I’ve been out of Papist-Protestant polemics for a little while now, but over the past couple weeks, I’ve run across a couple things from Roman apologists that disturbed me enough to write a blog post. So, here’s five principles for studying papal claims that everyone should keep in mind.
Exegetical arguments must be based on exegesis. Is there a typological connection between Matthew 16 and Eliakim? In all likelihood, there is, but that’s not an exegetical argument. Things like typology and fittingness are important to consider, but they are supporting evidences, not foundational evidences. If you’re going to make a biblical argument to establish essential doctrine, the argument needs to come from the Bible at the level of the argument. Citing Bible verses does not make an argument biblical.
Historical studies must be done honestly. Give me a couple hours, and I can find you a hundred historical references in favor of the Papist position. I can build a really strong argument, but it’ll be filled with careful omissions. For example, did you know that Pope Victor I excommunicated a segment of the Asian church over the date of Easter? That looks like a Pope to me! But, he was also rebuked by Irenaeus and several other bishops, eventually reversing the decision. And that doesn’t seem very Pope-y at all. (Furthermore, it’s conveniently glossed over Erick Ybarras’s recent book, The Papacy, pp. 131ff.) It matters that we get the whole story.
Terms found in historical sources do not always match one-to-one with modern usage. There were bishops in the early church, no doubt. But there were also presbyteries. But were these the same kinds of bishops and presbyteries we have today in various churches? Answer: we don’t know for sure, but probably not. But twenty-first century people are particularly good at importing our modern/post-modern ideas into historical documents. This is especially true as we attempt to defend our own positions. Also, for the record, this one applies to the Truly Reformed® folks out there as well. You can’t just go redefining words willy-nilly, whether that’s in the patristics or the Westminster standards.
Patristic sources that say nice things about the Roman Church are not evidence for the papacy. If you start skimming through the church fathers, you’ll very quickly find that some of them have very good things to say about the Church of Rome. Some of them even talk about how Rome is trustworthy as a source of truth. (See, for example, Ignatuis’ Epistle to the Romans or the third book of Irenaeus’ Against Heresies.) These don’t cause me any heartburn as a Protestant. The exemplary nature of the Roman Church in earlier centuries is not evidence for enduring trustworthiness. Furthermore, I say a lot of nice things about my wife, but that doesn’t make her infallible.
The Roman bishop acting like a universal head doesn’t make him the universal head. Have Roman bishops done a lot of Pope-y things over the centuries? Yes, of course. But there’s a difference between action and office. The bishop of Rome can act like the universal head of the Church all he wants, but that doesn’t necessarily imply that he was appointed to that office. If a police officer puts you in handcuffs, it’s an arrest. If I do, it’s a kidnapping. The question is not about what Popes have done, but whether they have the authority to do it.