ROME'S CLAIM OF INFALLIBILITY.
By D. J. W.
THE Catholic Church claims to have received authority from the Lord Jesus Christ to teach and decide all matters pertaining to the Christian religion. Her claim as the only infallible interpreter of the Scriptures is based principally on the text in Matt. 16:18-19. In this text it is claimed that our Lord referred to Peter as the rock upon which he would build his church. He also gave Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and declared that whatsoever he should bind on earth should be bound in heaven, and whatsoever he should loose on earth should be loosed in heaven. This scripture is thought to be proof that the Lord endowed Peter with infallibility, and gave him authority to decide who were heretics and who were true Christians; and this same power and authority are claimed by the popes as the successors of Peter. By carefully studying the life of Peter, as brought to view in the Acts of the Apostles, we fail to find a single evidence that he ever laid claims to infallibility. On the contrary, in his two epistles, which were written a short time before his death, we find that he claimed no higher dignity than that of an elder of the church and an apostle and servant of the Lord Jesus Christ. 1 Peter 5:1; 2 Peter 1:1. Surely if he had claimed the titles which his would-be successors have since claimed, would he not have assumed them in his epistles?—Assuredly. Both Paul and Peter refer to Christ as the rock and foundation of the church. Eph. 2:20; 1 Peter 2:6. Paul, in his epistle to the Colossians, which was written from Rome, calls Christ the head of the church. Col. 1:18. If Peter was the head of the church, surely Paul would not have been ignorant of the fact, as this epistle was written thirty-two years after Pentecost. If Peter had claimed as much for himself as the Catholic Church claims for him, he would not have committed the mistake for which Paul rebuked him. Gal. 2:11-14. And if he did claim such a prerogative, impetuous Peter would not have been slow in acquainting Paul with this fact. Again, when did his infallible career begin? One would naturally think that he could safely claim infallibility as soon as Christ had thus addressed him, and, if so, he must have been infallible when he denied his Master. If the affairs of religion were all in Peter's hands, why did he not choose the apostle who was to succeed Judas Iscariot? Acts 1:23-26. Again, when the Grecians complained that the Hebrews did not treat their widows fairly in the daily distribution of goods, it was not Peter but the whole twelve who decided what was to be done in this case. Acts 6:1-6. Neither did Peter decide religious controversies, for the question of circumcision, which troubled the early church, was decided by the counseling together of the apostles and elders. Acts 15:1-29. Afterward Paul, in his epistle to the Galatians, referring to this same instance, places Cephas, or Peter, on an equality with James and John, and speaks of them as the pillars of the church at Jerusalem. Gal. 2:9. These references are surely against Peter's infallibility. But the fact is that he never claimed to be entitled to any right above the rest of the disciples. A church built upon Peter as a foundation could not be anything else but fallible, and liable to err. No evidence can be produced that Christ gave Peter or the other apostles liberty to teach what they themselves should decide to be truth, and that all who would not accept their interpretation of the word of God should be excommunicated from the church on earth, and also from heaven. In the gospel commission found in Matt. 28:18-20 he tells them to teach them (the people) to observe "all things whatsoever I have commanded you." Thus the people were to be taught to observe only that which Christ had already commanded. Christ made no provision for the apostles to teach doctrines and commandments of their own making. This commission refers not only to the twelve apostles, but to every minister of Christ to the end of the world. No one has a right to command the people to observe anything relating to religion unless it was commanded and indorsed by the Son of God while on earth.887But what does this binding and loosing refer to, then?—Simply this: When the apostles went throughout the world preaching the gospel, the word which they preached released some from the bondage of sin, to walk in the glorious liberty of the gospel, while those who rejected the gospel were left bound in sin. Gal. 5:1; Rom. 6:16-18. The apostles did the binding and loosing by their preaching. Those who reject the truth of God on earth and choose to remain in the bondage of sin, will also be excluded from heaven, while all who remain loosed from sin on earth will gain access to heaven. Paul and his fellow-ministers were a savor of life unto life to some and of death unto death to others. 2 Cor. 2:16. Peter and the apostles had the keys of the kingdom of heaven in the sense that they told the people what they must do in order to gain an entrance to heaven. Thus the binding and loosing are not the arbitrary decrees of the church, from which there is no appeal in earth or heaven, but are simply the results following the proclamation of the gospel. Now, as Peter never claimed infallibility on the strength of these words of Christ, how can his professed successors rest their claim upon these same words? We have many proofs in the Bible that Peter was guided by the Spirit of God, yet he never claimed infallibility on this ground. How, then, can the Catholic Church claim to be infallible as the so-called "spouse of the Holy Ghost"? If she were guided by the Holy Spirit, no doubt her claim of infallibility would be more reasonable, but we think the proofs of such guidance are sadly lacking. When Christ promised to send the Comforter, or Holy Spirit, to his disciples, he also told them what he would do for them. Said he, "He shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak." John 16:13. Thus the Spirit will not teach of his own account, but only that which God speaks or commands. Now the Catholic Church claims to have substituted Sunday for Saturday as the day for divine worship by the direction of the Spirit of God. (See Catholic "Catechism of the Christian Religion," etc.) Since the Spirit reveals only the will of God, this is a tacit admission that the Lord himself changed his mind in this instance. The Lord was very particular in giving the reason for the keeping of the seventh day; why, then, does he not put forth a reason for the change of the day of worship? But it is folly to hold such a position. The Lord will not lie nor repent, and with him is neither variableness nor shadow of turning. Num. 23:19; James 1:17. The giving of his Son to die for fallen man is proof that he could not reverse or change the law which man had broken. Another of the many instances of the sacred and unchanging nature of his word is to be found in 1 Kings 13:1-32. This man was punished for believing that God had changed his mind. It is unwise to suppose that the Lord would change his mind on a command given to all men in general (Mark 2:27), when we have thus seen that he would not alter a command given to only one individual. We may learn from this that all persons or powers are unreliable who claim the right through divine agencies to alter a command previously given by the Lord. Through the prophet Isaiah, the Lord tells us how we may distinguish the false spiritual guides from the true. "To the law and to the testimony; if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." Isa. 8:20. By the testimony is doubtless meant the written word of God, for Christ, referring to the Old Testament Scriptures, says, "They are they which testify of me." John 5:39. The law of God and the Scriptures were thus to be the test between true and false spiritual teachers before the Christian era. Has Christ in the New Testament modified this test any?—No, far from it. Speaking of the work of the Holy Spirit, he says, "He will guide you into all truth." John 16:13. The word of God is truth. John 17:17; 2 Sam. 7:28. Now the Bible is accepted as the word of God by all Christians. Therefore it is truth. The Spirit, therefore, will not teach doctrines contrary to the Bible, as the Bible is truth, and the office of the Spirit was to guide into all truth. The Scriptures nowhere teach the sacredness of Sunday, but in Ex. 31:16, 17 God declares that the Sabbath (the seventh day) was to be kept for a perpetual covenant, and was to be a sign forever between God and his people. In order for it to be a sign forever, it must be kept as long as God's people exist, or, in other words, all through eternity—not only in the present world but also in the world to come. See Isa. 66:22, 23. In the face of these facts, how can Rome claim to be guided by the Spirit? If she is, and the change of the Sabbath is authorized by the Spirit, then we must conclude that what the Scriptures say in regard to the Sabbath being kept as a perpetual covenant is false, and thus the Spirit would be false itself. But all Christians admit that the Bible is the word of God, and, being his word, it is truth. Therefore, the only logical conclusion we can arrive at is that the Catholic Church was not guided by the Spirit of God in attempting this change. Every person or power claiming spiritual guidance is to be tested by the truth of God, the Bible, for his Spirit guides into truth. This change of the Sabbath, not being authorized by the Spirit of God, must be contrary to his will. Dear reader, are you keeping a commandment not in harmony with the will of God? Are all your religious beliefs founded on the word of God?