff ed., the quotations here are from the Lightfoot translations
- The Schaff edition fits the context better than the one in Lightfoot which says “her that hath the presidency in the country of the region of the Romans.” Even so, the “presidency” it described a few lines later is a “presidency of love” not of domination over other churches.
- Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, 151
- Ibid.
- Ibid.
- Ibid., 527.
- See Cross, 713.
- Roberts and Donaldson, eds., Ante-Nicene Fathers, 1.312.
- Irenaeus, “Against Heresies,” in Ante-Nicene Fathers, eds. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 1.414.
- Ibid., 1.416
- Ibid.
- Ibid., 1.431.
- Ibid., 1.417.
- Ibid., 1.431, emphasis added.
- Ibid., 1.513.
- Ibid., 1.331–332.
- Ibid., 1.330, emphasis added.
- Ibid., 1.331.
- Irenaeus often refers to “churches” in the plural. For example, he speaks of “that tradition which originates from the apostles, and which is preserved by means of the successions of presbyters in the Churches” (Against Heresies, 3.2.2, emphasis added).
- Ibid., emphasis added.
- Ibid., 3.443, emphasis added.
- Ibid., 1.508 cf. 1.22.1; 1.23; 1.24-31, emphasis added.
- Ibid., 1.415–416, emphasis added.
- J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 2nd ed. (New York: Harper & Row, 1960), 193.
- Ibid.
- Ibid.
- Cleveland Cox, “Apostolic Fathers” in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, eds. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, revised by A. Cleveland Coxe (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1957), 1.415.
- Ibid.
- Ibid., 461.
- Ibid.
- Ibid., 193.
- Against Heresies, 1.417.
- Barton Payne, “Biblical Interpretation of Irenaeus” in John Walvoord, Inspiration and Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1957), 63.
- Ibid., 64.
- Ibid.
- Against Heresies, 5.35.2.
- Ibid., 1.415.
- Ibid., 1.416.
- The terms bishop and elder were used interchangeably in the New Testament (cf. Titus 1:5, 7), the former being the term Greeks used of leaders and the latter which Hebrews used. Indeed, the qualifications are the same for both; the duties are the same; there was a plurality of both in even small churches (cf. Acts 14:23; Phil. 1:1). Thus Irenaeus, writing over a century after the apostles, is reflecting an emerging episcopal form of government not found in the New Testament.
- See Norman L. Geisler, Systematic Theology, vol. 4 (Minneapolis: Bethany, 2005), chapter 4.
- Cyprian, Epistles 39, 5, in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 5, eds. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, revised by A. Cleveland Coxe (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1957), 318.
- Walker Williston, et. al. A History of the Christian Church, 4th ed. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1985), 83.
- Ott, 288, emphasis added. As we have seen, the earliest Fathers do not even hold to the authority of bishops over elders in the church.
- Eusebius, Church History (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990), 5.22.
- Ibid., 5.23.
- Ibid., 5.24.
- Ibid.
- Eusebius, 10.
- Ibid., 10.5.21.
- Ibid.
- Ibid., 10.6.1.
- The claim, based on this canon, that this canon gives primacy of the Bishop of Rome over the whole Church is without justification. The context makes it clear that it speaks only about different Bishop having jurisdictions in their different areas, naming three centers, Alexandria, Antioch, and Rome. The text is clear: “Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since it is customary for the Bishop of Rom also. Likewise in Antioch and the other providences, let the Churches retain their privileges (see Schaff, ibid., 15), As Hefele put it, “It is evident that the Council has not in view here the primacy of the bishop of Rome over the whole Church, but simply his power as a patriarch” (cited by Schaff, ibid., 16).
- Ibid., 19.
- Cross, 1361. See the companion article in this journal volume by Professor Nix for the implications of this action in the development of Roman Catholicism.
- Ibid., 771.
- Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, eds., Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church (2nd series 1890 reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), 14.198.
- Ibid., 258.
- Ibid., 258, from Session 1.
- Ibid., 260.
- Ibid., 260 from Session 3.
- Ibid., 287.
- Ibid., Canon 28.
- Recorded by Schaff, ibid., 288.
- Cited by Schaff, ibid., 305. Pope Vigilius subsequently recanted after the council condemned him and died on the way home but only after he approved of the action of the council which he “by the [alleged] authority of the Apostolic See” had forbidden them to do (see Schaff, ibid., 321-323).
- Ibid., 345.
- Ibid., 340 from Session I.
- Ibid., 342, Session XIII.
- Ibid., 351-352.
- Ibid., 350.
- Ibid., 347.
- Ibid., 350.
- Ibid., 353.
- Ibid.
- Ibid.
- Ibid.
- Ibid., 533, Session I.
- Ibid., 539, Session III.
- Schaff, 543.
- Ibid., 544.
- Ibid.
- Ibid., 545.
- Ibid., 546.
- Ibid., 547.
- Ibid., Henry Percival, ed., “Seventh Ecumenical Council,” Session II in Nicene and Ante-Nicene Fathersof the Christian Church (2nd series 1890 reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), 14.537.
- Ibid.
- Cross, 336–337.
- At the center of the debate is whether the total sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice and complete necessity of God’s grace (which Trent confesses) are sufficient to merit the label “orthodox” or whether the Reformation doctrine of the exclusivity of faith (sola fidei) is necessary for orthodoxy on salvation (see discussion in Geisler and McKenzie, Roman Catholicism and Evangelicals (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1995), chapter 12).
- See Geisler, ibid., chapter 15.
- Cross, 336–337.
- Henry Denzinger, The Source of Catholic Dogma, trans. Roy J. Deferrari (London: B. Herder, 1957), 1840, emphasis added.
- See Geisler and MacKenzie, ibid., Part 2.
- See Geisler, ibid., Part 2.
- Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church (London: Penguin Books, 1997), 199.
- Keith Mathison, The Shape ofSola Scriptura (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2001), 227.
- See Geisler and Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, revised (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986), chapter 13.
- Ware, The Orthodox Church, 252.
- Mathison, 331.
- In ASD (from www.biblecentre.org) Darby wrote: “It is not my intention to enter any great detail, but to shew simply, in every instance there was total and complete failure as regarded man, however the patience of God might tolerate and carry on by grace the dispensation in which man has thus failed in the outset.” He points to the fact that the apostles failed to keep the Great Commission, so “the church which was gathered has departed from the faith of the gospel, and gone backward, so as to be as bad or worse than the heathen” (Darby, “ASD”). This total and complete apostasy of the church from the very beginning leaves us with only the possibility of gatherings and assemblies during the rest of this dispensation. Elsewhere, he said, “the church is in a state of ruin, immersed and buried in the world-invisible, if you will have it so; whilst it ought to hold forth, as a candlestick, the light of God” (Darby, “OFC). Further, it cannot be restored from this state. “What remains? The Holy Spirit is in our midst whenever two or three are gathered together (ibid.). Nowhere are we authorized to chose elders or pastors. Only God can give these gifts and they are effective whether there are organized churches or not (ibid.). In brief, “The children of God have nothing to do but to meet together in the name of the Lord” (ibid.). “In speaking of the ruin of the church, we speak of it as down here, set to manifest Christ’s glory in unity on the earth. . .” (“PRC”). “As regards the purpose of God the church cannot be ruined, but as regards it actual condition as a testimony for God on earth it is in ruin” (ibid.). “The church of the living God is the body of saints formed on earth in unity with Christ in heaven as the Head, by the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven to form them into unity with Christ at the right hand of God” (ibid.). “What do I find people talking about? A visible and invisible church. Now this is Satan’s lie” (ibid.). “The so-called visible church is in fact the world, and cannot give any testimony at all for Christ” (ibid.). “Now what do I mean by the ruin of the church? A simple question will answer this. Who will show me the manifestation of the unity of the body of Christ?. .. but the church as a manifested body on the earth is ruined” (ibid.). “Some years after the conversion of my soul I looked around to find where the church was, but I could not find it. I could find plenty of saints better than myself, but not the church as it was set up with power on the earth. Then I say the church as thus set up is ruined, and I cannot find a better word for it” (ibid.).
- Walker, 48–49.
- Ibid., 49.
- Against Heresies, 1.415-416, emphasis added.
- Ibid., 1.416.
- Cyprian, Epistles 39, 5.
- Augustine, “On Christian Doctrine,” 3.13, emphasis added, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, vol. 2, ed. Philip Schaff (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952).
- Augustine, “Against the Epistle of Manichaeus” in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, vol. 4, ed. Philip Schaff (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952), 130.
- Ibid., 5.5, 131.
- Augustine, “On Christian Doctrine,” 11.50.
- St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1974), 2a2a1.10, 1, reply, emphasis added.
- Ibid., ad. 1, emphasis added.
- Ibid., 2a.2a2.1.9.
- St. Thomas Aquinas, On Truth, trans. Anton C. Pegis (New York: Image, 1955),14.10, and 11.
- Yves M. J. Congar, “St. Thomas Aquinas and the Infallibility of the Papal Magisterium” in The Thomist (January 1974) vol. 38, no. 1, 102, emphasis added.
- Ibid.
- Of course, Congar affirms papal infallibility and believes that it is “possible” to deduce it from what Thomas said, but he admits it is not necessary, nor did Thomas ever do so himself.
- Ibid., 2a2ae 33.4, ad 2, emphasis added in all these quotes.
- Aquinas also held that the Pope was “the vicar of Christ” (Summa Theologiae, 2a2ae.39, 1), the “visible head of the Church” (Summa Theologiae, 31.8, 7), and the one “who has the care of the whole Church: Summa Theologiae, 2a2a3.89, 9 ad 3). But Aquinas never affirmed papal infallibility. Indeed, to the everlasting embarrassment of Roman Catholics, their greatest theologian, St. Thomas Aquinas, even called the immaculate conception, later pronounced true by papal authority, “unintelligible.” (Summa Theologiae, 3a.27.4).
- Denzinger, 999.
- Ibid., 1000, emphasis added.
- Ibid., 1840.
- Ott, ibid., 288. Of course, Ott believed that Irenaeus and others did “attest the decisive teaching authority or the Roman Church and of its Pontiff.” But there are good reasons (given above) to believe that this is a misinterpretation.
- See Norman Geisler and Ralph MacKenzie, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals, Part 2.
No comments:
Post a Comment