Küng says that “infallibility” means that “the Church is not deceiving or deceived, because she has a share in the truth of God himself, ‘who can neither deceive nor be deceived’ (Vatican I: Deus revelans, qui ned falli nec fallere potest, D 1783)”; also that “a fundamental remaining in the truth, which is not disturbed by individual errors” (Küng, The Church, 342). Kung cites John 14:16–17 as God’s promise of infallibility to the Church.
112. Ramm holds, “The Roman Catholic Church traditionally believes that it is graced with infallibility when it teaches and interprets revelation (in her case, oral and written). Her interpretations and teachings are therefore as authoritative as the revelation she interprets” (Ramm, The Pattern of Authority, 56). Ramm later adds, “The Church is, therefore, the supreme interpretive authority in all matters of faith and morals, and under certain stipulations speaks with infallibility” (64).
113. Orchard, A Catholic Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, 2.
114. Richard, “The Enigma of Theologians,” 331.
115. Authority, Conscience, and Dissent, 125–26.
116. Wright, “Authority in the Church,” 364–82.
117. Ibid., 364–82.
118. Ibid., 373–74.
119. Inch, Saga of the Spirit, 230.
120. Congar, I Believe in the Holy Spirit, 1:151–57.
121. Ibid.
122. A synthesis of Congar’s thoughts regarding Roman Catholic Tradition can be found in Congar, I Believe in the Holy Spirit, vol. 3.
123. Van Engen, “Tradition,” 1106.
124. Eno, “Pope and Council,” 210.
125. Davison, “The Person and Work of the Holy Spirit,” 211.
126. Bolich, Authority and the Church, 65.
127. See Prenter, Spiritus Creator, 201.
128. Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, I.ix.3.
129. Ibid., ix.1–2.
130. Ramm, The Pattern of Authority, 29.
131. Commenting on Prenter, Carlson says that this has opened the door to a philosophical / “substantial” concept of God’s Spirit, which regards the Spirit as a divine energy that can be infused and appropriated. With the help of this “energy” man is able to produce the “fruits of the Spirit.” Thus he will grow in grace and holiness, as he follows the example of Jesus Christ. “Prenter contends that when you do that to Luther’s theology, you distort it by trying to compress his thought within the molds of mediaeval scholasticism, against which Luther himself rebelled. Luther held a much more dynamic view, which can be summarized by saying that the work of the Holy Spirit is to conform man to Christ. This is accomplished by conforming man to Christ’s death and resurrection. This whole concept of conformity to Christ must be set over against the scholastic concept of imitation of Christ” (Carlson, “Luther and the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit,” 137).
132. Newton’s mathematical physics, for example, presented nature as a rational, unified order where there were no “hidden purposes” (of God) to discover. “As a result of Newton’s work, ‘God’ was no longer needed as the hypothesis to authorize the world; ‘God’ became a projection of nature. . . . This shift led to a heightened stress on reason as a primary authority for interpreting all human experience. It meant as well that traditions (as promoted by the Church) or supernatural appeals to the ‘Spirit’ were suspect” (McKim, “Authority,” 47).
133. Livingston, Modern Christian Thought, 2.
134. Erickson defines “Modern Theology” as simply the “Theology of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, beginning particularly with reaction to the thought of Immanuel Kant” (Erickson, Concise Dictionary of Christian Theology, 107).
135. Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, 123.
136. Schleiermacher, On Religion, 36.
137. Badcock, Light of Truth and Fire of Love, 112.
138. Ibid., 112.
139. Inch, Saga of the Spirit, 241.
140. Johnson, Authority in Protestant Theology, 78.
141. Henry, God, Revelation, and Authority, 2:13.
142. Ibid., 4:35.
143. Ibid., 4:256–68.
144. For example, Henry states that “[Howard J. Loewen’s] implication that ‘the authority of the Bible can . . . be . . . truly demonstrated only in the context of the presence and activity of the Holy Spirit who is essential to the personal appropriation of the Word of Scripture’ is highly questionable, if this means that inner personal experience establishes the truth and/or the authority of the Bible” (Henry, God, Revelation, and Authority, 4:268).
145. Henry, God, Revelation, and Authority, 4:289.
146. Champion, “The Baptist Doctrine of the Church,” 38.
