Protestantism – Authentic Hope for Answers

The death of Pope Francis reminds me of the time some years back when a different conclave was about to choose a new pope. I thought it would be pertinent to write an article about whether it was really Jesus’ desire that his church be governed by a “pope”. So I wrote, (in French as I was living in Belgium at the time), a full page article that I sent to La Libre Belgique, which they published the day after Cardinal Ratzinger became Pope Benedict. However, they chose for my article a title which I had not proposed at all, though my feeling was not betrayed by it: “Jesus didn’t want a Pope”.

I have several reasons for thinking that the Roman Catholic version of Christianity is not the best, and I have written a booklet (again, in French) on the differences between Catholics and Protestants. The most essential difference is the source of authority for what the church teaches.

Obviously, the teachings of Jesus are central for all Christians and they are consigned in the four biblical gospels: Matthew and John (two of Jesus’ twelve apostles) and Mark who according to ancient tradition received his details from the apostle Peter, and Luke a medical doctor who did serious research to set forth his account.

It was Jesus’ apostles who also wrote the other documents that the early church’s discernment considered authoritative when they decided which books to include in the New Testament. From the beginning therefore the New Testament was treated – like the Old Testament had been by the Jews – as being writings inspired by God’s Spirit: the Bible was the essential trustworthy source of revealed truth.

Since the fourth century AD ecumenical councils met to define Christian doctrines that were contested by some who called themselves Christians. The teaching decided by these councils was to be universally accepted as defining church doctrine. Church Traditions enshrining such dogmas thus came progressively to be considered authoritative, alongside the Bible. Among these traditions was a particular meaning given to Jesus’ words to the apostle Peter, “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church” (Matthew 16.18), and his charge to Peter to “feed my sheep” (John 21.17). These verses were taken to mean that the apostle Peter was established by Christ as universal leader, Bishop or “Pope” over the worldwide church. Then, since Peter had been martyred at Rome, the successive bishops of the church of Rome were to be considered the “successors of Peter”. Church dogma on this culminated in the Vatican Council of 1870 when papal infallibility was defined as a Catholic doctrine.

In this way, with the passing of the centuries, Christian teaching was practically fashioned more by human Tradition than by authoritative Scripture. My article in La Libre Belgique raised the question as to whether the Catholic interpretation of those words of Jesus justified the total dominance of the Pope’s teaching authority, especially since the protestant reformers, for whom “the Bible alone” was divinely authoritative, questioned and relativised church tradition.

The Reformers started translating and distributing the Bible, as they were convinced that it was the supreme source of Christian teaching, the ultimate inspired Word of God by which all human teaching or tradition should be tested.

The fundamental difference therefore between Catholics and Protestants is this question of the source of authority for church teaching. What should have the last word for establishing Christian doctrine? For Catholics it is the Bible plus Church Tradition and the official declarations of the infallible Popes. For Protestants, it is the Bible alone.

Clive Every-Clayton

It appears there are a number of versions of Christianity throughout the world, and it is legitimate to ask which, if any, is the authentic version. Let me begin by saying there is no such thing as a Christian country: while there are countries with a sizeable proportion of Christians, in every society non-believers outnumber the Christians so the moral ethos of a country is never as an ideal Christian society would look like. One should not judge Christianity as evil simply because so-called Christian countries exhibit a very evil and un-Christian lifestyle. The Christians in such countries are the first to lament such ungodliness.

While there are various forms of ecclesiastic organisation (Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox…) each with its own traditions and customs, they all are based on the incarnation of God in the person of Jesus Christ. His historic life, amazing miracles, profound teaching, his ultimate death, resurrection and ascension to heaven are the essential elements of the faith of all Christian churches. These basic facts are recounted in the Bible.

Now the Bible is an extraordinary book, written over a thousand years by about 40 writers, all inspired by the same Holy Spirit of God. While the basic message of the Bible can be understood by a child, it is a long book and contains some passages hard to understand. So the question of how to interpret the Bible has given rise in church history to three different approaches to Christian truth, each following one of three “authorities”.

Some have a great respect for the longstanding customs of their church and are trained to revere those traditions as authoritative. This is notably the position of the Roman Catholic Church, one of whose traditions is to believe in the infallibility of its world-wide leader, the Pope, and another is to honour all the traditional positions raised to the level of official teachings of the Church. In practice, this unfortunately submits the authority of the Bible to the official tradition of the Catholic Church leaders who alone can interpret it.

All churches have theologians whose task is to study and teach the Bible. In certain church groups, however, some erudite theologians fall into a subtle temptation, holding themselves to be wiser than the Bible. When they believe that by their human thinking they can correct the Bible, adjusting its teaching according to their personal opinions, their work becomes illegitimate. The problem is that human reason ousts the Bible itself as the ultimate authority for Christian faith and life.

During the Protestant Reformation in the 16^th century, the reformers, Martin Luther and John Calvin, saw these two approaches as calculated to undermine the absolute authority of the Bible itself; they understood the Bible as God’s divine word, as did Jesus himself who treated the Bible of his day (our Old Testament) as authoritative for all questions of faith, life, and doctrine. The reformers insisted therefore that the source of authority for Christian truth must be neither the Pope nor tradition, nor human reason, but the Bible itself. They encouraged all Christians to read the Bible for themselves, so that by comparing hard passages with those clearer they would understand God’s Word. The Reformers saw that maintaining the Bible as the supreme authority was the way to faithfully follow Jesus’ example.

Authentic Christianity is therefore that which shows most love, reverence, and whole-hearted trust in the Bible’s truth, which makes every effort to study it, to understand and teach it faithfully, and which applies it in personal faith and life, submitting to the authority of its commandments.

Clive Every-Clayton

Tag: Protestantism

The Pope

What is authentic Christianity?