"Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls and will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with sighing - for that would be harmful to you." - Hebrews 13:17
All throughout the bible, God has set up leaders to interpret and explain the law, from Old Testament times (Deuteronomy 17:8-13), all the way to today (Acts 20:28, 1 Timothy 5:17, 2 Timothy 2:2, Titus 1:13). There are three specific passages in the New Testament that summarize the biblical proof for a visible, institutional, infallible Church: Matthew 18:15-18; Acts 15:1-35, 16:4; and 1 Timothy 3:15.
"If another member of the church sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one. But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." - Matthew 18:15-18
Here, Jesus tells His followers that the final authority to go to is the Church. Notice that Jesus doesn't even mention Scripture (if Jesus believed in sola scriptura, He probably would've mentioned Scripture here). Now, why is this proof for an infallible Church? If the Church is fallible, then how can it be the ultimate authority? Let me give an example. If baptismal regeneration is wrong, and my friend forces people to be baptized, then I should bring him to the church, right? If I bring him to a Lutheran church (they believe in baptismal regeneration), how will the church help me? It won't. If baptismal regeneration is true and my friend is preaching that it is false, then I should bring him to the church, right? However, if I bring him to a Baptist church (they don't believe in baptismal regeneration), then how will the church help me? It won't. Either way, the church might be wrong in correcting (or, in this case, not correcting) sinners. Without infallible Church authority, doctrinal disunity dominates. Given this doctrinal disunity and lack of authority in the church, how can it be the final authority?
Also, if my friend who commits one of the sins I mentioned firmly believes in his interpretation of the bible, then how can the church reprimand him? If the church has no special authority, then why should he believe its interpretation of the bible over his? After all, who's to say which is right? Protestants often say that their leaders have authority, but their teachings must be checked with Scripture to see if they go along with it. So, basically, Protestant ministers and pastors only have authority when you agree with their interpretation of the bible. If my friend refuses to listen to the church because he interprets the bible differently from his pastor, then what would stop him from leaving his denomination and joining another one or even starting his own? If the church leaders only have authority as long as they go along with what the bible teaches, then what authority do they have when members of their congregation disagree with their interpretation of the bible? Absolutely none. Protestantism's notion of authority all boils down to this: the church only has authority when you agree with it.
Next, Jesus gives His Church the authority to bind and loose. Now, Protestants may argue that Jesus was giving this power to all believers, but I disagree. Verse 1 says that Jesus was speaking to the disciples, which Matthew elsewhere uses to refer to the apostles (Matthew 10:1), and the parallel passage to Matthew 18:1-5 in Mark 9:33-37 is clear that Jesus is talking to the apostles. Since Matthew 18:1-20 is all part of one discourse and is directed towards the same audience, Jesus must've been talking to His apostles.
Binding and loosing were technical terms for when rabbis permitted or forbade something, and Jesus said that whatever His apostles bound or loosed on earth would be bound or loosed in heaven. The apostles appointed successors who would appoint their successors, all the way to the bishops of the present day, and these successors have teaching authority (1 Timothy 3:1-7, 5:22, 6:20; 2 Timothy 2:2; Titus 1:5-6, 2:1, 15). Thus, it makes sense that the power to bind and loose would continue through the line of successors.
Ok, let's wrap everything up about this verse and how it supports an infallible Church. First, a non-infallible Church produces doctrinal disunity (such as is seen in the Protestant concept of "church," which includes all believers), so it cannot be the final authority that Jesus said it was. Secondly, if the church only has authority when it goes along with biblical teaching, it has no authority if people disagree with its interpretation of the bible. This kind of authority is basically just, "The church has authority when it agrees with my interpretation of the bible," which is definitely not the kind of authority that Jesus said the Church would have. Rather, Jesus gave the Church the power to infallibly bind and loose, which has been passed dwon from the apostles.
"As they went from town to town, they delivered to them for observance the decisions that had been reached by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem." - Acts 16:4
Here's the background info on the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15:1-21:
� Paul and Barnabas had been preaching that the Gentiles didn't have to follow the Law of Moses
� Some Jewish Christians from Judea were teaching that the Gentiles had to follow the Law of Moses (Acts 15:1)
� The apostles and elders gathered in Jerusalem to discuss the issue
To make a long story short, the Council decided that the Gentiles didn't have to follow the Law of Moses, and they sent out a letter that was "for observance of the decisions that had been reached by the apostles and elders" (Acts 16:4).
First, notice that the council consisted of elders and apostles; Protestants cannot argue that the council was infallible only because the decision was made by Peter and James. It just so happened that the decision was made by apostles; but the elders were there too and would have contributed to making the decision. If the decision was just the apostles using their apostolic authority, then why were the elders also at the council? Second, notice that the council made an infallible decision by itself; they did not appeal to Scripture alone. While James does appeal to a prophecy that says that the Gentiles will turn to God also, this does not take away from the council's authority. Being a Gentile consisted not only of not following the Law of Moses, but also of not being Jewish by nationality; the Gentiles could've followed the Law of Moses but still be Gentiles. The council did not rely on Scripture alone. Third, notice that the council's decision had to be believed; breaking off from the Church or disobeying her authority were not options.
"if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth." - 1 Timothy 3:15
The Church, not Scripture, is the pillar and bulwark of truth. What do pillars and bulwarks do? They hold things up and keep them from falling. Most Protestants will say that all Christians are in the "invisible church," the body of all Christians scattered across the world. However, these Christians have many contradicting views on baptismal regeneration, infant baptism, and the Eucharist, among other things. How can the church support contradicting interpretations of the bible? If it is the pillar and bulwark of truth, how can it support false doctrines (all but one of a bunch of contradicting doctrines are bound to be false)?
Protestants will counter by saying that they agree on the "essential" doctrines but disagree on the "nonessentials," but the bible makes no distinction between "essential" and "nonessential" doctrines. Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church into all truth (John 16:13), not just truth about the "essential" doctrines. Jesus prayed to the Father that His followers would be united, as He and the Father are united (John 17:20-23). Does this sound like Jesus was talking about just the "essentials"? No! Again, Jesus told the apostles to teach all that He had taught them (Matthew 28:20), not just the "essentials" of what He taught them.
Paul, a missionary, knew how important doctrinal unity was for the fledgling Church. He told Titus to "have nothing more to do with anyone who causes divisions" (Titus 3:10). He told the Corinthians to be in agreement, united in the same mind and purpose; he wanted no divisions among them (1 Corinthians 1:10). He warned the Romans to keep an eye on all who cause dissensions (Romans 16:17). He begged the Ephesians to make every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit. He said that there is one Lord, one faith, and one God and Father (Ephesians 4:3, 5-6). Is Protestantism one faith? No! It is various faiths with varying beliefs.
Protestants will then point out that there are many dissenters in the Catholic Church, so we are not united either. This, however, falls apart upon closer examination. There will always be dissenters in the Church; they do not represent true Catholics. Their dissension is illegitimate; they are not supposed to dissent from Church teaching. They are heretics. Protestant disunity, however, is not the same. There is no authority to say who is right and wrong, so each denomination is just as biblical as the next. There's no reason why any one denomination is more right than any other.
Ok, let's summarize everything. First, we are to obey and submit to our leaders (Hebrews 13:17). Second, the Church is the final authority (Matthew 18:15-18). Third, when the Church makes a decision, it must be obeyed (Acts 15:1-35, 16:4). Fourth, the Church is to be unified, a rock-solid pillar and bulwark (1 Timothy 3:15).
