THE “INFALLIBLE CHURCH” DECEPTION (Part 1)

In the Catholic/Protestant debate arena, I have seen Catholics try to “bait” Protestants with a question, and the question Catholics ask is:

“What is the pillar and foundation of the truth?”

Often, this question is intended to trick the Protestant into saying “the Bible,” since many, if not most, Protestants hold the Bible as the ultimate source of truth in spiritual matters.  So, if the Protestant answers this way, the Catholic will respond that the correct answer to this question (according to the Bible, itself) is the Church:

“But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground [foundation/bulwark] of the truth.” (1 Timothy 3:15 – emphasis added)

It is unfortunate that some Protestants will answer the question wrongly.  But anyone who has been saved for a while and is familiar with the Bible should be acquainted with this verse and what it actually means.

However, in a footnote in its Catechism, the Catholic Church uses this particular verse to advance the idea that it is the Catholic Church who is “the pillar and bulwark of the truth,” who “faithfully guards the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (CCC 171) – and somehow, this idea leads to the “infallibility” of their Church.  Infallibility means that the Church is incapable of error (under certain conditions).  But is the biblical passage in question really saying that?  Are Protestants missing something? 

Catholics will fight hard against the teaching of Sola Scriptura, i.e., the concept of “the Bible alone.”  The doctrine of Sola Scriptura, believed by most Protestants, teaches that the Bible is the only infallible source of truth for the church today, as 2 Timothy 3:16-17 indicates.  But Catholics will use 1 Timothy 3:15 to try to say otherwise, to demonstrate that the Church has infallibility, also.

To maintain this interpretation, the Catholic logic goes something like this:

“Pillars and foundations are made to hold up something and keep it from crashing down.  In the case of this verse, this pillar/foundation is holding up the truth.  If the truth would somehow collapse, it would be lost.  But Jesus told us in Matthew 16:18 that the gates of Hell would not prevail against the church.  For this victory against the gates of Hell to be true, the Church should not be able to err in its teachings, therefore, it must be infallible.  Furthermore, the fact that Jesus Christ is the Cornerstone of this foundation (Matthew 21:42; 1 Peter 2:6) and the Church is the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:27), these things assure us of the infallibility of the Church.”

At least, that’s pretty much how they come to this conclusion.

An Analogy

But the Catholic interpretation of 1 Timothy 3:15 is like a son who is admonished by his father:

“Son, you are aspiring to be a doctor and it is of the utmost importance that you maintain the highest medical and ethical standards and responsibilities.  You must study to become the best possible doctor that you can be!”

And then the son concludes from this short speech:

“Dad says that I am the best doctor there is – I can do no wrong!”

Of course, this was not at all what Dad was really saying.  The son, in his quest for greatness, was obviously mistaken in interpreting his father’s message to him.  The father’s words were spoken to impart responsibility and nothing more.  But they were twisted by his son into suggesting some sort of infallibility.

This is exactly the same mistake that the Catholic Church is committing when they claim infallibility from Paul’s admonition to Timothy in this passage.   

The man’s son was wrongly emphasizing his exaggerated ability above his critical responsibility in his chosen field.  In the very same way, the Catholic Church is taking this verse out of context to wrongly emphasize a supposed special ability over and above its critical responsibility to uphold the gospel truth.

Again, the emphasis of the apostle Paul was on Timothy’s (and his local church’s) responsibility to behave and to uphold the truth in the household of God – not on some imagined infallibility.  This is indeed an incredible leap of logic for the Catholic Church which violates the context of this passage.

“The Church” Really Means Something Else

By the way, when Catholics say “the Church,” they are referring specifically to the Catholic Church, and often, to its “Magisterium” (i.e., its leaders).  But this is an unbiblical definition, as I show elsewhere on this blog.  Absolutely nowhere in the Holy Scriptures does the term “the church” ever refer to a Magisterium.  As the old saying goes, “It just ain’t there!”

See these articles:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2022/01/the-origin-of-truth.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2024/05/is-noahs-ark-symbol-of-catholic-church.html

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

All About Responsibility!

But let’s look at the passage again, starting with the previous verse:

v. 14 -These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly:

v.15 - But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. (1 Timothy 3:14-15 - Emphasis added)

Notice the “ought” in v. 15.  This is about what the members of the church should be doing.  The apostle Paul is telling Timothy and his congregation how to conduct themselves when the church assembly (Greek, “ekklesia”), or “house of God,” is gathered together.  But again, Catholics take this passage completely out of context.  They love to inject a whole new meaning into it.

Once more, the whole chapter (1 Timothy 3) is about the RESPONSIBILITIES, OBLIGATIONS and EXPECTATIONS of the leaders within the church, and NOT about any infallibility or special authority. 

No, the chapter is about church leaders needing to be careful in their behavior (v. 1-15) and their teachings (v. 2, 9), since it is their responsibility to safeguard and uphold the gospel message and not be a stumbling block in the way they conduct themselves.  This was actually more of a limitation on church leaders, rather than about their exaltation.

But Catholics try their hardest to make it about special Church authority and privileges of the Magisterium, when it is not about that at all.   

Guarantee of Infallibility?

Like I said, there is no infallibility here for the church.  The universal church of Jesus Christ, as a whole, is the pillar and foundation (metaphorically speaking) of the truth.  The church is not the truth itself and the truth doesn’t originate from the church, but Paul is saying that the church has the responsibility to uphold and support the truth through the faithful preaching of the gospel – not that it is a guarantee of infallibility for anyone in the post-apostolic church.

Has the church always been effective in fulfilling its mission of upholding the truth?  No, there are certainly times when members of the church have deviated from the truth.  This is exactly the reason why most of the New Testament epistles are corrective in nature, that is, the authors are correcting false teachings or improper behavior.  So we shouldn’t be surprised if we see apostasy in the church today.  After all, Paul warns us in the very next chapter that some would abandon the faith, and it would get worse as time goes on (1 Timothy 4:1-2).

Of course, this has not been a total apostasy, since Jesus said that the gates of Hell would not prevail against the church (Matthew 16:18).  You see, God has always had a faithful remnant.  But apostasy did indeed (and still does) exist, at different levels and in different places, throughout church history.

But the point here is that the church doesn’t have to be infallible to maintain the message of 1 Timothy 3. 

Do You Really Want to Say That?

When you say that the church cannot err, exactly what church are you talking about?  If Catholics are using the word “church” in a biblical sense, they are saying either:

1) that the local assembly (altogether) cannot err, or

2) that the universal, worldwide community of true believers (altogether) cannot err. 

But it is highly unlikely that they would ever say this about either of these two groups.  This is because they so often use the term “the Church” in an unscriptural sense.

The only way that you can force the Catholic interpretation onto the text of 1 Timothy 3:15 is by assuming an infallible Magisterium to start with. 

Catholics will sometimes stress the idea that, since the Church is the foundation, “whatever is built upon a foundation cannot be greater than that foundation – in other words, the foundation is always greater than what it supports.”  But hold on!  That may be true in the fields of architecture and construction, but are they implying that the Church (foundation) is greater than the very truth it upholds?  This is both arrogant and blasphemous!  Once again, the church can only be the pillar of truth IN THE SENSE OF BEING OBLIGATED TO UPHOLD THAT TRUTH!

There are always some in the church that can err in doctrine.  The Head (Jesus) cannot err, but the body (the church) certainly can.  Just because Jesus is identified with the church does not mean the church is infallible like He is.  The church is supposed to emulate Him in its character and its fruit (Galatians 5:22-25).  Christians have some of His characteristics, but we certainly don’t have His immutability, His omniscience, His omnipotence, His omnipresence, nor His infallibility.  Those are reserved for the Trinity alone.

What is a Household?

In 1 Timothy 3:15, the apostle Paul calls the church the “house” or “household” of God.  A family household is not always comprised of parents only, but also of children.  In the same way, the household of God does not contain leaders only, but it also includes “the laity” (the common man in the pew).  So, if the Church is indeed the household, and you want to maintain the Catholic interpretation of this passage, you’d have to say that everyone in the Church is infallible!  And I don’t think that anyone would want to say that.

Bad News

If being an infallible pillar of truth is automatic for Magisterial leaders, simply by reason of their office (as Catholics seem to think), then why do we have all the warnings from Paul toward church leadership (1 Timothy 3:1-13; 4:16; 5:21-22) and why such a concern for apostasy – even from leaders (Acts 20:28-31; Timothy 4:1)?  Furthermore, we often forget that Jesus, Himself, also warned His churches – including leaders (Revelation chapter 2 and 3). 

There should be no need for these warnings if infallibility is “automatic.”  In fact, these firm warnings (along with other biblical principles) exclude the possibility of such a gift for the post-apostolic church.  Otherwise, Jesus’ and Paul’s threats would be irrelevant. 

The truth is, being a biblical pillar/foundation is something that you choose to do, it is what you ought to do, so that you fulfill your responsibility as a leader or member of the church.  It doesn’t automatically happen because of the position you hold in your church.

At the risk of being redundant, the bottom line, once again, is that the apostle Paul (in context) was telling Timothy, “You NEED to be a pillar of the truth,” not, “You are guaranteed to be an infallible pillar of the truth.”  Thankfully, the church does not need to be infallible in order to effectively share and uphold this gospel truth.

The burden of proof is on Catholics to prove that infallibility is spoken of here (1 Timothy 3).  Once again, I would assert that this concept is simply being forced into this passage. 

The bad news for the Catholic Church is this: Not only do you have a wrong interpretation of 1 Timothy 3:15 (and therefore, do NOT have infallibility), but you also are NOT the pillar and foundation of the truth, as long as you are neck-deep in false doctrine.

So, I would assert that the concept of an “infallible church” is indeed a deception and that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura remains unscathed!

We will continue this topic next time in Part 2…

IS THE BIBLE CLEAR ENOUGH?

Why is it that so many people are intimidated by the Bible?  Some see it as a big scary, judgment-filled ancient (outdated) book that almost no one has ever finished reading.  It contains wild and unbelievable stories, talking animals and scary apocalyptic scenarios, with many people ending up in everlasting punishment for committing minor sins, simply because God doesn’t want you to have fun.  Some people say that it depicts a monster God, who loves punishing innocent people, a God who claims to be loving, all-powerful and all-knowing, yet He has allowed horrible things to happen to people throughout the centuries, when He could have stopped all the death, suffering and carnage.  So, apparently, if He does exist at all, He doesn’t even care what happens to you.

Is this your view of the Bible?  Those of you who think this way have a clear distrust of God, either because of ignorance of Him, or simply because you believe what others (unbelievers) have been telling you about Him.  You think this way because of a lack of studying the Bible for yourself, and you fail to make an honest assessment of its teachings. 

But, according to Catholicism, even if you did read it, who knows if you could understand it, anyway?  Ignorance abounds, but the Bible is not that hard to understand.

Catholics and Protestants have been debating the concept of the clarity of Scripture for a long time, and because of that, there are many highly developed (and highly nuanced) arguments on both sides. 

Fortunately, both Catholics and Protestants believe that knowing what the Bible says is extremely important to all of us.  At least we agree on that.  We both recognize it as the Word of God. 

Let me emphasize, from the beginning, I think that it is evident to all of us that most  parts of Scripture are clear enough to understand, while some parts are not as clear.  That’s just the way it is.  I don’t think that anyone is saying that it is completely obscure, and I don’t think that anyone is saying that everything in it is easily understood, but the truth lies somewhere in between.

But one great concern to Protestants is that the Catholic Church would insist that we need an “infallible” interpreter of Scripture so that we can have certainty about what it says.  And according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, that infallible interpreter is the Magisterium (the leaders) of the Catholic Church (CCC #85).

“Problems” with Perspicuity

The term that is commonly used to describe Scripture’s clarity is “perspicuity.”  Catholics often seem to take offense with this teaching.  But why?

Many Catholics feel that the doctrine of perspicuity elevates the individual over the Church, thereby robbing the Church of its authority to interpret Scripture for the people (CCC #100).  They also feel that perspicuity “marginalizes” the role of tradition.  Strangely, it almost seems like they don’t want the Scriptures to be clear and understandable to the average person, and that they don’t mind Tradition or Scripture being shrouded in a fog (so that only the Church can interpret it for us).

Some Catholics feel that the people who hold to the doctrine of perspicuity assume that those who disagree with them have some kind of defect(s)?  They feel that those who believe in the doctrine of perspicuity are automatically assuming the worst about others and only the best about themselves.

And what if there are disagreements between two Protestants who both hold to the concept of perspicuity?  Wouldn’t that refute this concept, since there would be no means of resolving arguments between debaters, causing countless divisions? 

According to Catholics, perspicuity makes the individual the ultimate authority.  It makes you your own pope, they say.

Furthermore, some Catholics will ask, “If the Bible is so clear, then why do some Protestants make so much money teaching the Bible week after week, and year after year?”  Seems like a good question to ask.  We’ll come back to this question a little later.

The Catholic Church would point out that it took several church councils sometimes years to decide on certain doctrines, so what makes Protestants think that they can understand the Bible outright?  Are you perspicuity guys so arrogant that you would claim that your understanding is better than the Church’s?  

The Westminster Confession

So, what is the official teaching within Protestantism concerning perspicuity?  As for as I know, there is no “official” definition on the topic which all denominations agree on, but I think that the Westminster Confession of Faith gives us a pretty good idea of the concept of perspicuity:

“All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all. Yet, those things that are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or another, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.”

There may be an even better definition somewhere out there, but I think this one is sufficient to demonstrate the idea.

First of all, note the phrase, “nor alike clear unto all.”  This is an admission that not every person is on the same level of understanding.  Some catch on quicker, some not as quick.  Yet, the Bible is sufficient to enlighten the “learned” and the “unlearned,” alike.

Note also that the Westminster Confession also implies that observing the context of Scripture is of great importance.  The phrase “opened in some place of Scripture or another” speaks of the whole of Scripture.  Why is that important?  This is because Scripture interprets Scripture.  If Scripture is indeed from God (and it certainly is), then God will use the plainer parts and those principles involved, to help us understand the harder parts.  God is consistent, and therefore, His Word is consistent.

Let me also note here that Catholics like to question the idea of “those things that are necessary to be known,” or the “essentials” of the faith.  They’ll say, “What are those essentials and who determines what the ‘essentials’ are?”  Well, the answer is right there in the Westminster Confession: the things concerning salvation.  

But Catholics will say, “But Protestants don’t agree with each other, even on the details of salvation.  Some believe that baptism saves and some don’t.  Some believe that babies should be baptized and some don’t.  Some believe that speaking in tongues must be a part of salvation while others do not.  Are good works involved in your salvation at all?  Protestants disagree on this, so even these ‘essentials’ are not clear.”

It’s funny, but good Catholics will also disagree among themselves, even on major topics.  In fact, they sometimes even disagree on the supposed infallible interpretations!  Concerning disagreements in the church, it is interesting that when Catholics argue amongst themselves, they’ll call it “freedom to interpret.”  But when they find disagreements in Protestantism, they’ll call it divisions.

But we Protestants don’t claim this as proof that their doctrine is wrong.  When it comes to divisions, we are all in the same boat.  So, unity does not guarantee correct doctrine – Scripture is the standard by which doctrine is measured (2 Timothy 3:16-17).  But the key to proper interpretation, I am convinced, is to carefully study context and to let Scripture interpret Scripture, while maintaining a prayerful and humble attitude (Isaiah 66:2; Luke 8:15).  Continual study of the Word of God will also go a long way in helping you “rightly divide” (interpret) Scripture.    

All men can have a sufficient understanding of that which pertains to the salvation of the soul, else God would be unfair.  Everyone who stands at the foot of the cross is on level ground.  The gospel of Jesus Christ does not give special recognition to male or female, Jew or Gentile (Galatians 3:28), and it does not favor the wise, the scribe, or the philosopher (1 Corinthians 1:20).  It is the very simple message of the gospel of Jesus Christ which saves us:

“For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.” (Romans 1:16)

Analogies

When it comes to interpreting Scripture, I’d like to suggest an analogy and say that the Bible is very similar to a math textbook.  No one who is just beginning to learn math starts off with calculus or trigonometry.  You start with the easiest and most basic things (e.g., simple addition and subtraction), and once you grasp those, the other (harder) things are explained in light of the easier, well established principles.  It is a progressive type of learning – and so is biblical interpretation.  Math is a very deep subject, and just like a math textbook, the Bible can also get pretty deep.  There is an old saying:

“The message of the Bible is simple enough that a child can understand it, yet deep enough for a theologian to drown in it.”

I would say that this is true.

Likewise, when a child starts to learn the language of his parents, he must start out with baby talk.  Then slowly, he learns more and more words, and then he learns to put sentences together, until one day, he reaches a sufficient level of communication to be effective on his own.  He may even go much deeper and get proficient enough to teach the language to others on a professional level.

In other words, this too is a progressive endeavor, where you learn more and more over time.  It is very similar with learning to interpret Scripture.  The more you spend time with the Bible, the more you understand its Author.  The Bible is like a goldmine – you can never completely mine all the treasure therein – at least, not in this life.  It is a continuous learning experience (Hebrews 5:12).

What Kind of Father is That?

But this whole denial of the doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture assumes that God purposely made it hard for us (His children) to interpret Scripture.  But is that indeed His will?  What kind of parent do you think God is?  God is able and willing to communicate His message – just as any good parent does.  Jesus Himself said:

“If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?” (Matthew 7:11).

When it comes to giving instructions to His children, would He want them to be in the dark?  Wouldn’t it be an insult to God to say that His Word is garbled to those genuinely seeking Him, to His very own children?  This goes against His nature.

Deuteronomy 6:6-7 and 2 Timothy 3:14-15 tell us to teach these things (the Law of God) to our children.  Why would it tell us to teach our children the Scriptures if they couldn’t understand?  Divine promises are irrelevant unless they are intelligible.

Psalm 19:7 and 119:130 tell us that God’s Word makes the simple wise.  God is able both to hide simple things from the wise, and also able to cause even the simple to understand His Word (Matthew 11:25).  If God is able to feed physically hungry people, He is certainly able (and willing) to feed the spiritually hungry through His Word.

Examples in Scripture

Scripture, itself, implies that it is perspicuous/clear enough for the commoner to understand. Those following Jesus were mostly the simple and uneducated.  It is no surprise that God expects His children to hear, read, study and understand the Scriptures.  There are many examples of the common people being expected to understand Jesus’ words.  Here are some of them:

People in general (Luke 20:17); people in the synagogue (Luke 4:21; Acts 17:2, 11); the general public (John 7:38); the multitude (Matthew 15:10; Mark 7:14, 16; John 7:42); the five lost brothers of the rich man (Luke 16:27-29); the reader of Scripture (Matthew 24:15; John 19:24, 28, 36, 37; Revelation 1:3); the local Christian churches who received letters/epistles from the apostle Paul (e.g., the Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, Colossians, etc.); “whosoever” and “he that has ears to hear” –  used many times in the gospels and Revelation (e.g., Matthew 7:24; Luke 6:47; Mark 4:9; Luke 14:35; John 5:24; Revelation 2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22).  When Jesus said, “Whosoever…”, He never, ever meant “Only the leaders.”

Obscurers Since Long Ago

The question was asked earlier: 

If the Bible is so clear, so perspicuous, then why do Protestants have to teach and expound on what it says, week after week and year after year, not to mention the fact that some are making a great deal of money doing it?

Fair question, but the reason Protestants go to church week after week is not because they know nothing about the Bible - they go to church to grow and build on the knowledge they already have.  It’s called “getting to know God better and better.”  The apostle Peter called it “grow[ing] in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 3:18).  

And by the way, they don’t just better their relationship with God by going to church every week – they also tend to get in the Word daily.  If they don’t, they should.

But Protestants, in general, are simply trying to help their members to become dependent on God in Bible reading, unlike the Catholic Church, who is trying their best to cause its members to be dependent on the Church for everything. 

But it was never about the individual’s “authority to interpret,” but rather the individual’s ultimate accountability to God.

The Catholic Church seems to be fond of obscurity, since it gives the Church more power and leverage.  Furthermore, it is highly interesting (and suspicious) that the Catholic Church, though they are reluctant to admit it, is historically guilty of keeping the Scriptures away from the common people for a long time.  See this link:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2013/12/has-catholic-church-been-friend-of-bible.html#comment-form

Funny how this freedom to read and understand Scripture seems to be somewhat of a threat to the Catholic Church.

Furthermore, if you want to see a great example of obscurity, look to their “definition” of Tradition!  See these links:

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

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

Conclusion

We don’t mind the Catholic Church saying that some things in the Bible are hard to understand, but we do have an issue with them saying that that they are the only ones who can “authentically” interpret Scripture (CCC #85).  Saying that is simply begging the question.  They cannot (and will not ever be able to) biblically prove such an argument.

What better tactic can Satan use to separate man from God, as He did with Eve?  There, in the Garden of Eden, the serpent said, “Yea, hath God said…?” (Genesis 3:1) In essence, he was saying, “Let me tell you what God really said,” causing man’s destruction.  And today, in the Catholic Church, this same serpent is saying, “You can’t really know what God is saying in the Bible, the Church has to tell you!”

This is the same exact tactic! 

But you Catholics can’t go around telling everybody that Scripture is obscure, while pretending your Church has all the “authentic” interpretations – when your Church has decided to “infallibly interpret” so few passages of the Bible.  So where is that “certainty” that the Catholic Church brags about?

The bottom line is that the Bible is clear enough to help you to get right with God and to live for God, without a particular church or organization having to interpret that for you.  Perhaps asking, “Is the Bible clear?” is not quite the right question.  We should be asking, “Is the Bible clear enough and is it sufficient for God’s purposes, especially salvation?”  And the answer is yes, indeed!

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.

 

THE INQUISITION (Part 2)

 

In our last article, we dealt with a little history about the Inquisition and pointed out the inconsistencies, the cruelty and the corruption of the Catholic Church – who actually bred and established the environment that gave rise to the Inquisition.  And this is how they did it – the Catholic Church claims to be the “guardian of souls” and they also claim that they were commissioned by Jesus Christ to “root out heresy,” thus, leading up to one of history’s greatest tragedies. 

I left off addressing an article written by Catholic Answers, which can be found here:

https://www.catholic.com/tract/the-inquisition

The author of that article goes on to ask, “What’s the point?” That is, what is it that Fundamentalists [Protestants] think that the existence of the Inquisition proves?  Does it prove that “Catholics are sinners”?  That “people in positions of authority have used poor judgment”?  Does it prove “that otherwise good Catholics, afire with zeal, sometimes lose their balance”?  And the answer is that all these things could be true (for Catholics and Protestants) even without the Inquisition ever occurring.   

And that’s true, but the problem here is not just about the average Catholic in the pew.  It’s not simply about an authority occasionally using “poor judgment.”  It is about corrupt and power-hungry leaders in the Catholic hierarchy wanting control over the people and not letting the truths of Scripture dictate doctrine and behavior. 

It is possible that some who were punished in those days may have been actual heretics, but I believe the Inquisition was more about suppressing the voices of the faithful common people who questioned the authority of the Church or pointed to the Bible as the ultimate authority (2 Timothy 3:16-17).  This has always made the Catholic Church quite nervous.

Twisting the Scriptures

Toward the end of the article, the author points out that:

“… it is easy to see how those who led the Inquisitions could think their actions were justified.”  And he goes on to point to certain Old Testament passages that encourage the killing of certain offenders in order to purge the evil from their midst (Deuteronomy 17:2-5; 13:6-11; 13:12-18).  

All right then, if Catholic Answers wants to be consistent and continue with this line of thinking, they also need to push for the stoning to death of all gay Church members, gay priests, gay bishops, gay cardinals, etc. (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13).  After all, this is also part of the law in the Old Testament, right?

But of course they would never do that because they know it would be wrong to do today.  They know that we are living under a different and better covenant (Hebrews 8:6) than that of the Old Testament law because Jesus ushered in a system of grace. 

Although homosexuality is wrong, there is no reason today to put gay people to death (or sexually promiscuous straight people, for that matter) unless there are other crimes involved.

Furthermore, Catholic Answers knows very well that the Inquisition occurred under the New Testament period.  So, why would they try to apply a strictly Old Testament law in this case to support it?  I believe that they are just desperate to justify their involvement in the Inquisition.  But, remember, God does not sleep and justice will be done.

Furthermore, the author of this article tries to also use a New Testament verse as a reason to justify the Inquisition:

“But them that are without, God judgeth.  Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.” (1 Corinthians 5:13)

But this New Testament passage is obviously not about civilly punishing someone, or putting him to death using the law of the land, as was done in the Inquisition.  Note the context of this passage: “… not to company with fornicators” (v. 9); “… with such an one not to eat” (v. 11).  This context is about not fellowshipping with certain people.  It does not equate to Inquisition tactics.   So we can clearly see that this argument is another good example of Catholics twisting Scripture.    

The author also brings out the fact that some Protestant Reformers also made use of their own Inquisition-type justice.  And this is equally wrong, no matter who’s doing it.  I would certainly not defend Protestants if they did the same evils that the Catholic Church did.

In light of all this, a sensible person might say that this particular article by Catholic Answers is misguided.  But remember, this article is accepted by, and in line with, the teachings of the Church, because it contains the Catholic seals of approval (the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur).  So, if the article is wrong, so is the Church. 

Another Catholic’s Lack of Remorse

One other article by Catholic Answers, written by popular author and speaker Jimmy Akin, once again focused on the Old Testament principle that heresy is a serious sin.  Indeed it is.  But everybody already knows that.  This is not new information. 

Akin states that “Anti-Catholics regularly bash the Church with the Inquisition” to show “how evil the Church truly is.”  He states that Catholics should reply by pointing to the “Mosaic Inquisition.” 

He then refers to Deuteronomy 17:2-7 and Deuteronomy 13:1-11 which speak of the evils of idolatry and Israel’s obligation to investigate the accusations and to purge this evil from their midst.

But, like I said, we already know that idolatry and heresy are horrible sins.  But that’s not the point.  The point is that when we’re talking about heresy, how do we deal with that issue TODAY, in the Christian/New Testament era of grace?  Do we put offenders back on the medieval rack or burn them alive?  Or is there some other, more biblical, avenue that Christians should take?

But notice that in Jimmy Akin’s article, there is not one word about what we should do about heresy today, and absolutely no hint of remorse for what the Catholic Church has done in the past.  Instead of defending the Inquisition, he, like many other Catholics, is simply trying to justify those horrible things that were done to (supposed) heretics.  Notice that there is far more focus on trying to cover for Mother Church for the evils she has done, than on any concern for the multitude of innocent victims she destroyed.  Akin’s “Mosaic Inquisition” argument is just a disgusting diversion from the real topic and more twisting of Sacred Scripture.  It doesn’t relieve the Catholic Church’s guilt.  See Akin’s article here:

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/nobody-expects-the-mosaic-inquisition

The Pope Apologizes for the Church’s Sins

According to an article in The Guardian (March 13, 2000), Pope John Paul II, as leader of the Catholic Church, had apologized for “2,000 years of violence, persecution and blunders.”  He also sought forgiveness for “sins committed against Jews, heretics, women, Gypsies and Native peoples.”

But if the Inquisition was ever a good thing, then why apologize for “sins against heretics”?  Doesn’t this also prove that the Inquisition was wrong, after all?  Otherwise, there’d be no need for an apology.  But, practically speaking, Pope John Paul II’s “apology” amounts to “too little… too late.”  See his apology here:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/mar/13/catholicism.religion

“Physician, Heal Thyself”

It is interesting that the Catholic Church was so greatly focused on the sin of heresy.  And they were willing to kill those who committed such a sin.

But what about the multitude of wicked sins that existed WITHIN the hierarchy of the Church itself during this very same time?  The Inquisition lasted from roughly the early 1200’s up until about the middle of the 1500’s.  During that time there was much sin, corruption and heresy that was happening within the Catholic Church in very high places.  Just to name a few:

Pope Leo X made Johann Tetzel an inquisitor (an officer in the Inquisition) in 1509.  Tetzel then duped the poor by selling indulgences and tricking the people into believing they could get family members out of Purgatory earlier than “scheduled.”  By the way, the lavish St. Peter’s Basilica (Catholic Church) was mainly funded by the already-burdened poor, who felt obligated to pay for the indulgences because they anguished over the eternal fate of their beloved relatives.  Note that Pope Leo apparently agreed with Tetzel’s tactics and the doctrine of indulgences.

Simony in the Catholic Church was also a major problem for many, many years.  Simony is the buying and selling of a church office – yes, even the papacy (the “Vicar of Christ’s” office) was bought and sold a number of times like a piece of common merchandise!  This is a wonderful example of the Catholic Church’s version of “apostolic succession,” which still claims a “lawful and unbroken chain of successors.”  Indeed!

The papacy was also infested with fornication, adultery, corruption and extreme greed for material goods and power.

And all this was happening, not only during this same Inquisition period, but throughout much of the Catholic Church’s history.

Jesus gave us an example of this type of hypocrisy:

“And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?  Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?  Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.” (Matthew 7:3-5)

There was so much wickedness and corruption that was going on within the Catholic leadership (including the papacy) that it would be hard for most Catholics to believe.  So, Catholic Church, before you started burning people at the stake for “heresy,” why didn’t you get your act together first?

Conclusion

The first Catholic Answers article mentioned above claims that the Inquisition is “a handy stick for Catholic-bashing, simply because most Catholics seem at a loss for a sensible reply.”  But there is a reason for that.  And it is because there IS no sensible reply – the Inquisition’s method of dealing with heresy was absolutely unbiblical and demonically inspired.  There is no excuse for it.  The Catholic Church needs to quit whining and playing the martyr (no pun intended) when people complain about the Inquisition.  The blame directed at the Church is deserved, and you Catholic apologists need to stop defending it!

The Inquisition was an opportunistic power grab and a convenient way to rid the Church of her detractors which was disguised as an attempt to “cleanse” the Church.  In my opinion, the Inquisition was an exercise in absolute control, an example of man trying to take the place of God. 

Even if they would show genuine repentance for the past, the Catholic Church should still be concerned about the heresy that yet remains within her own borders today.  If any biblical church sees heresy in others, they should then reach out to those heretics by preaching the Word of God to them (like Jesus did – Matthew 4:23) and reasoning with them (like the apostles did – Acts 17:2).  If you preach the gospel to them and they are still unrepentant, apply Matthew 18:15-17 and let God deal with their hearts. 

There is, and was, no godly justification for the Inquisition, so Catholics need to stop pretending that it was a necessary event, and they need to stop pretending that the Catholic Church is the “guardian of souls.”  A closer look at Scripture will prove otherwise.