Calvin: We admit therefore, that ecclesiastical pastors are to be heard just like Christ himself

Here's a curious Roman Catholic use of a quote from John Calvin:

We all know obedience is a bad word in Protestantism. People LOVE doing what they want to do and not being told they can't. That's the heart of Protestantism. "Nobody tells me what to do or think, even about my own salvation." It's devilishly attractive too. (link)

You should obey John Calvin and your pastors. He said so. "We admit therefore, that ecclesiastical pastors are to be heard just like Christ himself." (Calvin's letter to Sadoleto) (link)

In the context of the discussion, all Protestants are portrayed as blatant antinomians, heeding no one but their own inner feelings. John Calvin's words are then put forth to demonstrate that authority-denying Protestants should heed the words of a founding Protestant and submit to church authority.  Let's take a look at this quote and see what exactly Calvin was saying.


Documentation
The documentation provided is "Calvin's letter to Sadoleto." It's odd to find one of Rome's defenders citing this treatise. Sadoleto was the archbishop of Carpentras. He was seeking to sway Geneva back to Roman Catholicism. Calvin had been ejected from Geneva, but was requested to respond on their behalf. Calvin's entire tract is a strong argument against Rome and stands as one of the Reformation's most popular writings. It's ironic, therefore, to find one of Rome's defenders sifting this tract to find material for polemical use.

I found two English versions of this sentence with one minor difference. Some texts use "We admit therefore, that..."  for instance in the Selected Works of John Calvin, vol. 1, p.114 (pdf). There is also another version with an extra comma: "We admit, therefore, that..." as in this text.  While this  other Roman blogger uses the quote here, there does not appear to be heavy Roman Catholic use of this quote. I mention this because It may actually be that the defender of Rome utilizing this quote actually sifted it himself, which is somewhat of a rare occurrence. Rome's cyber-defenders typically do not read Calvin. They simply utilize secondary sources.

Context
Calvin actually argues against the absolute authority of the Roman church. He states, "That I may altogether disarm you [Sadoleto] of the authority of the Church, which, as your shield of Ajax, you ever and anon oppose to us, I will show, by some additional examples, how widely you differ from that holy antiquity." He then goes on to list numerous examples of why the Roman church does not have the pedigree of authority,  juxtaposing this against the true authority of the universal church:

Ours be the humility, which, beginning with the lowest, and paying respect to each in his degree, yields the highest honor and respect to the Church, in subordination, however, to Christ the Church's head; ours the obedience, which, while it disposes us to listen to our elders and superiors, tests all obedience by the word of God; in fine, ours the Church, whose supreme-care it is humbly and religiously to venerate the word of God, and submit to its authority (link).

Calvin then contrasts the Roman church with the Protestant church:

But whatever the character of the men, still you say it is written, "What they tell you, do." No doubt, if they sit in the chair of Moses. But when, from the chair of verity, they intoxicate the people with folly it is written, "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees," (Matthew 16:6.) It is not ours, Sadolet to rob the Church of any right which the goodness of God not only has conceded to her, but strictly guarded for her by numerous prohibition. For, as pastors are not sent forth by Him to rule the Church with a licentious and lawless authority, but are astricted to a certain rule of duty which they must not exceed, so the Church is ordered (1 Thessalonians 5:21; 1 John 4:1) to see that those who are appointed over her on these terms faithfully accord with their vocation. But we must either hold the testimony of Christ of little moment, or must hold it impious to infringe in the least degree on the authority of those whom he has invested with such splendid titles! Nay, it is you who are mistaken in supposing that the Lord set tyrants over his people to rule them at pleasure, when he bestowed so much authority on those whom he sent to promulgate the gospel. Your error lies here, viz., in not reflecting that their power, before they were furnished with it, was circumscribed within certain limits. We admit therefore, that ecclesiastical pastors are to be heard just like Christ himself, but they must be pastors who execute the office entrusted to them. And this office, we maintain, is not presumptuously to introduce whatever their own pleasure has rashly devised, but religiously and in good faith to deliver the oracles which they have received at the mouth of the Lord. For within these boundaries Christ confined the reverence which he required to be paid to the Apostles; nor does Peter (1 Peter 4:11) either claim for himself or allow to others anything more than that, as often as they speak among the faithful, they speak as from the mouth of the Lord. Paul, indeed, justly extols (2 Corinthians 12:10) the spiritual power with which he was invested, but with this proviso, that it was to avail only for edification, was to wear no semblance of domination, was not to be employed in subjugating faith (link).

Conclusion

From the context, one can see that Calvin is careful to distinguish Rome's alleged authority over against the actual authority of the church as derived from Scripture. Notice that the sentence being used was not cited in full: "We admit therefore, that ecclesiastical pastors are to be heard just like Christ himself, but they must be pastors who execute the office entrusted to them." Calvin is arguing that one is not to blindly bow down to the authority of the church. Her authority is to be followed if the offices are obedient to Christ, and are not corrupt and abusive. Calvin goes on to say that even if the pope could be proven to have been the successor of Peter, it wouldn't matter if the pope did not maintain his fidelity to Christ and the purity of the gospel. Rome's defenders, particularly many of them in the sixteenth century, were defending the alleged infallible authority of a corrupt institution. It's simply unfair to rip Calvin's words from their context and apply them to the current condition of the Protestant church.

Rome's defender though does have a valid point with his Calvin quote in one sense: there are indeed "Protestants" (for lack of a better word), that are a law unto themselves. They are the type I refer to as, "Me in the woods, under a shady tree, with my Bible, waiting to hear directly from the Holy Spirit." For such people, confessions of faith, pastors, elders, deacons, any sort of organized structure, is inconsequential. Even more abhorrent is to suggest to such a person that church history is a beneficial enterprise, documenting the ways in which the Spirit of God has worked with His church.  For people like this, I consider them more the in the vein of Anabaptism and the radical Reformation, or as Luther referred to them, Schwärmer, rather than in the tradition of the magisterial Reformers.

On the other hand, Rome's defender does not have a valid point, presenting merely a caricature and strawman. I've been involved with various Protestant churches my entire life: baptist, non-denominational, mildly charismatic, and Reformed. I have friends and acquaintances in all of these traditions. All of them have authority structures in place. It's simply unfair for Rome's defenders to lump all of Protestantism into the category of antinomian radicals. In my experience, these people do not represent the majority of contemporary Protestantism.

With Roman Catholics, always keep a look out for the double standard.  Are there not Roman Catholics who disagree with the Papacy? Are there not Roman Catholics that pick and choose what they want to believe? I know Roman Catholics that do not show full obedience to what their church teaches. They are in the category I refer to as "Antinomian Roman Catholics." I was friends with one Roman Catholic that went to Mass regularly, but said he didn't believe in Purgatory. I've met more than one Roman Catholic that denies their church's stance on abortion. I've met more than one Roman Catholic that follows a different paradigm in regard to divorce and remarriage. 

Luther: I shall not have my teaching judged by any man, not even by any angel

The following is an exercise in presuppositions. If the Luther quote below is read from the perspective of Roman Catholicism, Luther shows himself to be an arrogant heretic, perhaps claiming his own infallible authority. If on the other hand the basic "infallible authority" / Rome=the True Church  presuppositions of Romanism are denied, what Luther says isn't arrogant, heretical, or a claim of infallible authority.

I. Introduction: Luther On the Internet
This Martin Luther quote runs rampant across the Internet in various forms:

. . I shall no longer do you the honor of allowing you - or even an angel from heaven - to judge my teaching or to examine it. . . . I shall not have it judged by any man, not even by any angel. For since I am certain of it, I shall be your judge and even the angels' judge through this teaching . . . so that whoever does not accept my teaching may not be saved - for it is God's and not mine. Therefore, my judgment is also not mine but God's.

Alternate version:

I do not admit that my doctrine can be judged by anyone, even by the angels. He who does not receive my doctrine cannot be saved.

II. Roman Catholic Polemics
This quote has been used against Luther for quite a long time by Roman Catholics. Cochlaeus (a contemporary of Luther's) cites it as a savage and rebellious statement. Jacques Maritain cites it as an example of "egocentrism: something much subtler, much deeper, and much more serious, than egoism; a metaphyiscial egoism." Patrick O'Hare alludes to the quote as an example of Luther's "disregard for all authority save his own." Henry O'Connor uses it as an example of Luther claiming his own authority and infallibility: "Did any Pope ever proclaim his Authority and Infallibility in a more unmistakeable manner?" J. Verras cites it as Luther's "high opinion of himself" and "inexpressible contempt for all who dare to oppose him or to disagree from him." Hartmann Grisar uses it as an example of Luther's growing insistence on private revelation from God. An old copy of Catholic Weekly infers that Luther may have been insane by making such a statement.

A quick Google search of this quote reveals a number of contemporary Roman Catholic interpretations as well: One Romanist calls it an example of Luther's "colorful, sadly self-deluded, megalomaniacal language" and "Dogmatic Self-Proclaimed Super-Duper Infallibility and Virtual Inspiration." Another says it shows "the classic mindset of the heretic" who will not bend, refusing "to even allow others to examine his teaching." Another says it's an example of a lack of humility and pride. Another says these words demonstrate "immense arrogance."

If one simply reads the quote as cited by one of the above Romanists, the words often appear without a context or historical background. Luther is simply portrayed as unwilling to have his words scrutinized or evaluated, or worse, an unstable heretic simply claiming to be "right". If on the other hand the treatise this quote comes from is read, quite a different image comes forth. One finds that Luther spends quite a number of pages proving (or arguing) his "teachings" are from the pages of Scripture, and then finally asking his readers to make their own judgment.

III. Documentation
The treatise the quote comes from is Wyder den falsch genantten Standt des Bapst und der Bischoffen (1522). It can be found in Erl. 28:144 and WA 10 (2): 106. It wa translated into English as Against the Spiritual Estate of the Pope and the Bishops Falsely So-Called, and can be found in LW 39: 248-249.

IV. Historical Background
This treatise was in part provoked by the sale of indulgences. Note the "gospel" of indulgences put forth from Rome that Luther opposed in his treatise:

On September 15, 1521, Archbishop Albrecht of Mainz celebrated the annual festival of relics at his newly built cathedral, the Church of St. Moritz and Mary Magdalene in Halle, with the official announcement that indulgences would be granted to all visitors to the exhibition of relics. Anyone who prayed at a shrine and gave alms was promised an indulgence of four thousand years; anyone who confessed his sins to one of the priests hearing confessions in the cathedral during the ten days of the celebration would receive a plenary indulgence. Pope Leo X had issued a bull in 1519 granting the cathedral of Halle the same privileges granted to the Church of St. Peter in Rome: its confessors were authorized to absolve cases usually absolved only by the apostolic see in Rome; in addition, they could convert vows into financial contributions for the completion of the Halle cathedral—privileges not unusual in the established indulgence practice of the Roman curia. (LW 39:241).

Luther wrote against this and other severe results of the "gospel" of Papalism as well in an earlier treatise that was blocked from publication by Elector Frederick, and its possibility of "a threat to public peace" (LW 39:241). An angered Luther then went on to compose a similar but more general writing against indulgences: Against the Spiritual Estate of the Pope and the Bishops Falsely So-Called.  LW notes, "Luther... was more concerned with the evil of the indulgences than with the person of the archbishop of Mainz. 'I wanted to put an end to ungodliness,' he wrote to Melanchthon on January 13, 1522" (LW 39:243).LW 39 also explains: "Luther’s highly polemical and satirical language, more evident in this treatise than in others, was prompted by the recurrence of the indulgence traffic in the territory of Albrecht of Mainz" (LW 39:244). Included also were arguments for the right of priests to marry, and the right of an individual to criticize or correct an authority when that authority is corrupt. 

The quote in question is found in the very first section of this treatise entitled, "Jesus." Below is the entirety of that first section.

V. Context
Martin Luther, ecclesiastic in Wittenberg by the grace of God: To the papal bishops [I offer] my service and self-understanding in Christ.

Although I might be regarded as a fool by you, dear lords, because of the haughty title I call myself, an ecclesiastic by the grace of God, you should know that I am not at all surprised by this. You curse, slander, condemn, persecute, and possibly even burn me as a heretic for the sake of a high and noble cause. In this you act as you please, according to the pleasure of your idol. As a result of God’s disfavor you have the virtue that you do not want to listen. Neither do you want to give an answer. Instead, like the hardened Jews you blasphemously and stubbornly want to condemn me without a hearing, without investigating the cause, without overcoming me. You are not even ashamed of letting a man defy you so frequently with such good reason. Very well then, since it is a question of lowering the horns and acting with brute force, I too have to lower my horns and risk my head for my Lord. In order to get things started, I call myself an ecclesiastic by the grace of God in defiance of you and the devil, although you call me a heretic with an abundance of slander. And even if I called myself an evangelist by the grace of God, I would still be more confident of proving it than that any one of you could prove his episcopal title or name. I am certain that Christ himself, who is the master of my teaching, gives me this title and regards me as one. Moreover, he will be my witness on the Last Day that it is not my pure gospel but his. Thus your raging and raving is not going to help you at all. Rather, the more you rage and rave, the haughtier we shall be toward you, with God’s help, and [the more we] shall despise your disgrace. Even though you might take my life, since you are murderers, you will annihilate neither my name nor my teaching. For you too will have to die at last and put an end to murder.

Now that I am deprived of my titles through papal and imperial disfavor and my bestial character is washed away with so many bulls that I need never be called either Doctor of Holy Scripture or some kind of papal creature, I am almost as shocked as an ass who has lost its bag. For these masks were my greatest shame before God. I too was once in error (which I learned from your crowd at great price and with great effort), a liar, a cheater, a seducer, and a blasphemer against God’s pure teaching, as you are now. But the Father of all mercy did not look at my vice, blasphemy, and my very sinful, evil life; instead, out of the infinite richness of his grace, he permitted me to know his Son, Jesus Christ, and to teach [him] to others, until we were certain of his truth. However, I need not have any title and name to praise highly the word, office, and work which I have from God and which you blind blasphemers defile and persecute beyond measure. I trust my praise will overcome your defiling, just as my justice will overcome your injustice. It does not matter if, with your blasphemy, you are on top for the moment.

Therefore, I now let you know that from now on I shall no longer do you the honor of allowing you—or even an angel from heaven—to judge my teaching or to examine it. For there has been enough foolish humility now for the third time at Worms, and it has not helped. Instead, I shall let myself be heard and, as St. Peter teaches, give an explanation and defense of my teaching to all the world [I Pet. 3:15]. I shall not have it judged by any man, not even by any angel. For since I am certain of it, I shall be your judge and even the angels’ judge through this teaching (as St. Paul says [I Cor. 6:3]) so that whoever does not accept my teaching may not be saved—for it is God’s and not mine. Therefore, my judgment is also not mine but God’s.

Finally, dear lords, let this be the conclusion: If I live you shall have no peace from me, and if you kill me you shall have ten times less peace, for I shall be, as Hosea says, a bear on the road and a lion in the street [Hos. 13:8]. No matter how you handle me, you shall not have your will until your iron head and stiff neck are broken with either grace or disgrace. If you do not improve as I would like to see you do, then it is agreed that you threaten with hostility and I do not care. May God grant that you know yourselves. Amen. [LW 39:247-249]

VI. Conclusion
It's obvious from the context that Luther was indeed "highly polemical," and I would add, seemingly angry.  That Romanist interpreters pounce on the singular statements they do is a telling sign of missing the point (and perhaps never even bothering to read the entire document this quote was taken from). Note the words typically left out in a Romanist version of the quote:

I shall no longer do you the honor of allowing you—or even an angel from heaven—to judge my teaching or to examine it. For there has been enough foolish humility now for the third time at Worms, and it has not helped. Instead, I shall let myself be heard and, as St. Peter teaches, give an explanation and defense of my teaching to all the world [I Pet. 3:15].

Luther had indeed subjected himself to the judgment of Romanism, and to what result? Obfuscation and subterfuge! Luther then states he's going to give an explanation and defense, which he indeed does. Towards the end of the treatise,  after pages of scriptural argumentation against Romanism, Luther sums it all by stating one needs to judge his arguments for yourself:

If someone said to me at this point, “Previously you have rejected the pope; will you now also reject bishops and the spiritual estate? Is everything to be turned around?” my answer would be: Judge for yourself and decide whether I turn things around by preferring divine word and order, or whether they turn things around by preferring their order and destroying God’s. Tell me, which is right: for them to turn God’s order around, or for me to turn their blasphemous devil’s order around? Do not look at the work itself but at the basis and reason for the work. Nobody should look at that which opposes God’s word, nor should one care what the consequences may or may not be. Instead, one should look at God’s word alone and not worry—even if angels were involved—about who will get hurt, what will happen, or what the result will be (LW 39:279).

Further, the quote in its historical context shows that there were two "teachings" in conflict. For instance, in regard to indulgences, there was that put forth by Luther (indulgences are not of divine authority) and that put forth by Romanism (indulgences are of divine authority). Luther states:

In all the indulgence bulls [the Pope] promises forgiveness of sins to all those who have repented and confessed. This is the worst poison and most harmful seduction emanating from that supreme seducer, the pope, and from his masks. Christ, Matthew 9[:2], did not say to the paralytic, “If you put money in the box your sins are forgiven.” Rather, he said, “Be of good courage,” or, “Trust firmly and your sins are forgiven.” These wolves and damned masks tear people away from this blessed faith and trust in God’s sheer grace which alone grants forgiveness of sins. Instead, they lead people to put their trust in bulls, paper, and money so that simple minds learn to rely on their own works and not on God’s grace. The accursed pretension of such bulls is abominable beyond imagining, because it condemns and destroys God’s first and foremost commandment, namely, the commandment which teaches trust in God’s grace alone. They teach trust in paper and wax, that is, in their invalid and accursed lies (LW 39:275).

In one instance during his treatise, Luther mentions that indulgences went as far as "to preach that people may keep their ill-gotten goods if they give them a portion of them and also let them have the profits from them" (LW 39:273). How does Luther respond, by declaring his authority? No, he refers back to the Scripture "You shall not steal." Throughout the treatise, Luther simply refers to the clear words of Scripture to refute Romanism. For instance:

St. Paul said to Titus that he should appoint a married and blameless bishop in every town [Titus 1:5–7]. That is undoubtedly God’s order, will, and opinion. Our papal bishops fight against this; they removed the bishops from every town and made themselves bishops over many towns. But St. Paul stands here—indeed, the Holy Spirit stands here firmly and strongly—saying that every town should have a bishop and that they must all be equals. St. Paul speaks of every town and considers all bishops to be equal (LW 39:278).

Previous to the quote in question in the (introduction) Luther states, "I am certain that Christ himself, who is the master of my teaching, gives me this title [ecclesiastic] and regards me as one. Moreover, he will be my witness on the Last Day that it is not my pure gospel but his." Luther is claiming he's been given his teaching from Christ. Does he claim, like Paul, that Christ appeared to him? No. What he's speaking about is the teaching of Scripture. This brief snippet from the Theological Quarterly of the Lutheran Synod of Missouri sums this up far better than I ever could:

Luther's claim to authority as a teacher of God's Word is the common claim of every Christian who proves his belief from the Scriptures. The infallibility of the Scriptures becomes the infallibility of the teachers of Scripture. They can challenge the world as Isaiah did: "To the Law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them"; or Christ: "The Scripture cannot be broken"; or Paul: "Though an angel from heaven preached other gospel to you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed!" —[source]

The Character of God

With respect to “Apostolic Succession,” one Roman Catholic provided this chain of events:

God the Father passed His authority on to Jesus (cf. Matthew 28:18), Who passed it on to the apostles (cf. Luke 10:16 and Matthew 28:19), who passed it on to their successors.

Before we begin to believe assertions like that one, we need to begin at the beginning, and work to understand “what we’ve known (as humans) and when we’ve known it.”

John Frame, in his two works, The Doctrine of God (Phillipsburg NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing ©2002) and The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God (Phillipsburg NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing ©1987), is very helpful in understanding both “God the Father” and “His authority” from a biblical perspective.

Knowing God
There is a very pious-sounding thread that runs through Christian theology known as apophatic theology, which, in simple terms, may be defined:

(from Greek ἀπόφασις from ἀπόφημι - apophēmi, "to deny")—also known as Negative theology or Via Negativa (Latin for "Negative Way")—is a theology that attempts to describe God, the Divine Good, by negation, to speak only in terms of what may not be said about the perfect goodness that is God.

Further, “In Orthodox theology, apophatic theology is taught as superior to cataphatic [positive] theology. While Aquinas felt positive and negative theology should be seen as dialetical correctives to each other [that is, “logically reasoned through the exchange of opposing ideas”], like thesis and antithesis producing a synthesis, Lossky argues, based on his reading of Dionysius and Maximus Confessor, that positive theology is always inferior to negative theology, a step along the way to the superior knowledge attained by negation. This is expressed in the idea that mysticism is the expression of dogmatic theology par excellence.”

There’s that faker, Pseudo-Dionysius, informing leading Orthodox theologians of what’s the right way to understand things.

Frame puts this into perspective. He says, “Scripture does teach that God is incomprehensible in a sense…. But it never denies God’s knowability. Scripture never suggests that the human mind is incapable of knowing God or that human language is incapable of speaking truly about him. Nor does it distinguish one aspect of God (his inner essence) from other aspects (his attributes and acts) and deny us knowledge of the former. Indeed, the covenant presence of God implies we cannot escape knowing him, for we cannot know anything else apart from him” (Doctrine of God, 110).

Scripture teaches that God has made himself known to man. This revelation is universal and clear. As we have seen, man’s ignorance of God is a culpable ignorance. As Paul says,

what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. (Romans 1:19-20)

And, beyond this revelation through nature, God has revealed himself through prophets, apostles, and biblical writers, creating a definitive written revelation, the covenant constitution of the people of God….(Doctrine of God, 200).

Frame here begins a section discussing what is “knowable and known” about God, and yet is “mysterious, wondrous, and incomprehensible.”

The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law. (Deut 29:29)

He concludes from this and other passages that “the biblical writers never see the incomprehensibility of God as detracting from the reliability or authority of his revelation. The mysteriousness of God is never the basis of a general agnosticism. God’s revelation is mysterious, but it is a genuine revelation.”

My approach rejects the broad assertions of agnosticism that are often found in theological works.\... We should not press the way of remotion (via negativa), as did pseudo-Dionysius and John Scotus Erigena (but not Aquinas), to say that we can know only what God is not, not what he is. Negative statements by themselves are useless: for example, one can know a thousand things what a Siberian husky is not, without having any useful knowledge of what he is.

Nor should we accept the claims of more recent thinkers who have described God as “wholly hidden” or “wholly other.” This kind of general agnosticism is foreign to Scripture. The Lord of Scripture is not wholly hidden. He is knowable and known to all through nature, and his revelation in Scripture is perfectly adequate to its purpose. (Doctrine of God, 205-6).

The Authority of God
This is where God’s authority comes in. We can know God’s authority, and as Frame immediately follows, “As we have seen, Scripture tells us that God is the ultimate controller, and that we are his possession, not the other way around. The more we meditate on this clear revelation, the more it rebukes our pride, our claims to self-sufficiency. It is those who deny this revelation, preferring to think of God autonomously, who seek dominance over their Creator. Nor is clear revelation opposed to grace. Rather, it is itself a gift of grace, and it sets forth consistently the message that we have nothing and are nothing, except for God’s grace” (Doctrine of God, 206).

Frame’s The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God begins by describing “God, the Covenant Lord.” The Old Testament in fact is extraordinarily clear that God Himself stresses that He is in charge, that he is jealous of His own authority, and He actively works to assert it.

What follows is thick with Scripture references, but thanks to Reftagger, it should be easy just to mouse-over and see what these references say about God and the authority which Roman Catholics wrongly assert ended up in the hands of the popes:

Who is this God that we seek to know? Scripture describes Him in many ways, and it is dangerous to seize on any of them as being more basic or more important than others. In seeking to summarize Scripture’s teachings, however, we can certainly do worse than to use the concept of divine “lordship” as our point of departure.

“Lord”(Yahweh in Hebrew) is the name by which God identified himself at the beginning of His covenant with Israel (Exodus 3:13-15; 6:1-8; 20:1f.). It is the name (Kurios in Greek) that has been given to Jesus Christ as head of the New Covenant, as head of His redeemed body (John 8:58; Acts 2:36; Romans 14:9). The fundamental confession of faith of both testaments confess God—Christ—as Lord (Deuteronomy 6:4ff; Romans 10:9; 1 Corinthians 12:3; Philippians 2:11). God performs His mighty acts “that you may know that I am the Lord” (cf. Exodus 7:5, 17; 8:10, 22; 9:14, 29f.; 10:2; 14:4, 18; 16:12; Isaiah 49:23, 26; 60:16); Psalms 83:18, 91:14; Isaiah 43:3, 52:6; Jeremiah 16:21, 33:2, Amos 5:8).

At critical points in redemptive history, God announces “I am the Lord, I am he” (Isaiah 41:3, 43:10-13, 25, 44:6, 48:12; cf. Isaiah 26:4-8, 46:3f.; Deuteronomy 32:39f, 43; Psalm 135:13; Hosea 12:4-9, 13:4ff, Malachi 3:6, which allude to Exodus 3:13-15). In such passages, not only “Lord” but also the emphasis on the verb “to be” recall the name-revelation of Exodus 3:14. Jesus also frequently alludes to the “I am” in presenting His own character and office (John 4:6, 8:24, 28, 58; 13:19, 18:5ff; cf. John 6:48, 8:12, 9:5, 10:7, 14; 11:25, 12:46, 15:1, 5). One of the most remarkable testimonies to Jesus’ deity is the way in which He and His disciples identified Him with Yahweh of Exodus 3—a name so closely associated with God that at one point the Jews became afraid even to pronounce it.

To summarize those points, throughout redemptive history, God seeks to identify himself to men as Lord and to teach and to demonstrate to them the meaning of that concept. “God is Lord”—that is the message of the Old Testament; Jesus Christ is Lord”—that is the message of the New (Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, 11-12).

“As controller and authority, God is “absolute,” that is, His power and wisdom are beyond any possibility of successful challenge,” Frame says. When a Roman Catholic says “God the Father passed His authority on to Jesus (cf. Matthew 28:18), Who passed it on to the apostles (cf. Luke 10:16 and Matthew 28:19), who passed it on to their successors,” what is he truly saying?

Cullmann on Kerygma, Gospel, Tradition and Apostolic Authority

And beginning with Moses an all prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. And their eyes were opened and they knew him. They said to each other, Did not our hearts burn within us . . . while he opened to us the scriptures? (Luke 24:27, 31, 32).

Thus begins Cullmann’s account of “The Tradition,” from which I’ve cited several times now, and which, I have heard from someone reliable, is probably the best account of the relationship of “scripture and tradition”. As I work through this, of course, I’ll check Cullmann’s analysis against other writers on the topic, and of course, against the witness of Scripture.

Last time I cited Bryan Cross’s view of succession (in contrast to Sullivan’s). In the recent Catholic Answers thread that bore my name, some of the folks there were a bit saddened that I didn’t stay and answer all their questions. Of course, I answered a number of their questions, but there ended up being more than 400 comments and I just didn’t get to read all of them, much less respond to them. One of the writers there, Pete Holter, a (as I understand it) former Reformed believer, provided this account (somewhat abbreviated):

God the Father passed His authority on to Jesus (cf. Matthew 28:18), Who passed it on to the apostles (cf. Luke 10:16 and Matthew 28:19), who passed it on to their successors.

This “passing on,” in the Roman Catholic account, takes a similar flow as that given in shorthand form by many Roman Catholics. In many of these accounts, indeed, in the official account, the words “authority” and “tradition” and “succession” sort of get muddled together until, in the Roman Catholic mind, there is just one thing: and the Roman Catholic Church and its teachings and Magisterium have the very authority of God on earth. It’s been that way since the muddling, and that’s good enough for us!

I think Cullman’s “The Tradition” admirably isolates those threads – authority and tradition and succession – he defines them well, and he talks about what genuinely gets “handed on” from God, what just sort of gets picked up along the way, and what gets distorted.

My copy of this article is found within Cullmann’s 1956 collection of essays, “The Early Church” (London: SCM Press Ltd). In his own words:

Firstly, I shall try to prove that the New Testament regards the Lord exalted to the right hand of God as the direct author of the tradition of the apostles, because he himself is at work in the apostolic transmission of his words and deeds. Secondly, by examining the conception of the apostolate, I shall attempt to determine the connection between the apostolic tradition and the post-apostolic tradition, and the difference between them. Thirdly, I shall enquire whether this distinction is confirmed by the history of the early Church, and whether, in creating the canon, the Church itself deliberately separated apostolic from ecclesiastical tradition, so as to make the former the norm of the latter (pg. 59)

Over the next couple of posts, I'd like to follow Cullmann's account, bringing in other information as I go. Christ, of course, is the final and perfect Revelation of God. As the writer to the Hebrews begins by saying, “In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word.”

Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”

Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me (John 14:8-11).

But God does not give an unclear view of himself in the Old Testament, and it is this God we see when we see Christ.

The Roman “Church” still misunderstands the Reformation

The Roman “Church” still misunderstands the Reformation; and whether it does so intentionally, as we see among the Called to Communion gang, when they constantly say that it “is simply a voluntary association of like-minded people” which then reduces to chaos, or whether it does so unintentionally, as in the case of all of those unschooled minions who believe whatever “the Church” tells them, the result is the same.

In 1950, G.C. Berkouwer wrote in his work “Conflict with Rome,” in a chapter entitled “Unshakable Authority?” that:

To the mind of Rome, there is a causal relation between the Reformation of the sixteenth century and the tensions of modern times. At bottom [for Roman Catholics who don’t want to truly understand the Reformation] they are one and the same revolution: that of the subject against the legitimate authority given by God. The moment this revolution was proclaimed the tensions arose that were ultimately discharged in the chaos of the modern world.

The problem thus posited ought to alarm every Protestant if it is really possible to demonstrate convincingly that Rome accepts the authority of the church and the Reformation does not.

It’s time to note here that the definition of the word “church” already is at question. Or it should be. I’ve often believed that to really understand “the definition of the word ‘church’, one ought to try to understand ‘what they knew, and when they knew it.’” That is, to go back and ask the people who made up the church -- in the year 35, in the year 50, in the year 100, in the year 140 -- “describe the church for us. Tell us what it is, how it operates,” and how these things came into being”.

The modern Roman Catholic, following Roman Catholics of the last several centuries, is not content with that method. The modern Roman Catholic wants to start with the conceptions of Roman authority, as they are defined today, and to anachronistically read that authority back onto the people of an earlier time.

That is, modern Roman Catholics say of the ancients, “they believe what we believe, only they just didn’t know it.”

That is the biggest line of BS the world has ever known.

Some astute Roman Catholics recognized this, and so they sought to hide that awful truth [that the Roman conception of authority is BS] in a metaphor. “They believed [Roman authority] it in seed form.” Acorn and oak.

But that metaphor (like all metaphors) breaks down in real life. In real life, an acorn immediately sends down a strong and straight taproot, and it sends up a straight and tall trunk, and the shape of that oak seedling is very much the same as it will be for the rest of its life. It does grow branches in time. But it is as straight as it is ever going to be. There is no semblance at all to the twisted and contorted chains of doctrines that Rome has assembled over the centuries, which it calls its “infallible teaching”.

Berkouwer continued:

But the situation is quite different. The Reformation did recognize and accept authority. In reaction to an objectivistic conception of authority the Reformation did not reject all authority. But it did oppose the absolute ecclesiastical authority claimed by Rome. ... When the Reformation had to determine its position in the church of all ages it was not led by a confused subjectivism to prefer relativeism to absolutism, but it had a conception of the church entirely different from the Roman view. When the Reformers called the authority of the church ‘relative,’ they understood its original sense, ‘in relation to.’

The Reformation refused to detach the structure of the church from the revelation transcending it. Ecclesiastical authority was relative, i.e., it stood in an absolutely dependent relation to the Word of God which alone made it possible for the church to exist.

On this point the Reformation denied the Roman view. The struggle of the Reformers was not directed against authority and stability. It was not a revolution of individualism, but the establishment of the life of the church in the Word of the living God. The issue was the truly free and liberating authority of God.

What prompted me to bring this up was something that Ryan said down below, in comments to Nick.

We receive a multiplicity of blessings by faith. These blessings are given to every child of Abraham. You don’t avoid my point that you are collapsing all the spiritual blessings into one blessing by appealing to a contextually irrelevant difference between my understanding of the nature of saving faith and your own. Also, since I have already explained in what manner regeneration can be said to be not merely incidental to justification but rather an instrumental cause of it and in such a way that is fully consistent with the Reformed position, to be honest, I think your first paragraph was a swing and a miss. It didn’t really address any of the points it should have and seemed to have been intended to take us away from exegesis.

* * *

Pastor Lane Keister at Green Baggins has posted an item, and the comments from the Roman Catholics here have illustrated this Roman tendency to just say “nuh-uh” to what is genuinely said, and to assign their own parroted meanings to is being said, regardless of what is actually being said. I’ll let you look at Tom Riello’s comments, but here is the incredibly helpful and instructive “proof” that Lane started with:

Owen starts with something that Roman Catholics, Reformed and even Rationalists all agree on: the divine origin of natural revelation “declares itself to be from God by its own light and authority…: without further evidence or reasoning, without the advantage of any considerations but what are by itself supplied, it discovers its author, from whom it is, and in whose name it speaks…common notions are inlaid in the natures of rational creatures by the hand of God, to this end, that they might make a revelation of Him…, are able to plead their own divine original, without the least contribution of strength or assistance from without” (discussing Romans 1, in Owen, vol 16, p. 311). Muller’s comment on this: “If such a view of natural revelation is assumed, how much more ought its logic apply to Scripture!” (vol 2, p. 268). Then comes the killer quotation from Owen:

Now, it were very strange, that those low, dark, and obscure principles and means of the revelation of God and his will, which we have mentioned, should be able to evince themselves to be from him, without any external help, assistance, testimony or authority; and that that which is by God himself magnified above them…should lie dead, obscure, and have nothing in itself to reveal its Author, until this or that superadded testimony be called to its assistance (Owen, p. 311, quoted in Muller, pp. 268-269).

The substance of the argument, then, is that if natural revelation is acknowledged to be of divine origin and authority without the support of the church, then why shouldn’t special revelation also be acknowledged to have divine origin and authority without the support of the church, especially since the latter is much clearer than the former, and is given by God a higher priority and authority than natural revelation? Why would God not make natural revelation depend on humanity, but then make a more important revelation depend on humanity? Revelation is of God from first to last. God requires no human crutch to make His revelation authoritative. It is authoritative because of its Divine Author.

Individualism vs. Individuality

I'm continuing a discussion from a previous thread with Nick:

This also touches upon the notion of hierarchy, which is just as decisive as the other issues. If you assert a genuine hierarchy, you're self-condemned since Luther and Calvin (and others) weren't hierarchy. If you assert no hierarchy, then each man's authority to judge/interpret is by *definition* equal.

This is a bit confusing. It doesn't follow that because Luther and Calvin "weren't hierarchy," Protestant belief is "condemned." I can still hold to a belief in hierarchy and say that the hierarchy of the Church during the Reformation was mistaken on critical issues. That's within the possible appropriate evaluations of a subordinate authority. It's also congruent with Scriptural precedent (e.g. Apostles disobeying the valid Jewish hierarchy in the New Testament, Old Testament prophets disobeying the divinely established monarchy and its temple priests and prophets, etc.).

And Luther's ultimate "middle finger" was when he said: "Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason - I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils" How is this not individualism at it's bedrock?

Let's assume your quote is in context and that we can conveniently ignore all the other statements Luther made regarding the authority of the Church (or, for that matter, the good that came from the Papacy). It seems you're simply trading on different senses of what it means to be individualistic. That someone can disagree with an authority figure (or that someone ultimately does disagree with an authority figure) does not entail individualism in the sense of thinking all authority is rooted in the individual. The former is describing a basic fact of being an person with a will--that individuals can ultimately attempt to do whatever they wish within the pool of talents, resources and opportunity they've been given by God. That's a different (metaphysical?) concept than what is meant by individualism in the post-Enlightenment West. Granted many Evangelicals, products as they are of a country deeply influenced by Enlightenment, engage in individualism as properly construed, this does not reflect the attitudes and preferences of the Reformers and their faithful followers.

Also consider that lay-Catholic apologists disagree with priests and scholars within their denomination from time to time, even though these figures (who are sometimes even bishops and scholars at the same time and appointed by other bishops to commissions with oversight from the Magisterium) are authorities (in various sense of the word) above them. They do this because they believe these priests and scholars are not accurately representing the teachings of Tradition; they are failing in their roles as subordinate authorities. (And sometimes they are correct in this assessment, e.g. Luke Timothy Johnson on homosexuality.)

Likewise, Protestants can also speak of rejecting certain manifestations of hierarchical structures if it seems they have over stepped their bounds of authority or violated the principles of Scripture, God, etc. to which they have sworn allegiance as officers of the Church. How this entails individualism as construed by the post-Enlightenment conception of a self-determined identity (and all of its philosophical baggage) is unknown. Indeed, the very idea of disagreeing with an authority means that a valid authority already exists. But radical individualism denies the presence of authorities outside of man (or Scripture, in the case of the Anabaptists) from the beginning; it's not even part of the discussion.

In other words, the approach of Luther and Calvin is decidedly different than the idea that all authority ultimately rests in the individual—that the individual decides first and foremost without any respect or regard or deference to the established structure of the Church, whether in elders, councils or pastors.

Don't be simplistic in confusing similar results in some cases, where, for example, someone in the PCA who decides that Sartre's philosophy is to be preferred to the standards of the WCF, with someone who was born into a deeply anti-authority Evangelical culture and lives her entire life deciding that she'll live however she pleases. The structures are significantly different, especially when we consider the threats of excommunication and discipline--which constitute authoritative action--on an individual in a properly functioning Reformation church.

I'd be interested to see how you'd reconcile deeply individualistic approaches to Scripture with the measured approach Turretin outlines should someone find himself unable to accept the teachings of the church under which he submits:

...they ought to undertake nothing rashly or disorderly and unseasonably, so as to violently rend the body of their mother, but to refer the difficulties they feel to their church and either to prefer her public opinion to their own private judgment or to secede from her communion, if the conscience cannot acquiesce in her judgment. Thus they cannot bind the inner court of conscience, except inasmuch as they are found to agree with the word of God (Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Vol. 3 [Phillipsburg: P&R, 1997], 284).

Consider also how Turretin distinguishes between various kinds of judgments:

Three types of judge must be carefully distinguished. The first is the ultimate and authoritative who decides authoritatively and absolutely, as supreme ruler, and from whom there is no appeal. The second is that of a functionary or minister, who gives a decision as a public official. The third is personal or private-the individual's decision regarding either the law or its interpretation. In the first case, the decision is final and absolute. In the second, it is official, but subordinate and limited by the law. In the third case, it is a personal opinion without official standing (The Supreme Judge of Controversies and the Interpreter of Scripture).

In the radical individualistic approach, at the very least, the second kind of judge is completely removed from the picture.

As for Calvin, I've read Institutes 4.9, and he clearly reserves the right to object or toss out anything he thinks doesn't conform to (his interpretation) of Scripture. I've also read where he went line by line on the Council of Trent (especially on Justification) and single-handedly rejected anything he didn't agree with.

And you reserve the right to object or toss out anything you think doesn't conform to your interpretation of the Magisterium's official documents—Tradition.

This isn't unique to Protestantism, and it isn't unique to those outside of Catholicism. You are inconsistently applying the simple fact of life that all people are ultimately free to disregard whatever anyone says. If it's a problem for Protestantism, it's a problem for Catholicism.

I'd also add that your picture of Calvin doesn't square with what I've already quoted from him in the previous thread and what he wrote on the authority of the church elsewhere (cf. Institutes, IV.x.18). Consider also what I've quoted from him in this thread.

Nick writes elsewhere:

The *catch* is that the (pretend) Reformers' actions paved the way for radical individualism since in principle each layman could fall back on their own interpretation of Scripture, just as Luther and Calvin did when they disagreed with someone else.

This eventually led to watering down the Christian Gospel as a whole, and where the radical individualism really began to show - and eventually became so common that most Protestants see it as "normal" in Christianity.

In the sense you're using the concept, it seems everyone could "fall back on" whatever interpretation of Scripture they hold. I don't see how you connect that with the Reformers in a meaningful fashion; it's not as if people didn't engage in this kind of behavior before the Reformation.

Who gave the Reformers the Authority?

"...Who gave the reformers the authority? It is my understanding that neither Luther nor Calvin were even Bishops. So what authority did they have to bring schism to the Body?"[Source]

One unfortunate problem with this question is that Protestants do not argue the church does not have any authority. The church always has authority. What Protestants argue is the church does not have infallible authority. As David King points out in his book Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith,

"What sola scriptura presupposes is that there is no need for the magisterium of the Roman communion to define dogma infallibly. We readily submit to duly constituted authority in Christ's Church, but we reject an institution that has made void the commandments of God by the traditions of men" [p.259].

Luther was given authority by the church of his day:

"But perhaps you will say to me, 'Why do you, by your books, teach throughout the world, when you are only preacher in Wittenberg?' I answer: I have never wanted to do it and do not want to do it now. I was forced and driven into this position in the first place, when I had to become Doctor of Holy Scripture against my will. Then, as a Doctor in a general free university, I began, at the command of pope and emperor, to do what such a doctor is sworn to do, expounding the Scriptures for all the world and teaching everybody. Once in this position, I have had to stay in it, and I cannot give it up or leave it yet with a good conscience, even though both pope and emperor were to put me under the ban for not doing so. For what I began as a Doctor, made and called at their command, I must truly confess to the end of my life. I cannot keep silent or cease to teach, though I would like to do so and am weary and unhappy because of the great and unendurable ingratitude of the people. And even if I were not a Doctor, I am, nevertheless, a regularly called preacher and may teach my own people with writings. If others have desired these writings of mine and have asked for them, it is my duty to accede to their request. For I have never pushed myself in or desired or asked that anyone should read these writings, but have acted just like other pious pastors and preachers. They write books and neither prevent people from reading them nor drive them to do so; thus they teach throughout the world. They do not run and sneak like these worthless, uncalled knaves into the offices of others without the knowledge and consent of the pastors; but they have a definite office and position by which they are driven and compelled." [LW 13:66]

The problem is the Roman church at Trent anathematized the Gospel. The Roman authority has never been infallible. By its proclamations she denied the Gospel, turning her into a sect.

The Church gave Luther authority, but this Church authority did not submit to the ultimate authority: the sacred scriptures. The Reformers had no choice but to point this out, and forge ahead as the church always does.