Part of the exchange over ecclesiastical infallibility has centered on I Timothy 3:15, which describes the church as a "pillar and buttress [or ground] of truth." Clifton notes in his latest reply, "Where Kevin and I differ, then, is what it means for the Church to be a pillar and ground of the truth. I claim it means infallibility, for if the truth itself is upheld and founded upon the Church (in complete harmony with the Scripture and the Holy Spirit), then the Church cannot err, or fail in terms of the truth." After looking it over, I am willing to concede the point. There remains the question of what follows from this. Let me explain. If we look back on the church from the point of view of the consummation, then it will have been the case that the truth could not have failed from the church. In this sense, the church will be shown to have been infallible; that is, it cannot ultimately fail in terms of the truth. But then, there is the matter of explaining those parts of the church that have aposatatized, or even of explaining the existence of denominations, many of which disagree with each other. Barring any evidence to the contrary, the Orthodox account is valid: the infallible Church exists as a particular, visible, and historical institution. Anything outside of this, such as Catholicism or the various Protestant denominations, are no part of the true Church. But, from the perspecitve of all of us non-Orthodox souls (except for those that might insert their own church in place of the Orthodox), this solution is somewhat drastic.
We can eliminate apostasy from the running with the words of I John 2:19, "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us." In context, this is not talking about mere denominational differences, but about the existence of antichrists who have arisen from within the church only to leave it. That they leave the church is a way of identifying who they are. Now we need to determine whether or not denominational splits constitute leaving the church or whether they represent differences over secondary issues within the church. I opt for the latter. It comes down to a matter of common confession. Does the truth, from which the church will not ultimately fall, consist of more than is commonly confessed? That is, does it consist of more than what is essential to the gospel? I Timothy 3:15 is immediately followed by, "Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He [God] was manifest in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory." Clifton himself has stated that eccesiastical infallibility only concerns those matters essential to salvation. If this is the case, and I agree that it is, then why limit the true and infallible church to Orthodoxy? Why not say that the true church exists wherever the truth of the gospel has been maintained in a particular church? The advantage of this view is that the church is defined according to its adherence to the truth, whereas, in the single visible church hypothesis, the truth is defined, or at least recognized, in terms of its proclamation by that particular church. If it be objected that no other church holds to the truth, not even the truth of the gospel, then all the consequences of departing from the true church must apply: the truth of salvation and, therefore, salvation itself is not to be found in them.
Not only has this debate been about ecclesiastical infallibility when it comes to salvific truth, but it has also been about the validity of extra-biblical tradition. That the church may inerrantly interpret that revelation which is specific to salvation, and thus be proven to have been ultimately infallible, does not prove that the church may maintain and interpret as necessary to salvation (or even as otherwise true) things outside of Scripture. The Orthodox view of tradition has yet to be proven. [Appealing to the use of the word "traditions" in II Thessalonians does nothing so long as it has been demonstrated that all of the traditions mentioned have, in fact, been inscripturated.] On the other hand, many Protestants take Revelation 22:18, 19 as an effective counterclaim to this view and I have yet to see an adequate response.
Since I have conceded a certain understanding of ecclesiatical infallibility, any response to Clifton's comments on hermeneutics vs. epistemology would be moot. I acknowledge that it is a hermeneutical issue, but deny that it is not also epistemological. Epistemology is not only about the whether of knowledge, but about how we know. When discussing my own interpretations, setting them in the context of individual autonomy vs. ecclesistical authority, Clifton kept asking, "How do you know?" I have been responding to this, not to some misconception that Clifton predicates the infallibility of the church on the need to settle interpretive disputes. But, like I said, the point is now largely moot (all of which makes for a considerably shortened post).
The point of whether I am actually commiting the fallacy of assuming lack of proof for the opposition as proof for my own position is currently being addressed in the comments here. Clifton ends with a short point about Orthodox soteriology. He brings up three texts that I do not see as being about how to get saved. However, as he has said, this does "take us away from the argument proper" so I will not address the issue here. [I do reserve the right to do so in another post.] In conclusion, Scripture does teach the infallibity of the church when it comes to the truth. However, there is no need to expand the parameters of truth beyond the gospel; there is no need to define the true church as a single visible entity when many denominations still hold to the truth of the gospel; and there is no warrant for predicating the existence of extra-biblical tradition on the doctrine of ecclesiastical infallibility in matters pertaining to salvation.
Posted by kcourter at março 12, 2005 2:56 PM