Implicit faith is a fatal dogma of the Roman Catholic Church. It is the teaching of the hierarchy of Rome as a means of self-preservation. Implicit faith is imposed upon “the faithful” according to their essential position as “the faithful.” Their position (and salvation) as “the faithful” is their faithfulness to the hierarchy of Rome, with the pope at its head.

Simply put, implicit faith is the doctrine that the faith by which one is saved is a belief that whatever the church teaches is true, even though one does not personally know what the church teaches. The content of faith is the teaching of the church. This faith does not consider whether or not what the church teaches is true or false. The reason it is called implicit is because it does not have respect to doctrine that is explicitly spelled out so that the believer can understand what the church teaches. Implicit faith is not concerned with various teachings or doctrines that can be spelled out with words. Implicit faith simply rests upon all that the church teaches.

By this appreciation of the faith, aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth, the People of God, guided by the sacred teaching authority (Magisterium),…receives…the faith, once for all delivered to the saints…The People unfailingly adheres to this faith, penetrates it more deeply with right judgment, and applies it more fully in daily life.¹

There are a number of reasons for the doctrine of implicit faith as taught by the Roman Catholic Church. The first reason is that the body of doctrines established and taught by Rome is a chaotic, entirely confused and erroneous mass of tangled doctrines. In addition, there are three sources of doctrinal authority for Rome: the Bible, the writings of the fathers, and the traditions. That there are these three authoritative sources is evident from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Many of its statements have footnotes that give authoritative references. Unlike the Reformed Heidelberg Catechism, the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church cites not only scripture but also decisions of various councils and writings of the church fathers. The recognition of these three authorities and of the authority of the church to determine what is truth is seen in the following quotation from the Catechism:

It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls. (29)

This additional quotation gives the right to interpret scripture to “the Magisterium”:

The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him. (30)

A second reason for the doctrine of implicit faith is the staggering volume of material that the Roman Catholic Church presents as the proper object of the faith of the faithful. Doctrines, teachings, and decisions of assemblies and councils have come into being through the centuries of Rome’s history. Theologians who dedicate their lives to poring through this material cannot comprehend it all, much less find enough consistency to come to any certain conclusion about exactly what must be believed.

Suppose a son of a Reformed denomination would desire to make confession of faith in one of its churches. Suppose that that son’s consistory would tell him that in order to confess his faith he would have to confess submission to all the decisions taken by the assemblies of the denomination. Could he stand before God and God’s people and say that he submits to all those decisions, decisions not only of the synods but also of the classes and consistories of the denomination? Impossible would be that much reading of the Acts of synods, of the minutes and committee reports of all the denominational assemblies and bodies. It would be impossible even to obtain all the material, most of which would not have been published. The only faith that he could confess would be an implicit faith.

Besides, what if those taking up special offices in a church would be required to submit to all the decisions of the assemblies of the denomination? Could even the professors of theology consciously agree to uphold all the decisions of those assemblies, when the professors do not know them all? Must they not instead profess implicit faith?

Implicit faith is not confined within the boundaries of the Roman Catholic Church. Implicit faith is indeed taught and maintained by that apostate institution. However, implicit faith is not just a name. Implicit faith is not merely a name to be affirmed or rejected by an institution. Nor is it merely a name to be denied by an institution or persons, so that it does not exist wherever it is denied. Even though this false dogma has been deliberately and openly rejected in Protestantism, today implicit faith is an open, striking phenomenon in Protestantism. Implicit faith is found in much of evangelicalism and even in conservative Reformed and Presbyterian circles.

Implicit faith has respect to institutions. Implicit faith underlies the statement, “Whatever.” “Whatever the consistory decides.” “Whatever classis decides.” “Whatever synod decides.” For officebearers delegated to broader assemblies, implicit faith looks to certain respected leaders in the church. “Whatever” direction these leaders lean is sure to be the direction the assembly will move. When officebearers abdicate their responsibility to know and understand matters before them in the light of scripture for the sake of following the direction established by their leaders, there is implicit faith. In these same circles, where leaders and assemblies are questioned, deep hostility is the result. The cause for that hostility is that implicit faith is certainly under attack.

Implicit faith is the reason that celebrity pastors can gain such a following. Though found guilty of abuse or financial malfeasance or heresy, they continue uninterrupted to enjoy their following and prominence. Prominent leaders abuse the authority of church institutions to cover their oppression of members of churches or even of other officebearers, and these leaders further abuse the authority of the institutions to silence those speaking out against the oppression. Those bold enough to stand against the openly oppressive face deep hostility and resentment from others who have fastened all their well-being to the institution. “How dare they question the integrity and validity of these time-honored and God-favored institutions and their godly leaders?”

Implicit faith is really a form of idolatry. It is a form of idolatry that transfers what belongs to God alone to the creature. Implicit faith is truly trust in and devotion to an institution that substitutes the institution for God. It is trust in and devotion to certain men who are often prominent in such institutions rather than simple trust in and devotion to God alone.

This evil idolatry of implicit faith thinks that when it says “God,” it is really saying “church” and that when it says “scripture,” it is really saying “decisions.” Implicit faith cannot lay hold on the invisible, spiritual God and cannot find the solid foundation of God’s word alone. Implicit faith must find a carnal object, one that can be detected and known with the earthly senses. So implicit faith lays hold on the visible church and makes it a substitute for all that is spiritual. The confession of implicit faith is not that of the Apostles’ Creed: “I believe an holy catholic church.” But implicit faith confesses, “I believe in the church.” “I believe in my church.” “I believe in my denomination.”

It is a point that can be debated whether one is confronted with hierarchy in the church or oligarchy (rule by a few) in the church. Looking at the situation from a formal viewpoint, one sees hierarchy. Emphasis is placed on the federation or denomination rather than on individual churches. Authority is exercised from the top down. The more major the assembly, for example, synod, the greater the authority is perceived. But looking at the same situation more deeply, it becomes evident that the major assemblies themselves are controlled by a few men. No real discussion takes place on the floor of such assemblies. The majority of delegates cannot explain the matters debated on the floor, let alone argue pro or con. The delegates know how they ought to vote, being guided by the few esteemed and honored oligarchs among them.

Both hierarchy and oligarchy are oppressive in the church of Jesus Christ. Both are contrary to the word of God and the freedom of that word as the liberating power preached to the church of Jesus Christ as the company of believers and their seed. The gospel constantly calls the people of God out of bondage into the glorious liberty of the children of God. The truth makes them truly free, free to worship and serve their God from the heart.

As opposed as hierarchy and oligarchy are to the liberty of the gospel of Jesus Christ, so opposed is implicit faith to true faith in that gospel. How is such liberty so easily traded away for the yoke of hierarchical bondage? How is such a gift as true faith so easily traded away for implicit faith?

One answer to that question is that hierarchy is a powerful temptation of Satan to lead the church astray from its true foundation: Christ alone, as taught by scripture alone. The enemy of the church gradually closes the eyes of her members and slowly robs the members of their discernment. The devil works subtly to shift loyalty to Christ over to loyalty to the church. Satan will shift fidelity to the truth of God’s word over to fidelity to ecclesiastical decisions that at first honored that truth. Satan will encourage trust in the men who bring the word of God, rather than trust in the word that they bring. In short, Satan will work to substitute implicit faith in the place of true faith.

For the maintenance of true faith and the rejection of implicit faith, there are signs of hierarchy and the implicit faith that complements it.

The first sign is the abuse of article 31 of the Church Order of Dordt. One phrase is taken out of this article and given a position of supreme importance: “Whatever may be agreed upon by a majority vote shall be considered settled and binding” (Confessions and Church Order, 390). As this phrase is given a position of supreme importance, the phrase’s absolute character is made to stand on the foreground. Of supreme importance is “majority vote” and that in connection with the word “whatever.” Of supreme importance is how ecclesiastical decisions must be taken in the churches. These decisions must be received as “settled and binding.” Not merely considered but actually and truly “settled and binding.” Every member must submit to these decisions.

The strength of this first sign becomes evident when members and officebearers express reservations about matters before a meeting of a broader assembly. They are fearful that their words might be found to be contradicted by a synodical decision, that they might need to repent of them or at least repudiate them. The strength of this first sign is also apparent when men in leadership remain tight-lipped about their views because synod has not spoken.

The second sign is closely connected with the first. A reason is given for this settled and binding character of the majority decisions of assemblies. That reason is the Holy Spirit’s guidance of these assemblies in making their decisions. Quoted so many times are the words of Acts 15:28: “It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us.” These words were first applied to the council of Jerusalem, whose occasion and meeting is recorded in Acts 15. The Holy Spirit convened that assembly. The Holy Spirit gave its delegates the words that they spoke. The Holy Spirit gave those delegates their deliberations, both their speeches and their thoughts. Finally, the Holy Spirit gave the council its final decision, which was published by the council and distributed to the churches through the apostles. That council of Jerusalem, part of sacred history, is declared to be not only the model and example for all subsequent councils, that is, the deliberative assemblies of the churches. But that council is also declared to be proof and evidence that all the deliberative assemblies of the church have the same operating guidance of the Holy Spirit as did the council at Jerusalem in Acts 15. For this reason it would surely be proper that the deliverances of these councils (consistories, classes, and synods) begin with the phrase “It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us” and that such deliverances ought then to be received in the churches as the deliverances not of men but of God the Holy Spirit.

Bolstering this second point is what is said to be true of the officebearers at such assemblies: they operate in the power of the Holy Spirit as they exercise their offices in the deliberative assemblies. The authority that they exercise in their deliberations is the office of Christ. Christ by his Holy Spirit operates through these offices.

Members of churches are then blanketed with writings, sermons, and speeches that emphasize the Holy Spirit’s guidance of the deliberative assemblies. A common feature of all these presentations is that their beginning point is neither the word of God nor the deliberative assembly that is so prominent in the word of God, rule of the local congregation by elders ordained in that local congregation. The beginning point is the deliberations and decisions of the most major assembly, the synod. There is the authority. There is the rule of Christ.

These first two signs in combination yield their results for implicit faith. Decisions of synods will be questioned. The decisions will be questioned sometimes in simple discussions among members of the church and sometimes in protests. Those questions and protests will be met with anger or with the appeal to be content with the Spirit’s work in the churches or with direction to read the Acts of Synod. But those questions and protests will not be met with the simplicity of scripture. True faith is thus discouraged in favor of implicit faith.

Another result for implicit faith is that decisions of hierarchical assemblies become confused and bewildering. Their decisions become an incoherent mass, which ends up being self-contradictory in multiple ways. As true faith that seeks understanding according to the rule of God’s word is confronted with this mass of decisions, that faith is deeply discouraged. Where is the straight line of the truth? How does one sort this all out? Far easier it is for implicit faith to take over and use the confusion to maintain loyalty to the institution responsible for the confusion. “Never mind the mess. Our leaders know what they are doing: all we need to do is trust them. They will lead us in the right path.”

(To be continued with a third sign of hierarchy)