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…

QUICK NOTES ON SOLA SCRIPTURA (Part 5)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Either way, this argument doesn’t hold water.

QUICK NOTES ON SOLA SCRIPTURA (Part 4)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE DANGER OF THE ECUMENICAL MOVEMENT

We already defined the Ecumenical Movement (EM) in a previous article – namely, that it is a movement headed by the Catholic Church, which will bring about the merging of all religions in the last days, that the Bible speaks of in Revelation 13:8, 12, 15. It will be the religion of the antichrist and it will be a perversion of Christianity. This coming together of all religions is being done today in the name of “peace” and “unity” and is actually a move toward the Catholic Church.

This EM is multi-faceted and it will appeal to all the world’s religions, even to many individuals within Christianity. We can see much of this movement in the church world today. It is attracting many, like Rick Warren’s “purpose driven” crowd, the “seeker sensitive” churches, the “emerging church,” the Church Growth Movement (CGM), and those promoting a “social gospel” (who are far more concerned with poverty, social change, civil rights, etc., than they are with saving souls through the gospel).

This ecumenical concept is also welcomed by the “unity at any cost” crowd, those looking for a “mystical” experience, the “contemplative prayer” types, “self-esteem” proponents and the “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” (ECT) crowd. There are even some who are pushing “Chrislam”, which is the merging of Christianity with Islam!

Other promoters of ecumenism are the Full Gospel Businessmen’s Fellowship, Promise Keepers, some in the “Positive Confession” and the “Word of Faith” arenas, and many Charismatics, as well. The EM also includes Freemasons, New Agers, nature worshipers / tree huggers / environmentalists and evolutionists. There will be something for everyone in this movement, even for atheists! It seems that one can find the ecumenical spirit almost everywhere today.

Those involved in the EM today are insisting that we put aside our differences and join hands. But consider this analogy:

Imagine a building with many people in it. Everyone in it is in poor health except for only one person, Bill, who happens to have the medicine that can cure everyone in the building. But the sick people complain that Bill is much too “exclusive” and thinks much too highly of himself and his medicine, and that he is always wanting to heal everybody. Bill always talks about his “cure” and wants to “push” it on everyone else. They say, “Who does he think he is? We like the way we are… after all, don’t we sick people also have some value? Let’s put aside the medicine and the good health, because it makes everybody else feel inferior.” So, they get together and demand that they all put their differences aside, tolerate each other, and consider everyone as an equal.

But wouldn’t this be silly? Shouldn’t they be thanking Bill that he has the cure and that he is willing to share it? But this is what the EM is doing with Christianity… they are trying to neutralize Christianity by making it equal to all other religions. Jesus Christ truly is the only cure for this sin-sick world, but the people within the EM don’t like any religion that is “exclusive,” that is, claiming to be the only one that has the answers. It makes others feel “inferior” and it hurts their feelings. When the ecumenists say they want us to “put aside our differences,” they want us to put aside DOCTRINE, so that no one is offended.

But it is this doctrine, this gospel of Jesus Christ, that is the answer to the world’s problems. It is the only “medicine” for solving the world’s hurts, and it is this exclusive nature of Christianity that is most important:

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (John 14:6)

The message of Jesus Christ certainly is exclusive, and it would be senseless to abandon that which is our only hope.

Now, we’re NOT saying that we shouldn’t feed the hungry or help the poor or the sick, etc. But sharing the gospel and changing hearts should be the church’s MAIN priority. (Mark 16:15) We should not overlook man’s GREATEST need (i.e., salvation) by over-emphasizing his temporal needs. The gospel is God’s gift from which all other blessings flow.

But what could possibly be wrong with joining hands with others, or having a desire for world peace, or social justice? Aren’t these worthy goals? Yes, but they are not going to be achieved by the EM. On the surface, the EM sounds good, but it is a trap, a scheme of the devil. It is a rejection of Christianity and a denial of the gospel, and it is gaining momentum like a runaway freight train. The EM will give the church and the world a false sense of security, which will ultimately lead the majority of the world into apostasy and into the grip of the antichrist, who will be worshiped by the whole world and will cause them to take his mark… 666. (Revelation 13:16-18)

With this in mind, we are urging our Catholic friends to come out of the Catholic Church, and we are urging our Protestant friends to steer clear of these groups mentioned above and any group that embraces unbiblical ideas.

For more information, see this article, which is an online excerpt from chapter 12 of Dave Hunt’s book, “Global Peace and the Rise of Antichrist.” Go down to the section “Ecumenism and the Coming New World Order” in this article to find an eye-opening message about the EM:

http://bernsstories.wordpress.com/2011/01/04/the-berean-call-january-2011-newsletter/

Another article is by Roger Oakland and it carries a solemn warning and a heartfelt appeal to the Evangelical and Protestant pastors of the world to avoid the EM:

http://www.understandthetimes.org/commentary/c95.shtml