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]
