Latter Day Saints say that we
need the
Book of Mormon to get the whole truth.
A Jehovah’s Witness would tell us that we are
lost in our understanding of Scripture without the Watch Tower Bible and Tract
Society (est. 1884).
But what saith the
Word itself?
When was the last time you read
the entire Bible? It took me three years
to read through all 66 books after my conversion. I would encourage you to read the Bible for
yourself and ask the Lord to open the eyes of your understanding. There are many plans to get through both the
OT & NT in a year.
The phrase “it is written” appears
around eighty times in Scripture. Note
that it’s not, “go look at your church’s charter” or “go ask the Pope.” Our standard is the Word of God, not tradition
– although that may be helpful, it’s not infallible. “To the law and to the testimony: if they
speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them” (Is.
8:20). The Lord said to Joshua,
Be strong and very courageous.
Be careful to obey all the law my servant
Moses gave you; do not turn from it to the right or to the left, that you may
be successful wherever you go. Keep this
Book of the Law always on your lips; meditate on it day and night, so that you
may be careful to do everything written in it. Then you will be prosperous and successful (Joshua
1:7,8).
Peter himself points us to
Scripture:
His divine power has given us
everything we need for a godly life through our knowledge of him who called us
by his own glory and goodness. Through these he has given us his very great
and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine
nature, having escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires. (2 Peter
1:3,4)
The Bible gives us “everything
we need” … we don’t require esoteric interpretations, councils, ancient
traditions or trips to Rome to teach us the way of salvation – the Bible is plain
on that point. Peter goes on …
We ourselves heard this voice
that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain. We also have the prophetic message as
something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as
to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star
rises in your hearts. Above all, you
must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own
interpretation of things. For prophecy
never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from
God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit
(2 Peter 1:18-21).
Although Peter had the amazing
experience of seeing Jesus Transfigured, we should look to the Word of God for
guidance and truth. Why didn’t Peter
say, “talk to me, I’m the Pope, I’m infallible.” Recall the controversy in Acts 15? Did Peter get the most attention? Peter speaks, but James, the ½ brother of
Jesus, seems to carry the major influence (Acts 15:13,19).
George Salmon (1819-1904) was
a theologian and mathematician. In 1849,
Arthur Cayley and George Salmon made the remarkable discovery that every smooth
cubic surface (using Complex Numbers) contains exactly 27 lines. Salmon’s last Maths contribution was in 1873
on periods of the recurring decimals of the reciprocals of prime numbers.
In 1888, The Infallibility
of the Church was published in which Salmon demonstrated the impossibility
of Papal infallibility, as believed by the Roman Catholic Church. Cardinal John Henry Newman (1801-1890) was at first
an Anglican priest and later converted to Catholicism. He was one of the key leaders of the Oxford
Movement made up of Anglicans who desired to recover many Catholic beliefs and rituals. Salmon spoke on Newman’s “development” theory:
The first strategic movement
towards the rear was the doctrine of development, which has seriously modified
the old theory of tradition. When Dr. Newman became a Roman Catholic, it was
necessary for him in some way to reconcile this step with the proofs he had
previously given that certain distinctive Romish doctrines were unknown to the
early Church. The historical arguments he had advanced in his Anglican days
were incapable of refutation even by himself. But it being hopeless to maintain
that the present teaching of Roman Catholics is identical with the doctrine held
in the primitive Church, he set himself to show that though not the same, it
was a great deal better. This is the object of the celebrated Essay on the
Development of Christian Doctrine, which he published simultaneously with his
submission to the Roman Church. The theory expounded in it in substance is,
that Christ had but committed to His Church certain seeds and germs of truth,
destined afterwards to expand to definite forms … [1]
The infallibility of the Pope
did not become dogma until the first Vatican council in 1870. The doctrine of papal infallibility means that
the Pope cannot err when he speaks on matters of faith and morals ex cathedra (“from
the chair”). There are many views held
within the Romanist camp on numerous controversies – just tune in to EWTN and
see for yourself. How else can such
matters be settled unless the ultimate decision on an issue comes down to one
man? Should there be a Supreme Court of the
True Church? There is no official Roman
Catholic commentary on the whole Bible.
If the Pope were actually infallible, wouldn’t such a work be a great
inspiration? Cardinal Newman was on the
right track in something he wrote in his Anglican days,
This inconsistency in the
Romish system one might almost call providential. Nothing could be better
adapted than it is to defeat the devices of human wisdom, and to show to
thoughtful inquirers the hollowness of even the most specious counterfeit of
Divine truth. The theologians of Rome have been able dexterously to smooth over
a thousand inconsistencies, and to array the heterogeneous precedents of
centuries in the semblance of design and harmony. But they cannot complete the
system in its most important and essential point. They can determine in theory
the nature, degree, extent, and object of the infallibility which they claim,
but they cannot agree among themselves where it resides. As in the building of
Babel, the Lord has confounded their language, and the structure remains half
finished, a monument at once of human daring and its failure. [2]
Salmon comments of the lateness
on the infallibility dogma:
Did not the Pope, at the
Vatican Council of 1870 [Vatican 1], bear witness to himself, and declare that
every theory was wrong which made the organ of infallibility other than
himself? But what time of day is this to find the answer to a question so
fundamental? Can we believe that Christ before He left this earth provided His
Church with an infallible guide to truth, and that it took her more than 1800
years before she could find out who that guide was? It seems almost labor
wasted to proceed with the proofs I was about to lay before you, of the neglect
or inability of the infallible judge of controversies to settle controversies,
when it took him so long to settle that controversy in which his own privileges
were so vitally concerned. [3]
… is it not most clearly
proved that the Pope did not believe in his own pretense to infallibility, else
why not take the opportunity of settling, by the joint authority of Pope and
Council an authority which, in theory, all owned to be infallible a dispute
which had so long convulsed the Church? But
to meddle in the matter, that is to say, to decide the question one way or
other “might cause a schism among Catholics”; in other words, these “Catholics,”
whatever they might pretend, did not really believe in the infallibility of the
Pope and the Council. Nay, I am putting
the matter too weakly; for we do not set up our own opinion against that of an
expert on any subject, even though we know that he is far from claiming infallibility;
but these “Catholics” must really have thought that Pope and Council knew no
better than themselves. Why should there
be danger of a schism after the truth had been ascertained by infallible
authority? Surely, no person could be
mad enough to separate himself from the Church of Christ [Rome] in consequence
of a decision which he believed to be infallibly true, and to have emanated
from a divinely promised and infallible guidance. The only way of accounting for the conduct of
the Pope and of the Council on this occasion is, that neither one nor the other
believed in the pretense of infallibility. For, as I said, acting is the test of faith … [4]
Indeed, actions do speak louder
than words.
In The Gift ofInfallibility, James O'Connor clarifies the idea of infallibility. He
provides a helpful translation of the "relatio" or official
explanation by Bishop Gasser given at Vatican I, the Church council that
defined the dogma of papal infallibility. Despite its importance in all
theological discussions on the doctrine of infallibility, Bishop Gasser's
relatio had never until recently been translated from the Latin original into
English. If “Pope-No-Lie” is such a
critical doctrine, why has this not been translated into English over a hundred
years ago?
I warn everyone who hears the
words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will
add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. And if anyone takes words away from this
scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree
of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll (Rev.
22:18,19).
Notes:
1) The Infallibility of the
Church by George Salmon (John Murray, London, 1914), p. 65.
2) Cardinal Newman quoted in
Salmon, p. 176.
3) Salmon, p. 176.
4) Ibid., p. 181.
#Mormons #LDS #Watchtower #JW #Catholic
#RC #Pope #CardinalNewman #Salmon #InfallibilityOfTheChurch #Trent #Vatican1
#Bible #SufficiencyOfScripture #relatio #OriginalSin #CubicSurface
Joseph Smith pic by Anthony
Sweat, © 2014
