(If you haven't read them yet, go back and read the first and second installments of this series of essays.)Having considered historical arguments, we turn now to arguments from scripture. Like the historical arguments, though, we will see that the evidence called upon is ambiguous at best.
Most denominations will appeal to a broad alignment with the general shape of New Testament church practices, in effect arguing, "Our practice aligns closest to what the Bible portrays, and therefore we're the one true church." This is essentially the argument put forward by any Reformation or Restorationist churches that make the claim, and one could say that the Orthodox also fall into this camp at times. While the Orthodox tend to lean more heavily on the historical argument (as their current promotional shtick puts it, "We are the church founded by Jesus Christ...we are not non-denominational, we are pre-denominational"), they would draw on biblical arguments to distinguish themselves from Protestants on issues like church hierarchy. They would point out, for instance, that three distinct offices are mentioned in the New Testament, exactly matching the tripartite division of clerical orders which apostolic churches have always held: bishops, priests, and deacons.
This argument is a good case study for us, because it illustrates the problems involved in making biblical arguments for these denominational positions. While it is true that bishops (overseers), priests (presbyters/elders), and deacons are all mentioned as church offices in the New Testament, it's not entirely clear that it was held as a standard tripartite hierarchy in the New Testament period. There are places in scripture where there appears to be no distinction between bishops and priests; the terms are used interchangeably. In 1 Timothy 3, Paul lays out church offices by addressing only two: bishops and deacons. Then in Titus 1, Paul brings up priests (presbyters/elders) in a similar fashion, but quickly switches terms to bishops (overseers), in a way that plausibly suggests he is still describing the same office. In short, it can be argued that Paul only envisioned two roles, with one of them (bishop/priest) simply described in two different terms, as both an overseer and an elder, much as one might call the same person both a pastor and a minister. While a uniform hierarchical structure of church offices clearly emerged in early Christianity, some historians have argued that in some places, bishops and priests were simply two different terms (or roles) applied to the same people until at least midway through the second century. In short, one can look at the New Testament evidence and faithfully interpret it as upholding a hierarchical model (bishop-priest-deacon), a free-church evangelical model (a pastor as overseer/elder, assisted by deacons), or a Reformed model (multiple elders led by a pastoral overseer, and assisted by deacons). The biblical evidence simply is not clear enough to make a "case closed" argument for church offices one way or the other.
A similar ambiguity arises in almost any biblical argument that centers on the doctrinal distinctives of various denominations. The question of infant baptism? The biblical evidence is mostly absent, but just nebulous enough to allow for the possibility. What about transubstantiation? Maybe, or maybe not, all depending on how one interprets the symbology of Jesus's statements, which can legitimately be read either way (yes, even when the flesh/blood passages from John 6 are brought into view, because there Jesus follows his very physical, visceral statements by saying, "the flesh counts for nothing," v.63). What about the reverence and honor due to Mary? The positive way she is addressed in most of the gospel accounts makes it possible to consider an ongoing role for Marian reverence in Christian devotion, but any sign of such devotion is almost entirely absent from the rest of the New Testament. In all of these instances, the evidence is simply so unclear that reasonable people will have room to disagree. Can you make a case for all of these positions from scriptural texts? Sure. Can you make a case against them? Again, sure. That's why the disagreements still persist, despite each denomination knowing their Bible just as well as the other denominations do.
Roman Catholics have one more biblical argument they draw on to make their case, one that does not apply to any other church's argument: Jesus's commendation of Peter in Matthew 16:16-19. Here's the text:
Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (ESV)
The Roman Catholic interpretation of this passage is pretty straightforward: Jesus gives ultimate authority in the church to Peter, and since Peter is the apostolic founder of Rome, whose bishops are his successors, the Roman Catholic pope still retains this authority today. We've already seen that the historical argument which underlies this position is based on incomplete evidence. Further, interpreting the passage in this way makes a lot of assumptions that readers import into the text: namely that the pope of Rome is the intended and only successor to Peter, and that the authority given to Peter here is passed down to those who come after him (which Jesus never actually says).
It's worth taking a look at the evangelical and Orthodox views of this passage, just to see some of the legitimate ambiguity in its interpretation. From the evangelical side, many will point out that the context matters: Jesus is not just commending Peter out of the blue; he is commending Peter's confession of faith. The passage can be read as Jesus's assertion that the content of that confession--the identity of Jesus as God's Son and Messiah--is the foundation upon which the church rests, and that Peter is given his new name in recognition of that confession. Evangelicals will point out that the text may hint in this direction by using slightly different words for Peter (petros) and rock (petra). As the first person in the believing community to make this confession, Jesus says that Peter is being given the keys of the kingdom of heaven. It is possible to read this not as a permanent transfer of authority to Peter personally, but rather just as a statement of what happens when someone makes a confession of the true faith--they gain access to the kingdom of heaven; Peter just happens to be the first in that position during Jesus's ministry, so this is when it comes up in the story. The curious phrase about "binding" and "loosing" is potentially a reference to rabbinic language used about the interpretation and application of God's law, and again, this could apply just as easily to any believer (if that is the ultimate recipient of these blessings) as to Peter. Further, if the phrase does refer to interpretation of scripture, a parallel passage from Matthew seems to apply such powers to a fairly broad group ("every scribe who has been trained for the kingdom of heaven," Matt. 13:52). Another reason for suspecting that the "binding" and "loosing" powers may not apply solely to Peter is that Jesus says a very similar thing (in regard to forgiving sins) to all the disciples who are gathered together at his resurrection appearance in Jerusalem, not just to Peter (John 20:23).
In the Orthodox interpretation, they are less concerned than evangelicals with invalidating a personal application to Peter's authority. Instead, they point out the unproven assumptions of the Roman Catholic argument. The Orthodox are generally willing to say, "Yes, this is Jesus committing authority to Peter to establish the church and to set its authoritative form and function. And he did just that--forming the Jerusalem believers into the church, as related in the book of Acts." They do not presume that Jesus intended for Peter's commendation to be passed down in a succession of authority through the ages, but rather that this was a prophecy of Peter's function after Pentecost, and that that function was fulfilled just as Jesus said. If there is any continual transfer of authority to successors, the Orthodox would view it as a statement of the authority handed down to all bishops. This is no less plausible than the Roman Catholic view of the passage, considering that there is no mention of any of these things in what Jesus says--not succession, not Rome, and not bishops. It's all an argument from silence, which must be arbitrated by historical evidence, and as we've seen, the historical evidence is hardly conclusive.
All that to say, if we're pinning our hopes on finding the one true church through biblical arguments alone, we're likely to be disappointed. Scripture is very clear about a lot of things, but when it comes to the points of contention between denominations, the textual evidence is generally insufficient to be independently decisive. That's essentially why there are multiple denominations, after all--because the text allows for a variety of readings. Some churches try to fix this problem by appealing to their exclusive authority to interpret scripture rightly, and maybe that's so--but for an outsider, their very claim to exclusive interpretation appears to be built on nothing but their own assertion, since neither the biblical evidence nor the historical evidence makes a strong case for it.
So what are we left with? Well, there's still the experiential argument, which we'll take a look at next time. If there is one true church, wouldn't one expect it to be suffused with the power of God? Maybe the record of miracles and wonders will tip the scales one way or the other.
