Contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints...

Jude 1:3b.

The following quote was put forth by a commenter at Old Life as a defense of the Roman Catholic Church, and as an indictment of the Reformed churches that parted ways with Rome in the 16th century.

"If you must make a choice between heresy and schism, always choose heresy. As a schismatic, you have torn and divided the body of Christ. Choose heresy every time.” 

- Rev. James I. McCord, Presbyterian leader in the ecumenical movement and longtime president of Princeton Theological Seminary

Then logically on that basis, a completely heretical church is preferable to a doctrinally pure schism?? Please... And this is not said to defend schisms.

The schism condemned in the Bible is that which begins with a departure from the doctrine of faith handed down by the apostles as recorded in the Scriptures, not merely a break away from some outward organizational structure of the church. A fixed departure from truth into heresy or error would ultimately result in outward schism. So the concern of the apostles was the preservation of pure doctrine. Those that did depart from the apostolic faith as recorded in God's Word were those who were judged as schismatic. Thus the verdict of the reformers during the 16th century Reformation was that Rome, at the Council of Trent in 1563, departed from the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints. In officially separating herself from pure doctrine, Rome separated herself from the true church. In effect, Trent was a schismatic document.

As set forth in Scripture the unity of Christ's church, which is his body, is not measured by something solely outward, nor is that unity maintained apart from holding fast to Christ’s true faith. To argue for Rome’s claim as the one true church on the basis of organizational history or succession of bishops sadly ignores the centrality of the gospel of Christ. And it was that gospel that Rome rejected at Trent (see Canons). The gospel declares that sinners are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. It is the power of  God unto salvation for the lost (Rom. 1:16). And that gospel message is the means by which God establishes the church of Christ and the ground upon which He nourishes and maintains it. Without the true apostolic faith there is no church.

Justification: Wherein, Then Do We Disagree?

From The Church Society:

"The fact is that Rome teaches Forgiveness through Sanctification, while Scripture teaches Sanctification through Forgiveness. Rome confuses Justification and Sanctification, and says that the former is by the infusion of grace and includes both remission and renovation. But this is really to rob the soul of the objective ground of righteousness and confuses spiritual acceptance with spiritual attainments. Not only so, it tends to base Justification on our own merit. Justification in the Scriptural sense is independent of and anterior to the spiritual state or condition, which, however, necessarily follows. [6] It must, therefore, be evident that between the doctrine of Justification as taught in our Article and that inculcated by Rome, there is “a great gulf fixed,” as indeed, our great theologian Hooker clearly teaches."

“Wherein, then, do we disagree? We disagree about the nature of the very essence of the medicine whereby Christ cureth our disease; about the manner of applying it; about the number and the power of means which God requireth in us for the effectual applying thereof to our soul’s comfort. … This is the mystery of the Man of sin. This maze the Church of Rome doth cause her followers to tread when they ask her the way of justification.” [7]

Footnote [6] “Protestants claim that justification is complete from the first. The father of the parable does not leave his prodigal son outside the house until he has shown his repentance by his works; but he goes forth to meet him, and falls upon his neck and kisses him, and has the best robe put on him, and a ring on his finger, and shoes on his feet, and kills for him the fatted calf. The sinner is not taken back into the Divine favour by degrees, cautiously and grudgingly, but he is restored to all his privileges as a child of God. This is the only way to make the work of sanctification, which immediately begins, complete. It is a work which can go forward only after the relation of fatherhood and sonship is fully re-established. It is only by such love that the sinner’s love can be made perfect. ‘We love Him because He first loved us’ (1 John 4:19),” (Stearns, ut supra, p. 447

Is Rome a True Church?

I was asked this question, via email, in the context of what Anglicans believe.  To answer that I think it is helpful to look initially at the Church of England's own doctrinal and confession statements. Otherwise, we are left to any number of positions by various Anglicans that may or may not agree with their own standards.

More precisely, the question put to me was: Is Rome part of the visible church? The Church of England's own standard's, at a minimum, make the case that the Church of Rome has erred in doctrine and practice. That is not to say that there aren't any true Christians in the RCC and not that vestiges of the gospel cannot be found there. Rather, Rome since the Council of Trent has officially established herself in opposition to the gospel and specifically the doctrine of justification by faith only and not by any works, grace assisted or not.

Rome claims justification is initially begun by baptism and kept and grown by faith and grace assisted works of righteousness thus conflating justification and sanctification. Their teaching, in a nutshell, says we are saved by the combination of Christ's finished work and our continuing works.

 Article XI of the Church of England's 39 Articles of Religion reads:

XI. Of the Justification of Man. We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore, that we are justified by Faith only, is a most wholesome Doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification.

At Trent Rome anathematized the teaching of this article, a doctrine succinctly expressed in any number of places in the Old and New Testament such as Rom 4:5; Rom. 11:6; Eph. 2:8-9; Gal. 2:16-21. As to the question of whether Rome has erred as a church or not let's look again at the 39 Articles:

XIX. Of the Church. The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.

As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred, so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.

XXVIII. Of the Lord's Supper. The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.

Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.

The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

So according Anglicanism's own confession of doctrine and faith, Rome as a church has erred in matters of doctrinal faith and administration of the Lord's Supper, teaching and requiring things not in accord with the Word of God. Finally John Jewell, in the Homily for Whit-Sunday (Book Of Homilies - part of the CoE's confessional standards) teaches what the Church of England believes to be the necessary  characteristics of a true church. These three marks are consistent with the other reformed churches of Europe of that time, and agree with the Heidelberg Catechism, the Belgic Confession, and the Westminster Confession of Faith written 80 years later:

"The true church is a universal congregation or fellowship of GOD's faithful and elect people, built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the head corner stone (Eph. 2:20). And it hath always three notes or marks whereby it is known. Pure and sound doctrine, the Sacraments ministered to Christ's holy institution, and the right use of Ecclesiastical discipline. This description of the Church is agreeable both to the Scriptures of God, and also to the doctrine of the ancient fathers, so that none may justly find fault therewith."

A fair conclusion based on the Church of England's own doctrinal standards would be that Rome does indeed fall short of the measure of a true visible church.

Baptism, Early Church Fathers - Questions and Thoughts...

Given the Reformed covenantal understanding of padobaptism as Biblical teaching (Reformed also teach believer baptism), how would one explain the historical data that a number of Early Church Fathers were born into Christian families and yet were not baptized until later in life (e.g. Augustine, Ambrose, Athanasius, Basil, Gregory of Nanzianzus)? Was the practice/understanding of baptism mixed in such a way that the covenantal practice of the early church diminshed after the time of the apostles? Was practice mixed in the first century? Just wondering how to interpret the historical record and what challenges that record presents.

Some initial thoughts:  

1) It's historical evidence such as the above regarding some of the ECFs, employed by credobaptists and lending weight to their assertion, that Scriptural baptism is only adult or believer baptism. This would seem obvious.

2) The historical record is problematic for the Roman Catholic.  They claim a direct doctrinal line from the apostles, and an unbroken tradition/practice as the one true church since Pentecost.  If in the 3rd and 4th century the RCC as the only true church taught infant baptism and that baptism regenerates and infuses righteousness (as RCs explicitly have since Trent) then this historical record is problematic.  Especially when one considers that Gregory's father was a bishop before Gregory was even born and that the others mentioned were raised by Christian parents.

3) On its face this would also seem problematic for the Reformed.  He must answer the credobaptist claim and evidence.  And that evidence would seem to undermine the Reformed teaching and practice of infant baptism visa-vis God's covenant with his people, baptism being the sign and seal of entrance to the church for children of believers as well as the blessings of the covenant of grace (WCF 28).

I think the Roman Catholics have the more difficult defense to make. Reformed have never attributed regeneration and justification directly to the act of baptism. It isn't hard to imagine that a weakening of the the covenantal understanding of baptism had occurred over a couple centuries after the apostles while at the same time the understanding that salvation received through faith in the gospel generally held firm.  Thus Augustine and others were catechized in the the teachings of the gospel with a view to a profession of faith while the practice of baptism for infants receded, at least as practiced in some parts of the church.  Without the covenantal understanding of baptism, the church is left with a weak rationale for infant baptism.  

Though an understanding of regeneration/grace-infused baptism is found in the ECFs, yet at least as shown by these examples, it wasn't the universal practice of the church to baptize infants for that or any other purpose. The ECFs mentioned above (Augustine, et al) weren't baptized until as adults they came to faith. Rome proudly owns the ECFs as corroborating evidence of their claim to Christ's only visible church.  This, it would seem, presents a challenge to Rome's claim of one continuous, infallible church regarding doctrine and practice since the apostles.  Its claim to be "The One True Infallible Church" is based on its interpretation of Scripture and its so-called unbroken apostolic tradition/practice.  The church's practice of baptism is clearly at variance with that claim in the 3rd and 4th century.

I think the Reformed have an easier case to make. Reformed admit the church, at times, does err and has erred.  Yet it remains the Lord's church.  Since the Reformation of 16th century there has been a reformed catholic church, one always reforming according to the Word of God. In fact that is the story of the Church from the time of the apostles.  To flip around the old 7UP commercial line, "Always has, always will..."  Biblical faith and practice have at different times been under assault within the church and thus the church has found itself in need of necessary reform/correction.  That's the back story to many of the epistles in Scripture and the front story to the justification controversy addressed in the Galatians' letter.  So, it shouldn't be considered an anomaly that the covenantal doctrine and practice of infant baptism weakened in the two centuries following the apostles (or even here and there during their own time). The Reformed church rest upon the doctrines of Scripture alone.  If practice/tradition deviate at times, that doesn't undermine the doctrine of Scripture or the legitimacy of the church.  What it does is to necessitate a more faithful contending for the faith by the church -  'the faith once delivered' - in its teaching and practice. In other words... the church in this age always has been and always is to be the Church Militant.

The Reformation's Debate continues... Justification By... What?

Another bit from an ongoing discussion on a Roman Catholic blog:

My Roman Catholic interlocutor quotes me and then adds his comment:

“Baptism if not accompanied by faith ultimately avails nothing as regards the salvation of the soul.” – [Jack]

God always accomplishes what He promises. So baptism always results in justification. Man can be a covenant breaker – but God never can. – [DH]

My response:
Two things -
1. Of course we disagree with RCs that baptism is the instrument of justification. One might be able through a verse to infer that it is, but Scripture (OT and NT) in many places positively states that God justifies the ungodly through faith, even calling it the “faith of righteousness”… not the baptism of righteousness.

2. God always accomplishes what he, in the counsel of his will, purposes. In order for His promise to be effectual according to the Roman Catholic one must be baptized and not commit mortal sin, and [add in other things here]. And if he does commit mortal sin then he seeks restoration via penance to return to a justified state. If he doesn’t do that then God’s promised justification in baptism passes him by. Works and justification are very much linked here.

We maintain that Scripture teaches (for those of age) God’s promise of salvation is made effectual by grace alone through faith alone in – the One who fulfilled that promise for sinners – Jesus Chris alone, who died for their sins and fulfilled the demands of the Law for their justification. If man refuses to believe, then the promise of salvation is refused.

John 3: 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

… Jesus says that whoever believes (faith) is “not condemned”… to be “not condemned” under the law is to be justified under the law. So whoever has faith in him is justified and whoever has not faith in him is not justified, i.e. condemned.

What is at issue is the instrument of justification. Is it baptism or faith? And Paul makes it clear to all who are willing to hear and consider and believe the good news he teaches:

Justification:

Romans 3:21-23 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus

Romans 4: 4-5 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness

Romans 11: 5-6 So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.

Eph. 2: 8-9 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Sanctification:

Eph. 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Phil. 2:12b-13 work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

When it comes to justification Paul rules out works, even grace-assisted works. “Righteousness through faith”, not righteousness by baptism. Of course you reject this, as RCs see baptism and sanctification (grace-assisted works) as means to justification. We agree with Paul that sinners are justified through faith in Christ apart from any kind of works and that that one who is justified by grace will and does bring forth good deeds (sanctification built upon justification) through the gracious work of God’s Spirit (Eph. 2:10; Phil 2:12b-13).

I’m content to agree to disagree with you. I’m not content to disagree with the apostle Paul. And by the way, this is not my personal interpretation, but the teaching of those churches which hold to the reformed confessions and catechisms.

cheers…

The Papal paper trail...

The following are various extracts from the Church of Rome Canon Law that Thomas Cranmer (Archbishop, the Church of England 1533-1553) collected possibly as early as 1530.  How does the modern Papacy reconcile itself to these rather colorful decrees and doctrines of Rome from an earlier age?

As far as I know, these have never been repudiated by the Vatican.  It's obvious by the time Trent rolled around that the road to the denial of the gospel of salvation by grace through faith alone in Christ alone had already been well traveled by Rome.  Question:  if these "infallible proclamations" are no longer operative, i.e. they are fallible, then how don't these edicts undermine Rome's apostolic succession in that they undermine the doctrine of papal infallibility?  And since the true ground of the church (in Rome's view) is the succession of the infallible seat of Peter, how doesn't this undermine the claim that Rome is the one true church?

A Collection of Extracts from the Canon Law, 

showing the extravagant pretensions of the Church of Rome[a].  

The Remains of Thomas Cranmer, collected and arranged by H. Jenkyns.

He that knowledgeth not himself to be under the bishop of Rome, and that the bishop of Rome is ordained by God to have primacy over all the world, is an heretic, and cannot be saved, nor is not of the flock of Christ.

 All the decrees of the bishop of Rome ought to be kept perpetually of every man, without any repugnance, as God's word spoken by the mouth of Peter; and whosoever doth not receive them, neither availeth them the catholic faith, nor the four evangelists, but they blaspheme the Holy Ghost, and shall have no forgiveness.

All kings, bishops, and noblemen, that believe or suffer the bishop of Rome's decrees in any thing to be violate, be accursed, and for ever culpable before God, as transgressors of the catholic faith.

The bishop of Rome hath authority to judge all men, and specially to discern the articles of the faith, and that without any council, and may assoil them that the council hath damned; but no man hath authority to judge him, nor to meddle with any thing that he hath judged, neither emperor, king, people, nor the clergy: and it is not lawful for any man to dispute of his power.

The bishop of Rome may excommunicate emperors and princes, depose them from their states, and assoil their subjects from their oath and obedience to them, and so constrain them to rebellion.

The bishop of Rome may be judged of none but of God only; for although he neither regard his own salvation, nor no man's else, but draw down with himself innumerable people by heaps unto hell; yet may no mortal man in this world presume to reprehend him : forsomuch as he is called God, he may be judged of no man; for God may be judged of no man.

The bishop of Rome may open and shut heaven unto men.

He that maketh a lye to the bishop of Rome committeth sacrilege. 

The bishop of Rome is judge in temporal things, and hath two swords, spiritual and temporal.

The bishop of Rome may give authority to arrest men, and imprison them in manacles and fetters.

All manner of causes, whatsoever they be, spiritual or temporal, ought to be determined and judged by the clergy. 

And the bishop of Rome may compel by an oath, all rulers and other people, to observe, and cause to be observed, whatsoever the see of Rome shall ordain concerning heresy, and the fautors thereof; and who will not obey, he may deprive them of their dignities.

We obtain remission of sin, by observing of certain feasts, and certain pilgrimages in the jubilee and other prescribed times, by virtue of the bishop of Rome's pardons. 

He is no man-slayer that slayeth a man which is excommunicate.

A penitent person can have no remission of his sin, but by supplication of the priests

Another point of view from an English reformer, John Jewell's Reply Unto M. Harding:

"To be Peter's lawful successor, it is not sufficient to leap into Peter's stall. Lawful succession standeth not only in possession of place, but also, and much rather, in doctrine and diligence. Yet the bishops of Rome, as if there were nothing else required, evermore put us in mind and tell us many gay tales of their succession." [pg. 201]

"... This is [Rome's] holy succession - Though faith fall, yet succession must hold; for unto succession God hath bound the Holy Ghost." [pg. 347]

"... if the pope and his Roman clergy, by his own friends confession, be fallen from God's grace, and departed from Christ to antichrist, what a miserable claim is it for them to hold only to bare succession! It is not sufficient to claim succession of place: it behooveth us rather to have regard to the succession of doctrine. St. Benard saith: What availeth it, if they be chosen in order, and live out of order." [pg. 349]

"... The faith of Christ... goeth not always by succession. The bishops of Rome have been Arians, Nestorians..." [pg.610]

"And for that cause they say, We are Peter's successors: even as the Pharisees sometime said, We be the children of Abraham. But John said unto them, Put not your affiance in such succession. For God is able even of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham." [pg. 439]

Two interesting footnotes from different portions of Jenkyns' text:
a [Burnet inserts these extracts under the year 1544, connecting them with an act then passed for the examination of canon laws. They are placed here on the authority of the following passage from Strype : "One of the first things wherein the archbishop shewed his good service to the church, was done in the parliament in the latter end of this year, 1533. When the supremacy came under debate, mid the usurped power of the bishop of Rome was propounded, then "the old collections of the new archbishop did him good service; for the chief, and in a manner the whole burden of this weighty cause was laid upon his shoulders." Strype, Cranmer, p. 32. These "old collections" are probably those which are still preserved at Lambeth under the title of Archbishop Cranmer's Collection of Laws. They were formed, perhaps, while he resided at Cambridge, and consist of a large number of passages, extracted at length from the canon law, and followed by that short summary of some of its most remarkable doctrines which is here printed. They were doubtless of great use in the discussions alluded to by Strype; but that was not the only nor the first occasion, in which they supplied the archbishop with arguments. He must have already availed himself of them, when in stating to the king his unwillingness to accept the see of Canterbury, he "disclosed therewithal the intolerable usurpation of the pope of Rome." See his Examination before Brokes. And he frequently recurs to them in his subsequent writings, particularly in the Ansner to the Devonshire Rebels, l.,49, and in his long Letter to queen Mary, in September, 1555.]

c [There is much ingenuity in the manner in which Innocent III. pressed this text into his service. According to him, as God made two great lights, the sun and the moon, so he made two great powers, the papal and the royal; " sed ilia quae pra-est diebus, id est, spiritualibus, " majorest; quaevero eamalibus, minori : ut quanta est inter so/em et/u- " nam, tanta mter pontifices et reges differentia cognoscatur." The precise difference, as calculated by the commentator, may be stated in the words of Jewel : "And how much the emperor is less, the gloss declareth by mathematical computation, saying, that the earth is seven times greater than the moon, and the sun eight times greater than the earth: so followeth it, that the pope's dignity is six and fifty times greater than the dignity of the emperor." Jewell, Sermon at Paul's Cross, and Reply to Harding's Answer, p. 29, and 215.]

Joined to Another...

A Roman Catholic commenter in the ongoing discussion at Green Baggins attempts to explain the nature of a believer's relationship to Christ and how that relationship is affected when a believer sins, at least according to Rome.  He begins:

When we are baptized, we are united to Christ in His death (per Romans 6:3). From there, we are initiated into Christ and we need to develop our relationship with Him. This is similar to a husband and wife on their wedding day. Their relationship isn’t completed on that day, it’s just beginning from that day forward, a couple needs to nurture and foster their relationship and grow in love. So it is with us and God. We need to foster our relationship with God from the day of our Baptism until the day we die.

This analogy breaks down almost from the beginning. When a man and woman are married they are indeed fully married (assuming consummation). Nurturing that relationship does not make them more married or, if they fall short of the standard of love, suddenly single. From day one, they are completely “married” before God and man as if they had been married faithfully for forty years. Yes, they learn to love each other more and more and grow more fully into the purpose of marriage. But even a violation of that marriage covenant by one or the other doesn’t, in and of itself, negate the marriage, nor end that bond.

He continues:

By living a “Life in the Spirit” we will be justified. However, if we choose our will above God’s will. If we reject what the Spirit is asking us and say, “no thanks, MY way is better… “ Then we are living in a spirit of rebellion. We are NOT living a life in the spirit and we lose our justification for we are no longer “In Christ.” At that point, we need to return to the Body of Christ and ask for forgiveness. We need to acknowledge our sins and enter back into the Body of Christ and continue living a Life in the Spirit for it’s only in Christ that we are saved. Outside of Him, there is no salvation.

As with marriage, likewise with our union in Christ. We were sealed in Him by the Holy Spirit, “joined to another.” Our sinning doesn’t sever that union, nor remove us from the body of Christ. For the ground or basis of our union in Christ is the provision of his sacrifice for our sins, by which we are justified through simple trust, receiving it as a free gift. He has removed the basis for our guilt through His blood.  If left to our ability to "live in the Spirit" as a means of justification we would then have no answer to the dilemma at the end of Romans 7:

²¹ I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. ²² For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, ²³ but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner  of the law of sin which is in my members. ²⁴ Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from  the body of this death?   

Thus the exclamation of Paul, “There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus.”

Having been united to Christ through faith in His finished work of redemption, we are no longer under law but under grace, i.e. joined to another, our Savior. To put that burden back on us, would make redemption no longer a gift of grace, but a work of law.  As Paul writes:

Now to him that worketh, the reward is not reckoned as of grace, but as of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is reckoned for righteousness. (Rom. 4:4-5)

So then, our sin doesn’t sever us from Christ, for that would undermine God’s very purpose of reconciliation, in that it would remove us from the very cure of our disease, Christ crucified:

Wherefore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature: the old things are passed away; behold, they are become new. But all things are of God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and gave unto us the ministry of reconciliation; to wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not reckoning unto them their trespasses, and having committed unto us the word of reconciliation. We are ambassadors therefore on behalf of Christ, as though God were entreating by us: we beseech you on behalf of Christ, be ye reconciled to God. Him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf; that we might become the righteousness of God in him. (2 Cor. 5:17-21)

Be reconciled to God. How? By putting all our trust for removal of sin and the acquiring of righteousness in His Son alone, who was “made to be sin on our behalf; that we might become the righteousness of God in him.”  Not just initially upon first believing for our justification, but continually in our sanctification, we are to look to the blood of Christ for cleansing from sin.

Our marriage bond to the Lord is based solely on the finished work of God’s reconciliation in Christ. He chose us. He sought us. He paid the price for our redemption. He called us. And by His Spirit effected faith and repentance in us, joining us to Himself. “What God has joined together, let no man put asunder.”  In other words, do not devise a man-made system of reconciliation which, in effect, would separate believers from the good news of God's reconciliation of sinners in Christ Jesus.

Peter & Paul, and God's free mercy in Christ

Delving into the 2 Peter passage introduced in the previous post, here are some thoughts:

2 Pet. 1.1: “obtained a like precious faith with us in the righteousness of our God and the Saviour Jesus Christ…”

This echoes Paul’s words in Phi. 3 – 9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of mine own, even that which is of the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith…

and Romans 3:

21 But now apart from the law a righteousness of God hath been manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ unto all them that believe; for there is no distinction; 23 for all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God; 24 being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:25 whom God set forth to be a propitiation, through faith, in his blood, to show his righteousness because of the passing over of the sins done aforetime, in the forbearance of God; 26 for the showing, I say, of his righteousness at this present season: that he might himself be just, and the justifier of him that hath faith in Jesus. 27 Where then is the glorying? It is excluded. By what manner of law? of works? Nay: but by a law of faith. 28 We reckon therefore that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.;

[Note that Paul makes a distinction between law and works, so as to exclude any kind of works belonging to us when it comes to our justification, even our salvation. "Where then is the glorying? It is excluded." This is supported by  Eph. 2:8-9, for by grace have ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not of works, that no man should glory.]

This understanding, that man is justified by faith apart works is easily understood as the same with which Peter is writing as he opens his epistle. The admonitions to godly living that follow have the same thrust one finds elsewhere. We are saved by the righteousness of God that comes by faith for the very purpose of righteousness as evidenced by godly living, i.e. the fruit of the Spirit that Peter mentions. Being justified through faith alone doesn’t render these admonitions empty. Rather, because we are still sinners we need the Word of God in the imperative to convict us, sober us and direct us, that through faith and repentance we might more earnestly cling to Christ only, who died for our sins (being aware of how far we continually fall short) that we might live more faithfully unto God.

9 For he that lacketh these things is blind, seeing only what is near, having forgotten the cleansing from his old sins. 10 Wherefore, brethren, give the more diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never stumble:

As to “the blind”… these can be understood as the hypocrites, those who outwardly profess, but inwardly have no true faith in Christ. They have forgotten the cleansing of sin promised in their baptism in that their repentance wasn’t accompanied by faith. And Peter’s warning, if heeded, might yet result yet in true faith for these.

And overall, by attending to the things Peter admonishes, a believer will be all the more sure of God’s gracious call and election, not as an additional cause securing that salvation, but evidence affirming God’s gratuitous and free mercy, by the working of the Holy Spirit, through faith.

Calvin on 2 Peter 1

Jason Stellman, recent convert to Roman Catholicism, commented the following thoughts for discussion at Green Baggins on 2 Peter 1:3-11:

1. The whole discussion about fruitfulness and its resulting entrance into the eternal kingdom is rooted in the believer’s participation in the divine nature, which coincides perfectly with Jesus’ emphasis on union (“I in them, them in me”), as well as Paul’s (“in Christ”) and John’s (“abide in him”). Union rather than imputation seems to be the consistent emphasis on the part of the NT writers.

2. Faith alone, for Peter, is not enough for entering the eternal kingdom. It must be “added to” or “supplemented” with other spiritual fruits, the final of which is “love.” This is what James argues more directly when he says that “faith alone” justified neither Abraham nor Rahab, but “faith was active along with their works” (and in that context he cites familiar “loving your neighbor fulfills the law” refrain). It’s not hard to see the connection between this and “faith working through love.”

3. If these qualities are in us, we are “fruitful,” but if they are lacking, we are not just unfruitful Christians, but “blind.”

4. By reminding his readers that they had “escaped the corruption that is in the world” and were “cleansed from their former sins,” Peter seems to be saying (1) that such could be the case for people who fail to “enter the eternal kingdom,” and (2) that it was their “former sins” from which they were cleansed, and not all their sins, past, present, and future.

5. At the end, Peter ties together very explicitly the “practicing of these qualities” on the one hand, and “gaining an entrance into the eternal kingdom” on the other.

In response, John Calvin weighs in via his Commentary on the 2 Peter passage:

It may, however, be here asked, whether Peter, by assigning to us the work of supplying or adding virtue, thus far extolled the strength and power of free-will? They who seek to establish free-will in man, indeed concede to God the first place, that is, that he begins to act or work in us; but they imagine that we at the same time co-operate, and that it is thus owing to us that the movements of God are not rendered void and inefficacious.

But the perpetual doctrine of Scripture is opposed to this delirious notion: for it plainly testifies, that right feelings are formed in us by God, and are rendered by him effectual. It testifies also that all our progress and perseverance are from God. Besides, it expressly declares that wisdom, love, patience, are the gifts of God and the Spirit.

When, therefore, the Apostle requires these things, he by no means asserts that they are in our power, but only shews what we ought to have, and what ought to be done. And as to the godly, when conscious of their own infirmity, they find themselves deficient in their duty, nothing remains for them but to flee to God for aid and help....

But he that lacketh these things. He now expresses more clearly that they who profess a naked faith are wholly without any true knowledge. He then says that they go astray like the blind in darkness, because they do not see the right way which is shewn to us by the light of the gospel.  This he also confirms by adding this reason, because such have forgotten that through the benefit of Christ they had been cleansed from sin, and yet this is the beginning of our Christianity. It then follows, that those who do not strive for a pure and holy life, do not understand even the first rudiments of faith.

But Peter takes this for granted, that they who were still rolling in the filth of the flesh had forgotten their own purgation. For the blood of Christ has not become a washing bath to us, that it may be fouled by our filth. He, therefore, calls them old sins, by which he means, that our life ought to be otherwise formed, because we have been cleansed from our sins; not that any one can be pure from every sin while he lives in this world, or that the cleansing we obtain through Christ consists of pardon only, but that we ought to differ from the unbelieving, as God has separated us for himself. Though, then, we daily sin, and God daily forgives us, and the blood of Christ cleanses us from our sins, yet sin ought not to rule in us, but the sanctification of the Spirit ought to prevail in us; for so Paul teaches us in 1 Corinthians 6:11, "And such were some of you; but ye are washed," etc...

Now a question arises, Whether the stability of our calling and election depends on good works, for if it be so, it follows that it depends on us. But the whole Scripture teaches us, first, that God's election is founded on his eternal purpose; and secondly, that calling begins and is completed through his gratuitous goodness. The Sophists, in order to transfer what is peculiar to God's grace to ourselves, usually pervert this evidence. But their evasions may be easily refuted. For if any one thinks that calling is rendered sure by men, there is nothing absurd in that; we may however, go still farther, that every one confirms his calling by leading a holy and pious life. But it is very foolish to infer from this what the Sophists contend for; for this is a proof not taken from the cause, but on the contrary from the sign or the effect.

Moreover, this does not prevent election from being gratuitous, nor does it shew that it is in our own hand or power to confirm election. For the matter stands thus, -- God effectually calls whom he has preordained to life in his secret counsel before the   foundation of the world; and he also carries on the perpetual course of calling through grace alone. But as he has chosen us, and calls us for this end, that we may be pure and spotless in his presence; purity of life is not improperly called the evidence and proof of election, by which the faithful may not only testify to others that they are the children of God, but also confirm themselves in this confidence, in such a manner, however, that they fix their solid foundation on something else.

At the same time, this certainty, mentioned by Peter, ought, I think, to be referred to the conscience, as though the faithful acknowledged themselves before God to be chosen and called. But I take it simply of the fact itself, that calling appears as confirmed by this very holiness of life. It may, indeed, be rendered, Labor that your calling may become certain; for the verb poieisthai is transitive or intransitive. Still, however you may render it, the meaning is nearly   the same.  The import of what is said is, that the children of God are distinguished from the reprobate by this mark, that they live a godly   and a holy life, because this is the design and end of election.

Hence it is evident how wickedly some vile unprincipled men prattle, when they seek to make gratuitous election an excuse for all licentiousness; as though, forsooth! we may sin with impunity, because we have been predestinated to righteousness and holiness!  For if ye do these things. Peter seems again to ascribe to the merits of works, that God furthers our salvation, and also that we continually persevere in his grace. But the explanation is obvious; for his purpose was only to shew that hypocrites have in them nothing real or solid, and that, on the contrary, they who prove their calling sure by good works, are free from the danger of falling, because sure and sufficient is the grace of God by which they are supported.

Thus the certainty of our salvation by no means depends on us, as doubtless the cause of it is beyond our limits. But with regard to those who feel in themselves   the efficacious working of the Spirit, Peter bids them to take courage as to the future, because the Lord has laid in them the solid foundation of a true and sure calling.  He explains the way or means of persevering, when he says, an entrance shall be ministered to you. The import of the words is this: "God, by ever supplying you abundantly with new graces, will lead you to his own   kingdom." And this was added, that we may know, that though we have already passed from death into life, yet it is a passage of hope; and   as to the fruition of life, there remains for us yet a long journey. In the meantime we are not destitute of necessary helps. Hence Peter obviates a doubt by these words, "The Lord will abundantly supply your need, until you shall enter into his eternal kingdom." He calls it the kingdom of Christ, because we cannot ascend to heaven except under his banner and guidance.

Our hope of Righteousness...

For we through the Spirit by faith wait for the hope of righteousness. (Gal. 5:5)

The way I understand it, the Roman Catholic (and all too many Christians) isn't so much as waiting for the hope of righteousness as cooperating with grace in order to progress to the final goal of attaining complete righteousness, hoping that he'll make it!

Whereas Paul is saying that, being justified by faith, we are now cleansed of our sins and clothed or covered with Christ’s perfect righteousness, which covering we receive and possess through faith in Him. I still sin and will continue to sin until the day I die. Yet by faith I stand secure before the throne of grace because Jesus my Advocate and Priest mediates my sin before that throne by His perfect sacrifice and merit. Why the hope? That with the resurrection of the body, on that day when I see Him as He is, I shall be made like Him, i.e. confirmed in a righteousness which He purchased with His own blood.

Doxology:

And they sing a new song, saying, Worthy art thou to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou was slain, and didst purchase unto God with thy blood men of every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation, and madest them to be unto our God a kingdom and priests… (Rev. 5:9-10)

A righteousness found in Christ...

In light of the debate regarding the competing views of the believer's righteousness as presented by Roman Catholics and Protestants, I wanted to highlight two sentences from comment #139, at Green Baggins, by Jeff Cagle who is responding to Jason Stellman.  Rome teaches an infused righteousness defined as agape in the believer.  Reformed Protestants teach a righteousness imputed to the believer in Christ Jesus.

From Jeff's comment:
-Our sins are forgiven on the basis of a righteousness that is not our own, but is had by being ‘in Christ’, by faith (Phil 3)... 
-It is ‘us in Christ’ and not ‘Christ in us’, that is the basis for our acceptance as God’s children. 

When it comes to understanding the argument for imputed righteousness against that of infused righteousness, the above sentences point to a crucial theme of Paul's summed up in the two words 'in Christ.'  That theme is found clearly Romans 6.  Here, it seems to me, Paul is strongly making the case that it is 'in Christ' that the believer receives the benefits of Christ's death and resurrection because His death is our death, His resurrection is our resurrection.  His penalty-paying is accounted to us.  We paid the penalty for sin in Christ.  His vindication/justification in His resurrection is our justification.

Several key phrases that Paul uses in the first part of chapter six of Romans:
- all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death
- buried with Him through baptism into death
- united with Him in the likeness of His death
- we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection
- our old man was crucified with Him 
- for he who has died is freed from sin.
- For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all

In those phrases, as well as others, imputation and substitution are interwoven into Paul's presentation of the good news of reconciliation to God of sinners in Christ Jesus.  Good news that the penalty for sin is paid in Christ... there is forgiveness of sins in Christ... and sinners are reckoned righteous through faith in Christ.

The righteousness that comes from God is not an infused-righteousness to be found within the believer, as if it were his own.  Rather it is the righteousness of Christ imputed to the believer, when by grace he is "found in Him, not having [his] own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith..." (Phil. 3:9).

- A couple added thoughts from an earlier post in 2010:

And although Christians, as recipients of a new heart and right-will through regeneration by the Holy Spirit, may by His grace exhibit the fruit of godliness on many occasions, yet never in this life do they own inherent godliness within themselves.

Godliness and salvation are in Christ alone, received and held through faith in Christ alone by God's efficacious work of grace in our hearts. No work of merit on our part secures them nor maintains them.

Of Judaizers and the Gospel, the beat goes on...

Solomon's words, "That which hath been is that which shall be; and that which hath been done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun" in Ecclesiastes 1 are no truer than when applied to the history of the Church and her battles against various false teachings and heresies. At the center of many, if not most, errant paths is the idea that fallen man, in order to be saved, must supply something of himself to supplement the atoning work of Jesus Christ. The first such challenge occurred almost right out of the gate with the Judaizers. These men taught that Jesus was the Savior.  Many had standing with the church in Jerusalem. They preached that Jesus died on the cross and that to be justified before God one must have faith and rely on grace. Yet there was more to their "gospel." And it is essentially that "more" which elevated man's own works to the level of co-worker with Christ in the sinner's justification before God.  Paul's verdict on that approach to salvation was unequivocal - I do not make void the grace of God: for if righteousness is through the law, then Christ died for nought (Gal. 2:21).
   
The Old Testament prophets warned Israel against this idea that salvation could come by any other means than the gratuitous mercy of God. Jesus confronted the Pharisees again and again on their presumed acceptance before God based, in part, on their own righteousness. And this issue was what the Reformation in the 16th century was all about. Rome preached the grace of God and faith in Christ. Yet over a number of centuries she had added to the pure gospel other requirements to be met and burdens to carry in order for one to merit justification.

And today, we see all too often God's people weighted down by this same subtle, yet toxic teaching: the seemingly irresistible tendency in the Church (whether Rome, Orthodox, or Protestant) to add man's works to Christ's as part of the merit of one's standing before God. It was this very doctrine of justification by faith apart from works that John Calvin called the hinge on which all true religion hangs.  And it is the continuing challenge to that gospel that J. Gresham Machen concisely addressed in his book, Christianity and Liberalism.  Regarding the Judaizers, he comments on their false teaching which the apostle Paul confronted in his letter to the church in Galatia.

They, believed, moreover, that faith in Christ was necessary to salvation.  But the trouble was, they also believed that something else was also necessary; they believed that what Christ had done needed to be pieced out by the believer's own effort to keep the Law...

Paul saw very clearly that the difference between the Judaizers and himself was the difference between a religion of merit and a religion of grace...

The difference which divided him from the Judaizers was no mere theological subtlety, but concerned the very heart and core of the religion of Christ.  "Just as I am without one plea, But that Thy blood was shed for me" - that is what Paul was contending for in Galatia; That hymn would never have been written if the Judaizers had won.  And without the thing which that hymn expresses there is no Christianity at all.  (Christianity and Liberalism, pp. 20-21)

Rome vs. Reformed, a debate re: justification...

The current debate between Rome and Reformed that I've been blogging about, of course, isn't a new thing.  And, that bit of news isn't new.  With that in mind, it can be helpful, though, and educational, to go back to earlier chapters in that argument in order to get a clearer picture of the issues that separate these two church traditions.  And looking back to the 16th century, at the center of the Reformation debate there was no greater dispute than the one over the doctrine of justification by faith alone, a subject that continues to roil the waters today.  Martin Luther called it the article upon which the Church stands and falls.  So what did Luther mean by "faith alone?"  One could look to him as well as others for that answer.  It was not only Luther, but other reformers:  Calvin, Cranmer, Ursinus, Bullinger, to name a few, who adopted the same basic phrase and exact same doctrine.

By 1563 the doctrine "justification by faith alone"  had been roundly rejected as heresy by Rome in the Council of Trent, its official response to the Protestant reforms.  Yet several years earlier a forerunner of this split (for the book click here) took place in an exchange of letters between Roman Catholic Cardinal Jacopo Sadoleto and reformer John Calvin.  Sadoleto wrote to the Genevan Christians in order to convince them to return to Rome.  The Genevans called on John Calvin, then in Strasbourg, to respond.  Both letters dealt with many doctrinal areas.  This debate is a good starting point for anyone considering the claims of Rome visa-vis the confessional doctrines of the Reformed tradition.  As a teaser, read the following excerpt of Sadoleto's and Calvin's correspondence concerning the path of justification.  Take note of the difference of how faith is defined by both men, how righteousness is obtained, and where the ultimate ground of a sinner's salvation lies:  Rome' paradigm of faith in Christ plus the grace-fortified works done by the sinner - contrasted with that of the Reformers - faith alone resting in Christ and His finished work alone, by God's grace alone.

Sadoleto:

If then, Christ was sent that we, by well-doing, may through Him, be accepted of God, and that we may be built up in Him unto good works; surely the faith which we have in God through Jesus Christ not only enjoins and commands us to confide in Christ but to confide, working or resolved to work well in Him.  For faith is a term of full and ample signification, and not only includes in it credulity and confidence, but also the hope and desire of obeying God, together with love, the head and mistress of all the virtues, as has been most clearly manifested to us in Christ, in which love the Holy spirit properly and peculiarly resides, or rather Himself is love, since God is love.  Wherefore, as without the Holy Spirit, so also without love, nought of ours is pleasing and acceptable to God.  When we say, the, that we can be saved by faith alone in God and Jesus Christ, we hold that in this very faith love is essentially comprehended as the chief and primary cause of our salvation...

... And if, at any time, overcome by frailty and inconstancy, we lapse into sin (would that this happened to us rarely at least, and not too often), we, however, rise again in the same faith of the Church; and by whatever expiations, penances, and satisfactions, she tells us that our sin is washed away, and we (always by the grace and mercy of God) restored to our former integrity, these methods of expiation and satisfaction we have recourse to and employ - trusting, when we do so, to find a place of mercy and pardon with God.

Calvin's response:

 You, in the first place, touch upon justification by faith, the first and keenest subject of controversy between us.  Is this a knotty and useless question?  Wherever the knowledge of it is taken away, the glory of Christ is extinguished, religion is abolished, the Church destroyed, and the hope of salvation utterly overthrown... you very maliciously stir up prejudice against us, alleging that by attributing everything to faith, we leave no room for works.

... I will briefly explain to you how we speak on this subject.

First, we bid a man begin by examining himself, and this not in a superficial and perfunctory manner, but to cite his conscience before the tribunal of God, and when sufficiently convinced of his iniquity, to reflect on the strictness of the sentence pronounced upon all sinners.  Thus confounded and amazed at his misery, he is prostrated and humbled before God; and, casting away all self-confidence, groans as if given up to final perdition.  Then we show that the only haven of safety is in the mercy of God, as manifested in Christ, in whom every part of our salvation is complete.  As all mankind are, in the sight of God, lost sinners, we hold that Christ is their only righteousness, since, by His obedience, He has wiped off our transgressions; by His sacrifice, appeased the divine anger; by His blood, washed away our sins; by His cross, borne our cure; and by His death, make satisfaction for us.  We maintain that in this way man is reconciled in Christ to God the Father, by no merit of his own, by no value of works, but by gratuitous mercy.  When we embrace Christ by faith, and come, as it were, into communion with Him, this we term, after the manner of Scripture, the righteousness of faith.

 ... But what notion, you ask, does the very term righteousness suggest to us if respect is not paid to good works?  I answer, if you would attend to the true meaning of the term justifying in Scripture,you would have no difficulty.  For it does not refer to a man's own righteousness, but to the mercy of God, which contrary to the sinner's deserts, accepts of a righteousness for him, and that by not imputing his unrighteousness.  Our righteousness, I say, is that which is described by Paul (2 Cor. 5:19) that God hath reconciled us to Himself in Jesus Christ.  The mode is afterwards subjoined - by not imputing sin.  He demonstrates that it is by faith only we become partakers of that blessing, when he says that the ministry of reconciliation is contained in the gospel.  But faith, you say, is a general term, and has a larger signification.  I answer that Paul, whenever he attributes to it the power of justifying, at the same time restricts it to a gratuitous promise of the divine favor, and keeps it far removed from all respect to works.  Hence his familiar inference - if by faith, then not by works.  On the other hand - if by works, then not by faith.

... We deny that good works have any share in justification, but we claim full authority for them in the lives of the righteous.  For if he who has obtained justification possesses Christ, and at the same time, Christ never is where His Spirit is not, it is obvious that gratuitous righteousness is necessarily connected with regeneration.  Therefore, if you would duly understand how inseparable faith and works are, look to Christ, who, as the Apostle teaches (1 Cor. 1:30) has been given to us for justification and for sanctification.  Wherever, therefore, that righteousness of faith, which we maintain to be gratuitous, is, there too Christ is, and where Christ is, there too is the Spirit of holiness, who regenerates the soul to newness of life.

The Church and the Mark of the Gospel...

Rembrandt's Two old men disputing, 1628. Peter and Paul

What is the appeal that draws someone from a Protestant church to join the Roman Catholic Church?  That question has been a hot topic in the blogosphere these past couple of months.  Of course, in attempting to answer that question one may fall into the role of armchair psychoanalyst. Nonetheless, let me plunge ahead, where all too many have already gone.

At a web site that majors in Roman Catholic Church conversion stories, former Protestant "A," now Roman Catholic, explains his decision to convert in a comment to current Protestant "B" and makes an appeal for "B" to consider making the move.

I know something else, in this case, because it is my experience but it seems a rather common experience for those of us leaving Protestantism in its various forms to become Catholic...

In my case, I found that the Catholic Church was true.  It was true in the areas where my old denomination was true, and it was true in the areas where my old denomination was false.  It was true in the areas of my life where I was false.  That is an indictment.  I was wrong and needed to be straightened out and neither my old denomination or myself were capable of providing that straightening.  It was beyond either of us to do that.

"Pick up your cross and follow Me" is what Jesus said.  Peter, speaking to Jesus, said, "You have the words of eternal life."

In my case, had I failed to act, I would have been condemned.  I was required to walk with our Lord, and not He with me.  I was required to act on the gift [the RCC?] He had given me.  I could not shirk that gift.  I had to count the cost, which I did, and then cost not withstanding, I made the move.  I haven't looked back.  I found the company that I had desired from the first.  I found the Authority and Leadership I was searching for (and it was not me).  In accepting this cross, I found my burden lightened.

If Jesus is standing at the door of your heart knocking, what will you do?  [emphasis added]

Another commented regarding his need to have one definitive answer from the Church regarding any number of doctrines:

Huh!? Isn't the Church supposed to tell me what to believe? Is the issue essential or not? Turns out I was wrong, and the Catholic Church does not see Paedo-communion as a big issue. They have both Paedo-communion and 'age of reason' communion. But I feel so relieved to finally at least have an answer! Being wrong doesn't bother me, I will conform my mind to the mind of the Church, but not knowing does bother me. Because if they leave it up to me to decide things, I will mess it up every time! Thank God for giving us a living Church to guide us!

Vivat Papa!

A bit disconcerting, but the above mindset can creep into the calculation of any believer.  It's a tendency to conflate the person and work of Jesus Christ with the visible expression of His body, the church, which eventually leads to elevating the church above Christ.  And this pitfall is not exclusive to any one church tradition.  How does this happen?  It's hard to say, but in a nutshell, it happens when the church and its traditions increase as the central focus and the centrality of Jesus Christ as revealed in the gospel recedes into the background.  As fallen human beings, we all-too-naturally direct our faith and trust towards that which is tangible and visible.  And an outward association with polished credentials can offer the promise of that elusive yet hard-to-beat satisfaction of certainty and predictability that we long for; at that point, a church becomes the answer.  We may find ourselves trying to vindicate and validate of our Christianity in ways which allow us to exclaim, "This is It!  I've arrived!  This is Home."  Being dependent creatures we must depend on something and we're more comfortable leaning on a visible kingdom than an invisible King (1 Sam. 8: 5-7).

Shouldn't the Church guide and teach true doctrine?  Indeed it should.  But the question (it keeps popping up throughout church history) to be answered is:  what is to be the distinguishing mark of the Church's teaching and truth?  What is it that the Church lifts up and proclaims?  The apostle Paul confronted this question again and again in the churches he planted.  To the Corinthians he wrote:

Seeing that Jews ask for signs, and Greeks seek after wisdom: but we preach Christ crucified, unto Jews a stumbling block, and unto Gentiles foolishness; but unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. (1 Cor. 1:22-24)

To the Galatians:

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned. For before that certain came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing them that were of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that even Barnabas was carried away with their dissimulation. (Gal. 2: 11-13)

And in his Colossian letter:

As therefore ye received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in him, rooted and builded up in him, and established in your faith, even as ye were taught, abounding in thanksgiving.  Take heed lest there shall be any one that maketh spoil of you through his philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ... (Col. 2:6-8)

These excerpts describe challenges common to Christians in all ages.  In Corinth there was a drift toward "needing" a sign (visible witness) to confirm God's Word and/or a wisdom that provided rationally appealing answers to philosopical questions raised. There's nothing inherently wrong with a sign or wisdom.   But many times Christians look to the visible church to be the sign ("see, here it is... here is the real deal!") of true Christianity; and as an institution to be, if not flawless, unified around one authoritative and wise teacher.  This led many of the Corinthians to gravitate to their best camp:  I am of Paul... I am of Cephas... I am of Apollos... and even, I am of Christ!  And very likely this factional attitude grew out their perceived need to identify with and be seen as belonging to the right outward expression of the church.

In Paul's confrontation with Peter, we see that same carnal pull to belong to the right group in the eyes of men.  Paul speaks of those being carried away with hypocrisy, to the extent that even Peter and Barnabas dissembled and segregated together with the Jews in order to be identified with James of Jerusalem (one could say - the lead bishop of the Christianity's Mother Church).  Likewise in Paul's letter to the Colossians, he warns against philosophies (religious duties, observances, etc.) and vain deceits that, being added to the gospel and thus changing it, would rise in importance and lead the believers away from Christ.

These warnings were and are needed, not just because there exist these accessories and alternatives to the gospel of Christ.  He warns because within believers, themselves, is the pull to possess something outward in order to find that security of certainty that only heaven can supply.  Too often we want Christ plus something visible and tangible to mediate Him and validate us!  And those additions to the gospel are what end up diminishing it and ultimately supplanting Christ.  In each of these three examples, that which was being adopted by believers, practically and philosophically, stood in opposition to the centrality and supremacy of the gospel of Christ in the Church.

For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake (2 Cor. 4:5) 

But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel... (Galatians2: 14a).

As therefore ye received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in him, rooted and builded up in him, and established in your faith, even as ye were taught, abounding in thanksgiving (Col.2: 6-7).

Paul counters the factional divisions and the supplemental philosophies not with an appeal to his authority, or a sign of his apostleship, or to his church.  But rather he appeals and points to the gospel of Christ.

I marvel that ye are so quickly removing from him that called you in the grace of Christ unto a different gospel; which is not another gospel only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach unto you any gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema (Gal. 1: 6-8). 

So what is the Church's distinguishing mark?  A philosophy?  An apostolic office?  A polity?  A teaching?  All questions of doctrine settled?  Rather than elevating any of these in order to prove that "This is the true church," what should be held above all is that pure testimony of the Church which proclaims clearly and unambiguously the gospel of Christ consistent with  the words found in Luke 9: 35-36a -

Then a voice came out of the cloud, saying, “ This is My Son, My Chosen One; listen to Him!” And when the voice had spoken, Jesus was found alone.

Of Popes, maps, and the Gospel...

From a Roman Catholic commenter at a web site that promotes the merits of Roman Catholicism as the one and only true church.  He wrote:

Thanks for the conversation. In recap, we were discussing... whether or not the Catholic, because they use their fallible judgment to find an infallible Church, are in the same boat as a Protestant. I said:

A. The Catholic Church is what she says she is [i.e. infallible], or

B. The Catholic Church is fallible, and therefore NOT what she says she is

If A, then I have an epistemic advantage listening to the Catholic Church. If B, then you and I are equals (epistemically) because the Catholic Church is just like a Protestant church: fallible.

So, either way, I’m better off being Catholic — it is epistemically preferable to choose to be Catholic — maybe not morally if she is not what she claims to be — but epistemically, it would. Analogy: If I could hire a tour guide and have a map, or just have a map, it would be epistemically preferable to have the tour guide also, if only as a possibility the tour guide new what the heck they were doing. In other words, all I need you to do is grant “A” is possible to make following the Catholic Church epistemically preferable. Given your inquiry into the Catholic Church, do you find A to be impossible?

Me:  There are a few problems, as I see it, with this line of reasoning. Both camps, Rome and Protestant, agree that Scripture, as given in the original tongues, is the infallible word of God. Rome, though, claims the Pope is the sole infallible interpreter of all doctrine in Scripture and teaching of the Church. In other words, by definition, whatever Rome teaches is correct and without error whether implicitly or explicitly taught in Scripture or not.

Addressing the the line of reasoning in the above scenario, let me change the "I" to "the Church."  Stick with me here...  If the Church accepts the Papal office as the infallible tour guide following the Pope's directions regardless of what the infallible map (Scripture) indicates, and if the Papal tour guide is in fact actually fallible, then the Church is worse off.  Off-hand, there are a couple reasons for this.  First, if there is a contradiction between the fallible tour guide (the Pope) and the infallible map (Scripture), then the Church, relying on this tour guide as the final authority, is destined at some point to go off course.  By definition he will make errors.  Yet there will never be a course correction by repudiating those Papal errors because the fallible guide is regarded as one who is infallible.  Course corrections don't compute.  Even if doctrinal error is taught it won't be caught because the tour guide can't make mistakes!  The infallible map is no longer part of the equation. 

On the other hand, even if the map isn't clear in certain places, the Church, if relying humbly on the infallible map, can move with caution and even readjust its course if necessary.  Through the study of the map, the Church can recheck its navigational calculations and acknowledge when it veers off into a wrong direction.  The map as the Church's ultimate and final authority is its guide.  This approach is summed up in the Reformed Churches' refrain "reformed and always reforming according to the Word of God."  There are no guarantees in either approach. Yet once errors have occurred in the Roman system, there are no course corrections or acknowledgement of error.  Why not?  By definition they don't need adjustments.  Their bedrock tenet of truth holds that their final authority, the tour guide, is infallible.  I suppose there can be certain changes and modifications, but never repudiation of error followed by a subsequent course change. Once an erroneous course is taken, the map is no longer referred to as far as changing course.  If they did do that, it would undermine the ground upon which Rome stands:  the Papal office.  "We're going in the right direction, led by our infallible tour guide!"

Lastly, since Scripture is not a road map, the above analogy is somewhat flawed or at least incomplete.  The Bible is not a manual or map to direct every step the Church takes.  Scripture's purpose is to communicate the Gospel of Christ by which sinful humans are saved.  That glorious good news is presented clearly in the words of Scripture and received by all whom are given eyes to see and ears to hear.  Is everything in Scripture equally clear?  No, but what is necessary for salvation is clear.  Can the Church, as a whole or in its various branches, confuse and obscure that salvation message?  Yes, she can and has.  This was at the heart of the reason why reforms were offered, vis-a-vis Rome, by the likes of Luther and Calvin; reforms which Rome emphatically rejected and still does (She's infallible).  The Reformers called for course adjustments in order remove errors which for centuries clouded the path by which sinful man could be reconciled to a holy God according to God's Word.  They wanted to make known and declare in the Church, clearly once again, the Good News of God's salvation of sinners which comes by His grace alone, as sinners trust alone in the finished work of Jesus Christ in His death and resurrection.  This is the purpose of the so-called map and it is the calling of the Church. to stand upon this gospel and proclaim.  And the Church, by standing upon the ground of this clear Gospel - that this Man Jesus is indeed the Christ, the Son of the living God - ensures that the gates of hades shall not prevail against it.