Does the Bible teach the
Doctrine of the Papacy?
Second Cross Examination
Rebuttal Statement
Moses Flores
I
want to begin my final rebuttal with some quotes form Augustine regarding the
interpretation of Scripture. The first
one comes from his work On Christian
Doctrine, Book I, chap. 36-37 which states:
“…Whoever
takes another meaning out of Scriptures than the writer intended, goes astray,
but not through any falsehood in Scripture…For if he takes up rashly a
meaning which the author whom he is reading did not intend, he often falls in
with other statements which he cannot harmonize with this meaning. And if he admits that these statements are
true and certain, then it follows that the meaning he had put upon the former
passage cannot be the true one: and so tit comes to pass, one can hardly tell
how, that, out of love for his own opinion, he begins to feel more angry with
Scripture than he is with himself. And
if he should once permit that evil to creep in, it will utterly destroy
him. ‘For we walk by
faith, not by sight.’ Now faith will totter if the authority
of Scripture begin to shake…”
Also from the same work, Book III, chap. 28:
“When, however, a meaning is evolved of such
a kind that what is doubtful in it cannot be cleared up by indubitable evidence from Scripture, it remains for us to make it
clear by evidence of reason. But this is
a dangerous practice. For it is far safer to walk by the light of
Holy Scripture; so that when we wish to examine the passages that are obscured
by metaphorical expressions, we may either obtain a meaning about which
there is no controversy, or if a controversy arises, may settle it by the
application of testimonies sough out in every portion of the same Scripture.”
Finally, from the same work, Book II, chap.
9, titled “How we should proceed in studying Scripture”:
In all these books those who
fear God and are of a meek and pious disposition seek the will of God. And in pursuing this search the first rule to
be observed is, as I said, to know these books, if not yet with the
understanding, still to read them so as to commit them to memory, or at least
so as not to remain wholly ignorant of them.
Next, those matters that are plainly laid down in them, whether rules or
life or rules of faith are to be searched into more carefully and more
diligently; and the more of these a man discovers, the more capacious does his
understanding become. For among the things that are plainly laid
down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner
of life, - to wit, hope and love, of which I have spoken of in previous book. After this, when we have made ourselves to a
certain extent familiar with the language of Scripture, we may proceed to open up and investigate the obscure passages, and in
doing so draw examples from the plainer expressions to throw light upon the
more obscure, and use the evidence of passages about which there is no doubt to
remove all hesitation in regard to the doubtful passages. And in this matter memory counts for a great
deal; but if the memory be defective, no rules can supply the want.”
The reasons I have quoted from Augustine are many. First, we take note that Augustine’s method for studying Scripture is a common method known to that period of Church history as the “analogy of faith”. Essentially it was comparing Scripture with Scripture based on the presupposition that Scripture cannot contradict itself. Therefore, if a meaning is given to Scripture that contradicts the plainer teachings of Scripture, then such an interpretation is to be rejected. Augustine spells out this method as interpreting the more “obscure” or “difficult” passages in the light of the “clearer” or “plainer” passages.
In regards to the passage in Isaiah, it was commented that the O.T. often prefigured things in the New Testament, etc…This is not denied at all. Certainly Mr. Rosado shows examples of this. However, is this Isaiah passage a shadow or type of something greater in the New Testament? No apostle uses of quotes from Isaiah 22 so as to give an apostolic interpretation! All the types and shadows in the O.T. are recognized because the N.T. says so! We know what the types are because, for example in the book of Hebrews, passages plainly state that it is so. Thus, there is apostolic interpretation in recognizing any type or shadow.
Augustine says that the meaning of a Scripture should be in accord with the original intention of the author. So let us ask: Did Isaiah intend to “prefigure” Peter in any way in stating a prophecy of judgment against Shebna and giving his office as palace administrator to Eliakim? Obviously, Isaiah didn’t even have Peter in mind. In fact, it can hardly be argued at all that Isaiah had any type of Papal office in mind at all.
I also note Augustine for another reason. Notice that in all of Augustine’s words mentioned here on studying Sacred Scripture, he never once mentions appealing to any type of Tradition necessary for correct understanding or even to the Papacy for infallible declarations. Remember that Augustine went against Pope Zosimus concerning Pelagian leanings in the Bishop of Rome! Augustine rather says that in order to know Scripture, we must be familiar with it – recall that Trent actually banned private Bible reading by the laity – and one must know the plainer teachings in order to understand the harder ones. No mention of an appeal to “Tradition”. In fact, historically speaking, Augustine went against many early Father especially in his view of fallen man and salvation based on the free grace of Grace, especially manifested in the high doctrine of predestination.
It was said, that “the Church is explained definitively through the early Church Fathers and so why should we try to explain away what they passed on to us through the ages?” Well the fact is, that nobody is trying to “explain away” anything. We have the Scriptures and the Scriptures are greater in authority than those fallible men, for the Scriptures alone are God-breathed revelation. Even the Fathers themselves exclude themselves from the canon of the Word of God. It is also a fact that the Roman Catholic Church as we know it today was not infallibly or definitively defined until the Council of Trent which took place from 1545 -1562.
I actually find it interesting that someone who exhorts another to follow
the “early Church” has only one obscure quote from Irenaeus – not at all related
to the topic of the papacy in all this debate.
There has been no interaction with the quotes I have provided from
Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Firmilian,
Pope Gregory the Great, Hilary of Poitiers and Augustine concerning “the Rock”
of Matthew 16:18. I wonder if the same
one who says to listen to the Fathers will also follow the conclusions of
Augustine down the paths of predestination based on the sovereign grace of
God. But then again, what can
Is
“He has given, therefore, the keys to His Church, that whatsoever it should bind on earth might be bound in heaven, and whatsoever it should loose on earth might be loosed in heaven; that is to say, that whosoever in the Church should not believe that his sins are remitted, they should not be remitted to him; but whosoever should believe, and should repent, and turn from his sins, should be saved by the same faith and repentance on the ground of which he is received into the bosom of the Church. For he who does not believe that his sins can be pardoned, falls into despair, and becomes worse, as if no greater good remained for him than to be evil, when he has ceased to have faith in the results of his own repentance.” (On Christian Doctrine, Book I, chap. 18)
For Augustine, the whole Church was given the “keys” not one man or his successors. The “keys” are the Gospel message; the one who believes, his way is open into the Church. And the one who does not believe, the way is shut from the Church. Such seems plain from Augustine’s teaching here. There is no mention of a certain power given to one man at all. However Augustine is understood here, his words are plain. Nevertheless, as Augustine would say, “let the reader decide.”