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…

 

ARE COUNCILS AUTHORITATIVE?

 

I recently came across an article from Catholic Answers written by an author named Parker Manning.  The title of the article was, “Do Protestants Care About Church Councils?” [With the subtitle, “Church councils aren’t worth much if you accept in them only what you agree with”]

You can find the article here:

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/do-protestants-care-about-church-councils

In the article, Manning correctly points out that Protestants, who believe in Sola Scriptura (“Bible alone”), also believe that other valid authorities exist, such as traditions and councils, but that they are less authoritative.  Protestants believe that Scripture is the ultimate and final authority for the church today, because it is the only infallible source in the post-apostolic church (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

But Manning doesn’t like the way that Protestants view the Church councils.  He says:

“Protestants like [James] White, [Jeff] Durbin, and [Matt] Slick will often try to persuade their audience into believing that they care about the early church councils when they really do not.  Or at the very least, they care about them only when they agree with their interpretation of Scripture.  Once we recognize this, it only makes sense to conclude that these Protestants really do not care about what these councils teach.”

But as Christians, we’re not obligated to embrace every word just because it comes from a council, nor are we obligated to support unbiblical concepts when presented by said council.  Having some truth mixed in with error does not make it ok.  How can a council be acceptable, much less infallible, if it contradicts Scripture?  If a council contains false teaching, those parts should be publicly rejected. 

It looks like Manning is suggesting that if we Protestants are going to accept anything from church councils, we should accept everything in these councils! 

Inconsistent?

He also stated:

“… [I]t makes little sense to argue for something because a council said so when they agree with only that part of the council that agrees with their interpretation of Scripture?  Why not just argue with Scripture?”

And I would say, “Amen to that!”  That’s where the real issue lies. 

Catholics will claim that Protestants are inconsistent when they point to Church councils because Protestants will only pick and choose the things within the councils that they like.  But I think that sometimes the reason certain Protestants even bother to point to something said in a church council at all is not to pretend to agree with everything in it, but I believe that sometimes Protestants are simply saying, “Even your Catholic council XYZ agrees with us on this particular point!” 

But that certainly does not mean that we agree with everything within that council. 

Interpretation Dilemma?

Notice that in Manning’s article, he keeps talking about when councils don’t agree with the Protestant’s interpretation of Scripture.  As if to continually expect him to interpret it wrong.  For example, in the article, Manning says things like, “They care about only what they believe Scripture says…” (emphasis added).  In using the word “believe” here, he seems to be implying that the Protestant interpretation will likely be incorrect.  Since Protestants don’t have an infallible Magisterium to interpret for them (like Catholics allegedly do), they are apparently very unlikely to get it right.

But the truth is Catholics are in the same situation.  They too are obligated to use their fallible understanding and reasoning to interpret what their “infallible” Magisterium is saying.  There’s no way out of it.  If it is a dilemma for Protestants, then it is also a dilemma for Catholics.

See these links on Bible interpretation:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2014/07/private-interpretation.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2009/12/dialogue-on-bible-interpretation.html

Arbitrary Dismissal?

Manning also says:

“This arbitrary dismissal of certain things councils teach is known as special pleading – a logical fallacy in which someone applies a principle or rule to others but exempts himself (or his position) without providing a valid reason for the exception.  By being inconsistent and appealing to councils and also rejecting certain parts of them, Protestants are committing this fallacy.”

Notice that he says, “…without providing a valid reason for the exception.”  Protestants will accept particular parts of a council, yet indeed reject other parts, but he does this on the basis of agreement with a greater authority – Scripture!  So, it is not an “arbitrary” dismissal at all, but a biblical one.

Perhaps we Protestants would care for councils more if they would fully align with the Bible.  Then there should be no issue from either side.

Conclusion

To answer the question, yes, councils are authoritative – they carry weight in the church.  Councils are often useful to articulate or codify the core beliefs of the church and these beliefs are fine, as long as they align with the truth of God’s Word (John 17:17), which, by the way, will judge us on the last day (John 12:48).

But if any council contradicts the principles of Scripture in any way, its words are no more than man-made traditions as Jesus said (Mark 7:1-13), “laying aside the commandment of God” (v. 8) by “teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” (v.7).  

You see, “authoritative” does not necessarily mean infallible.  There are real authorities in our churches, just as there are in our everyday lives (parents, teachers, doctors, law enforcement, judges, etc.), and most people have no problem obeying these authorities, even if they are not infallible.  Councils may be authoritative, but we only have one source that is infallible (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

The apostles enjoyed, at least in a limited sense, the gift of infallibility in their day, but today it is the apostolic MESSAGE that has the built-in authority/infallibility:

“For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation…” (Romans 1:16). 

We don’t have apostles today, but to the extent that one is faithful with the apostolic message (Scripture), he is authoritative.  Jesus said:

“The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; but the one who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me.” (Luke 10:16 - NASB)

If you are faithful in bringing the true gospel message to others, they are indeed not just hearing you, but hearing Jesus.  In the context of Luke 10, Jesus was not just speaking to the apostles, but to the seventy disciples, as well – and by extension, the universal church.  Jesus gave us the “Great Commission,” i.e., the responsibility of the whole church to spread the gospel (Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-18; Luke 24:46-49; John 20:19-23).  If the gospel message being delivered is perverted/wrong, the presenter of the message is not authoritative.  But whoever hears the person commissioned and faithfully bringing the true gospel is also hearing Jesus – and the faithful messenger is therefore authoritative.  He is authoritative because he is correctly using the highest authority.

 

“CATHOLIC TRUTH” AND SOLA SCRIPTURA

I saw a video recently by a Catholic named Bryan Mercier, who seems to be an intelligent guy who is passionate about the Catholic faith.  He is a Catholic speaker, author, and apologist and is also president of an organization called Catholic Truth.  

In his video titled “2 Catholic Questions Protestants can’t Answer,” Bryan attempts to tackle the issue of Sola Scriptura (Bible Alone).  His video can be found here:

https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=bryan+mercier%2c+you+tube%2c+%222+catholic+questions+protestants+can%27t+answer%22&mid=36C4E8BC37275A01786D36C4E8BC37275A01786D&FORM=VIRE

Definitions

Bryan sees, as part of the problem, that Protestants can’t even agree on a definition of Sola Scriptura.  Well, that may be somewhat true, but in my opinion, most of the serious adherents of Sola Scriptura in Protestantism do pretty much agree on the definition that I would use, and that is:

“Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith for the church today.”

They may word it slightly differently from each other, but in general, the definitions I’ve seen are very similar.  Even though we don’t have a “pope” in Protestantism to make everything “official,” we still very much agree on the concept of the “Bible alone.” 

By the way, Bryan is bemoaning the division in Protestantism on this topic, but I would like to point out that many Catholics disagree amongst themselves on different doctrines of the Catholic Church.  So Catholics need not act as though they have the high ground here.

I do want to say, though, that I find most of the bad definitions of Sola Scriptura are in Catholic circles.  And by “bad” definitions, I mean unbiblical ones.  I believe that the concept of Sola Scriptura is indeed biblical, but of course there are many (mostly Catholic) people who would disagree.  That’s why we have these discussions.

First Question to Protestants

Having said that, here is the first question that Bryan Mercier poses to Protestants:

·      Question 1:

“Can you show me from the Bible alone (Sola Scriptura) where does it say, or where does it give a definition for Sola Scriptura?”

He then brings out certain Scripture passages that some Protestants would use to support the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and then tries to debunk the Protestant arguments.  For example, he brings up Acts 17, where the apostle Paul and Silas come to the city of Berea:

“These were more noble than those in Thessalonica in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” (Acts 17:11)

Bryan then implies, “So what?”  The Catholic Church has searched the Scriptures for 2,000 years.  Yet simply searching the Scriptures doesn’t prove the concept of Sola Scriptura.

That might be true, but while this verse alone may not fully prove the concept of Sola Scriptura, it is a valid and biblical move in that direction, because the Bereans were searching “whether those things were so.”  In other words, they were verifying the words of an apostle of the church (Paul).  That is, they were confirming what a highest-ranking church leader was telling them and not just taking his word for it simply because he was a church official!  They were testing an apostle with Scripture (just as the church of Ephesus did in Revelation 2:2)!  Yes, that’s right, even the apostle Paul had to be tested to make sure that his message lined up with what was already recognized as Scripture (the Old Testament).  Notice that Paul didn’t say, “Hey, why are you guys looking this up?  Don’t you trust me?  I am a church leader (just like Peter) and you need to take me at my word!  How dare you check up on me!”

No, rather the Bereans were actually commended in Acts 17:11 for checking out what Paul was teaching, like they were supposed to.  Like I said, while this text alone may not be a proof of Sola Scriptura, it was a definite move in that direction, to be ultimately realized when the last apostle died and there would be no more new revelation from God.

An Example of Scripture Over Everything Else

Furthermore, Paul, though he was an apostle, told the Galatian church that anyone, including himself, who dared to bring another gospel to the church, one which was different than what he had first preached, was condemned!  In fact, his words were:

 “But though WE [i.e., Paul and Silas], or AN ANGEL FROM HEAVEN, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:8)

If you think that Paul was not serious, he then repeats it in the next verse:

“As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.”  (Galatians 1:9)

So, again, we see here that Scripture (the gospel message) was above even the authority of the apostles and angels, and that any other/different gospel brought by anyone should be tested by the Bible and rejected.

One of Bryan’s comments was that the Jews (being God’s chosen people) didn’t believe in Sola Scriptura.  Well that’s true, at least at the beginning of the church/New Testament age, but that’s because there was still new and ongoing revelation from God in that day, coming through the apostles.  As long as there were apostles around, new revelation was coming from God to the church.  Therefore, “Scripture alone,” as an infallible source was not a possibility at that point.  Protestants believe that Sola Scriptura exists only for the post-apostolic church. 

Second Question to Protestants

Bryan now mentions (part of) the most common Scripture passage that Protestants use to support Sola Scriptura.

·      Question 2:

“In 2 Timothy 3:16, where does it say, and how do you know, that it said, ‘All Scripture is inspired…’ or God-breathed?”

Notice that Bryan never mentions the next verse (v. 17), which is indeed key to understanding the concept of Sola Scriptura.  But he goes on to point out that the New Testament word in v. 16 for “inspired” is “theopneustos” (literally translated “God-breathed” in the Greek), but that it could be rendered as “life-giving” instead.  In fact, he falsely says that “There is no evidence of it meaning God-breathed in that whole chapter.”

So Bryan leans heavily toward its meaning as “life-giving,” because (he claims) 90%-95% of the time, external Greek sources used it that way. 

And he is convinced that the context of 2 Timothy 3 is exactly about that – about “people who are dead in their sins and how they can come to life…”  Therefore, (he says) it should mean “life-giving” more than “inspired.”  In fact, Bryan claims that the context of the passage supports “infinitely more” the idea of life-giving rather than God-breathed. 

Well, that sounds nice, but no, the context of 2 Timothy 3:14-17 is not primarily about “people who are dead in their sins and how they can come to life…” as Bryan is suggesting.  But this passage is primarily and specifically about the origin, nature and power of the Scriptures, as a rule of faith, to instruct, convict, correct and enable the man of God to fully equip the Christian.  Yes, the Bible is indeed “life-giving,” but it is far more than that.  Not only is this passage saying that Scripture originates with God, but it is inspired by God as the only infallible source and rule of faith for the church today. 

Bryan is deliberately trying to downplay the power and authority of the Scriptures – something I’m sure he would never do with the authority of the Catholic Church.  He is purposely trying to introduce a more watered-down term to describe the Holy Scriptures!  But the Bible is indeed God-breathed, since it eclipses every other source.  See these links:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2011/03/did-apostles-practice-sola-scriptura.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2015/11/normal-0-false-false-false-en-us-x-none.html

And the first of a series of eight articles on Sola Scriptura, starting here:

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

There are also many other articles on Sola Scriptura on this blog – not to mention many excellent articles throughout the internet done by other highly qualified Protestants.

Hit and Run

Toward the end of the video, Bryan hints at a “freebie,” a third question for Protestants.  And this freebie question is on the biblical canon, i.e., the “official” list of books in the Bible that the church recognizes.  But this freebie is simply a “hit and run” diversion.  He brings it up as though it is a valid argument against “Bible Alone.”  But the canon is a topic that is impossible to do justice on, by only mentioning it in passing, as Bryan does.  Some of my dealings with this topic can be found in these links:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2010/02/canon-and-infallible-certainty.html

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

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2013/08/quick-notes-on-sola-scriptura-part-8.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2017/12/using-canon-as-smokescreen.html

Conclusion

Catholics will say that Protestants always assume the concept of Sola Scriptura when they debate.  Maybe so, but I think that there is good reason to do so. 

I know that it is hard to shake off one’s bias and preconceived notions, but I find it hard to believe that an honest Catholic and an honest Protestant would not be able to come to the table, using Scripture (the main thing that we have in common), trying to remain as unbiased and unemotional as possible, lay out all the evidence on either side, and NOT come to the same conclusion.  I believe that it is these preconceived traditions (and emotions) that we hold that suppress the truth.  Both sides need to be careful not to allow excess emotion in proving their respective cases.  To me, the evidence in the Bible for Sola Scriptura is overwhelming.  Again, see the links just above.

A large part of the disagreement, I believe, is the different Catholic and Protestant goals.  The stated goal of the Catholic is too often to bring people to the Church, while the goal of the Protestant is to bring people to Jesus Christ.  I know that many Catholics will deny this, but in practice, this is often absolutely true.

Sola Scriptura is an extremely important topic, but I feel that Bryan Mercier’s arguments were weak and unconvincing. 

No other rule of faith mentioned in Scripture is considered God-breathed and able to equip us (the church) for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17).    

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…

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.