Augustine on Infallibility

[DTK]

Given so many claims today by non-Protestants for the infallibility of the Church, Augustine made the following statement in his Commentary on the Psalms. Of course, the way non-Protestants attempt to get around this quote is to claim that their communion (church) is the on-going incarnation of Jesus Christ.

Augustine (354-430): God alone swears securely, because He alone is infallible. NPNF1: Vol. VIII, St. Augustin on the Psalms, Psalm 89, § 4.
Latin text: Deus solus securus jurat, quia falli non potest. See In Psalmum LXXXVIII Enarratio, Sermo I, PL 37:1122.

Nonetheless, it seems evident to me that Augustine was concerned to stress here the need for us to maintain the Creator/creature distinction.

DTK

 

[Saiph]

David, if Augustine is correct, then does it not follow that the infallibility of the scriptures lie in the enlightenment by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and not merely the words on the paper.

A heathen's understanding of scripture may have some aspect of the truth, but the Spirit must open the eyes to belief.

If God alone swears securely, because He alone is infallible, then he must swear the truth to our understanding. He must write it on our hearts.

As your signature reflects:

Therefore what He [i.e., Christ] has deigned to speak to us, we ought to believe that He meant us to understand. But if we do not understand He, being asked, gives understanding, who gave His Word unasked.

So is infallibility in the Church ? Probably not. The Bereans questioned even the Apostle.
Even if we say that the words on paper are themselves infallible, then we are still left with our minds as the fallible faculty by which we need faith to define and understand them anyway.

Mat 16:15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
Mat 16:16 Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
Mat 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

God revealed this to Peter. And the revelation had many layers.
Does infallibility necessitate only one interpretation ? Because great men have different interpretations of scripture. Sometimes these interpretations contradict each other, but often they only seem to. Many disagreements can be resolved if we realize we are talking about the same truth from a different perspective. And many cannot be resolved that way of course either.

The idea of a rock has many meanings depending on our perspective. Rocks are used to stone people, they can make one stumble when walking, they are used for altars, they slay giants when slung from slings, they are shaped and arrayed into temples and houses, they are used for foundations, they sometimes pour out water when struck or spoken to, they are used by demonaics for self abasement, they prevent seed sown in good soil from gaining deep roots, they are used for markers or pillars for remembrance, they can be be used for pillows, or to even write laws on . . . .

So what did Christ mean when talking to Peter "the rock" ? Certainly, the foundation of the church can be the fact that flesh and blood does not reveal the spiritual truths of the Word, but rather God in heaven. But the metaphor does not stop there does it ? It also can mean that Peter, as an apostle, bearing the name "rock", is a typological representation of the twelve, upon which Christ gave authority to build the church. Or that from the rock of Peter's testimony, that Christ is God in human flesh, IS the very rock from which countless saints will drink living water. Or that His body, as the incarnate I AM, is the unhewn altar, the perfect sacrifice, because He was born not of the will of the flesh, but a virgin. Or that the truth Peter spoke is a reality whereupon which Christ is the chief cornerstone, and we are living stones of His body the new temple. Or that even by the diety of Christ, we can have faith in that truth to slay giants who yet today mock God's deliverance.

All that to say that the infallibility of the Church has certainly been abused throughout history. But if the Church is His body and representative on the earth, is it a reliable witness to His gospel ? Has He failed ? Are the gates of hell prevailing ?

So can the Church have some measure of infallibility ?

The bride is certainly the keeper of the infallible truth, though not yet infallible herself.

The Church has a measure of spiritual authority as well :

Mat 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Yet she is not the absolute authority.



[Edited on 12-28-2005 by Saiph]

 

[DTK]

I must admit that it did not even enter my mind in offering this quote from Augustine that there would be any need on a Reformed forum to follow up by responding to this kind of reply. But I suppose it's a good reminder that we must never assume that there won't be such questions.

if Augustine is correct, then does it not follow that the infallibility of the scriptures lie in the enlightenment by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and not merely the words on the paper.

No, it is that very distinction Augustine sought to maintain. It is what Van Til often described as the Creator/creature distinction. More and more today, I am discovering that we have a generation of professing Christians who do not understand the nature of Holy Scripture. Scripture alone is qeo,pneustoj (God-breathed). This attribute, as found in 2 Tim 3:16, is predicated not of the human penman, but of Holy Scripture itself which through them the "œout-breathing" of God produced. To be sure, the human writers of Holy Scripture were not in themselves infallible as penman of the Holy Spirit; but rather the Holy Spirit was infallible in his use of them. I hold with B. B. Warfield that "œReformed Churches admit that this [i.e., the mode of inspiration] is inscrutable" (cf. his article/chapter "œInspiration and Criticism" in The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible). In context, the quote from Augustine is one in which he was speaking of God´s inscripturated word, thereby distinguishing it from the speech of all creatures.

The Romanists posit essentially the same theory as you´ve suggested. They too claim, as I indicated in my original post, that the Church, by virtue of the Holy Spirit´s presence, constitutes the on-going incarnation of Christ and is therefore to be understood as infallible. If Augustine was/is correct (and I´m convinced that He was/is), then the very opposite follows from what you´ve suggested, viz., that only the Triune God is infallible. Your theory is positing the very reversal of the Creator/creature distinction that Augustine was so concerned to protect and maintain. We do not become the Holy Spirit (or part of the Holy Spirit) when He indwells us, and we do not assume any incommunicable attribute of God by virtue of our union with Christ through the Holy Spirit. To suggest such is, in essence, really no different from the Eastern Orthodox theory of qeo,sij, in which man not only recovers his original relation to God, but grows into God. Your thought process here seems to reflect some very clear and distinct non-Protestant influence.

A heathen's understanding of scripture may have some aspect of the truth, but the Spirit must open the eyes to belief.

Yes, but that does not mean that we need transfer what belongs to the Creator alone to the creature when the Holy Spirit is pleased to open eyes to belief.

If God alone swears securely, because He alone is infallible, then he must swear the truth to our understanding. He must write it on our hearts.

No, this is a non sequitur. After all, all men show (according to Rom 2:15) "œthe work of the law written in their hearts," but it does not follow that when they do obey it that they otherwise understand it when they don´t obey it. God is not obligated to His creatures in that he must do any or everything that we ask. Augustine´s words in my signature reflect God´s gracious desire to reveal himself to us, and the obligation ("œwe ought") is ours (not God´s) to believe that He did so as His own gracious intention for us to understand His revelation, whether in fact we do understand it or not. Augustine is testifying to the basic perspicuity of Holy Scripture. Scripture is in itself objectively perspicuous, and Augustine´s point is that we ought to believe that this was indeed God´s intention in revealing Himself to us in Holy Scripture. Augustine is saying that God has condescended to our level to help us understand Him, not that we have been raised to His level to understand Him. Remember, it was Satan´s deception when he suggested to Eve, "œyou will be like God, knowing good and evil." Moreover, Augustine is quick to add that God is pleased, when asked, to give us understanding, noting God gave his word originally without our request. Augustine is not underscoring any necessity on God´s part, but rather the grace of God in His intention in choosing to reveal Himself to mankind. We need not understand Scripture infallibly or exhaustively in order to understand it sufficiently. As D. A. Carson once put it: "œChristians will insist that the sovereign/personal God is a talking God; that he has left a record of his words in Scripture; that we can understand those words truly, if not wholly or flawlessly" (The Gagging of God, p. 544) Moreover, though the elect are not by any means gifted with the attribute of infallibility, collectively or individually, nonetheless God himself has declared that it is not possible ultimately for them to be overcome by deception of the most intense nature (Matt. 24:22-24; Mk. 13:20-22). Why? Not because God has rendered them infallible, but because Christ himself causes his sheep to recognize the voice of their shepherd, to follow him in obedience, never permitting them to perish, and because they are so firmly held in his hand that no one can snatch them away (Jn 10:27-29). But it does not follow that such care by Christ of His sheep endows them with His own infallibility. This reality points us rather to a perfect Savior who saves his elect not only from sin, but from any manner of deception that would threaten their perseverance in faith.

So is infallibility in the Church ?
Well, if infallibility is only found in those whom the Spirit indwells, then in a sense it might be. Even if we say that the words on paper are themselves infallible, then we are still left with our minds as the fallible faculty by which we need faith to define and understand them anyway.

Well, no. You are simply assuming the point that you have erroneously sought to establish. Infallibility is not, and need not be, found in those whom the Spirit indwells. So once again, it is a non sequitur to suggest that "œin a sense it might be."

Mat 16:15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
Mat 16:16 Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
Mat 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

God revealed this to Peter. And the revelation had many layers.
Does infallibility necessitate only one interpretation ?

I´m not sure what you´re attempting to convey here. Your reasoning seems rather difficult for me to follow. But Infallibility necessitates that God has no intention to deceive, and that His word is incapable of being misleading or of teaching falsehood. Holy Scripture is infallible only because it is God´s word. Moreover, it does not follow that "œliving stones" need be and/or function as "œfoundation stones." Truth can be ever so clear, and men can be (at the same time) ever so determined to twist and distort it.

The idea of a rock has many meanings depending on our perspective. Rocks are used to stone people, they can make one stumble when walking, they are used for altars, they slay giants when slung from slings, they are shaped and arrayed into temples and houses, they are used for foundations, they sometimes pour out water when struck or spoken to, they are used by demonaics for self abasement, they prevent seed sown in good soil from gaining deep roots, they are used for markers or pillars for remembrance, they can be be used for pillows, or to even write laws on . . . .

The use of a rock doesn´t dictate the meaning of what a rock is. Rather, it is because of what a rock is that renders it useful for any number of functions.

So what did Christ mean when talking to Peter "the rock" ? Certainly, the foundation of the church can be the fact that flesh and blood does not reveal the spiritual truths of the Word, but rather God in heaven. But the metaphor does not stop there does it ? It also can mean that Peter, as an apostle, bearing the name "rock", is a typological representation of the twelve, upon which Christ gave authority to build the church. Or that from the rock of Peter's testimony, that Christ is God in human flesh, IS the very rock from which countless saints will drink living water. Or that His body, as the incarnate I AM, is the unhewn altar, the perfect sacrifice, because He was born not of the will of the flesh, but a virgin. Or that the truth Peter spoke is a reality whereupon which Christ is the chief cornerstone, and we are living stones of His body the new temple. Or that even by the diety of Christ, we can have faith in that truth to slay giants who yet today mock God's deliverance.

Frankly, I have to confess that I´m failing to see the benefit of this speculation.

All that to say that the infallibility of the Church has certainly been abused throughout history. But if the Church is His body and representative on the earth, is it a reliable witness to His gospel ? Has He failed ? Are the gates of hell prevailing ? One can embrace the infallibility of scripture and the church without denying either, and without embracing extreme doctrines of ideas like the Pope speaking ex cathedra.

This is essentially the Romanist´s contention minus the last clause of your last sentence, and not altogether unlike the position of Eastern Orthodoxy, viz., that though the church is not impeccable, it is nonetheless infallible. But if we're going to speculate as to what God could do, viz., communicate to us his own quality of infallibility that it becomes ours, what is there to keep us some speculating likewise concerning the quality of impeccability? You may respond, "Well, we know that the Scripture and the history of the church testifies otherwise" - and the same would apply to the suggestion of infallibility. Now, your first question begs the question of what church? But that aside, the church need not be infallible in order to be a reliable witness. Again, you are offering a non sequitur when you suggest otherwise. My father was (for example) a reliable guide for me to the day of his death in many matters, but he was not always infallible. Or even better, consider an example from Holy Scripture, the woman at the well in John 4.

39 And many of the Samaritans of that city believed in Him because of the word of the woman who testified, "œHe told me all that I ever did."
40 So when the Samaritans had come to Him, they urged Him to stay with them; and He stayed there two days.
41 And many more believed because of His own word.
42 Then they said to the woman, "œNow we believe, not because of what you said, for we ourselves have heard Him and we know that this is indeed the Christ, the Savior of the world."

We see, then, that though it was the woman´s witness which initially induced belief in Christ, nonetheless, the confirmation of their (the Samaritans) faith came to rest in the testimony of Christ´s own word. While the woman´s witness was true and sufficiently credible to move the inhabitants of the city to belief, it does not follow that she became the infallible bulwark of their subsequent faith. No, they came to rest (as we see in the passage), not in her word, but Christ´s.

Moreover, I fail to see how God can be suggested to have failed if we, as his redeemed creatures, fail to be reliable witnesses in any given situation. And how can it be suggested that the gates of hell are prevailing when even our failures as God´s people are woven into the tapestry of God´s providence, and which can ultimately only work together for His church´s good (Rom 8:28)? We can mean this or that, like Joseph´s brethren, for evil, while God overrides our actions for good. You see, to turn your own suggestion on its head, you can embrace the infallibility of God and His word alone without positing it, in any sense, in His church, let alone any alleged dogma of papal infallibility. In short, I can tell you this, I am not sympathetic to the theory you've presented, and neither was Augustine.

Cheers,
DTK

[Edited on 12-28-2005 by DTK]

 

[Saiph]

David, after sleeping on this post, I edited my response early this morning. I agree with you, and changed my question. I think you must have replied cut/paste from my first response which was indeed incorrect.

Several scriptures came to mind while I was sleeping, that the church cannot indeed be infallible.

However, I still do not think english translations are infallible.



[Edited on 12-28-2005 by Saiph]

 

[DTK]

So is infallibility in the Church ? Probably not. The Bereans questioned even the Apostle. Even if we say that the words on paper are themselves infallible, then we are still left with our minds as the fallible faculty by which we need faith to define and understand them anyway.

I think it would be more precise to say that the Bereans compared the message of the Apostle to the present standard of the OT Scriptures in their possession, for it says that they received the word that was preached with all readiness (meta. pa,shj proqumi,aj, i.e., with all willingness or eagerness), and searched (avnakri,nontej, pres. act. part. of avnakri,nw, i.e., "examined or judged from") the Scriptures daily to find out (e;coi, optative, present active, 3rd pers. pl. of e;cw, i.e., "in order to hold") that these things were so.

Augustine´s exegesis of this text reflects the Protestant appeal to Acts 17:11...

Augustine (354-430): Whatever things of this kind take place in the Catholic Church, are therefore to be approved of because they take place in the Catholic Church; but it is not proved to be the Catholic Church, because these things happen in it. The Lord Jesus himself when he had risen from the dead . . . judged that his disciples were to be convinced by the testimonies of the Law and the Prophets and the Psalms . . . These are the proofs, these the foundations, these the supports for our cause. We read in the Acts of the Apostles of some who believed, that they searched the Scriptures daily, whether these things were so. What Scriptures but the Canonical Scriptures of the Law and the Prophets? To these have been added the Gospels, the Apostolical Epistles, the Acts of the Apostles, the Apocalypse of John.
Latin text: Quaecumque talia in Catholica fiunt, ideo sunt approbanda, quia in Catholica fiunt; non ideo ipsa manifestatur Catholica, quia haec in ea fiunt. Ipse Dominus Jesus cum resurrexisset a mortuis,...eos [i.e., discipulos] testimoniis Legis et Prophetarum et Psalmorum confirmandos esse judicavit,...Haec sunt causae nostrae documenta, haec fundamenta, haec firmamenta. 51. Legimus in Actibus Apostolorum dictum de quibusdam credentibus, quod quotidie scrutarentur Scripturas, an haec ita se haberent: quas utique Scripturas, nisi canonicas Legis et Prophetarum? Huc accesserunt Evangelia, apostolicae Epistolae, Actus Apostolorum, Apocalypsis Joannis. De Unitate Ecclesiae, Caput XIX, §50-51, PL 43:430.

DTK

 

[Saiph]

So Augustine is saying that while the church is the guard of the truth, she is not the sole interpreter of the truth ? Or that she is not completely accurate in her interpretations ?

I still have this dilemma in my mind that only those with the Holy Spirit can understand the truth ie. the Church.

V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture.[10] And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.

So, the holy catholic and apostolic church guards the infallible word, fallibly ?

There is another thread regarding reading Christian writings and reading the Bible alone. The ideas presented there are why I am questioning this.

[Edited on 12-28-2005 by Saiph]

 

[DTK]

Originally posted by Saiph
So Augustine is saying that while the church is the guard of the truth, she is not the sole interpreter of the truth ? Or that she is not completely accurate in her interpretations ?

I still have this dilemma in my mind that only those with the Holy Spirit can understand the truth ie. the Church.

Natural men do sometimes exhibit sufficient ability to understand Holy Scripture. Even so, they cannot receive it as truth because it is foolishness to them, and must be spiritually discerned in order to be regarded as truth (1 Cor 2:14), indeed the carnal mind is at enmity with God (Rom 8:7). As for your first question, the thought would never have entered Augustine's mind that anyone but Christians should be interpreting God's word. As for your second question, the answer is yes, as he himself testified...

Augustine (354-430): Let no one say to me, What hath Donatus said, what hath Parmenian said, or Pontius, or any of them. For we must not allow even Catholic bishops, if at any time, perchance, they are in error, to hold any opinion contrary to the Canonical Scriptures of God. For translation, see William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, 2nd ed., (London: John Henry Jackson, 1853), Vol. 3, p. 165.
Latin text: Nemo mihi dicat: O quid dixit Donatus, o quid dixit Parmenianus, aut Pontius, aut quilibet illorum! Quia nec catholicis episcopis consentiendum est, sicubi forte falluntur, ut contra canonicas Dei Scripturas aliquid sentiant. De Unitate Ecclesiae, Caput XI, §28, PL 43:410-411.

Augustine (354-430): All such matters, therefore, being put out of sight, let them show their Church, if they can; not in the discourses and reports of Africans, not in the councils of their own bishops, not in the writings of any controversialists, not in fallacious signs and miracles, for even against these we are rendered by the word of the Lord prepared and cautious, but in the ordinances of the Law, in the predictions of the Prophets, in the songs of the Psalms, in the words of the very Shepherd himself, in the preachings and labours of the Evangelists, that is, in all the canonical authorities of sacred books. Nor so as to collect together and rehearse those things that are spoken obscurely, or ambiguously, or figuratively, such as each can interpret as he likes, according to his own views. For such testimonies cannot be rightly understood and expounded, unless those things that are most clearly spoken are first held by a firm faith. For translation, see William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, 2nd ed., (London: John Henry Jackson, 1853), Vol. 3, p. 165.
Latin text: Remotis ergo omnibus talibus Ecclesiam suam demonstrent, si possunt, non in sermonibus et rumoribus Afrorum, non in conciliis episcoporum suorum, non in litteris quorumlibet disputatorum, non in signis et prodigiis fallacibus, quia etiam contra ista verbo Domini praeparati et cauti redditi sumus: sed in praescripto Legis, in Prophetarum praedictis, in Psalmorum cantibus, in ipsius unius Pastoris vocibus, in Evangelistarum praedicationibus et laboribus, hoc est, in omnibus canonicis sanctorum Librorum auctoritatibus. Nec ita, ut ea colligant et commemorent, quae obscure vel ambigue vel figurate dicta sunt, quae quisque sicut voluerit, interpretetur secundum sensum suum. Talia enim recte intelligi exponique non possunt, nisi prius ea, quae apertissime dicta sunt, firma fide teneantur. De Unitate Ecclesiae, Caput XVIII, §47, PL 43:427-428.

You go on to quote the WCF

V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture.[10] And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.

The WCF here is nothing more than an echo of Augustine. Much has been made of the following quote by Augustine...

But should you meet with a person not yet believing the gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say, I do not believe? For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.

When this was urged against the Reformers, Calvin set forth the context of Augustine´s statement and answers the argument in the following manner:

Augustine is not, therefore, teaching that the faith of godly men is founded on the authority of the church; nor does he hold the view that the certainty of the gospel depends upon it. He is simply teaching that there would be no certainty of the gospel for unbelievers to win them to Christ if the consensus of the church did not impel them. And this he clearly confirms a little later, saying: "œWhen I praise what I believe, and laugh at what you believe, how do you think we are to judge, or what are we to do? Should we not forsake those who invite us to a knowledge of things certain and then bid us believe things uncertain? Must we follow those who invite us first to believe what we are not yet strong enough to see, that, strengthened by this very faith, we may become worthy to comprehend what we believe [Colossians 1:4-11, 23] "” with God himself, not men, now inwardly strengthening and illumining our mind?"

In this latter passage of Augustine quoted by Calvin, the words are rendered elsewhere as:

You can find nothing better than to praise your own faith and ridicule mine. So, after having in my turn praised my belief and ridiculed yours, what result do you think we shall arrive at as regards our judgment and our conduct, but to part company with those who promise the knowledge of indubitable things, and then demand from us faith in doubtful things? while we shall follow those who invite us to begin with believing what we cannot yet fully perceive, that, strengthened by this very faith, we may come into a position to know what we believe by the inward illumination and confirmation of our minds, due no longer to men, but to God Himself. NPNF1: Vol. IV, Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental, Chapter 14.

We see now, how it is the Reformed position as in the WCF expresses the Augustinian perspective. Elsewhere in his Confessions, Augustine described essentially the same effect of God´s Truth on him inwardly:

Let me hear and understand how in the beginning Thou didst make the heaven and the earth. Moses wrote this; he wrote and departed, "” passed hence from Thee to Thee. Nor now is he before me; for if he were I would hold him, and ask him, and would adjure him by Thee that he would open unto me these things, and I would lend the ears of my body to the sounds bursting forth from his mouth. And should he speak in the Hebrew tongue, in vain would it beat on my senses, nor would ought touch my mind; but if in Latin, I should know what he said. But whence should I know whether he said what was true? But if I knew this even, should I know it from him? Verily within me (Intus utique mihi), within in the chamber of my thought, Truth, neither Hebrew, nor Greek, nor Latin, nor barbarian, without the organs of voice and tongue, without the sound of syllables, would say, "œHe speaks the truth," and I, forthwith assured of it, confidently (et ego statim certus confidenter) would say unto that man of Thine, "œThou speakest the truth." As, then, I cannot inquire of him, I beseech Thee, "” Thee, O Truth, full of whom he spake truth, "” Thee, my God, I beseech, forgive my sins; and do Thou, who didst give to that Thy servant to speak these things, grant to me also to understand them. NPNF1: Vol. I, The Confessions of St. Augustine, Book 11, Chapter 3.

And again, in his work on The Merits and Forgiveness of Sins (written around the year 411 A.D.), he expressed his mature thoughts in this manner:

That statement, therefore, which occurs in the gospel, "œThat was the true Light, which lighteth every one that cometh into the world," has this meaning, that no man is illuminated except with that Light of the truth, which is God; so that no person must think that he is enlightened by him whom he listens to as a learner, although that instructor happen to be "” I will not say, any great man "” but even an angel himself. For the word of truth is applied to man externally by the ministry of a bodily voice, but yet "œneither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase." Man indeed hears the speaker, be he man or angel, but in order that he may perceive and know that what is said is true, his mind is internally besprinkled with that light which remains for ever (sed ut sentiat et cognoscat verum esse quod dicitur, illo lumine intus mens ejus aspergitur, quod aeternum manet), and which shines even in darkness. But just as the sun is not seen by the blind, though they are clothed as it were with its rays, so is the light of truth not understood by the darkness of folly. NPNF1: Vol. V, On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants, Book I, Chapter 37.
Latin text: Itaque illud quod in Evangelio positum est. Erat lumen verum, quod illuminat omnem hominem venientem in hunc mundum, ideo dictum est, quia nullus hominum illuminatur nisi illo lumine veritatis, quod Deus est: ne quisquam putaret ab eo se illuminari, a quo audit ut discat, non dico, si quemquam magnum hominem, sed nec si angelum ei contingat habere doctorem. Adhibetur enim sermo veritatis extrinsecus vocis ministerio corporalis, verumtamen neque qui plantat est aliquid, neque qui rigat, sed qui incrementum dat Deus (I Cor. III, 7). Audit quippe homo dicentem vel hominem vel angelum; sed ut sentiat et cognoscat verum esse quod dicitur, illo lumine intus mens ejus aspergitur, quod aeternum manet, quod etiam in tenebris lucet. Sed sicut sol iste a caecis, quamvis eos suis radiis quodam modo vestiat, sic ab stultitiae tenebris non comprehenditur. De Peccatorium Meritis et Remissione, Liber Primus, Caput XXXVIII, PL 44:130.

Augustine could not have expressed himself clearer; his epistemology regarding spiritual truth is rooted in the immediate and eternal influence of the light that only God can give.
You wrote...

So, the holy catholic and apostolic church guards the infallible word, fallibly ?

There is another thread regarding reading Christian writings and reading the Bible alone. The ideas presented there are why I am questioning this.

I am sure that Christians in good faith seek to guard God's word as fallible creatures, but your question misses the point because it reflects a purely anthropomorphic concern for what is an activity of Divine providence. God's word doesn't depend on our efforts to guard it. And I think your reasoning, at least in this instance, reflects a less than biblical view of Divine providence, and God's superintendence of His own word in the history of the world.

DTK

[Edited on 12-28-2005 by DTK]

 

[Saiph]

God's word doesn't depend on our efforts to guard it. And I think your reasoning, at least in this instance, reflects a less than biblical view of Divine providence, and God's superintendence of His own word in the history of the world.

I did not mean to imply that scripture depended on our efforts to support it.

The word is only effectual through the power of the Holy Spirit right ?
God uses His Church to sustain it and keep it alive and to teach orthodoxy from it. Can a person, outside the influence of the church, sit and read the Bible all their life and still have a proper understanding and orthodox doctrine ?

Maybe to a very limited degree. But even in this thread we are referring to Augustine and the WCF. I have never met a Christian that reads only the Bible. We certainly do not turn to Asimov's Bible commentary to understand the word better. So, the Church, while not being infallible, is still our mother in a sense. We honor our Mother and Father as the commandment says by reading and considering what God has revealed through history in the writings of godly men and women.

These following articles seem to be missing the fact that while the scripture is the ultimate authority, the only ones who can rightly understand it are the spirit-filled people of God, ie. the Church.

IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.

X. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.

In article X, I guess I wonder if you or anyone else would consider it heresy if it said rather:

X. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture, and as He enlightens the minds of believers regarding its interpretation.

Because if we say it is in the Spirit alone speaking in scripture, then we are trapped in always wondering if our reading is accurate. How can we know if any given interpretation is accurate unless we compare it a. with the whole of scripture to find it consistent, and b. we compare it with christian writings throughout the ages to determine if the immutable word of God is consistently interpreted the same way ?

I guess the idea that the understanding of certain doctrines changes throughout history is confusing. If Augustine and Aquinas understand jusification differently that Luther or Calvin, and then N.T. Wright comes along with yet another understanding, how does one discern which is Biblical. They all seem to make good points from their perspective in my reading.

Is everyone before Luther wrong ? And why do we trust Luther so much on one point, when he is dead wrong about several other points ? He considered parts of the Bible inferior to others (Hebrews, James).
So, how could he hermeneutically be correct if He does not take all scripture as having the same authoritative weight ?

Then we seem to have N.T. Wright coming along with an entirely unique perspective. And Augustine liked to emphasize "faith working through love", and seems (from my reading) to make justification both a state, and a process.

I can either choose at this point to remain skeptical and confused, or I can admit that God uses each of these men to reveal some different aspect of His justifying work. But I do not see in the Bible where I have the freedom to be a renegade Bible interpreter in my own closet with the Holy Spirit.


Am I crazy in thinking that the WCF on scripture contradicts itself in chapter XXV regarding the Church ?

III. Unto this catholic visible Church Christ has given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world: and does, by His own presence and Spirit, according to His promise, make them effectual thereunto.

[Edited on 12-28-2005 by Saiph]

 

[DTK]

I think I need to spend my time on other pursuits for which I am held responsible. I have only so much time for this board, and I can't spend all my time here answering your questions endlessly, and/or critiquing your thoughts on Augustine, Holy Scripture, and the WCF. You've asked me approximately seven questions this time (give or take one), the last of which would perhaps require of me either an advanced degree in psychology or the omniscience of deity to answer. You're obviously unsettled in your views on these subjects, and I think you need closer pastoral guidance than I am able to offer in this medium. I would like to offer more help (certainly more help than I've apparently been), but I would be robbing my own congregation and doing you a disservice in the process.

Blessings,
DTK

 

[Saiph]

Pax tecum.

And thank you for being patient and trying to help me.

 

[py3ak]

Mark,

I can't by any means to pretend to know as much historical theology as Pastor King, or feel that I am able to answer all (probably not any of your questions). The only thing I do have are two questions of my own.

Is any part of your tension with the WCF relieved or addressed by section 7?

All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.

A due use of the ordinary means would of course include the teaching of the church. To me, who might not be understaning the dilemma, it seems to me like this harmonizes chapters 1 and 25.

Second, what is the substantive difference between you and your Bible and Luther and his Bible? In other words, do you feel yourself more bound to what Augustine, Aquinas, Luther or Wright think than what you think? If so, why?

 

[Saiph]

Ruben,

Maybe Dr. Clark's statement that I am tending to rationalism in another thread is accurate.

To answer your questions:

Section VII is where my mind finds a sabbath, but I am plagued often by the desire to understand it more lucidly. (perhaps that is where I cross the line beyond . . . those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation)


Augustine asserts that the adequacy of human language is ultimately dependent upon direct cognizance with the empyrical world, and even our ability to attain knowledge from other people presupposes that what they tell us can be reduced to elements from some antecedent familiarity. (De Magistro 11.37).

So, that explains to me in a sense why the Bible is written in narrative and poetry and parable. We can relate to the stories, because of experience. But to grasp the eternal truths, we need the Spirit to illuminate our minds and put the familiarity in our mind where it previously did not exist.

Is language itself in the noumenal or phenomenal realm ? I seem to get from him that is is neither, but rather the function of how the mind relates idea to object and bridges the transcendental gap between the two.

The Bereans were commended with checking the scriptures to validate what the Apostle said right ? But, does that verse mean it is necessary to do so, or merely that it helps us to better understand what they are telling us. Apostles and Prophets speak with divine God-breathed authority and infallibility. No one thinks twice about checking if Luther was right because he was not an Apostle. Yet, I see Christians being attacked for questioning his formulation of justification. And the response, seems to be quoting more Luther and the reformers than an honest exegesis of scripture.

So there is tension in the protestant world where on one hand we are told to test all things like good Bereans, and on the other "How dare you question the confessions of the Church" ?

Second, what is the substantive difference between you and your Bible and Luther and his Bible? In other words, do you feel yourself more bound to what Augustine, Aquinas, Luther or Wright think than what you think? If so, why?

If Luther and I have the same Holy Spirit dwelling within us, is there a difference ? ?

Yes and no. Obviously, I am not as intellectually adept as he was. I do not have the time he had to invest in study either. But then again, when I read his work, as a laymen, and I read Augustine, and I find that Augustine helps me understand the scriptures more clearly, or that I see the point Augustine asserts in the scripture more obviously, can I trust that it is the Holy Spirit illuminating my mind as it illuminated Augustines? If Augustine is right, then even those who believe false doctrines because they deduce them from scripture are led to that conclusion because God has chosen not to illuminate them in that area.

This is why I think teachers are under a stricter judgment. Because sheep should trust their shepherds.

So while the Church may not be infallible, it is the voice in the world of the infallible Word. What does that say about believers living before the formalized doctrine of sola scriptura ?

 

[py3ak]

Mark,

After Dr. Clark told me that it dealt with archetypal and ectypal theology, I read his article in The Pattern of Sound Doctrine called "Janus, the Well-Meant Offer of the Gospel and Westminster Theology". I think this quote from pp.162,163 expresses a distinction that was helpful to me:

...in Arminius, the analogy between God and man, established by the Reformers and systematized by the early orthodox Reformed theologians, was fundamentally undonde in favor of an intersection of divine and human intellects of the sort discarded at the outset of the Reformation.

That article put a solidly Reformed basis under thoughts I had come to through a tortuous and probably wildly inefficient process --reading Lewis, Barfield, Eco, Doug Wilson and a little of Roland Barthes. I could probably have learned most of it from Surprised by Joy (as I discovered re-reading it last night). Barfield (History, Guilt & Habit & Poetic Diction) taught me that all language was analogical. Theology is analogical; our existence is analogical. (Of course, now Dr. Clark might get on and rebuke me soundly for completely failing to grasp the point!) But anyway, coming to believe this was not at all depressing --it was liberating, in fact. I am happy to be a metaphorical creature, thinking and speaking and theologizing in metaphorical terms, the vast divide between me and the Trinity never being bridged --and yet still being called into a vast, tumbling, glorious fellowship with the Father and the Son that exceeds my comprehension, that exceeds all my capacities, and yet that is an unending welter of joy. God stoops to my capacity, to be sure; there are many things I shall never know; but it's still quite an amazing romp.
So I would not conceive of language or of the illumination of the Spirit in quite the terms that you express them. The illumination of the Spirit is not to put new content into my brain (the more theologically astute are welcome to check me here: these are my own thoughts), but to enable me to see a little of the refulgence of what was there. Scripture gives me content --the Spirit enables me to appreciate (though that is much too palid a word: to glory in, to swim in) that content. And I wouldn't think that gap between object and idea is bridged, unless you can speak of symbolic correspondence as a bridge.
I agree that teachers are held to a higher standard. I think in judging all of the interpretations, etc., etc. of course we use the means we've been given: Scripture, obedience, the teaching of the church, reason and if I may be permitted, experience. But in the end we have to trust God to guide us --I mean ultimately if God wanted to delude and damn us it wouldn't be hard: we all throw up grotesque errors out of our silly minds and wicked hearts. But we have to trust His promise; we then have to trust that in the use of the ordinary means with diligence and time and prayer He will teach us all we need to know (and what each one needs to know may vary according to the one knowing).
I don't know if that is helpful. I would describe what I have recently come to as more of a sense than a position --and that means that details are neither clear nor hard. But it has relieved some of the dark anxiety about certainty and knowledge and language.

 

[Saiph]

That does help. I will read Dr. Clark's article if it is on his website.

It seems like we have tread a similar path. You have given me some hope and I appreciate your empathetic prehension of my struggle.

 

[py3ak]

Mark,

If the article isn't on his website, I would be happy to mail you the book.

It's gladdening to me that the Lord would use my in any capacity. God bless you, brother.