JOHN MARTIGNONI AND HIS THOUGHTS ON “BIBLE” CHURCHES

Today, we again visit Catholic apologist and speaker, John Martignoni, and we’ll take a look at his Newsletter #538.  In this issue, John addresses “The Problem with So-Called ‘Bible’ Churches.”

You can find the link here:

https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/758-the-problem-with-so-called-bible-churches-apologetics-for-the-masses-538

According to John:

“They say that all of their beliefs come straight from the Bible.  Sola Scriptura! is their rallying cry.  The Bible is their sole authority for what they believe and teach.  Or, they might say it’s their ‘ultimate’ authority or their only ‘infallible’ authority or some such thing… Regardless of whatever particular verbiage they use, it boils down to this: Protestant churches claim to take their beliefs and teachings on doctrine and morals straight ‘from’ the Bible.” 

He then says:

“… I realized that every church that claims Sola Scriptura as its most fundamental principle, and claims to take its beliefs and teachings straight from the Bible – well, every one of those churches, by claiming  to be a ‘Bible church’ – is, at the very same time, claiming not to be the church of the Bible.” (Emphasis in original)

So what in the world does he mean by this?

John then says:

“In order for the church to get its beliefs ‘from’ the Bible, the Bible would have to exist before the church did.  Yet, as we have seen, from the Word of God, the Church founded by Jesus Christ - the Church that Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to guide (John 16:13) - that Church existed before a single word of the New Testament was ever written!” (Emphasis in original)

And a little later:

“But here’s the thing.  The Catholic Church is not a ‘Bible’ church in the sense that we take our beliefs/teachings ‘from’ the Bible; it is, however, a ‘Bible’ church in the sense that we put our beliefs/teachings ‘into’ the Bible.  So, we are not a ‘Bible’ church; rather, we are the Bible Church…we are the Church ‘of’ the Bible.” (Emphasis in original)

So, basically, John is saying, “Why would anyone want to be in a church that takes its beliefs FROM the Bible when you can be in the Church who GAVE YOU the Bible?”

For starters, see this link that challenges this idea:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2012/02/did-catholic-church-give-us-bible.html

The Truth

Well, John, that all sounds great, but no, if you (Catholics) were THE Bible church, you wouldn’t have so many false doctrines, as demonstrated throughout this blog.

If you had the true gospel (Galatians 1:6-9), you would not be like the Judaizers (Acts 15:1, 5), who believed that Jesus died on the cross, but also trusted in their works to be saved, and added them to the cross of Jesus Christ.  You would steer clear of idolatry and stop praying to anyone other than God.  You would put away the shrines to Mary and speak out against the papacy and your ministerial priesthood, all of which are totally unbiblical.  And there are many, many other issues with which to deal.  I know that this is a lot for most Catholics to take in, but I must be blunt with you and tell you the truth (Galatians 4:16).  The time is getting late and we are nearer the Lord’s Return than ever before (Romans 13:11).  It is certainly not safe to have all these unbiblical teachings hanging over your head.  John, you’re deceiving many Catholics and you’ll have to answer to God for each of these souls.

Which Came First?

The question often comes up in Catholic/Protestant discussions: Which came first, the Bible or the Church?  John contends that we can have a Church without the Bible, but it is not possible to have a Bible without the Church.  But is this true? 

No, the church did not come first.  Many Old Testament Scriptures existed hundreds, and even thousands, of years before the church ever existed.  God has chosen to give us Scripture little by little over the centuries.  He then created the church, with those Old Testament writings as its foundation (Isaiah 53; Jeremiah 31:31-34; 1 Corinthians 10:11; 2 Timothy 3:15; Hebrews 1:1-2).  And by His design, God then gradually added more Scripture (the New Testament) after the church was in place.  So, yes, the New Testament came after the church was born, but there was much Scripture which existed long before that.

Let’s Use the Term Correctly!

John says:

“Furthermore, who wrote the Bible?  Let me refine that by asking: Who wrote the New Testament part of the Bible?  Members of the Church.  Every author of a New Testament book was a member of the Church.  So, it is entirely accurate to say that the Bible came from the Church.”

John is playing word games here.  Yes, the writers of the Sacred Scriptures were all saved – that is, they were members of the church (the global assembly of believers).  But John, like many other Catholics, often uses “the church” to mean “only the leaders of the church,” i.e., the Magisterium.  In fact, they will use “the church” and “the Catholic Magisterium” as if the terms are fully interchangeable, but Scripture will not allow such a concept.  Like I said, Catholics, including John Martignoni, will often play fast and loose with biblical terms.

For example, in this newsletter, John says 1) “the entire Bible came from the church,” 2) “without the church, you don’t have the Bible,” 3) that church wrote the New Testament and gave it to the world,” 4) “that church vouched for the fact that the New Testament, as well as the Old, is the inspired, inerrant, Word of God,” 5) the church that gave us the Bible in the first place,” 6) the Church founded by Jesus Christ,” 7) the Church that Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to guide (John 16:13),” 8) a “Bible” Church in the sense that we put our beliefs/teachings ‘into’ the Bible,” and 9) the Church that serves as the authoritative witness that the books of the Bible are indeed the inspired, inerrant, Word of God.”

In all these instances, John is using the term to mean a Magisterium.

But none of these descriptions of the church are biblical.  None of these refers to the universal church, worldwide, nor do they simply refer to the local body of believers.  Rather, Catholics are referring to an unbiblical (and supposedly infallible) “Magisterium,” which Scripture knows nothing about!

Let’s get the definition of “church” right, once and for all.  The Catholic Magisterium is NOT the church.  Scripture never refers to the “leaders only” as the church – there is no such thing.  Again, Scripture only uses the term “church(es)” in two ways: 1) as the local body of believers (1 Corinthians 1:2; Galatians 1:2; Revelation 2:1, 8, 12, 18, 3:1, 7, 14), and 2) as the universal body of believers, worldwide (Ephesians 5:23; Colossians 1:17-18).  According to the Bible, there is no single person on earth who is head over the whole church, and there is no single body of certain believers over the whole church.

John continues:

“And since Israel is the Old Testament ‘church’ and the Church is the New Testament “Israel”, it is also fair to say that the entire Bible came from the ‘church’.”

Again, John is playing fast and loose with the term.  But Israel and the church are two separate entities.  Yes, they are both the people of God, but each group has a separate role to play in history. 

Same Doctrine?

But who was it that actually wrote the Bible?  Did any of these Bible authors (e.g., Matthew, Mark, John, Paul) claim to be Roman Catholic?  No, not one.  John, as many Catholics apologists do, is trying to force the teachings of these authors of Scripture into the mold of modern Catholicism, and it doesn’t work.  The teachings of the modern Catholic Church are not the teachings of Jesus Christ and the apostolic authors.  John Martignoni conflates the two.

Conclusion

And John, for the record – on the one hand, there is absolutely nothing wrong with men getting their teachings/doctrine from the Scriptures, which is what we are to be doing in the first place (1 Thessalonians 5:21; 2 Timothy 2:15; 1 John 4:1).  You act as though those who do use the Bible for doctrine are some kind of second class Christians (or worse). 

But on the other hand, it IS wrong for anyone to claim that they are the only ones who have the fullness of the truth, especially with all the false doctrine the Catholic Church has.  John, no matter how you slice it, Scripture is not on your side.

You may say, “It’s not false doctrine, it’s just that you Protestants are using your own fallible private interpretation when reading the Bible!”  Well, we can get into that with my next scheduled post…

 

CATHOLIC APOLOGISTS ABUSE JOHN 16:13

 

“Howbeit when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth: for He shall not speak of Himself; but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak: and He will shew you things to come.” (John 16:13)

What exactly did Jesus mean when He said the Holy Spirit would guide His audience “into all truth”?  Is He talking about the truth found in science, logic or math?  Is He referring to the great mysteries of space and the universe? 

No, He is speaking of spiritual and eternal truths, i.e., the things of God, morality and how He expects one to live.  But someone could say that everything that God knows is the truth, so does this mean that the Holy Spirit is going to show us all things that God Himself knows?  Of course not.  There is no person or group of people that could possibly contain all the spiritual knowledge that God possesses.  So, “guide you into all truth” simply means that the Holy Spirit will give you all the truth that you need in a particular circumstance, for example: 

“And when they bring you unto the synagogues, and unto magistrates, and powers, take ye no thought how or what thing ye shall answer, or what ye shall say: for the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say.” (Luke 12:11-12)

“But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in My name, He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.” (John 14:26)

He will give you all the wisdom and direction you need and bring that which is necessary to the believer’s remembrance.  The meaning of John 16:13 is that simple.

Catholic Apologists vs. the Catholic Catechism

But there are many attempts today by Catholic apologists to use this particular verse to buttress the concept of the supposed infallibility of the Catholic Church.  They will say the Holy Spirit, through the promise of Jesus, will give Peter and the apostles (and by extension, the Catholic Church) the authority to teach infallibly and to never be able to teach error or false doctrine when “officially” addressing and teaching the whole church.  They believe that the term “guide you into all truth” applies to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church and offers a “negative charism,” i.e., an infallible gift of protection from error.  In this way, the “chair of Peter” would always fail to promote false doctrine.  

But this passage does not at all support this idea of infallibility for the Church or the popes.  In fact, the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that Jesus’ words (“guide you into all truth”) do not only apply to the Magisterium, but also to individuals:

“All the faithful share in understanding and handing on revealed truth.  They have received the anointing of the Holy Spirit, who instructs them and guides them into all truth.” (CCC #91 – emphasis added)

This paragraph from the Catechism contains a footnote specifically pointing to John 16:13, so there is no doubt that it is speaking of this passage.  Therefore, the Catechism is teaching that this applies to “all the faithful” individuals in the Church.

So, what does this mean?  It means that if Catholic apologists want to claim that Jesus’ words (“guide you into all truth”) offer special protection from error for the Magisterium, they must also believe that the individual believer is specially protected from error in the same way.  And I know they don’t want to say that!

But you can’t have it both ways.  It either provides infallible protection from error for both the Church leadership AND for the individual, or it is for neither.  I will assert it is for neither.  I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: In Scripture, there is no guarantee of infallibility for anyone in the post-apostolic church. 

So, what is this “all truth” that Jesus was speaking of in this passage?  How exactly will the Holy Spirit guide us?  He tells us clearly in the very next chapter of John:

“Sanctify them through Thy truth: Thy word is truth.” (John 17:17)

God tells us in no uncertain terms, and He tells us throughout the Bible that truth lives in His Word – Scripture (e.g., see Psalm 119).

First Example

Is it really true that Catholic apologists claim that John 16:13 means that the (Catholic) Church is infallible?  For anyone who may deny this, I would like to offer a few examples.  For the first, see this article written by Jason Evert on the Catholic Answers website:

https://www.bing.com/search?q=catholic%20answers%2C%20john%2016%3A13%2C%20infallibility&qs=n&form=QBRE&sp=-1&lq=0&pq=catholic%20answers%2C%20john%2016%3A13%2C%20infallibility&sc=0-43&sk=&cvid=68F12749BE6440778C7EE5D7A52959E7

In this write-up, Evert has a short paragraph in which John 16:13 is pressed into service in an attempt to affirm the idea of the infallibility of the Catholic Church.  He says:

“The early Christians knew that they could turn to the apostolic teaching of the Church as a norm for the truth.” 

Ok, so far, so good.  Apostolic teaching is indeed a norm for the truth, but we must make sure that what we are talking about is indeed apostolic teaching.  And we determine that by looking to Scripture.

He then says, “For whoever heard the Church heard Christ (Luke 10:16), and Christ cannot teach error.”

Again, when Catholic apologists use the term “the Church,” it is almost always used to mean specifically the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.  But this is simply reading into the context of Scripture an idea that isn’t there. 

Furthermore, the reference to Luke 10:16 is forced here.  In this verse, Jesus is addressing the seventy-two disciples whom He had sent out ahead of Himself to preach the gospel (the good news) to the surrounding towns and cities.  They were sent out as ambassadors of Christ, preaching truth.  So, whoever “heard” these ambassadors were, in effect, “hearing Christ” because these preachers were faithfully sharing His message.  So, if you want to apply Luke 10:16 to your church, you’d better make sure that your message is indeed His message.  But unfortunately, not every teaching that the Catholic Church promotes is what Jesus says.

Getting back to Jason’s quote, it is certainly true that “Christ cannot teach error.”  But to equate Jesus’ infallibility with the Catholic Church (or ANY church) is ridiculous and is usurping Jesus’ authority.  Jesus shares His infallibility with no one but the other two members of the Trinity.  The only time He has shared it with man is when He stirred them to write Scripture, which is “God-breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:20-21).

Evert then says:

“So the question should not be ‘where is infallibility in the Bible,’ but where in the Bible is the idea that Christ’s Church would teach error?”

No, Jason, I’m sorry, but you guys are the ones making the positive assertion that not only is the Catholic Church infallible, but that this information can be found, at least partially, in the Bible.  So it is up to YOU to prove your assertion and you certainly didn’t do that in your article.

Also, concerning the church teaching error, it is true that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the true church (Matthew 16:18).  Catholics use this verse all the time to point to infallibility.  But this has nothing at all to do with church leaders being exempt from teaching error.  The sad truth is that Hell will indeed prevail against MANY who claim to be part of the church (Matthew 7:21-23).  But it will not prevail over those who trust in (and keep the words of) Jesus.  

Furthermore, note that the apostle Paul sternly warned the Ephesian elders/leaders to “keep watch over yourselves and the entire flock,” and that some “from among your own selves” would draw disciples away with false teaching (Acts 20:28-30). 

That doesn’t sound like a guarantee that the church leadership has a promise to avoid false teaching.  Why would they need to “keep watch” if they had no possibility of error?  The bottom line is there is no gift of infallibility for the post-apostolic church – showing that no one is safe if he deviates from God’s Word.  This demonstrates that Catholic apologists are abusing John 16:13 and it does not prove their case.

Second Example

In the “Question Corner” of the Catholic Courier (November 7, 2013) a Catholic priest named Kenneth Doyle answers a discerning patron who is asking about infallible teachings of the Church.  Doyle points out that the doctrine of infallibility is “founded on Christ’s promise to the apostles that He would send the Holy Spirit, ‘who will guide you to all truth’ (John 16:13).”

See the question here:

https://catholiccourier.com/articles/what-teachings-are-declared-infallible/

So, again, we see a Catholic leader try to use John 16:13 as support for the Church’s so-called infallibility.  He then says:

“That secure sense of protection from error on fundamental teachings was part of the early history of the church and is reflected in St. Augustine’s fifth-century statement, ‘Rome has spoken; the case is concluded.’”

Concerning the Church’s “secure sense of protection from error,” see this article on the “Rome has spoken” quote by Doyle, which is so often abused by Catholics, and is thoroughly debunked here:

Catholic Legends And How They Get Started: An Example (Sermon 131) - Alpha and Omega Ministries

Just saying that the verse refers to infallibility does not make it so.  Again, the Catholic Church has a false sense of protection from error when they try to use John 16:13 to teach papal infallibility.

Third Example

In an article written by Kevin Noles at the Catholic 365 Website, Noles mentions John 14:16-17 together with John 16:13 to promote Catholic infallibility.  He says:

“It is clear in these two passages that there is a promise of infallibility… Since the Holy Spirit is the third person of the Trinity this makes the Holy Spirit’s teaching necessarily infallible.”

Yes, the Holy Spirit’s teaching is indeed infallible – no argument there.  But Catholic apologists are greatly distorting that promise to be led into truth and are usurping that promise to refer to only one institution/organization – to themselves – rather than to all true believers.  There is nothing in the context of John 16:13 about either infallibility or about a particular church.

Simply mentioning the two verses he noted and saying “it is clear” that they include a promise of infallibility does not magically keep the Catholic Church from error.

Once again, skewed interpretations of the Bible do not prove an infallible post-apostolic church.  These apologists are guilty of eisegesis, that is, they are just reading that idea back into Scripture.  But a faithful look at the whole of Scripture will demonstrate their error.

More Examples

Catholic Online website:

https://www.catholic.org/news/hf/faith/story.php?id=42151

Catholic Share website:

https://www.catholicshare.com/what-is-papal-infallibility-and-when-does-it-apply/

Catholic Stand website:

https://catholicstand.com/doesnt-church-just-infallibly-interpret-every-verse-scripture/

Archdiocese of Boston website:

https://www.bostoncatholic.org/papal-infallibility

Catholic Company website:

https://www.catholiccompany.com/getfed/catholics-believe-everything-the-pope-says/

You get the idea.  This is just a small sampling of Catholic sources on the internet who wrongly tie papal infallibility to John 16:13.  It was my purpose here to focus specifically on this one passage and to show the world that these Catholic apologists, whether intentionally or not, are deceiving their audience.

Conclusion

I know that Catholics have a number of other Bible verses and other arguments for Church infallibility, but in order to avoid a multitude of links, I will not list them here, but there are also plenty articles in this blog that deal with the Catholic Church’s claim of infallibility.  You can type the words “infallible” or “infallibility” in the search bar in the upper left corner of the blog to see some of the Protestant arguments.

The consistent abuse of John 16:13 by many Catholic apologists to “prove” papal infallibility/Church infallibility is either dishonest or attempted by poorly informed Catholics.  Either way, it does not help the image of the Catholic Church, but rather weakens it.

IS NOAH’S ARK A SYMBOL OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH?

In Palermo, Sicily resides a Palatine Chapel which is reported to contain a famous mosaic of Noah’s ark.  Pictures of it can be found here:

https://www.christianiconography.info/sicily/noahArkPalatineChapel.html

https://www.christianiconography.info/sicily/noahPalatine.html

In this mosaic, Noah’s ark appears to be representing the Church, which Catholics officially believe to be the “universal sacrament of salvation” (Lumen Gentium, chapter VII, par. 48).  See here:

https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

Please note that another official teaching of Catholicism is that the Catholic Church is absolutely necessary for the salvation of mankind.  The first paragraph of the papal decree Unam Sanctam reflects this teaching:

“Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic… we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins… In her then is one Lord, one faith, one baptism... There had been at the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church… outside of this ark, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed.” (Unam Sanctam, Bull of Pope Boniface VIII promulgated November 18, 1302). 

Moreover, this document “infallibly” declares:

“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman pontiff [pope].” (Emphasis added)

See here:

https://www.papalencyclicals.net/bon08/b8unam.htm

This whole bull (public papal decree) is about the authority of the Catholic Church and the necessity of it for salvation.  And because of this concept, this Church puts forth the idea that the ark of Noah (Genesis chapters 6-8) has to be a picture of the Church – specifically, the Catholic Church.  So, with this in mind, we can begin to understand the reason why the average Catholic in the pew sees Noah’s ark as a symbol of the Church. 

But is the ark of Noah indeed a picture of the Church, or are Catholics mistaken?  Furthermore, does it even matter?

Wrong Picture

Yes, it does indeed matter, because Catholics are attributing to their Church a power that Scripture does not give it. 

It was certainly the ark that saved Noah and the other seven members of his family, but the church is not a structure, like a boat or a building, but rather, the church is defined as the people of God (1 Corinthians 16:19; Philemon 1:1-2). Believers are not IN the church, they, collectively, ARE the church. 

It is the people in the ark (Noah and his family) who are the picture of the church – while the ark itself represents Jesus, the one who saves from judgment!

What Does “the Church” Mean?

When most Catholics (even the “clergy”) use the term “the Church,” they are not using the biblical definition.  They are usually not talking about the universal, worldwide church of Jesus Christ (e.g., Ephesians 5:23; Colossians 1:17-18), nor the local assembly of believers (e.g., 1 Corinthians 1:2; Galatians 1:2; Revelation 2:1, 8, 12, 18; 3:1, 7, 14), but to them, the term “Church” means specifically the Magisterium, i.e., the leaders of the institution of the Church of Rome, the Catholic Church and no other church. 

Whether it is intentional or not, there is a continual effort in the Catholic Church to present the Magisterium in this way.  But the term “church” is not ever used this way in the Bible.  And once we use the biblical definition, it clears the air and does not allow the heresy of having any one denomination as the “one true church.”

This is simply the mindset of most Catholics.  See more of this mindset in this link:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-catholic-mindset.html

What About 1 Peter 3:20?

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the event of Noah’s ark and the flood prefigures/symbolizes salvation by water baptism:

“The Church has seen in Noah's ark a prefiguring of salvation by Baptism, for by it ‘a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water.’" (CCC #1219)

And it then footnotes 1 Peter 3:20, which says:

“Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.”

Of this verse, Catholics will often focus on the last three words in the King James Version of the Bible – “saved by water.”  They claim that this verse proves that a person is saved by water baptism.  But the context does not bear this out.

A more correct reading would be “saved through the water,” as the great majority of the Bible translations indicate, as well as the Catholic Catechism quote above.

It is a fact that not every Scripture passage that talks about baptism is about water baptism.  Yes, there is water in the context of this passage, but the water here destroyed all those who were “baptized” in it.  The water in this context was the judgment of God.  If this is all about water baptism saving a person, this is a terrible example! 

The only reason that “baptism language” is used here is to indicate that Noah and his family were placed/immersed into the ark – which is what saved them.  This is a picture of those who are incorporated into the body of Christ to be saved (1 Corinthians 12:12-13), not into water.  Water baptism is simply a symbol of what happens to you when you get saved. 

So, this “salvation-by-baptism” argument fails to show that Noah’s ark is symbolic of the Catholic Church.

See more about 1 Peter 3:20 and baptism here:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2015/07/

Biblical Church vs. Sacramental Church

For the biblical Christian, the local church should indeed be a vital aspect of his life.  There, he is fed spiritually (Hebrews 5:13-14), he is edified and equipped for the ministry (Ephesians 4:12), encouraged and comforted in his Christian walk (1 Thessalonians 2:12), he is convicted of sin when necessary (1 Corinthians 14:24), and he is fellowshipping and interacting with other Christians in a mutually positive way (1 John 1:3, 7) – but most importantly, he is encouraged to depend on the life and work of Jesus Christ on the cross for his salvation, and that alone (Romans 4:4-6) – or, at least this should be the case. 

But throughout the individual Catholic’s life, the Catholic Church subtly (and sometimes not so subtly) conditions him to depend on the Catholic institution/organization/denomination itself for salvation.  Usually, he receives the sacrament of baptism very early in life, even as an infant.  He is brought up to believe that this absolved him of his original sin.  He is also taught that the sacrament/ritual of confirmation confirms and establishes him in his faith.  He will also receive the Eucharist weekly and go to confession often, and when he is at the point of death, he will receive the last rites.  It is a cradle-to-grave dependence upon the (Catholic) Church for salvation, through the sacraments.

All these are necessary steps in his salvation and these can only be obtained from the leaders of the Church.  And if he happens to miss a step, he can always depend on a temporary visit to Purgatory to finish the job that Jesus Christ was unable to finish with His work on the cross!  Yes, this is absolute blasphemy, yet, in practice, this is what the Catholic is expected to believe.

See this link for more on the sacraments:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2011/01/sacraments-gods-grace-for-sale.html

See also a seven-part series on Catholic sacraments, beginning here:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2023/01/the-sacraments-of-catholic-church-part.html

Conclusion

Yes, the (truly biblical) local church is indeed very important.  But again, the Catholic Church puts great emphasis on a person’s lifelong subjection to its sacraments and rituals for salvation. 

And this is exactly why they liken the Church to Noah’s ark, because the ark is what saved the eight people of God, and they desperately want their members to believe that their salvation comes from the Church.

But in Catholic theology, it seems that Jesus always has to take a back seat to the Magisterium, which, in practice, is the one that is actually exalted. 

Granted, in their official documents, the Catholic Church uses many sublime descriptions and eloquent language to describe their honor of, and submission to, Jesus – yet in practice it seems to be quite different.  Mother Church is the one who always seems to be in the limelight, while the work of Jesus is minimized.

When one looks deeper into their doctrines, he will see a notable disparity between those teachings and the Holy Scriptures that they claim to love and obey.

To nail it home, the event of Noah’s ark points to the Savior of the world, Jesus Christ as the one who saves mankind, not to the Catholic Church.

 

SOLA SCRIPTURA AND JESUS

 

Then the devil taketh Him up into the holy city, and set Him on a pinnacle of the temple, and saith unto Him, “If Thou be the Son of God, cast Thyself down: for it is written, ‘He shall give His angels charge concerning Thee, and in their hands they shall bear Thee up, lest at any time Thou dash Thy foot against a stone.’”  Jesus said unto him, “It is written again, ‘thou shalt not tempt the Lord, thy God.’” (Matthew 4:5-7)

This is the second of the devil’s temptations of Jesus recorded in Matthew’s gospel.  I find this particular temptation very interesting in the way that Jesus responds to Satan.  The devil actually quotes Psalm 91:11-12 to Jesus in order to trick Him into doing something foolish.  But think of the irony – the arch-enemy of Jesus Christ is quoting the Word of God (Scripture) to the very Word of God, Himself, in the flesh (Jesus Christ).  I think that it is safe to say that Jesus was familiar enough with the written Word of God to answer the devil correctly.

Nevertheless, I want to point out what is actually happening here in Matthew, from a doctrinal standpoint.  Jesus is reinforcing a well established concept – “Scripture interprets Scripture.”  That is, we can take the simpler and clearer passages that we all agree on and we can use those to establish principles to help us understand the less understood passages.

Notice that Jesus overcame the devil all three times with the phrase “It is written,” that is, with Scripture (Matthew 4:1-10).  On this particular occasion, He tells the devil, “It is written again…”!  He doesn’t try to invoke tradition, or the authority of some kind of Jewish “magisterium” like the Sanhedrin, or some past Hebrew council to thwart the enemy of our soul.  No, He goes even farther into the Word of God, because Scripture interprets Scripture. 

When someone misuses Scripture in a debate with you, you don’t have to divert to some other source – you go deeper into Scripture to clear the air.  You tell them, “But it is also written…”  You counter with the whole counsel of God in Scripture, always using it in context. 

This is the concept of Sola Scriptura, which is basically defined in this way:

Scripture is the ultimate rule of faith for the church today because it is the only infallible one.  Other tools and sources can be used to help us in our Christian walk, but they are not infallible.  No other source is on the same level as Scripture.  We would do well to trust the church’s ultimate rule of faith.  

For a deeper understanding of the topic, the reader can type “Sola Scriptura” in the search bar in the upper left-hand corner of this page to view many articles on this topic.

A Much-Ignored Chapter

The apostle Paul reinforced this same concept in 2 Timothy 3.  This chapter is not in the Bible just to take up space.  It is an antidote to false teaching.  Second Timothy is the final epistle of the apostle Paul’s writings and there is certainly a sense of urgency in his message.  He knows that he will soon be martyred and he is leaving some very important “last words” for the church.  He warns that in the last days perilous times will come, doctrinally and otherwise (v. 1).  In the next few verses (v.2-9), he prophesies in graphic detail the circumstances with which the church will have to deal.  But many don’t realize that Paul was telling us that the threat would come from within the church!  We all know that the unbelieving world behaves in the way Paul describes, but Paul is talking about some who would be “having a form of godliness” (v. 5), coming to the “knowledge of the truth” (v. 7), and “reprobate concerning the faith” (v. 8).  So again, he is referring to some in the church whose doctrine and lives are perverted.  This is an apostasy, a falling from the faith, a spiritual cancer in the church and it must certainly be dealt with.  We can undeniably see much of this happening even today.

Paul continues and now switches his focus to the faithful:

“But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience, persecutions, afflictions…”  (v. 10-12).  Notice the first thing listed here is doctrine. He goes on:

“But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived” (v. 13).

He is about to give Timothy a remedy for the great deception that is coming.

“But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them” (v. 14).

The apostle assures the faithful that his doctrine is the truth and that he is trustworthy.

But Catholics will insist that “the things thou hast learned” and “hast been assured of” refers to “Sacred Tradition.”  It is no doubt true that the precise words of Scripture were not the only words that Paul shared with them.  Obviously, he had also shared other things that were not specifically written down in the Word.  So, Catholics will say that Paul had to be referring to tradition.  But the fact that tradition is not specifically mentioned here (while Scripture will be), and what Paul goes on to tell them, clarifies his point.

The Solution

Now, the apostle will mention the cure for surviving these latter day trials and doctrinal problems:

“And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus” (v. 15).    

Ok, so he specifically lists Scripture as the answer to problems in doctrine and behavior.  Now, many Catholics will say that this passage only refers to the Old Testament Scriptures, and therefore, this (supposedly) refutes the “Bible only” doctrine, since it would actually mean “Old Testament only.”  But this idea is refuted in the next verse:

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (v. 16). 

This verse (along with v. 17) is savagely attacked by many non-believers in Sola Scriptura, especially Catholics, and I believe it is because these two verses are so clear, and they don’t like what the text is saying.  Like I said above, most of the attacks are coming from those who claim to be Christians today, and the attack on this passage is a case in point.  But this passage’s detractors don’t want it to be true and will fight tooth and nail in attempting to destroy its clear and simple meaning. 

“Only” Scripture?

Many will claim that the text doesn’t say “ONLY Scripture is given by inspiration of God,” etc., etc., but all Scripture, therefore Sola Scriptura cannot be right.  While the word “only” is not used, a simple assessment of the context will show that the concept is indeed there, as we will soon see.  Just because specific phrases or words are absent, does not negate the idea of a given concept.  Context will determine the intended idea.  So, let’s not be so quick to rule out the concept of “only Scripture” as the ultimate rule of faith.  Keep reading.

The term “by inspiration of God” is rendered “God-breathed” in the Greek.  This would of course denote infallibility in that source.  Note that there is no other rule of faith mentioned in all of Scripture that is given the title “God-breathed.”

This fact alone leans heavily toward the concept of Scripture alone.  But there’s more…

“Merely” Profitable?

But many Catholics try to say that Scripture is only profitable, since it doesn’t use the term “sufficient.”  But why do Catholics focus on the supposed “weakness” of the word “profitable,” yet ignore the power and sufficiency of terms like “inspired” and “thoroughly furnished” (fully equipped) in the same context?  It seems as though there is a double standard here.

But the term “inspired” (or “God-breathed”) in this same passage does not allow for such a low view of the term “profitable.”  It’s like saying that God is “merely good” to us and nothing more.  But no one who is serious about serving God would say this.

As I mentioned above, they will say that all of Scripture was not yet written at the time of Paul’s epistle, so it couldn’t be referring to the New Testament, could it?  But, using that same line of reasoning, does anyone think that Paul really meant “All Scripture written up to this time, but not the rest of it” is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness?  Absolutely not. 

That would be like a Catholic saying, “All infallible/ex-cathedra statements of the Catholic Church are true.”  And we could then ask, “Does that mean 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.  Remember, Paul was not just addressing the needs of the early church, but also those of the future church (v. 1), as well.  So, this argument doesn’t hold.

When Paul said “All Scripture,” he was looking ahead and including everything that God ever intended to be Scripture.  Otherwise, you’d have to say that not all of the New Testament was God-breathed! 

The Complete and Sufficient “Toolbox”

And finally:

“That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works” (v. 17).

So we see here that Scripture is able to make one perfect (i.e., mature and complete) and throughly [thoroughly] furnished for “all good works.”  Now, remember, starting from v. 10, Paul is focusing heavily on doctrine, and Scripture is the remedy for this great deception.  So, doctrinally speaking, if this book we call the Bible is 1) infallible, 2) able to keep us from deception, and 3) able to equip us for every/all good works, then we need no other infallible source.

To use an analogy, if you were an auto mechanic and your boss gave you a toolbox that equipped you for every auto mechanic’s job that you could possibly run into, wouldn’t that toolbox be sufficient?  Yes, it would.  Do you need another toolbox for foreign cars or pick-up trucks?  No, not if the one he gave you equips you for every mechanic’s job.  Again, this mechanic’s toolbox would suffice.

In the same way, Scripture is our rule of faith, our “toolbox” of doctrine which equips us for every good work.  Since this is true, there is no other source needed today TO FUNCTION AS AN INFALLIBLE RULE OF FAITH.  By definition, Scripture is all that is needed.  So the Bible necessarily and effectively eclipses and replaces any other source that claims to be an infallible rule of faith.

No tradition is on the same level as Scripture, unless that tradition is both 1) already part of the Bible and 2) in line with its principles.  For example, Jesus’ mention of the tradition of the Pharisees (Mark 15:1-13) is certainly referred to in the Bible, but it is excluded as an authoritative source because it doesn’t line up with the rest of Scripture.  And any other tradition whose concepts are not in line with the Bible’s are also rejected.

Not to mention the fact that the Catholic Church has never been able to clearly and exactly say what the contents of its tradition are in any meaningful way.  They will give us extremely vague definitions of tradition, or distract people by giving some examples of Sacred Tradition, but they can’t identify the whole of Catholic Tradition with certainty, and the Catholic Church’s weak attempts at doing so are an absolute joke.  See these articles:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2022/07/the-lonely-pilgrim-and-sacred-tradition.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2010/05/what-about-tradition.html

Conclusion

There are many who would want to add other “authorities” to the Bible, and even claim they are equal to it.  But it always happens that when something other than Scripture is introduced as an “equal supplement” (like tradition, councils or “magisteriums”), Scripture always gets put on the back burner, and truth takes a serious hit.

We see here in this article only a tiny portion of the writings of one of the greatest apostles who ever lived – a man whom God infallibly used to write one third of the New Testament.  Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, this man was used to reveal (and unpack the details of) a most critical doctrine just before he was martyred by an evil and ungodly generation of men.  The apostle Paul gives us the clearest understanding of the concept of Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone as the ultimate and only infallible rule of faith for the church today).  Will the church in this modern day embrace and take advantage of this teaching?  Regretfully, the truth is that many will not, thus hastening the apostasy of which Paul spoke (2 Timothy 3:1-5).

Today, more than ever, we need to recognize the power of Scripture as our ultimate source for doctrine and guidance, and to guard against the inevitable deception and false teaching we’re seeing in the modern (and last days) church.  That is the purpose of Sola Scriptura.

 

THE ORIGIN OF TRUTH

 

When Catholics and Protestants engage in debate, there is generally a lot of back and forth (we discuss the Marian doctrines, faith alone, Purgatory, the Eucharist, Confession, the priesthood, the papacy, etc., etc.)  But there is a foundational topic that we should probably address first: What is truth?  Where is the truth that carries authority?  How can a Catholic or Protestant know what’s true in these spiritual matters?   

Of course, different levels of truth can come from many sources, some more dependable than others.  We can get some spiritual truth from the early church fathers,  we can get it from church history, or even some secular history sources; we can get truth from eyewitnesses of biblical events, etc.  But in the end, what we are really asking is, “Where can we find the ultimate and infallible source of truth on spiritual matters that neither side can deny?” 

In these spiritual debates, both sides use Scripture as a source of truth (and rightly so).  But Catholics also insist that we need to add “infallible” Sacred Tradition and the “infallible” Catholic Magisterium (which they call “the living, teaching office” of the Church).

But are Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium really infallible sources of truth?  Let me say up front that I believe that there is only ONE infallible source of truth, or rule of faith, for the church today.  And that source is the God-breathed Scriptures (2 Timothy 3:16-17).  If this is indeed true, then Catholic arguments fail and crumble to the ground, because Catholics invest so much in the Magisterium and Tradition.

Misuse of Terms

One of the first things I wish to address is the definition of the phrase “the Church,” used so often by Catholics.  The word “church” comes from the Greek “ecclesia,” which means “called out ones.”  The phrase has only two meanings within the pages of Scripture:

1   1) The faithful members of the universal church, worldwide (in other words, all those who are saved), or

2   2) The faithful members of the local body of believers.

But Catholics have a third (and unbiblical) meaning of the term “the Church,” which they use far, far more often than the biblical meaning.  They use the term to mean the LEADERS (or the Magisterium) of the Catholic Church.  For example, when they say things like, “The Church teaches ABC…” or “The Church believes XYZ,” etc., they mean a Magisterium.  One way that they misuse the term in Scripture is when they quote Matthew 18:17: “…And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it to the church…”  Jesus is not saying to tell it to the Magisterium, He is saying to tell it to the local church body, not just the leaders, but the whole assembly.   And it is the duty of the whole congregation to treat the man as an outsider until he repents.

But, as I said, using the term to mean Magisterium is not biblical.  The term is never used this way in the Bible, so it causes much confusion between Catholics and Protestants and it distorts the idea of authority.  But when used in its intended sense, as stated above, much of the confusion can be avoided. 

I will offer the reader an experiment.  Go through the Catholic Catechism and find the word “church.”  See how many times it is described as the universal church or as the local body, as opposed to a Magisterium.  It may come as a surprise to Catholics that in the great majority of cases, it is used as the latter (i.e., in an unscriptural sense).

How the Church Started

Extravagant claims are made by the Catholic Church about itself and its authority, claiming to be the “one true Church,” i.e., the Church that Jesus Christ founded.  Why do they say this?  They usually break it down and present their argument something like this:

1   1) Jesus Christ established a Church (Matthew 16:18).

2   2) He founded this Church upon Peter (Matthew 16:18).  Peter is the foundation and human head of this Church worldwide.

3   3) Jesus gave Peter primacy over the other apostles by giving him the keys to the kingdom with the power to “bind” and “loose” (Matthew 16:19) when determining doctrine, faith and morals, and to rule over the whole Church.

4   4) This made Peter the first pope.

5   5) This authority extends to all of Peter’s successors (future popes), as well.  This is called Apostolic Succession, and it includes an unbroken, lawful chain of successors throughout history, from Peter to now.

6   6) This authority also includes the gift of infallibility (teaching without error) when the pope makes an official statement or proclamation to the whole church.

7   7) This necessarily established a Magisterium of Church leaders (with the pope as head) who are the ONLY ones who can truly interpret Scripture and Sacred Tradition (which is equal with Scripture).

8   8) This created the “three-legged stool,” consisting of Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium, faithfully preserving and transmitting this deposit of faith.

9   9) The Catholic Church’s Magisterium has truly, and infallibly, determined the correct list of books of the Bible, thus, giving the Scriptures to the world.

1 10)       The early Church fathers unanimously agreed with this and wrote about it.  Not only that, but Church history confirms all of this.

Logic Leaping and Scripture Twisting

Ok, there are a lot of assumptions and giant unproven leaps of logic here.  Catholics may say that it’s a cumulative argument – that each piece of the puzzle forms a part of the whole picture.  But I would say that if each piece individually can be refuted, then the whole thing collapses.  I will attempt to very briefly address each one now:

1   1) We all agree that Jesus Christ established a church.  No problem there.

2   2) The Church of Jesus Christ is not founded upon any mere man (like Peter).  It is Christ’s church (“Upon this rock I will build MY church” – Matthew 16:18).  And He is the Head of it.  The focus here is on Jesus, not the apostles or disciples.  The rock refers to the truth of the revelation Peter was shown just a couple of verses earlier – “And Simon Peter answered and said, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’”(Matthew 16:16).  THAT is what the church of Jesus Christ is built upon.  See also this link:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2016/09/matthew-16-who-or-what-is-rock.html

3   3) Peter was definitely a prominent leader in the early church.  But there is no scriptural reason to believe he had primacy over the other apostles.  As far as the keys to “bind” and “loose,” all the apostles received them (Matthew 18:18-19).  Jesus may have first mentioned that they will be given to Peter, but that doesn’t prove primacy.  The New Testament must be taken as a whole.  It is obvious that Peter, in his day, was never recognized by the other apostles as he is by the modern Catholic Church (Mark 9:33-34).  He had a position of prominence, but not primacy over the others.  Again, all the apostles were given the keys.  See this link:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2016/10/matthew-16-keys-binding-and-loosing.html

4   4) There is no mention of an office of pope, pontiff, or “vicar of Christ” in this passage.  Actually, there is no such office anywhere in the New Testament, although several other offices are indeed mentioned there.

5   5) There is nothing in Scripture about a “lawful” and “unbroken” chain of successors with infallibility who will obtain “Peter’s office” in the future.  A direct pedigree or lineage was not, and still is not, necessary for the church to function.  Something was definitely handed down to his successors, but that was the teachings he got from Jesus, not a papal position.  See this link on Apostolic Succession:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2009/12/apostolic-succession.html 

6   6) Nowhere in the New Testament do we find any post-apostolic teachers or leaders who acquired infallibility. 

7   7) There are leaders in every church today, but it is extremely arrogant for any of them to say that ONLY THEY can correctly interpret for the common people.  See here: 

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2013/07/quick-notes-on-sola-scriptura-part-6.html

Concerning Sacred Tradition, it cannot be equal with Scripture, nor can it be infallible, since it often contradicts God’s Word.  Furthermore, Catholics cannot even tell us exactly what Tradition is.  I have asked many times, and no Catholic seems to be able to give a meaningful and specific definition of “Sacred Tradition,” much less demonstrate why it is infallible.  All we get is extremely vague descriptions, like, “It is the Living Voice of the Church,” or “The fullness of divine truth proclaimed in the Scriptures, preserved by the apostolic bishops and expressed in the life of the Church…”  In other words, it is whatever the Catholic Church wants it to be!

8   8) There can only be one ULTIMATE source of revelation for today.  It can also be demonstrated that Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium often contradict Scripture.

9   9) The Catholic Church did NOT give us the Bible.  See here:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2012/02/did-catholic-church-give-us-bible.html

1 10)    Many of the early church fathers had some valuable and useful information, but the idea of a “unanimous consent of the fathers” is inflated and untrue.  See here:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2009/12/church-fathers.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2009/10/eucharist-part-1.html

Whose Authority?

Ok, what about authority?  Who really has it?  This simply boils down to authority being for the person who is faithful to the Scriptures.  Authority does not belong to a spiritual dictator.  It does not belong to one who flirts with error or false doctrine.  A “common” Christian in the pew can use the authority of Scripture to rebuke a “pastor” who is flippant or careless with God’s Word.  Pastors, deacons and bishops have their role as leaders in the body, but they cannot, and should not, lord it over the people.  As Christians, we are all brothers and sisters (Matthew 23:8), and we all have biblical roles/positions.  But being a pastor or bishop does not automatically give one authority, but rather, responsibility in his God-given role should be emphasized, so he can rightly divide Scripture.  This produces true authority… a “Magisterium” does not.

What Has Proven True?

So where can we find truth?  I hope that we would all agree that the following entities have proven themselves:

God the Father – through mighty miracles, like creation, the parting of the Red Sea, the Jews’ victories over multiple larger armies, miraculously providing manna, the Tabernacle’s cloud and pillar of fire.

Jesus the Son – through His fulfilled prophecies, His many personal miracles, including raising the dead, and by His own resurrection.

The Bible – through the intricate tapestry of its design (God’s fingerprints are all over it), archaeological proofs, and through fulfilled prophecies and ample manuscript evidence.  Furthermore, Jesus recognized it as the Word of God, He pointed others toward it.  He lived it and obeyed it, and used it Himself during His temptation in the wilderness.  Furthermore, we cannot deny the changed lives (for the better) it has caused over the centuries.

THESE ARE TRANSCENDENT SOURCES and God has caused Scripture to prove itself as a source of divine authority.  God is using His Son (the Word) through the written Word, as the last word for the church today (Hebrews 1:1-2).

There is no Tradition of any kind and no Magisterium of any church that matches the Bible in its divine essence.  Scripture is the one infallible source for the church today.  And that, my friend, is the origin of spiritual truth.