THE “INFALLIBLE CHURCH” DECEPTION (Part 2)

Last month, we mainly dealt with 1 Timothy 3:15, which speaks of the church of Jesus Christ being the pillar and ground of the truth, and we addressed how the Catholic Church wrongly interprets this passage.  See Part 1 here:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2024/07/the-infallible-church-deception-part-1.html

This is just one passage that the Catholic Church uses to attempt to claim infallibility for itself.  But they also use a few other passages, like Ephesians 1:22-23 together with Colossians 2:9-10 to assert their infallibility and we will talk about these today.

Confusion of Terms

Let’s read the Ephesians 1 passage first.  The author of this epistle (the apostle Paul) says:

v. 22 – And [God] hath put all things under his [Jesus’] feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, 

v. 23 – Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

Ok, so we have here a passage saying that the Father has put all things under Jesus’ feet (that is, under His control) and He appointed Jesus as Head over all things, including the church.  Then Paul says that the church is the “body of Christ” and it is the “fullness of Christ.”  Catholics will also tie this in to Colossians 2:

v. 9 – For in Him [Jesus] dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily

v. 10 – and ye are complete in Him, which is the head of all principality and power [or, “which is over every ruler and authority” - NASV].

And somehow, they take this to mean that the Church therefore has infallibility.

This is the logic of at least one popular Catholic apologist, John Martignoni, in his newsletter, “Apologetics for the Masses” #352.  This particular newsletter is, for the most part, about the “infallibility” of the Catholic Church and Martignoni goes on to reason this way:

1) The church is the body of Christ (Ephesians 1:22-23)

2) Jesus Christ is the Head of that body (Ephesians 1:22-23)

3) Jesus is also the Head of all rule and authority (Colossians 2:10)

4) Therefore, the Church IS all rule and authority (which gives them infallibility)!

See the article here:

https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/466-apologetics-for-the-masses-352-problems-with-protestantism-1

But this logic is utterly ridiculous.  This is like saying that a business owner has/owns two separate shops in two different places.  One is a bait shop and the other is a flower shop.  But it would be absolutely wrong to assume that the two shops are one and the same just because he is the owner/head of both.  It just doesn’t follow. 

Headship over multiple things does not make all of (or even any of) those things equal.  God is Head over the animal world on earth just as He is Head over all the galaxies in space, but they are certainly not the same in any sense.  Likewise, Jesus is the Head over the church, and He is also Head over all rule and authority, but that in no way makes these two things equal.

There is nothing in these verses about infallibility for the church, either explicitly or implicitly.  It is amazing the length that Catholic apologists will go to in their desperation to exalt Mother Church!

Is the Church Christ?

Catholic apologist Tim Staples, writing for Catholic Answers, tells us:

“In Ephesians 1:22-23, Paul tells us that the Church is Christ, extended in this world” (Emphasis in original).  See here:

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/mary-saves

No, I’m sorry, but Paul is not telling us that the church is Christ. 

Maybe Staples is just meaning that Jesus is giving us authority to spread the gospel truth.  That would be true.  Perhaps he means that the church is an extension of Christ’s will, behavior, character, etc.  Maybe he’s saying that the church is closely related to Christ.  These are all true.

But then again, maybe he is saying that the (Catholic) Church IS actually Christ or that the Church has become Christ, as it states in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC #795).  And of course, this would bolster their concept of Church infallibility, but this is certainly not biblical. 

See this article:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2017/05/can-we-become-christ.html

The Fullness of Christ

At any rate, the Catholic Church makes much of the phrase concerning the Church being “the fullness of Christ.”  But in what sense is the body (the church) the fullness of Christ?  What does that even mean?

Just as Jesus (the Son) is the full and true expression of the Father in Heaven (John 14:9), the church (when it is functioning correctly and properly responding to God’s Word) is also the full and true expression of Christ on earth. 

As I mentioned in Part 1 of this series, Jesus (the Head) is indeed infallible, but the body (the church) is not, since it is not always functioning correctly and not always properly responding to God’s Word.  Even when members of the church are indeed functioning as God wants them to, it is still not infallible.  So, being the “fullness of Christ” has nothing to do with church infallibility in the contexts of Ephesians 1 and Colossians 2.

A “Concrete Application”?

Another passage that the Catholic Church uses to try and bolster their claims of infallibility is Acts 15:1-31.  This is about the very first church council (the Jerusalem Council), which involved the question of the Law of Moses and justification (i.e., “Must a person follow the Mosaic Law in order to be saved?” Acts 15:1, 5).  Catholics will claim that this debate in the Jerusalem Council is a prime example and a “concrete application” of the need for an infallible church. 

I beg to differ.

Catholics want to compare this Jerusalem Council in the very early church to the modern Catholic Church’s councils and their operations (and claims).  Catholics are claiming that we must have an infallible church today to be able to interpret Scripture correctly and to provide the world with true and authoritative doctrine with certainty, just like they did in Jerusalem.  Catholics will say that the Jerusalem Council is the example to follow for the church today.  Furthermore, they’ll emphasize that the Holy Spirit agreed with the decision of the Council (Acts 15:28), so if the Holy Spirit agreed, then it must have been an infallible decision, right?

No, although the early church described in Acts 15 could indeed claim to have a certain level of infallibility, it was only an infallible decision because there were APOSTLES present in this Council (v. 7, 12, 13).  In other words, the church in that day was still receiving new divine revelation from God, and this was only because apostles and prophets were still around then, who enjoyed at least some measure of infallibility.   

But we don’t have apostles and prophets today who operate in the same capacity as they did back then in the early church.  Furthermore, why should the Holy Spirit’s agreement with that specific church council prove the concept of church infallibility for today?  The Holy Spirit “agrees” with anyone who proclaims biblical principles, but that doesn’t imply infallibility for that person or group in the post-apostolic church.  Again, the difference is the Holy Spirit working through apostles and prophets in the early church.

As I said, the post-apostolic church does not have the benefit of receiving new divine revelation like the early church did.  Even the Catechism of the Catholic Church would agree with me on that (CCC #66).

So, the Jerusalem Council simply does not prove the need for an infallible church today.  The only infallible source of truth we have today is the Holy Scriptures (2 Timothy 3:16-17), so there is no need for infallible Tradition, nor for an infallible Magisterium.  Interestingly, the Catholic Magisterium only claims to be infallible on very rare occasions, but Scripture is infallible ALL the time.

Conclusion

There are more passages that the Catholic Church would call upon to attempt to demonstrate that their Church is infallible.  We’ve only covered a few of the main ones here.  Of course, we haven’t forgotten Matthew 16, which is probably their main argument.  But this chapter has been dealt with elsewhere on this blog.  See here:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/search?q=matthew+16

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2016/09/ 

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2016/08/

 Other passages might include John 21:15-17, where Jesus asks Peter to “feed My sheep.”  But feeding His sheep applies to all pastors, not just Peter.  Not a word about infallibility here.

They also refer to Matthew 18, concerning “binding and loosing,” but that topic is covered in the Matthew 16 links just above.

There is also Luke 22:31-32, where Jesus prays for Peter’s faith.  Jesus did this because He knew that Peter would be weak in his trial and end up denying Him.  But Jesus intercedes for all of us, myself included, but that certainly does not make me infallible.

They sometimes also use John 16:13 to say that “… when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth.”  That is true, but is there any one person or group who actually, literally, possesses “all truth”?  No, that’s not what the verse is saying: Jesus is telling us that when the Holy Spirit comes, He will give you all the truth you NEED for any particular occasion.  I think it is safe to say that God has never given any single human being “all truth,” i.e., every bit of truth in Heaven and earth in human history.  Not even the Bride of Christ, the whole church collectively, has this level of knowledge, but only the Trinity.

I’m sure that there are other passages that I haven’t mentioned, but I believe that what we have shared is sufficient to show that, according to Scripture, the concept of an “infallible church” is truly a deception, a mere figment of the Catholic Church’s imagination.

 

QUICK NOTES ON SOLA SCRIPTURA (Part 5)

“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17 – NASV) 

The following specific objection against Sola Scriptura (“Bible Alone”) is also fairly common among Catholic apologists:

ARGUMENT #5 – THE PHRASE “EVERY GOOD WORK” IN 2 TIMOTHY 3:17 DOESN’T PROVE SUFFICIENCY.  THERE ARE OTHER THINGS PROFITABLE FOR “EVERY GOOD WORK,” NOT JUST SCRIPTURE.  FOR EXAMPLE, JAMES 1:4 SAYS THAT PATIENCE / PERSEVERANCE WILL EQUIP A PERSON FOR EVERY GOOD WORK, MAKING US “PERFECT AND ENTIRE, LACKING NOTHING.”  SO, ACCORDING TO PROTESTANT LOGIC, WOULDN’T THAT MEAN THAT PERSEVERANCE WOULD ALSO BE SUFFICIENT, AS A RULE OF FAITH?

This is just a variation of the “proves too much” argument (as in Part 4).  But this argument fails also, as we will soon see.

Those who are against Sola Scriptura (Catholics and others) will also point to verses like:

“If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work.” (2 Timothy 2:21)

They’ll say, “You see!  Here Paul is saying that avoiding certain things will make you prepared for every good work!  So it’s not just Scripture that is sufficient.”

But there is a major difference between verses like these and 2 Timothy 3:16-17.  And that difference is CONTEXT.  The context of 2 Timothy 3 is about a God-breathed Rule of Faith that we can turn to in times of trouble and spiritual deception.  Paul, knowing that he would soon be killed for his faith (4:6), is giving Timothy critical information before his departure, and he wanted to leave no doubt as to where to turn in the troubling days that surely lay ahead.  The Holy Spirit is pointing to a time of great apostasy (i.e., falling away from the faith), emphasizing the approaching deception in the church (3:13), growing worse and worse.  So, Paul is describing to Timothy the purpose and nature of the one Source he could count on after he’s gone… that which is inspired by God… Sacred Scripture.  While this passage is establishing an infallible Rule of Faith, verses like James 1:4 and 2 Timothy 2:21 are not.  

Catholics are confusing Paul’s pointing to the infallible guide itself (in 2 Timothy 3) with the application of principles within the guide in these other passages.  In other words, 2 Timothy 3 is saying, “This is the Ultimate Standard, the Rule of Faith,” and the other passages are saying, “Here’s how to apply it.”  Two different contexts.

But what if someone wants to argue that these other verses are also in the context of a rule of faith?  What then?  Remember, the Catholic claims that his rule of faith is a “three-legged stool,” that is, Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium.  But does any Catholic want to add “perseverance” (James 1:4) or “purging oneself” (2 Timothy 2:21) as a fourth leg to his three-legged stool?   If those contexts really are about a rule of faith, as some may claim, then Catholics would necessarily have to add these things to their own rule of faith.  And this addition would have to mean that the Catholic’s own rule of faith (the “three-legged stool”) is not sufficient.

Either way, this argument doesn’t hold water.

QUICK NOTES ON SOLA SCRIPTURA (Part 4)

“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17 – NASV) 

Today, we will address another common objection to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (“Bible Alone”):

ARGUMENT #4 – IF 2 TIMOTHY 3:16-17 PROVES THE SUFFICIENCY OF SCRIPTURE, IT WOULD PROVE TOO MUCH, BECAUSE WHEN PAUL MENTIONS SCRIPTURE, HE WAS SPEAKING OF THE ONLY SCRIPTURE THAT WAS AVAILABLE AT THAT TIME:  THE OLD TESTAMENT.  SO, IF SOLA SCRIPTURA APPLIES HERE, WOULDN’T WE HAVE TO SAY THAT THE *OLD TESTAMENT* IS ALL WE NEED AS A RULE OF FAITH?  AND WOULDN’T THAT MEAN THAT THE NEW TESTAMENT IS *UNNECESSARY*?

The premise in this argument is that Paul could only have been talking about the Old Testament.  While it is true that only part of the New Testament was available when Paul wrote 2 Timothy, this argument is using very poor logic.  In the context of this passage, Paul is describing the nature and purpose of “ALL Scripture,” not “all-Scripture-given-to-us-up-until-this-point-in-time.”

This is like someone saying, “All birds have wings.”  But this would not mean that only birds existing UP TO THIS POINT have wings, and it is not saying that birds that hatch in the future will not have wings.  It’s simply saying that it is characteristic of ALL birds to have wings.

For an example that’s closer to home, it is like a Catholic saying, “All infallible / ‘ex-cathedra’ statements of the Catholic Church are true.”  Would any Catholic think that this means that ONLY the ones proclaimed UP TO THIS POINT are true, and that future ones may be FALSE?  No, he would argue that “all” means all.

So when the Apostle Paul said “All Scripture…”, he meant All Scripture, past, present and future (from his perspective).  Is not the New Testament also considered Scripture?  Isn’t it part of the whole?  Absolutely.  No true Christian would deny the inspiration of the New Testament. 

There is nothing in the context to indicate that Paul had only the Old Testament in mind, since he was also addressing the needs of the church of the future, as well (3:1, 13).  When Paul said, “All Scripture,” there is no reason to think he meant otherwise, or to limit his description of the sacred writings to only what was available at that time.

Since the Bible equips us for EVERY GOOD WORK, the problem is not “…IF it would be sufficient, it would prove too much…”  No, the point is that the whole of Scripture IS INDEED SUFFICIENT as the only infallible Rule of Faith for the church today, but Catholic teaching doesn’t line up with this … that’s the problem.  They are using a faulty premise in verse 16 which distorts the conclusion and true meaning of verse 17.

So, this is an illogical and absurd objection that falls flat, since it is just another in a long line of weak attempts to deny the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

QUICK NOTES ON SOLA SCRIPTURA (Part 3)

“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17 – NASV) 

We continue our series on Sola Scriptura (“Bible Alone”) where we are dealing with certain attacks on the Protestant understanding of the above verses.

Today’s specific argument is:

ARGUMENT #3 – THE PASSAGE ABOVE ONLY SAYS THAT SCRIPTURE IS *PROFITABLE* (OR USEFUL), NOT THAT IT IS *SUFFICIENT*, AS A RULE OF FAITH.

This is one of the most commonly used arguments against Sola Scriptura, but once again, while the word “sufficient” is not specifically mentioned, the context strongly suggests that, as an infallible Rule of Faith, Scripture is more than sufficient.  See Part 1 of this series:

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2013/03/quick-notes-on-sola-scriptura-part-1.html

Sometimes Catholics act as though the term “profitable” is the only description that the Bible ever has of itself.  In fact, many Catholics describe Scripture as “merely profitable.”  But the term "profitable" does not negate, or rule out, the possibility of sufficiency.  Never does the context here, or anywhere else in the Bible, LIMIT Scripture to the status of “merely profitable.”  It is always described in much grander terms.

And why is it that Catholics always focus on the word “profitable” in verse 16, but never seem to emphasize the word “inspired” (which means “God-breathed”) in the same verse?  When they read that Jesus breathed on the apostles in John 20:22, they make a really big deal over it.  Yet, why are His God-breathed Sacred Writings reduced to “merely profitable”?  According to those Catholics, the term “God-breathed” seems to be almost irrelevant here in 2 Timothy.  But it is the same Savior who "breathed" on both.

What’s the point of Paul’s emphasizing the Sacred Writings in 2 Timothy?   Is it because he feels that Scripture is “only profitable”?  Never mind the fact that the Bible is God-breathed / inspired (3:16).  Never mind that it is able to make one wise for salvation (3:15).  Or that it fully equips one for doctrine… reproof… correction… and training in righteousness (3:16).  Or that, as a Rule of Faith, it is the complete “toolbox” for the believer (3:17).  In 2 Timothy 3 Paul is telling us of the nature and purpose of God’s written Word, and it is presented in this context as the antidote to deception and false teaching (3:13).  Just “profitable”?  Merely “useful”?  Does anyone really think that this is what Paul is trying to tell us here?  No, Paul does not have such a low view of Scripture.

Calling Scripture “merely profitable” in 2 Timothy 3:16 would be like calling Jesus “merely good,” just because He is called the “Good” Shepherd in John 10:11.  Or, it would be like saying the Holy Spirit is “merely” a Helper in John 14:16.  Not only would these terms be insulting to God, but we might consider this near blasphemy.

Many Catholics (and others) claim to have the "utmost respect" for Scripture.  But it’s sure hard to believe this when they use these kinds of arguments.