The Church and Authority: Part 1 One Visible Church

In the comments section of my article Are Good Works Automatic?, Another person and I had a good spirited debate on works and justification. He believes his interpretation is authoritative and rejects the Catholic interpretation, which the Bible agrees with. Here are his exact words, “I personally think the Bible is the only Word of God, and should take precedence over the traditions and opinions of man, even if those men are popes, but that's why I am not a Catholic.” A good summary of the Catholic Churches view of authority is written by St. Paul, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” Notice how he talks about traditions and how the Thessalonians were taught by the Apostles by both word or in print. This sounds a lot like the Catholic three legged stool of authority, Tradition, authoritative teaching (Magisterium or Church), and Scripture which hold equal weight so therefore cannot contradict. Neither of the first two require “traditions or opinions of man” that John rejects. Now contrast that with a summary of his (the Protestant) argument below:

Note: I use his words only as an example since I have been accused of attacking a strawman in other instances. This is no way an attack on John himself, only the false doctrine that he propagates.

The Protestant argument looks like this:

Premise 1: The Bible is authoritative.

Premise 2: There can be no other authority than the Bible.

Conclusion: Therefore, the Bible is the sole rule of faith.

There is quite a bit of difference between what the Bible views as authoritative and the Protestant view of authority. I agree with premise 1 but premise 2 is flawed. In fact, it can be shown flawed in many other passages of Scripture such as in Matthew 18:15-20:

Jesus said, “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”

Neither of these passages sound like what I hear from most, if any, Protestants. In fact, nowhere can we find the Bible appealing to itself as the final authority, only the traditions of men make that appeal. Most Protestants would tell me that we need to pray to the Holy Spirit so that He can lead us to the truth, an argument from John 16:13. I would agree with that to a certain extent, but the verse is being taken out of context. If one does not happen to be listening to the Holy Spirit at that time, they then could be wrong and mislead without even knowing it. Most Protestants will admit that they are not infallible all the time (some do claim that they are infallible some of the time). With their admission of fallibility, even some of the time, we cannot accept their interpretation, or our own for that matter, explicitly since God’s Word cannot be fallible and nor can His Church. Luckily Jesus didn’t end with only two or three witnesses. Instead He ended with the Church.

Which Church was Jesus talking about? For instance, if two people were arguing over whether abortions were allowed, would we go to the Baptist church? We could even distinguish between certain Baptist churches because some do believe that abortions are allowed while others do not. Or we could take them, for instance to a Lutheran church who does not believe that abortions are allowed. Which church then has the infallible interpretation on this issue? They both claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit but one of them must be wrong.

Before we dismiss any church out of hand, let’s look to the Bible and see if God did establish a church on earth. Well indeed Jesus did establish a church in Matthew 16:18 saying “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.” We have church being used in the singular here which tells us that a singular Church was established by Jesus. I have yet to meet a Protestant who will argue that multiple churches were established by God, at least we have this to agree upon. Now we need to understand what the Church actually is.

Protestants typically believe the Church to be purely spiritual and not visible. Their visible church is simply a congregation of believers with no authority (we can already see the contradiction with Matthew 18:15-20) and no need to agree on all doctrine. The Catholic Church views the Church as both visual and spiritual with the Bishops, in communion with the Peter’s successor, and the Bishop of Rome, by his office, to be authoritative. Both Protestants and Catholics believe the Church to consist of the body of Christ.

The Protestant Argument:

Premise 1: The Church is the bride of Christ, not an institution.

Premise 2: The Church is nothing more than a gathering of believers.

Conclusion: Therefore the true Church is strictly invisible.

An invisible church perpetuates the disunity shown above in the abortion example because there cannot be any real authority since no one would know, with absolute certainty, which tradition has the correct interpretation.

Isaiah 2:2 shows us that the prophet Isaiah prophesied of a perpetually visible church, “It shall come to pass in the latter days that the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be established as the highest of the mountains, and shall be raised above the hills; and all the nations shall flow to it.” The Jews never fulfilled this prophecy which means that it must be fulfilled by Christianity. A centralized Church in which all the nations can take part must always be visible and never hidden. This should sound quite familiar. One could turn to the New Testament and read Matthew 5:14-16 which reemphasizes that the Church cannot be hidden:

“You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hid. Nor do men light a lamp and put it under a bushel, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.”

It is quite clear that the idea of an invisible church is not what was prophesied by Isaiah or what Matthew had in mind. Having a visible Church aids in doctrinal unity which is the topic of the next article. Again, no Protestant I know denies that Christ established one Church so let us keep that in mind going into the next article.

The concluding argument is as follows:

Premise 1: Isaiah prophesied of a visible Church.

Premise 2: There are no passages in the Bible stating that an invisible church alone is what Christ intended.

Conclusion: Therefore, Christ established a visible Church.