ARE COUNCILS AUTHORITATIVE?

 

I recently came across an article from Catholic Answers written by an author named Parker Manning.  The title of the article was, “Do Protestants Care About Church Councils?” [With the subtitle, “Church councils aren’t worth much if you accept in them only what you agree with”]

You can find the article here:

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/do-protestants-care-about-church-councils

In the article, Manning correctly points out that Protestants, who believe in Sola Scriptura (“Bible alone”), also believe that other valid authorities exist, such as traditions and councils, but that they are less authoritative.  Protestants believe that Scripture is the ultimate and final authority for the church today, because it is the only infallible source in the post-apostolic church (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

But Manning doesn’t like the way that Protestants view the Church councils.  He says:

“Protestants like [James] White, [Jeff] Durbin, and [Matt] Slick will often try to persuade their audience into believing that they care about the early church councils when they really do not.  Or at the very least, they care about them only when they agree with their interpretation of Scripture.  Once we recognize this, it only makes sense to conclude that these Protestants really do not care about what these councils teach.”

But as Christians, we’re not obligated to embrace every word just because it comes from a council, nor are we obligated to support unbiblical concepts when presented by said council.  Having some truth mixed in with error does not make it ok.  How can a council be acceptable, much less infallible, if it contradicts Scripture?  If a council contains false teaching, those parts should be publicly rejected. 

It looks like Manning is suggesting that if we Protestants are going to accept anything from church councils, we should accept everything in these councils! 

Inconsistent?

He also stated:

“… [I]t makes little sense to argue for something because a council said so when they agree with only that part of the council that agrees with their interpretation of Scripture?  Why not just argue with Scripture?”

And I would say, “Amen to that!”  That’s where the real issue lies. 

Catholics will claim that Protestants are inconsistent when they point to Church councils because Protestants will only pick and choose the things within the councils that they like.  But I think that sometimes the reason certain Protestants even bother to point to something said in a church council at all is not to pretend to agree with everything in it, but I believe that sometimes Protestants are simply saying, “Even your Catholic council XYZ agrees with us on this particular point!” 

But that certainly does not mean that we agree with everything within that council. 

Interpretation Dilemma?

Notice that in Manning’s article, he keeps talking about when councils don’t agree with the Protestant’s interpretation of Scripture.  As if to continually expect him to interpret it wrong.  For example, in the article, Manning says things like, “They care about only what they believe Scripture says…” (emphasis added).  In using the word “believe” here, he seems to be implying that the Protestant interpretation will likely be incorrect.  Since Protestants don’t have an infallible Magisterium to interpret for them (like Catholics allegedly do), they are apparently very unlikely to get it right.

But the truth is Catholics are in the same situation.  They too are obligated to use their fallible understanding and reasoning to interpret what their “infallible” Magisterium is saying.  There’s no way out of it.  If it is a dilemma for Protestants, then it is also a dilemma for Catholics.

See these links on Bible interpretation:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2014/07/private-interpretation.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2009/12/dialogue-on-bible-interpretation.html

Arbitrary Dismissal?

Manning also says:

“This arbitrary dismissal of certain things councils teach is known as special pleading – a logical fallacy in which someone applies a principle or rule to others but exempts himself (or his position) without providing a valid reason for the exception.  By being inconsistent and appealing to councils and also rejecting certain parts of them, Protestants are committing this fallacy.”

Notice that he says, “…without providing a valid reason for the exception.”  Protestants will accept particular parts of a council, yet indeed reject other parts, but he does this on the basis of agreement with a greater authority – Scripture!  So, it is not an “arbitrary” dismissal at all, but a biblical one.

Perhaps we Protestants would care for councils more if they would fully align with the Bible.  Then there should be no issue from either side.

Conclusion

To answer the question, yes, councils are authoritative – they carry weight in the church.  Councils are often useful to articulate or codify the core beliefs of the church and these beliefs are fine, as long as they align with the truth of God’s Word (John 17:17), which, by the way, will judge us on the last day (John 12:48).

But if any council contradicts the principles of Scripture in any way, its words are no more than man-made traditions as Jesus said (Mark 7:1-13), “laying aside the commandment of God” (v. 8) by “teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” (v.7).  

You see, “authoritative” does not necessarily mean infallible.  There are real authorities in our churches, just as there are in our everyday lives (parents, teachers, doctors, law enforcement, judges, etc.), and most people have no problem obeying these authorities, even if they are not infallible.  Councils may be authoritative, but we only have one source that is infallible (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

The apostles enjoyed, at least in a limited sense, the gift of infallibility in their day, but today it is the apostolic MESSAGE that has the built-in authority/infallibility:

“For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation…” (Romans 1:16). 

We don’t have apostles today, but to the extent that one is faithful with the apostolic message (Scripture), he is authoritative.  Jesus said:

“The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; but the one who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me.” (Luke 10:16 - NASB)

If you are faithful in bringing the true gospel message to others, they are indeed not just hearing you, but hearing Jesus.  In the context of Luke 10, Jesus was not just speaking to the apostles, but to the seventy disciples, as well – and by extension, the universal church.  Jesus gave us the “Great Commission,” i.e., the responsibility of the whole church to spread the gospel (Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-18; Luke 24:46-49; John 20:19-23).  If the gospel message being delivered is perverted/wrong, the presenter of the message is not authoritative.  But whoever hears the person commissioned and faithfully bringing the true gospel is also hearing Jesus – and the faithful messenger is therefore authoritative.  He is authoritative because he is correctly using the highest authority.

 

JOHN MARTIGNONI AND “DECAPITATING” JESUS

In a fairly recent newsletter (#352 of his “Apologetics for the Masses”) put out by Catholic John Martignoni of the Bible Christian Society, he again brings up the topic of infallibility when he says that “…no one – absolutely no one! – in Protestantism can make an authoritative interpretation of Scripture that is binding on anyone else, because each and any interpretation, being fallible, could be wrong.”   And because of this, he says that Protestantism is a “free-for-all.”  See the newsletter here:

https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/466-apologetics-for-the-masses-352-problems-with-protestantism-1

It is interesting that John says that any fallible interpretation could be wrong, yet, in this very same newsletter, he tells us what John 1:16-17 “very clearly states.”  Now, I agree with John Martignoni concerning what John 1:16-17 states, but we have to ask, has this verse been “infallibly interpreted” by the Catholic Church?  No, it hasn’t.  So how can John know that his interpretation of this verse is “authoritative” or even correct?  After all, as John himself said, if it hasn’t been infallibly interpreted by the Church, then it could be wrong, right?  But by telling us what this verse “very clearly states,” he’s using his fallible interpretation of this passage to make it “binding” on everyone.

You see, John is trying to play both sides.  He knows that many Bible verses are absolutely clear for both Protestants and Catholics, alike.  He is enjoying the freedom to fallibly interpret Scripture according to what it plainly says without worrying about his interpretation being wrong.  But he doesn’t want Protestants to be able to do the same thing.  He’s concerned about the “problem” of fallible interpretations for Protestants, yet it’s not a problem when he fallibly interprets a verse.  

He does the same thing with a couple of other passages right after this (Colossians 1:19 and Colossians 2:9-10) and says that these are also clear to both Catholics and Protestants.  Again, he doesn’t seem to care that the verses he mentions are fallibly interpreted by him.  I suspect that the real reason that Catholic apologists push infallibility is to protect those very few “infallibly defined” uniquely Catholic interpretations of certain passages that falsely exalt the Catholic Church. 

Anyway, we’ve already dealt with this issue of Protestants lacking infallibility when we addressed some of John’s other articles.  For example, see here:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2015/10/martignoni-and-authority-to-interpret.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2015/11/normal-0-false-false-false-en-us-x-none.html

But in this more recent newsletter (#352), John has added a unique accusation against Protestants… he accuses us of “decapitating” Jesus.

He says that we Protestants are “pitting the Bible against the Church.”  And he claims that Protestants say 1) that “we can’t trust what a church tells us,” 2) that “you don’t need the church as long as you’ve got the Bible,” and 3) “the church isn’t necessary for one’s salvation.”  John accuses us of “separating the Church from Jesus,” thus cutting the Head (Jesus) off the body (the church).   

   

First of all, I believe that very few knowledgeable Protestants would say these things using the biblical definition of “the church,” and they would certainly need to qualify these statements.

One problem is, when Catholics mention “the church,” they are often thinking of the Magisterium, or the leadership of the Catholic Church, specifically.  But there is absolutely no biblical reason to describe the church this way.

But John Martignoni then quotes Ephesians 1:22-23, which says that the body (the church) is the “fullness of Jesus Christ.”  Then he strings this verse together with Colossians 2:9-10, which tells us that Jesus is Head over “all rule and authority.”  But John’s logic gets twisted here and leads him to believe that the church itself is somehow “all rule and authority!”  But it doesn’t say that about the church. 

His logic here says, 1) “Jesus is the Head over the church,” and 2) “Jesus is the Head over all rule and authority.”  Therefore, the church is “all rule and authority!” 

But that would be like saying, 1) God is Head over the planet Mars, and 2) God is Head over the planet Neptune.  Therefore, Neptune is the same thing as Mars!  It just doesn’t follow.  But it does show their desperation to exalt the authority of the Catholic Church.  We can’t let John get away with this.  If he wants to be recognized as a credible and trustworthy apologist, he can’t be using this kind of logic.

Then John claims that this concept is “further strengthened” by Matthew 18:15-18 where Jesus speaks of “binding authority” in the church. 

Therefore, he concludes that all this, taken together, means that the church must enjoy “infallibility” and “freedom from error” in its judgments.  But that is a giant illogical and unbiblical step to take.

When the apostle Paul says that the church is the fullness of Christ (Ephesians 1:22-23), he is saying that the church, the universal body of believers, in its best light, is the fullness of the expression of Christ.  It cannot mean that the church is infallible, as John Martignoni says, because Ephesians 3:19 also speaks of “fullness” (using the exact same Greek word):

“… that you may be filled up to all the fullness [“pleroma”] of God.” [NASV]

If this “fullness” means “infallibility” in Ephesians 1:22-23, then it also means “infallibility” in Ephesians 3:19, as well.  But in Ephesians 3, it was speaking directly to the members of the church of Ephesus.  So does this mean that all the members of the Ephesian church were infallible, also?  Someone might point out that it applies to all Christians, by extension, not just to the Ephesians.  Ok, if that’s true, then by John Martignoni’s reasoning, it would mean that all Christians world-wide are infallible.  But does John Martignoni want to say this?  I seriously doubt that.

So there is no infallibility in the New Testament church (after the apostles).  The Protestants that John Martignoni complains about are simply reacting (possibly over-reacting) to Catholics’ unbiblical over-emphasis of the authority of the church.  There is a balance here.  Yes, the church is indeed made up of God’s people, but Protestants honor the Bible more than the church because Scripture is God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16-17).  It is the very message of God to mankind.  It is the infallible standard and guide by which the church should live. 

  

And finally, there is no “decapitation” on the part of Protestants.  Putting the church in its proper biblical role is not “decapitating Jesus.”  Christ and the church are intertwined, but not on the same level.  The Head (Jesus) doesn’t need the church in order for Him to exist, but the church needs Him.  It is almost as if some Catholic apologists try to make the church [read “Catholic Magisterium”] equal to Jesus.