‹ Back

WHO DECIDES ON THE CORE OF WHAT WE SHOULD BELIEVE?

 

Dr. Jacobus de Bruyn

 

 

In a recent conversation with a protestant person, I heard for the umpteenth time: 'You just need to believe in Jesus and accept Him as your personal Savior, that's all that matters, that's all you need. This is the core of our faith. The rest doesn't matter, because those are man-made things.’

"Granted," I respond, "but it's not quite that simple..."

But before I can continue, he responds decisively: 'To get to heaven, I just need to believe in Jesus, that's all.'

 

I decide to leave the matter for now - after all, this is the first time we're having coffee together, and besides, we're in his house.

But then he starts telling me about his involvement in missionary work among Muslims. He asks me if I know that Muslims also believe in Jesus, but only as a prophet, not that Jesus is God. When I answered 'yes,' he continued and said: 'So it is quite necessary to believe that Jesus is God and not just a man, because if you don't believe that Jesus is God, it's as good as being a Muslim.'

I seize my opportunity and say: 'Yes, that is why the Nicene Creed is so important to us.'

"Yes," he responds, "you can't really be a Christian without it," he adds.

 

Carefully, I decide to take my chance and ask: 'Do I understand correctly, 5 minutes ago you said that all that is needed to get to heaven is to believe in Jesus?' Now, however, you want to add a plus – you now also have to believe that Jesus is God and man. So now something else is added?’

His reaction spoke volumes – 'But you have to believe correctly about Jesus, it's necessary.'

"Of course," I respond, "but my question to you now is this: first you say that all that is needed to get to heaven is to believe in Jesus and accept Him as Savior." Now it appears from what you yourself say that it is indeed not enough. In effect, the Nicene Creed is now being added to the 'belief in Jesus.' My question then is: Who decides on the plus? Who decides what should be added to the 'belief in Jesus'?

 

When he doesn't answer me immediately, I decide to push my argument even further.

"The reason I'm asking you," I said, "is because of what I experienced at the town's 'pastors-and-ministers-forum.'"

 

I then tell him that I recently attended the town's 'pastors-and-ministers-forum' for the first time. In light of the 1700th anniversary of the Nicene Creed (2025), I wanted to invite the ministers and pastors to an ecumenical event to celebrate the Creed. Shocked, however, I had to hear that I am not allowed to talk about it there, because not everyone present at the forum believes in or accepts the Nicene Creed! To tell the truth, we are not allowed to talk about ‘church’ at the forum at all.

 

"Isn't this a bit ironic?" I asked my coffee-drinking-friend.

"Yes, it is," he admits.

"But now," I said to him, "do you want to tell me, in light of what we've just said to each other, that more than half of those self-appointed pastors on the forum are actually Muslims – and actually believe in a false Jesus – and therefore won't go to heaven?"

 

My question then: Who decides on the core of what we should believe?

 

This question then highlights the significant difference in authority between Catholics and protestants – who decides. And I hope that something from my aforementioned experiences emerge that at least makes you, as a reader, think. Because what these experiences of mine do reveal is the tension in protestantism between the untenable contradictions of 'Scripture alone' (sola scriptura) on one hand, and on the other hand, each individual protestant's 'right to private judgment' – that every protestant, as Martin Luther put it, is in matters of faith his own pope and council. Who then decides what the core of our faith is? – The Bible alone? – Or the individual protestant? When I was still a protestant minister, I often experienced the tension between these two protestant principles, and usually people's cry of 'sola Scriptura' was merely a bastion for 'sola what-I-say.' It is also strange that protestants do not even agree on exactly what 'sola Scriptura' entails and how it relates to the 'right to private judgment.'

 

In Geisler & Mackenzie's book: 'Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences,' they define 'sola Scriptura' as the Scripture alone being either 'materially' or 'formally' sufficient for Christians. With the 'material sufficiency' of the Bible, Geisler & Mackenzie mean that everything necessary to know about God and salvation is in the Bible. Catholics can agree with this, but not with the next part of Geisler & Mackenzie's definition, namely the 'formal' aspect of 'sola Scriptura.' By the 'formal' aspect of 'sola Scriptura,' Geisler & Mackenzie mean that the Bible is absolutely clear in itself and interprets itself — nothing else is needed — no formal structures or higher authority; the Bible is all that is needed for Christians' spiritual life and faith growth; the Bible alone is infallible; the Bible is the primary and absolute source for all dogmas and practices in the faith community. Not only is the Bible sufficient according to 'sola Scriptura,' but it is also the only and final appeal of authority – it is the final authority. One wonders then how protestant synods manage to regard the Bible as a mere conversation partner – a conversation partner that can moreover be overruled by a majority vote. Or is it precisely because every believer, according to Martin Luther, has the right to decide for themselves what the Bible teaches and means – John Calvin's 'right to private judgment'?

 

In a debate on YouTube with the Catholic apologist Trent Horn, the Presbyterian Gavin Ortlund, however, simply defines 'sola Scriptura' as the Bible being the only infallible source of authority. Ortlund does accept other authority structures and confessions for the Christian faith community, but none of these structures and confessions are infallible. But again, one wonders – if infallibility simply means 'without errors,' how and why can the Nicene Creed then not be infallible? Especially if, like my coffee-drinking-friend above, one wants to add Nicene as a plus to believe in 'the right Jesus' – to get to heaven? Moreover, if one does not want to accept that the Nicene Creed (Nicene-Constantinople) is infallible (without errors), how can you be sure that you are worshiping the true God?

 

Martin Luther himself defined 'sola Scriptura' as the Scripture alone being the highest authority for Christians – an authority structure that he, however, misused to take away any other believer's 'right to be their own pope and council' if they dared to differ from him.

 

The Reformed Confession, the Westminster Confession, states in articles 9 and 10 that according to 'sola Scriptura' the Bible interprets itself and that the Bible is the highest judge in matters of faith. One wonders which of the hundreds of protestant denominations and sects correctly understand the Bible as the 'highest judge'? And through which denomination does the Bible then speak as 'judge' and through which does it not? And who determines that what the 'judge' says is rightly heard?

 

But the strange tension in the Westminster Confession goes even further when the Christian believer's right to 'not be bound in his conscience' is outlined as follows in Article 20: “God alone is Lord of the conscience, and has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in anything, contrary to His Word; or beside it, in matters of faith, or worship. So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience: and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.”

 

The Bible is thus the 'highest judge,' but my conscience must not be bound by an interpretation of the Bible. We also cannot bind each other's consciences by making a pronouncement on who hears the 'highest judge' correctly. So, the pastor of my tent may not bind my conscience with pluses and minuses regarding my faith. I am free to decide for myself what to believe and how to get into heaven – so we are back to Martin Luther. The irony is that, experience and history show, Westminster wanted and still wants to bind the consciences of everyone else who does not agree with him.

 

But then again - didn't the Southern Baptist Church in America recently (2024) declare themselves through a democratic voting process similar to Muslims by not accepting the Nicene Creed? Did they hear the Bible as 'judge' correctly? Is the Doctrine of the Trinity and the Two Natures of Jesus then infallible? Was Arius possibly right? Because, you see, if according to the protestant principles of 'freedom of conscience' and 'personal judgment' every Christian may (even must!) decide for themselves after hearing the 'highest judge,' then the Council of Nicaea (325) was actually unnecessary and even wrong - because then no one had the right to bind Arius's conscience! It was thus actually, just like today, a case of – you have your truth, and I have my truth, we must make space for each other - you have your 'sola Scriptura' and I have my 'sola Scriptura' and you may not bind my conscience with your truth…

 

...the chaos of protestant self-righteousness - hundreds of denominations, sects, and heresies - all in competition over whose 'sola Scriptura' is the better one, while no one can actually bind the other's conscience...everyone is right...and everyone is wrong...you have your plus, and I have my plus...

 

But is this what the Bible teaches – a splintering of the Body of Christ in the name of your sola and my sola, your plus and my minus? How then should the world know that the Father sent His Son (John 17) if the protestant faith tents cannot even agree on the Nicene Creed? - or what 'sola Scriptura' means? And I thought the Bible was, as Calvin claimed, so clear that anyone who reads it would be able to know what the truth is? Apparently not.

 

The Bible does not teach that you have your truth and I have my truth. Ironically enough, the Bible also does not teach 'sola Scriptura.' The Bible itself also does not teach that every believer has the right to private judgment. The Bible also does not teach that believers are so free that their consciences cannot be bound. And I thought protestants base everything on the Bible? Well, not really.

 

The Bible clearly teaches in 1 Timothy 3:14 that it is the Church that is the pillar and foundation of the truth. Peter and Paul each warn in their letters to congregations against false teachers who will come and set up camp in the town — people who will distort the Gospel precisely because they do not want to be bound by their conscience and therefore will appoint their own pastors and ministers to please their ears (cf. 2 Tim 3 and 4), so that each can create their own truth for which the others must make room — because we can not bind each other's consciences. Against the protestant principle of the 'right to private judgment,' the Bible teaches that no matter (prophecy) in Scripture is based on one's own interpretation. (2 Pet 1:20). You therefore do not have the right to interpret it yourself, set up your own tent, and tear the Body of Christ apart. The Bible teaches that the Spirit who spoke through the prophets will indeed lead the Church, as the Body of Christ, in the truth (cf. John 14:26 and 16), so that we will indeed know what is right and wrong, so that we can indeed bind each other's consciences with the truth.

 

Does heretics not the Bible? Not only is 'sola Scriptura' unbiblical, but the chaos of protestantism proves that it also does not work in practice. So writes Saint Vincent of Lérins (died in 445 A.D.) already in the 5th century in his book 'The Commonitory' in chapter 25: ” “Here, possibly, some one may ask, Do heretics also appeal to Scripture? They do indeed, and with a vengeance; for you may see them scamper through every single book of Holy Scripture,--through the books of Moses, the books of Kings, the Psalms, the Epistles, the Gospels, the Prophets. Whether among their own people, or among strangers, in private or in public, in speaking or in writing, at convivial meetings, or in the streets, hardly ever do they bring forward anything of their own which they do not endeavour to shelter under words of Scripture.”

 

So where must we find the truth so that we can believe correctly? And who decides what this truth is? This is then what Saint Irenaeus's voice from the 2nd century echoes when he writes in his book 'Against Heresies': “The truth is to be found nowhere else but in the Catholic Church, the sole depository of apostolic doctrine. Heresies are of recent formation, and cannot trace their origin back to the apostles. Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. (Revelation 22:17) For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there arises a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant communion, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?”

 

From what St. Irenaeus writes, we can derive a clear model for the authority structure in the Church and how the truth of what we must and can believe is determined. We can compare this model to a three-legged stool. Without any one of the three legs, the stool falls over – each leg thus also needs the others. This model thus implies an interaction between the three legs.

 

The first leg is the Bible. For us, the Bible is the Word of God as it was written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. (CCC par. 80). The Bible is certainly the most important book in our lives, but the Bible is not always so clear and easy to understand and interpret. And since the Bible itself teaches that the Bible is not a matter of private interpretation, we need something else to help us understand what we read. This something must then be authoritative enough to reflect the guidance of the Spirit of God as Jesus promised.

 

This brings us to the second leg, namely the Magisterium. The Magisterium is all the Bishops of the Church under the leadership of the Pope, the Bishop of Rome. In John 20, Jesus breathes on the 11 Apostles and says that whatever they bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever they loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. In the book of Acts, we read more than once about how Paul appointed Elders in the congregations to take the lead. To Timothy, he writes that Timothy should choose capable men and entrust to them what has been entrusted to him by Paul. (vgl. 2 Tim 2:1-2). It is from this that our confession flows that we believe the Church is 'apostolic.' The Church is not only built on the teaching of the Apostles; each Bishop can trace his line of appointment back to one of the original Apostles. As successors of the Apostles, it is the task of the Magisterium to interpret the Bible and to guide the Church through the Bible.

 

And then the third leg, namely Tradition. The word 'tradition' means from the Greek – 'to hand over' just as a relay baton is passed from athlete to athlete in a relay race. In the Church, it is the 'Deposit of Faith' that is passed down from generation to generation through the Tradition of the Church in accordance with the Bible under the guidance of the Magisterium. In 2 Thessalonians 2:15, Paul writes to the congregation: "Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter." Not everything necessary for a good faith is recorded in the Bible. Take, for example, the number of Books in the Bible. The Bible did not come out with a clear table of contents of which Books should or should not be in it. The Church therefore had to make a pronouncement on the matter – a pronouncement that is binding on the consciences of believers. Another example is precisely our confession that Jesus is "one in essence with the Father" – "homoousios." This word does not appear in the Bible. To tell the truth, the concept of 'Trinity' does not appear in the Bible either. But still, it is what the Church confessed after the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. And just as the Holy Spirit inspired the Bible, the Council Fathers believed that the Holy Spirit, just as in Acts 15, inspired the Church in its discernment decision regarding the Trinity. God spoke through Nicaea, therefore the Council’s decisions are binding, and anyone who did not want to be bound by it in their conscience was considered a heretic. Sacred Tradition then includes, among other things, all the Council decisions of the Church throughout history.

 

Vatican II declares that both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture flow from the same divine source. Where Scripture is the written Word of God, it is the task of the successors of the Apostles to transmit the Sacred Tradition regarding how the written Word of God should be read and understood. Consequently, it is not only from the Holy Scripture alone that the Church derives its certainties of faith. Therefore, both Scripture and Tradition are treated with the same reverence. (cf. Vatican II, Dei Verbum, par 9-10).

 

Jointly, and in dependence on each other, Scripture, the Magisterium, and Tradition form the authoritative structure of the Catholic Church. It is therefore the Church, as the Body of Christ, that determines what the core of our faith is and what we should believe and not believe. It is not for each member to decide for themselves.

 

In the Catholic Church, members do have a limited privilege of personal judgment. We could compare this limited privilege to a playground. In the playground, there are merry-go-rounds, slides, climbing frames, seesaws, bumper cars, a sandpit, and swings. There are trees, plants, and flowers, benches, and grass. Some of us might like the swings, and others enjoy sitting on the grass in the sun. Some of us might prefer reading under a tree, while others prefer the bumper cars. We can even argue and disagree about which toy or place in the playground is the best, but what we all clearly know is that there is a clear boundary around the playground. We know that if we play outside the boundaries of the playground, we are playing in the road and risk getting hurt. So, the Church is our 'play area'. Some like the Breviary, others like meditative prayer. Some prefer the Angelus. Others are Jesuits and still other Dominicans, each with their own perspective, emphases, and spirituality. We may even discuss the meaning of Bible passages – but what we all know very clearly is that the Church, our 'play area,' has clear boundaries. These boundaries are not determined by myself, but by Scripture, the Magisterium, and Tradition – the three-legged stool of authority in the Church. And if I move outside the boundaries, I not only endanger myself, but I also place myself outside the Church and her authority.

 

In this way and through this three-legged stool, the unity of the Church is also visibly protected – not only so that members can know what they should believe and what the core of our faith is, but so that the world can know that the Father has sent His Son.

 

 

SOME SOURCES:

Against Heresies, by St Irenaeus

The Commonitory, by St. Vincent of Lerins

Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences, deur Geisler & MacKenzie

Die Westminster Konfessie.

Vatikaan II

Die Institusie van die Christelike godsdiens, by Johannes Calvyn.

The Fathers know best, by Jimmy Akin.

Biblical Catholic Answers for John Calvin, by Dave Armstrong.

A Biblical Critique of Calvinism, by Dave Armstrong.

The Early Church, by George Hodges.

The Seven Ecumenical councils, by Henry R Percival.

The Roots of the Reformation, by Karl Adam.

The Protestant’s Dilemma, by Devin Rose.