The Issue of Infallibility

[abacabb3]

A writer on my blog caused be to wonder about how we understand the infallibility of the Church:

Irenaeus writes emphatically that an 50-year-old-Jesus is a tradition passed on by the elders, it is found in John 8, and it is essential for a proper understanding of the atonement. You would think it would be a settled issue, right? Apparently not. We trust modern chronology more than Irenaeus.

So, most say we are reading Irenaeus wrong on this point (we aren’t) are that Irenaeus was mistaken as to what the tradition of the Elders was. The former is problematic simply because it is untenable. The latter is problematic because it calls into question which extra-Biblical traditions are known with certainty.

Converting to Orthodoxy, I know the following is not the epistemology they ascribe to but it is one in my own estimation makes the most sense with the evidence which is as follows: The Scriptures are inerrant and infallible in specifics. The Church is infallible in only the broadest sense. There are infallible particulars that are indeed Apostolic within the Church (i.e. the Scriptures are a product of the Church, the belief in the Trinity as elucidated by the Church, certain oral traditions like praying towards the East), but then there is a lot of fallible stuff mixed in too (we have Bishops that reject aerial tollhouses calling them heresy, we have had Arian bishops, etcetera.) So, we already concede that there are chinks in the Church’s infallibility when we dwell on particulars, but the gates of Hell will not prevail against His Church. So, in that sense, the Church as a whole will never fall, She is infallible. However, in bits and pieces there will be peaks and valleys.

What does everyone say here?

 

[Radrook]

When faced with the choice between traditions and what the scriptures tell us we are told to choose the scriptures:

Mark 7:
7They worship Me in vain; they teach as doctrine the precepts of men.’ 8You have disregarded the commandment of God to keep the tradition of men.” 9He went on to say, “You neatly set aside the commandment of God to maintain your own tradition

 

[ArmyMatt]

A writer on my blog caused be to wonder about how we understand the infallibility of the Church:

Irenaeus writes emphatically that an 50-year-old-Jesus is a tradition passed on by the elders, it is found in John 8, and it is essential for a proper understanding of the atonement. You would think it would be a settled issue, right? Apparently not. We trust modern chronology more than Irenaeus.

So, most say we are reading Irenaeus wrong on this point (we aren’t) are that Irenaeus was mistaken as to what the tradition of the Elders was. The former is problematic simply because it is untenable. The latter is problematic because it calls into question which extra-Biblical traditions are known with certainty.

Converting to Orthodoxy, I know the following is not the epistemology they ascribe to but it is one in my own estimation makes the most sense with the evidence which is as follows: The Scriptures are inerrant and infallible in specifics. The Church is infallible in only the broadest sense. There are infallible particulars that are indeed Apostolic within the Church (i.e. the Scriptures are a product of the Church, the belief in the Trinity as elucidated by the Church, certain oral traditions like praying towards the East), but then there is a lot of fallible stuff mixed in too (we have Bishops that reject aerial tollhouses calling them heresy, we have had Arian bishops, etcetera.) So, we already concede that there are chinks in the Church’s infallibility when we dwell on particulars, but the gates of Hell will not prevail against His Church. So, in that sense, the Church as a whole will never fall, She is infallible. However, in bits and pieces there will be peaks and valleys.

What does everyone say here?

it's the consensus from the beginning.

 

[ArmyMatt]

When faced with the choice between traditions and what the scriptures tell us we are told to choose the scriptures:

there is a difference between Holy tradition which Paul commands us to keep, and the tradition of men

 

[Radrook]

there is a difference between Holy tradition which Paul commands us to keep, and the tradition of men

When a tradition blatantly contradicts scripture-then obviously it can't be considered holy.

 

[ArmyMatt]

When a tradition blatantly contradicts scripture-then obviously it can't be considered holy.

I agree, holy tradition does not, only the traditions of men do.

 

[~Anastasia~]

When a tradition blatantly contradicts scripture-then obviously it can't be considered holy.

Forgive me, my brother, but I'm afraid you aren't understanding what Holy Tradition really means. There cannot be a contradiction .... Actually if something contradicted Holy Tradition, it never would have made it into Scripture. Holy Tradition shaped the Bible, in that it allowed them to recognize the writings that would become New Testament Scripture.

There can be no comparison or contradiction with Holy Tradition.

The traditions of men are a different matter.

 

[~Anastasia~]

A writer on my blog caused be to wonder about how we understand the infallibility of the Church:

Irenaeus writes emphatically that an 50-year-old-Jesus is a tradition passed on by the elders, it is found in John 8, and it is essential for a proper understanding of the atonement. You would think it would be a settled issue, right? Apparently not. We trust modern chronology more than Irenaeus.

So, most say we are reading Irenaeus wrong on this point (we aren’t) are that Irenaeus was mistaken as to what the tradition of the Elders was. The former is problematic simply because it is untenable. The latter is problematic because it calls into question which extra-Biblical traditions are known with certainty.

Converting to Orthodoxy, I know the following is not the epistemology they ascribe to but it is one in my own estimation makes the most sense with the evidence which is as follows: The Scriptures are inerrant and infallible in specifics. The Church is infallible in only the broadest sense. There are infallible particulars that are indeed Apostolic within the Church (i.e. the Scriptures are a product of the Church, the belief in the Trinity as elucidated by the Church, certain oral traditions like praying towards the East), but then there is a lot of fallible stuff mixed in too (we have Bishops that reject aerial tollhouses calling them heresy, we have had Arian bishops, etcetera.) So, we already concede that there are chinks in the Church’s infallibility when we dwell on particulars, but the gates of Hell will not prevail against His Church. So, in that sense, the Church as a whole will never fall, She is infallible. However, in bits and pieces there will be peaks and valleys.

What does everyone say here?

This shouldn't detract from the OP though. You ask good questions.

Unfortunately I can't address the specific issue of the age of Christ. It's possible I've certainly missed a swath of teaching, but we are not concerned when an individual goes against the broader understanding in any particular. It is the consensus that matters. Anyone can be mistaken, even a Saint. We don't judge them for that, but we also don't consider anyone as being infallible, so we are not surprised that some person, Saint, ECF, or teacher is wrong on this point or that. Rather, we look to the consensus, and what truth "won out" in some cases, to know what is true.

The CHURCH is preserved, and is led into truth. But individuals can always be potentially wrong. This is one reason we don't have the theology attached to any pope, such as Catholics have.

 

[buzuxi02]

Irenaeou's

Irenaeus writes emphatically that an 50-year-old-Jesus is a tradition passed on by the elders, it is found in John 8, and it is essential for a proper understanding of the atonement. You would think it would be a settled issue, right? Apparently not. We trust modern chronology more than Irenaeus.

Irenaeus didnt mean to imply he was literally reaching 50, "not yet 50". He was just saying he reached the 'age of master' at 30 when it is more attained at 50 years of age (adv haer bk 2. ch 22.5) Irenaeus placed Christ's birth in the 41st year of Augustus rule which equates to 3-2 B.C. He then counts 3 Passovers from the start of his ministry at 30 years of age:

3. But it is greatly to be wondered at, how it has come to pass that, while affirming that they have found out the mysteries of God, they have not examined the Gospels to ascertain how often after His baptism the Lord went up, at the time of the passover, to Jerusalem, in accordance with what was the practice of the Jews from every land, and every year, that they should assemble at this period in Jerusalem, and there celebrate the feast of the passover..... He there ate the passover, and suffered on the day following. Now, that these three occasions of the passover are not included within one year, every person whatever must acknowledge. And that the special month in which the passover was celebrated, and in which also the Lord suffered, was not the twelfth, but the first, those men who boast that they know all things, if they know not this, may learn it from Moses. Their explanation, therefore, both of the year and of the twelfth month has been proved false, and they ought to reject either their explanation or the Gospel; otherwise [this unanswerable question forces itself upon them], How is it possible that the Lord preached for one year only? (Against heresies BK2 Ch 22.3)

Irenaeus was explaining that the phrase, "to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord', which the heretics found as evidence for their heresy (they interpeting it to be Jesus 30th year), preaching and dying as a young man. Irenaeus was explaining that it signified the Jubilee year or the 50th year (v. 5). Thus Christ already reached the full age of master at 30 years of age and was viewed to be more mature than what his age indicated, something these heretics denied. The heretics required a young man to die before the age of 31 due to the 12 aeons (he must die in the 12 month of his first year of preaching ). Irenaeus just meant he was mature beyond his years something the heretics denied:

4. Being thirty years old when He came to be baptized, and then possessing the full age of a Master, He came to Jerusalem, so that He might be properly acknowledged by all as a Master. For He did not seem one thing while He was another, as those affirm who describe Him as being man only in appearance; but what He was, that He also appeared to be . Being a Master, therefore, He also possessed the age of a Master,...

ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

 

[buzuxi02]

A writer on my blog caused be to wonder about how we understand the infallibility of the Church:

Irenaeus writes emphatically that an 50-year-old-Jesus is a tradition passed on by the elders, it is found in John 8, and it is essential for a proper understanding of the atonement. You would think it would be a settled issue, right? Apparently not. We trust modern chronology more than Irenaeus.

So, most say we are reading Irenaeus wrong on this point (we aren’t) are that Irenaeus was mistaken as to what the tradition of the Elders was. The former is problematic.

What does everyone say here?

I just want to add we don't necessarily go with modern chronology. For example we still hold that Jesus was about 33 years of age when he was crucified. Modern chronology would place him close to 38 assuming Herod died in 4 bc and killed all male infants 2 years and under.
The problem with Irenaeus is his work comes down to us only from Latin sources not the original. There is evidence of slight tampering with his work. For example the Latin's use Irenaeus to prove papal supremacy based on a corrupt translation. Fortunately we know what Irenaeus meant and what he was thinking.
In the canons of Trullo held in 692 AD the Didascalia of the Apostles had to be censured because of corruptions and interpolations.
I'm at work now but if I have time later I will PROVE that Irenaeus knew his chronology and that some group or individual attempted to "fudge" certain things in his writings to make it look as he didnt. If you read the entirety of chapter 22 he makes clear that the first passover of Christ's ministry took place shortly after the wedding feast at Cana and the second and third were the next two successive passovers, Christ dying on the third. It's the final paragraph of ch. 22 that gets fuzzy.

 

[buzuxi02]

In one of Irenaeus writing found in an armenian manuscript it says that Pilate was governor under Claudius Caesar while King Herod was reigning. Was Irenaeus assuming that Christ was about 45 years old (Agrippa ruled from 41-44 and Claudius began his reign in 41ad) when he was crucified? Did Irenaeus who knew the gospel of Luke very well mistake the Antipas Herod of Luke for Agrippa Herod? Or was this some heretical scribe who wrote in Claudius name removing Tiberius? This is what is wrote:

74. For Herod the king of the Jews and Pontius Pilate, the governor of Claudius Caesar, came together and condemned Him to be crucified. For Herod feared, as though [Jesus] were to be an earthly king, lest he should be expelled by Him from the kingdom. But Pilate was constrained by Herod and the Jews that were with him against his will to deliver Him to death: (for they threatened him) if he should not rather do this than act contrary to Caesar, by letting go a man who was called a king...

...77.Again He says in the Twelve Prophets: And they bound him and brought him as a present to the king. For Pontius Pilate was governor of Judaea, and he had at that time resentful enmity against Herod the king of the Jews. But then, when Christ was brought to him bound, Pilate sent Him to Herod, giving command to enquire of him, that he might know of a certainty what he should desire concerning Him; making Christ a convenient occasion of reconciliation with the king (Luke 23:6-12) ....96... which is Jesus Christ the Son of God, to which also the demons are subject and evil spirits and all apostate energies, by the invocation of the name of Jesus Christ, crucified under Pontius Pilate. Irenaeus, The Proof of the Apostolic Preaching (1920) pp. 69-151.

The above writing of Irenaeus, 'Proof of the Apostolic Preaching' relied heavily on Justin Martyr. The OT reference: "and they bound him and brought him as a present to the king'; (Hosea 10:6) is an ancient tradition of the Church which fulfills the prophecy of Hosea 10:6 concerning Herod and Pilates dealing with Christ in LUke 23:6 This is how Justin Martyr describes this in his Dialogues with Trypho:

‘They opened their mouth upon me like a roaring lion,’

251​

designates him who was then king of the Jews, and was called Herod, a successor of the Herod who, when Christ was born, slew all the infants in Bethlehem born about the same time, because he imagined that amongst them He would assuredly be of whom the Magi from Arabia had spoken; for he was ignorant of the will of Him that is stronger than all, how He had commanded Joseph and Mary to take the Child and depart into Egypt, and there to remain until a revelation should again be made to them to return into their own country. And there they did remain until Herod, who slew the infants in Bethlehem, was dead, and Archelaus had succeeded him. And he died before Christ came to the dispensation on the cross which was given Him by His Father. And when Herod succeeded Archelaus, having received the authority which had been allotted to him, Pilate sent to him by way of compliment Jesus bound; and God foreknowing that this would happen, had thus spoken: ‘And they brought Him to the Assyrian, a present to the king.’ (Dialogue 103.4) ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus - Christian Classics Ethereal Library (this interpetation of hosea 6 is also given by Cyril of Jerusalem in his Catachesis 13.14)

So the source Irenaeus is relying on clearly spells out which Herod this is. The one that succeeded Archelaus which was Antipater. But regardless Irenaeus already knows his chronology and someone inserted Claudius for Tiberius. When he scolds the Marcionites for emphasising Luke 3.23 about Christ's baptism while rejecting Jesus lineage in that same chapter he uses similar language:

. Marcion of Pontus succeeded him, and developed his doctrine. In so doing, he advanced the most daring blasphemy against Him who is proclaimed as God by the law and the prophets, declaring Him to be the author of evils, to take delight in war, to be infirm of purpose, and even to be contrary to Himself. But Jesus being derived from that father who is above the God that made the world..and coming into Judæa in the times of Pontius Pilate the governor, who was the procurator of Tiberius Cæsar, was manifested in the form of a man to those who were in Judæa, abolishing the prophets and the law, and all the works of that God who made the world, whom also he calls Cosmocrator. Besides this, he mutilates the Gospel which is according to Luke, removing all that is written respecting the generation of the Lord, and setting aside a great deal of the teaching of the Lord...(Against heresies bk1 ch 27.2)

 

[Radrook]

The Apostle Peter who is claimed to have been the first pope was clearly not infallible since his theological mistakes are clearly described in the book of Acts and admitted by Peter himself. One serious mistake involved his refusal to preach to gentiles. God admonished him about it in a dream where the gentiles were represented by things which were prohibited under Law to be eaten and were served to him to consume.

Acts 10: 14“No, Lord!” Peter answered, “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.” 15The voice spoke to him a second time: “Do not call anything impure” that God has made clean. 16This happened three times, and all at once the sheet was taken back up into heaven.…

Another was his insistence that Christians be circumcised as prescribed by the Mosaic Law . The Apostle Paul admonished him for it:

Galatians 2:14
When I saw that they were not walking in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, "If you, who are a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?

During his ministry alongside Jesus, he advised him not to go to Jerusalem and die. For this Jesus referred to him as Satan.

Matthew 16
…22Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him. “Far be it from You, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to You!” 23But Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me. For you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.”

 

[abacabb3]

I'm at work now but if I have time later I will PROVE that Irenaeus knew his chronology and that some group or individual attempted to "fudge" certain things in his writings to make it look as he didnt. If you read the entirety of chapter 22 he makes clear that the first passover of Christ's ministry took place shortly after the wedding feast at Cana and the second and third were the next two successive passovers, Christ dying on the third. It's the final paragraph of ch. 22 that gets fuzzy.

Sorry, but this is incorrect. Irenaeus is very specific:

from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed (Par 5).

“You are not yet forty years old.” For those who wished to convict Him of falsehood would certainly not extend the number of His years far beyond the age which they saw He had attained; but they mentioned a period near His real age (Par 6).

Plus, Irenaeus gives the year if Christ's birth and death (though, if this is a manuscript error this may undo my point):

In Against Heresies 3.21.3 he wrote that “our Lord was born about the forty-first year of the reign of Augustus.” [i.e. 41 years after Julius Caesar, as this is how the fathers counted, 3 BC]. In The Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching 74 he writes that “Pontius Pilate, the governor of Claudius Caesar… condemned Him to be crucified.” Claudius ruled from 41 to 54 A.D.

This makes Jesus at least 44 years old by Irenaeus' count, consistent with par 6 in AH 2.22

 

[abacabb3]

This shouldn't detract from the OP though. You ask good questions.

Unfortunately I can't address the specific issue of the age of Christ. It's possible I've certainly missed a swath of teaching, but we are not concerned when an individual goes against the broader understanding in any particular. It is the consensus that matters. Anyone can be mistaken, even a Saint. We don't judge them for that, but we also don't consider anyone as being infallible, so we are not surprised that some person, Saint, ECF, or teacher is wrong on this point or that. Rather, we look to the consensus, and what truth "won out" in some cases, to know what is true.

The CHURCH is preserved, and is led into truth. But individuals can always be potentially wrong. This is one reason we don't have the theology attached to any pope, such as Catholics have.

Who determines consensus or "the way it was from the beginning?" Isn't this fallible? Are there 7, 8 or 9 ecumenical councils? Are the synods in the 17th and 18th centuries binding? Which Canon is correct (Russians include 3 Maccabees, Georgians include 4 Maccabees)? The only thing that there is consensus over are the 7 ecumenical council and most of the books of the Bible.

 

[buzuxi02]

Sorry, but this is incorrect. Irenaeus is very specific:

from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed (Par 5).

“You are not yet forty years old.” For those who wished to convict Him of falsehood would certainly not extend the number of His years far beyond the age which they saw He had attained; but they mentioned a period near His real age (Par 6).

Plus, Irenaeus gives the year if Christ's birth and death (though, if this is a manuscript error this may undo my point):

In Against Heresies 3.21.3 he wrote that “our Lord was born about the forty-first year of the reign of Augustus.” [i.e. 41 years after Julius Caesar, as this is how the fathers counted, 3 BC]. In The Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching 74 he writes that “Pontius Pilate, the governor of Claudius Caesar… condemned Him to be crucified.” Claudius ruled from 41 to 54 A.D.

This makes Jesus at least 44 years old by Irenaeus' count, consistent with par 6 in AH 2.22

I think we are talking over each other. The Claudius comment is an interpolation. That part of Ireneaus writing is based on Justin Martyr''s account which makes clear it was during Antipas Herod''s reign not his successor Agrippa. See my previous post where Irenaus says Pilate was Tiberius caesar''s governor in another part of his writing.
Also Irenaeus claims it was Polycarp and others who conversed with him and the apostle John that taught these things. Ignatius a disciple of John in his letter to Smyrna (whose bishop was Polycarp) says Jesus was crucified under Pilate and Herod the Tetrarch (Antipas). Irenaeus mentions and even quotes from Justin martyr (who passed through Asia Minor), but Justin says Jesus was crucified under Pilate when he was procurator under Tiberius Caesar. So when we do inquire into those earlier sources that Irenaeus urges us to do we don't find it. We do find a tradition that Jesus was unsightly and inglorious looking based on Isaiah 53:2

 

[buzuxi02]

Who determines consensus or "the way it was from the beginning?" Isn't this fallible? Are there 7, 8 or 9 ecumenical councils? Are the synods in the 17th and 18th centuries binding? Which Canon is correct (Russians include 3 Maccabees, Georgians include 4 Maccabees)? The only thing that there is consensus over are the 7 ecumenical council and most of the books of the Bible.

Consensus is the conscience of the whole church. The gospels have a consensus but they don't agree 100% with each other. But we don't reject Luke's account of the Nativity because he mentions a 6AD census by Quirinus or the fact that John doesn't agree with Mathew on which day passover began during the Crucifixion . The gospels themselves were a consensus by the Church, that there should only be the four.
In 195 AD Serapion of Antioch issued a letter to the church in Rhossus Syria to discontinue the use of the Gospel of Peter.
Likewise there is a consensus as to which 1st-2nd century writings are apocryphal and overtly gnostic influenced verse those that are not. Hence a large number of 1st- 2nd century writings are known as the writing's of the Apostolic Fathers includes the Didache, Hermas, both 1&2 Clement etc.

No one really determines 'the way it was from the beginning'. It's only when eyebrows are raised when the already existing tradition is interpreted in a new unheard of way. Other than that it just remains as is.

Synods usually are local or regional, their canons deal with the problems within their own territory. A synod is binding if it articulates right belief from wrong belief. But not everyone in the oikomene would be required to know these things. For example why would a canon out of Greece dealing with a purely Greek problem that may arise from their economic troubles be binding for the Church in America?.

 

[~Anastasia~]

The Apostle Peter who is claimed to have been the first pope was clearly not infallible since his theological mistakes are clearly described in the book of Acts and admitted by Peter himself. One serious mistake involved his refusal to preach to gentiles. God admonished him about it in a dream where the gentiles were represented by things which were prohibited under Law to be eaten and were served to him to consume.




Another was his insistence that Christians be circumcised as prescribed by the Mosaic Law . The Apostle Paul admonished him for it:



During his ministry alongside Jesus, he advised him not to go to Jerusalem and die. For this Jesus referred to him as Satan.

Sorry .... you may be listing in the wrong forum?

We don't regard Peter as "the first pope" in the sense that Rome claims. We don't regard any man as infallible. Part of that is recognition that Peter was corrected by the other Apostles, did not prevail at the Council of Jerusalem, and made mistakes in his teaching. Rather we accept as truth what the decision of the Church overall was regarding those controversies, the same as we have always done.

So unless you're trying to prove our point, you may be in the wrong place? Because we agree on these things.

And if you are trying to prove our point, then you bring up some good points to remember on this issue.

 

[Radrook]

Sorry .... you may be listing in the wrong forum?

We don't regard Peter as "the first pope" in the sense that Rome claims. We don't regard any man as infallible. Part of that is recognition that Peter was corrected by the other Apostles, did not prevail at the Council of Jerusalem, and made mistakes in his teaching. Rather we accept as truth what the decision of the Church overall was regarding those controversies, the same as we have always done.

So unless you're trying to prove our point, you may be in the wrong place? Because we agree on these things.

And if you are trying to prove our point, then you bring up some good points to remember on this issue.

Well, if we agree than that's good. Peace!

 

[~Anastasia~]

Well, if we agree than that's good. Peace!

Indeed. Peace to you as well.

 

[abacabb3]

I think we are talking over each other. The Claudius comment is an interpolation. That part of Ireneaus writing is based on Justin Martyr''s account which makes clear it was during Antipas Herod''s reign not his successor Agrippa. See my previous post where Irenaus says Pilate was Tiberius caesar''s governor in another part of his writing.
Also Irenaeus claims it was Polycarp and others who conversed with him and the apostle John that taught these things. Ignatius a disciple of John in his letter to Smyrna (whose bishop was Polycarp) says Jesus was crucified under Pilate and Herod the Tetrarch (Antipas). Irenaeus mentions and even quotes from Justin martyr (who passed through Asia Minor), but Justin says Jesus was crucified under Pilate when he was procurator under Tiberius Caesar. So when we do inquire into those earlier sources that Irenaeus urges us to do we don't find it. We do find a tradition that Jesus was unsightly and inglorious looking based on Isaiah 53:2

WHy wouldn't that be the interpolation? You seem to be ignoring the literal things I cited in chaps 5 and 6 of 2.22.