Many Protestants have misconceptions about the Roman Catholic Church, that Protestantism believes the Bible is the final authority and the only authority, and Roman Catholicism believes that the Pope or the Church is the only final authority, as if Rome had a low view of sacred Scripture. And I want to put that caricature to rest today as we examine the development of the Roman Catholic view of sacred Scripture. Welcome to the Monday edition of Renewing Your Mind.
I'm Nathan W. Bingham. And it's why he devoted an entire teaching series and book explaining and critiquing the views of the Roman Catholic Church. Both resources are available until Wednesday when you give a donation of any amount at renewingyourmind.org. Now, if you're listening and you would consider yourself a Roman Catholic, you may be tempted to tune out. But let me say, I think it is evident from what you just heard that Dr. Sproul deals with this controversial subject humbly and fairly.
Here's Dr. Sproul. This morning let's look at this question of the formal cause of the Reformation, usually indicated by the Reformation slogan, Sola Scriptura. Just as the material battle cry of the Reformation is Sola Fide, justification is by faith alone, the formal battle cry of the Reformation was Sola Scriptura, that the final ultimate authority for the Christian is to be found in the Scriptures alone.
Just a moment of historical background on that point. You will remember, I'm sure, that the Protestant Reformation received its initial impetus from the controversy centering around indulgences in Germany. And there was this Augustinian monk by the name of Martin Luther who tacked his theses to the church door at Wittenberg asking for a disputation concerning some abuses that he saw in this program of indulgences. And what mushroomed out of this initial protest by Luther got Luther in all kinds of trouble with the Roman church concerning various facets of his theology. And several important debates did take place between Luther and representatives of the Roman Catholic Church. Perhaps the most important initial debate was that debate that Luther had with Cardinal Cajetan, the representative of the Roman hierarchy, that took place in Augsburg, Germany. And in this particular encounter between Cardinal Cajetan and Martin Luther, Luther, in the course of the discussion and in the course of the debate, stated that in his opinion the pope could make mistakes in his ecclesiastical pronouncements. It was in mind that this is prior to the formal definition of the Roman Catholic Church of the infallibility of the pope.
Nevertheless, the idea of papal authority was already tacitly assumed by the people within the Roman Catholic Church, although it had not yet been formally and officially defined by the church. But at this debate in Augsburg, Luther challenged the authority of the pope. And then in later debates, particularly with Martin Eck, the master theologian of the Roman Catholic Church at this time, in a debate at Leipzig, Luther at this particular occasion denied the infallibility of church councils. Now, keep in mind that historically Roman Catholic theologians were in division and dispute among themselves as to where the ultimate authority was to be found, in church council or in papal decisions. There was a division at that point, and some of them believed that church councils were more authoritative than the popes, and some believed that the popes were more authoritative than the church council.
Here comes Martin Luther down the street, and he says, a pox on both of your houses. I don't believe in the infallibility of either church council or the pope. And this issue came to its crux, of course, at the famous Diet of Worms, where Luther was called to stand and defend his cause before the princes of the church as well as before the princes of the state. And as you all know, I'm sure when he was called upon to recant of his views and of his writings, Luther replied after much consideration. He said, unless I am convinced by the testimony of holy Scripture or by evident reason, I will not, I cannot recant. For my conscience is held captive by the Word of God, and to act against conscience is neither right nor safe, and all of that dramatic gesture. Then whether or not Luther said it or not is questionable, but then he goes on from there to say, here I stand. I can do no other.
God help me. But the significant dimension of the statement of Worms is that Luther said, unless I am convinced by the testimony of sacred Scripture. He said, I see that holy Scripture is my only ultimate authority.
The pope can err, the council can err, but for me the Scriptures cannot err. And so the doctrine of Scripture was immediately elevated as a central point of authority for all of the Reformed bodies of the sixteenth century. Now because of that dispute, it is often misunderstood in terms of our understanding of Roman Catholic theology and Roman Catholic development in a sort of Protestant caricature that says that Protestantism believes the Bible is the final authority and the only authority, and Roman Catholicism believes that the pope or the church is the only final authority, as if Rome had a low view of sacred Scripture.
And I want to put that caricature to rest today as we examine the development of the Roman Catholic view of sacred Scripture. One of the most important moments in all of Roman Catholic history is found in the assembling of the Council of Trent, the so-called Tridentine Council that takes place in the middle of the sixteenth century. The Council of Trent remains to this day the most formidable council of dispute between Protestantism and the Roman Catholic Church.
The Council of Trent was called as a response to the Protestant Reformation, and it is at Trent that Rome gives official definition to their views of justification, to sacraments, and to many other of the issues of the Reformation. And in the fourth session of the Council of Trent, which occurred in 1546, the Roman Catholic Church gave the following definition of their view of Scripture. Let's listen to portions of the decree concerning the canonical Scriptures that is set down by the Roman Catholic Church at the Council of Trent. It says, and I quote, this gospel of old promise through the prophets in the holy Scriptures, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God promulgated first with His own mouth, and then commanded it to be preached by His apostles to every creature as the source at once of all saving truth and rules of conduct. It also, that is the Council, clearly perceives that these truths and rules are contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions which received by the apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself or from the apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating have come down to us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand.
Following then the examples of the orthodox fathers, it receives and venerates with a feeling of piety and reverence all the books, both of the Old and New Testaments, since one God is the author of both. Here we see in the Tridentine Declaration of 1546 that the Scriptures are said to have come to us either directly from the mouth of Christ or from the apostles under the dictation of God the Holy Spirit, and God is called the author of both Testaments, Old and New Testaments. So here a very high view of Scripture is articulated by the Roman Catholic Church, and the most significant word here, of course, is the Latin dictante, the Holy Spirit dictating. Now so often in the historical development of Reformation views of Scripture, evangelical Christians have been accused of holding a view of the inspiration of Scripture, the so-called dictation theory, where God the Holy Spirit is seen as dictating word for word the content of Scripture through means of human authors. And this view of so-called dictation would eliminate any contribution of the human authors to the compilation of the text.
There would be no room for individual style or perspective or concern, etc. For the most part, Protestantism has soundly rejected any concept of immediate dictation of words by God the Holy Spirit, as if the Spirit were standing over the shoulder of the Apostle Paul saying, like this, Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, set apart for the gospel of God, etc. That's not the way Protestantism has understood inspiration.
Now a word of defense at this point. Because the word dictante appears in the Council of Trent, critics of Roman Catholic theology have said, here we see an example of a crass, simplistic view of inspiration that involves a dictation theory. But notice that Trent does not spell out in detail what it means by the statement, the Holy Ghost dictating. There's almost universal agreement among Roman Catholic scholars and historians that Rome did not mean to set for us an elaborate notion of dictation, but is simply using a figurative form of speech in the conciliar statement, that is trying to call attention to the fact that the Scriptures have their origin and their authority in the power and authority of God, and namely God the Holy Spirit. Now if we look through the development of Roman Catholic theology concerning Scripture since the 16th century, we see that Rome develops a very strong view of the inerrancy and the inspiration of Sacred Scripture. This is particularly evident in the 19th century where in both Protestantism and in Roman Catholic circles, the question of the integrity of Sacred Scripture was a central issue in the world of theology with the rise of the so-called Modernist controversy. The Modernist controversy, which set conservative Christians over against those caught up in the movement of 19th century liberal theology, which focused much of its effort on an attack of the reliability and integrity of the biblical witnesses, was not limited to Protestant circles.
But this Modernist controversy, which is so often seen as simply the dispute between so-called American fundamentalism and European and American liberalism, had great impact on the Roman Catholic church. And Rome spoke very strongly against the Modernist movement in various decrees and papal encyclicals of the 19th and early 20th centuries. At Vatican Council number 1, which met in 1870, and we'll be looking at different dimensions of Vatican I throughout this course, at Vatican I the following statements were made by the Roman Catholic church. It said regarding the Scriptures, quote, that the Scriptures came under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
They, that is the biblical writings, have God for their author, again repeating the pronouncement of Trent. And then finally, at Vatican I the Council stated, quote, that the Scriptures contain revelation without error. Now here's the notion of revelation without error, or the concept of inerrancy being stated at least somewhat clearly by 1st Vatican Council. This notion of inerrancy was affirmed by Pope Pius X in 1907, which was a pivotal year in the so-called Modernist controversy. In 1907, Pius X gave two encyclicals.
One was called Lamentiboli, and the other was Posendi Domenici Gregus. Both in 1907, these two encyclicals by Pius X affirmed the notion of inerrancy of Scripture and the inspiration of Scripture over against Modernism, and gave a scathing criticism of the Modernist position with respect to Scripture. One other important moment is the encyclical called Spiritus Paraclitus, the Spirit of Comfort or the Spirit of Consolation, written in 1920 by Benedict the 15th, was also one of those encyclicals that reaffirmed the classic view of Rome. Now, when we get into the middle of the 20th century, we find an encyclical by the Roman Catholic Church that has been pivotal in recent discussions as to the latitude that scholars have with dealing with the Bible critically. And that papal encyclical is entitled the Vino Afflante Spiritu.
The Vino Afflante Spiritu came to us in 1943 by Pius XII. Now, this particular encyclical, as I said, is of pivotal significance for understanding the current controversy within the Roman Catholic Church with respect to their view of Scripture. I have the text of that encyclical before me, and I'm not going to go over it in detail because it's quite lengthy, but just to give you a taste of it, the encyclical begins with the words, venerable brothers, health and apostolic benediction, and then immediately it says, inspired by the divine Spirit, the sacred writers composed those books which God and His paternal charity towards the human race designed to bestow on them for teaching, for reproving, for correcting, for instructing injustice that the man of God may be perfect for every good work. It goes on to describe the Scriptures as a heaven-sent treasure, as a most precious source of doctrine, then goes through an interesting historical reconnaissance of what had already been defined by the Roman Catholic Church. So, the reason I call attention to that is that in this encyclical, Divino afflante Spiritu, Pius XII goes back over the previous encyclicals, including Leos, providentus mustaus, and condemns as heretical any view of Scripture that tries to restrict the inspiration and the inerrancy of Scripture to some undefined nature of content of Scripture that relates only to faith and morals, and declares that heretical in this particular encyclical. So, in the first page of the encyclical, we see Pius XII coming on very strong affirming everything that has been said before by his predecessors. Now, in this discussion, he goes on to say that inerrancy does not mean that there is no room in the Bible for the use of figurative language, for what we would call in Protestantism phenomenological language, that is, describing things as they appear to the naked eye, like the sun moving across the heaven.
So, that's not an error. There is room there for phenomenological language, language of sight, language of vision. There is room for hyperbole. And then he goes on to speak of the necessity of very, very careful examination of the Scriptures in terms of textual criticism and of literary analysis of the text that we might understand the proper forms in which the Scripture comes to us. Now, I say this encyclical is pivotal for this reason. The tenor, the spirit, the language, the actual explicit statements of this encyclical, in my opinion, make it manifestly obvious that Pius XII had no intention of watering down or of weakening in any degree the strong statements that Rome had already made regarding the inerrancy of Scripture.
In fact, he goes to great lengths at the beginning to indicate his agreement with these former encyclicals. But because he allows in the principles of interpretation and analysis of literary forms, higher critics within Rome jumped at this point and said, all right, if we're supposed to analyze the Scripture in terms of their forms, that means we can examine it in terms of the form of myth, the form of legend, the form of Saiga, etc. And that statement in this encyclical opened the door just a crack to give some room for the higher critical movement to begin to function openly within the Roman Catholic Church. And that provoked a crisis all of its own, which brings us then up to more recent days to the Second Vatican Council that has taken place in your lifetime. At the Second Vatican Council, there was much agitation on the question of biblical authority and the whole concept of the doctrine of Scripture within the Roman Catholic Church.
And in the caucuses of the meetings and in the disputes and the speeches, the two sides, the conservatives and the liberals, went after each other hammer and tong. Finally, Vatican II issued the so-called Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, which said, and I quote, the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching firmly, faithfully, and without error, that truth which God wanted to put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation. This was the final statement by the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation. Listen to those words carefully. The books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching firmly, faithfully, and without error. There the conservatives were screaming for the inclusion of the term inerrancy or the phrase without error, and at that point they gained the day.
But listen to the rest of the statement. What is it that the books of Scripture are acknowledged as teaching without error? That truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation. That is all that the Constitution says here is that there is at least that truth which God wanted in the Scriptures for our salvation. That truth is in there without error. But there is not a blanket statement covering all of Scripture. However, if we interpret the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation in light of previous papal encyclicals, what could be the only conclusion you could come to if Rome is unchanging and infallible and systematically coherent?
The only conclusion you could come to is that that's nothing new. They've already said that the truth of Scripture comes without error in all that it says, and that without error is not limited to truths relevant to salvation. But certainly it includes those truths relevant to salvation. In other words, I'm dealing with this how a conservative Catholic would deal with it. The Catholic would say, of course we believe that the Scriptures have without error that truth which God wanted there for the sake of our salvation.
Not only is that truth without error, but all of the truth of Scripture is without error. We're not going to limit it to matters relating to faith and morals because we can't limit it to faith and morals because those who want to limit it merely to faith and morals have already been condemned by the earlier encyclical. The liberals will say, no, this represents the progress in the living, breathing vitality of the church, and now we have another opening to restrict inerrancy to that truth which is of matters pertaining to salvation. But that's the issue for Rome right now is where is the ultimate authority in the church? Is it in councils, in papal encyclicals? Is it in Scripture?
Or is it in some of those things and not others? Or is it in some amorphous, ambiguous mainstream of collective opinion of the church today? That's what's grinding the Roman Catholic Church right now in their own great internal struggle of theology. The Roman Catholic Church claims to be the one true church established by Jesus Christ, but when we look deeper, we see conflicts between Scripture and Roman Catholic doctrine and practice. You're listening to the Monday edition of Renewing Your Mind, and I'm glad you're joining us as we carefully examine areas of doctrine that mattered in the 16th century and still matter today.
This series on Roman Catholicism was designed to articulate these differences and to point us back to Scripture. You can own this series for life, plus we'll send you R.C. Sproul's book, Are We Together?, when you give a donation of any amount at renewingyourmind.org. Your year-end support today will help produce future discipleship resources to equip Christians to know what they believe, why they believe it, how to live it, and how to share it, and to take that teaching into the world's top 20 languages. So please, give your gift today at renewingyourmind.org or by using the convenient link in the podcast show notes to add these important resources to your collection.
Thank you. Another way to support the global outreach of Ligonier Ministries and to help us plan for future Great Commission initiatives is to become a ministry partner, committing to pray for and support this teaching fellowship on a monthly basis. In addition to becoming a theological lifeline for so many, you'll receive exclusive resources and discounts. A Reformation Study Bible and our entire teaching series library will be unlocked for you at ligonier.org and in the free Ligonier app. You can learn more and partner with us today at renewingyourmind.org slash partner. As we conclude today's episode, let me ask you a question.
Is the pope infallible? R.C. Sproul will address that question tomorrow, here on Renewing Your Mind. .
Whisper: medium.en / 2024-11-25 02:42:33 / 2024-11-25 02:51:00 / 8