![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2021\/10\/Foundation2.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Jason is a Protestant and anti-Catholic apologist, who runs the Tribalblogue<\/em> site. I will be responding to his article, What To Make Of 1 Timothy 3:15 And Catholic Claims About It<\/a> (10-6-20). His words will be in blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n 1 Timothy 3:15b<\/strong> (RSV) . . . the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Roman Catholics often cite\u00a01 Timothy 3:15\u00a0in support of their view of their denomination.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Yes we do, because it is a rock-solid argument, and (best of all) explicitly biblical. And it is in support of the one true Catholic Church<\/em>, established by Jesus Christ with St. Peter as its first pope. We don\u2019t believe in denominations, which are not a biblical concept and which essentially began as a scandalous novelty (even Luther<\/a> and Calvin<\/a> \u2014 very unlike modern Protestants \u2014 utterly detested them) 15 centuries after Christ.<\/p>\n But:<\/span><\/p>\n \u2013 The context makes it more likely that Paul is referring to the local church than that he\u2019s referring to a worldwide denomination, like the Roman Catholic Church. He\u2019s writing to Timothy about the latter\u2019s work in Ephesus (1:3).<\/span><\/p>\n Pillars and foundations support things and prevent them from collapsing. To be a \u201cbulwark\u201d of the truth, means to be a \u201csafety net\u201d against truth turning into falsity. If the Church could err, it could not be what Scripture says it is. God\u2019s truth would be the house built on a foundation of sand in Jesus\u2019 parable. For this passage of Scripture to be true, the Church could not err \u2014 it must be infallible. A similar passage may cast further light on 1 Timothy 3:15:<\/p>\n Ephesians 2:19-21<\/strong>\u00a0. . . you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, [20] built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, [21] in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord;<\/p>\n 1 Timothy 3:15 defines \u201chousehold of God\u201d as \u201cthe church of the living God.\u201d Therefore, we know that Ephesians 2:19-21 is also referring to the Church, even though that word is not present. Here the Church\u2019s own \u201cfoundation\u201d is \u201cthe apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone.\u201d The foundation of the Church itself is Jesus and apostles and prophets.<\/p>\n Prophets spoke \u201cin the name of the Lord\u201d (1 Chron 21:19; 2 Chron 33:18; Jer 26:9), and commonly introduced their utterances with \u201cthus says the Lord\u201d (Is 10:24; Jer 4:3; 26:4; Ezek 13:8; Amos 3:11-12; and many more). They spoke the \u201cword of the Lord\u201d (Is 1:10; 38:4; Jer 1:2; 13:3, 8; 14:1; Ezek 13:1-2; Hos 1:1; Joel 1:1; Jon 1:1; Mic 1:1, et cetera). These communications cannot contain any untruths insofar as they truly originate from God, with the prophet serving as a spokesman or intermediary of God (Jer 2:2; 26:8; Ezek 11:5; Zech 1:6; and many more). Likewise, apostles proclaimed truth unmixed with error (1 Cor 2:7-13; 1 Tim 2:7; 2 Tim 1:11-14; 2 Pet 1:12-21).<\/p>\n Does this foundation have any faults or cracks? Since Jesus is the cornerstone, he can hardly be a faulty foundation. Neither can the apostles or prophets err when teaching the inspired gospel message or proclaiming God\u2019s word. In the way that apostles and prophets are infallible, so is the Church set up by our Lord Jesus Christ. We ourselves (all Christians) are incorporated into the Church (following the metaphor), on top of the foundation.<\/p>\n 1 Peter 2:4-9<\/strong>\u00a0Come to him, to that living stone, rejected by men but in God\u2019s sight chosen and precious; [5] and like living stones be yourselves built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. [6] For it stands in scripture: \u201cBehold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and he who believes in him will not be put to shame.\u201d [7] To you therefore who believe, he is precious, but for those who do not believe, \u201cThe very stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner,\u201d [8] and \u201cA stone that will make men stumble, a rock that will make them fall\u201d; for they stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do. [9] But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God\u2019s own people, that you may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. (cf. Isa 28:16)<\/p>\n Jesus is without fault or untruth, and he is the cornerstone of the Church. The Church is also more than once even\u00a0identified with Jesus himself<\/em>, by being called his \u201cBody\u201d (Acts 9:5 cf. with 22:4 and 26:11; 1 Cor 12:27; Eph 1:22-23; 4:12; 5:23, 30; Col 1:24). That the Church is so intimately connected with Jesus, who is infallible, is itself a strong argument that the Church is also infallible and without error.<\/p>\n Therefore, the Church is built on the foundation of Jesus (perfect in all knowledge), and the prophets and apostles (who spoke infallible truth, often recorded in inspired, infallible Scripture). Moreover, it is the very \u201cBody of Christ.\u201d It stands to reason that the Church herself is infallible, by the same token. In the Bible, nowhere is truth presented as anything less than\u00a0pure<\/em>\u00a0truth, unmixed with error. That was certainly how Paul conceived his own \u201ctradition\u201d that he received and passed down.<\/p>\n [Romans 2:8\u00a0<\/strong>but for those who are factious and do not obey\u00a0<\/b>the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury.<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n Knowing what truth is, how can its own foundation or pillar be something\u00a0less<\/em>\u00a0than total truth (since truth itself contains no falsehoods, untruths, lies, or errors)? It cannot. It is impossible. It is a straightforward matter of logic and plain observation. A stream cannot rise above its source. What is built upon a foundation cannot be\u00a0greater<\/em>\u00a0than the foundation. If it were, the whole structure would collapse.<\/p>\n If an elephant stood on the shoulders of a man as its foundation, that foundation would collapse. The base of a skyscraper has to hold the weight above it. The foundations of a suspension bridge over a river have to be strong enough to support that bridge.<\/p>\n Therefore, we must conclude that if the Church is the\u00a0foundation\u00a0<\/em>of truth, the Church\u00a0must<\/em>\u00a0be\u00a0infallible<\/em>, since truth is infallible, and the foundation cannot be lesser\u00a0than that which is built upon it. And since\u00a0there is another infallible authority\u00a0<\/em>apart from Scripture,\u00a0sola scriptura<\/em>\u00a0must be false.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n ***<\/p>\n Photo credit<\/span><\/strong>: sferrario1968\u00a0<\/a> (11-8-16) [Pixabay<\/a> \/ Pixabay License<\/a>]<\/p><\/div>\n Jason is a Protestant and anti-Catholic apologist, who runs the Tribalblogue site. I will be responding to his article, What To Make Of 1 Timothy 3:15 And Catholic Claims About It (10-6-20). His words will be in blue. ***** 1 Timothy 3:15b (RSV) . . . the household of God, which is the church of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":60293,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[231,31,131],"tags":[4277,514,1879,1878,33,2028,1387,1386,535,1877,1500,4279,4278,32,536,35,47,10422],"class_list":["post-60290","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-anti-catholicism","category-bible-and-tradition","category-church-ecclesiology","tag-1-timothy-315","tag-bible-only","tag-biblical-prooftexts","tag-biblical-theology","tag-christian-authority","tag-church-infallibility","tag-exegesis","tag-hermeneutics","tag-holy-bible","tag-infallible-authority","tag-jason-engwer","tag-pillar-and-bulwark-of-truth","tag-pillar-and-foundation-of-truth","tag-rule-of-faith","tag-sacred-scripture","tag-scripture-alone","tag-sola-scriptura","tag-triablogue"],"yoast_head":"\nPaul was writing about how Christians ought to behave. Behave\u00a0where<\/em>? Well, in \u201cthe church<\/em>\u201c: an essential attribute of which he then describes<\/em> (which seems to me to stand alone as a proposition). If Paul had written all this, ending with \u201cbehave in the marketplace\u201d or \u201cbehave in the academies\u201d and then proceeded to describe marketplaces or academies, in the same way, his description of those would not have directly to do with the previous section about \u201cbehave in such-and-such a manner.\u201d<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nIt\u2019s two distinct propositions.\u00a0 The behavior he refers to would apply in pretty much all situations (\u201ctemperate, faithful in all things . . . let them manage their children and their households well\u201d: 1 Tim 3:11-12). Paul simply threw in a description of the Church for no extra charge.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nSt. Paul does precisely the same thing with the Corinthians. 1 Corinthians was written to one local Church in Corinth. And so there is much in it pertaining exclusively to that church at that particular time in history. But at the end of 1 Corinthians chapter 12, Paul abruptly switches to talk about the overall<\/em> Church, the Body of Christ:<\/div>\n\n
1 Corinthians 12:26-30<\/strong> If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together. [27] Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. [28] And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in various kinds of tongues. [29] Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? [30] Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret?<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\nNow, according to Jason\u2019s desperate eisegesis of 1 Timothy 3:15, applied to this passage also, we would have to hold that 12:26-30 was still referring only to the church at Corinth<\/em>. That would mean that Corinth was the entire \u201cBody of Christ\u201d<\/em><\/strong> and that only it<\/em> has prophets, apostles, teachers, administrators, etc. This is clearly a ridiculous reductio ad absurdum<\/em>. Therefore, he is speaking of the institutional Church here, and also in 1 Timothy 3:15.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nIt\u2019s just as silly to think that 1 Timothy 3:15 is any different: as if the local church at Ephesus (referred to one time, in passing, in the entire letter, at the beginning of the chapter, two chapters previously) alone was \u201cthe pillar and bulwark of the truth.\u201d That\u2019s clearly ludicrous, but this is the desperation that Protestant apologists are reduced to, in trying to \u201crefute\u201d our best prooftexts for\u00a0 Catholic positions. I understand that the stakes are high. They must discredit this passage because it alone<\/em> destroys sola Scriptura<\/em> and strongly backs up the Catholic rule of faith.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n\u2013 What we read about the Ephesian church elsewhere, such as in\u00a0Acts 20:17-38\u00a0and\u00a0Revelation 2:1-7, suggests that there was no assurance that the Ephesian church would remain faithful, have an unbroken succession from the apostles in perpetuity, or any other such thing.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nNo doubt, but none of this proves that 1 Timothy 3:15 was only referring to Ephesus. It\u2019s absurd. I know a weak argument when I see one, after doing apologetics these past forty years.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nIn Acts 20, Paul expects wolves to come in among the Ephesian leadership and calls on them to remember the teaching they\u2019d received from Jesus and Paul. He says nothing of an assurance that they\u2019ll maintain the faith or how they can look to the infallible church teachings of their day, in addition to remembering the teaching of the past. Even an apostolic church as prominent as Ephesus, one that had the principles of\u00a01 Timothy 3:15\u00a0applied so directly to it, could also be addressed in the terms of Acts 20 and Revelation 2.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nAll of this is perfectly irrelevant (in logic, what we call a non sequitur<\/em>) to the text in question. But this is what the sophist does. He throws up a bunch of extraneous stuff that is mere obfuscation and obscurantism. Lawyers with a bad case and few facts on their side do the same thing. It\u2019s an unenviable task. It\u2019s much easier to defend the truth. You don\u2019t have to play all these games.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n\u2013\u00a01 Timothy 3:15\u00a0is addressing a function the church has.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nPrecisely! And we will unpack the implications of this below.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nThere\u2019s no reason within the text or nearby context to think that the church will infallibly carry out that function.\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nOh but yes there is<\/em>, as we shall shortly prove.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nSimilarly, the people of Israel are referred to as God\u2019s witnesses (Isaiah 43:10-12), Christians are called salt and light (Matthew 5:13-14), etc., but it doesn\u2019t follow that they\u2019ll infallibly fulfill that role or that they\u2019ll have the other relevant characteristics Catholics associate with the 1 Timothy 3 passage.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nThat\u2019s irrelevant, too. Jason has to explain what it means for the Church to be \u201cthe pillar and bulwark of the truth.\u201d He\u2019s trying mightily to explain it away, but he\u2019s miserably failing.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n\u2013 Even if the church were sure to always fulfill the function described in the passage, the church wouldn\u2019t have to be infallible in the particular way Roman Catholicism claims to be.<\/span>
\n*
\nObviously a biblical text would not be as developed as Catholic ecclesiology over 2,000 years. Yet the basic concept is here, very strongly expressed.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nFor example, if there were always a church holding a set of beliefs with some degree of overlap with Roman Catholicism, but not identical to it (Trinitarianism, the virgin birth, the resurrection of Jesus, etc.), that wouldn\u2019t be equivalent to the church always fulfilling\u00a01 Timothy 3:15\u00a0in the form of Roman Catholicism. You could believe that the function of the 1 Timothy passage has been fulfilled in every generation since the time of the apostles without believing that Catholicism has fulfilled it. Catholicism isn\u2019t the only candidate available, and there are other candidates that are superior.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nWell, this gets into the vexed, controversial question of which institutional, historical Christian communion is most plausibly viewed as the one true Church. I\u2019d be absolutely delighted to have that<\/em> discussion with Jason or anyone else. But he ignores all of my refutations . . .<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n\u2013 We normally think of multiple pillars, not just one, supporting a structure (e.g.,\u00a0Judges 16:29,\u00a0Galatians 2:9). But the passage uses the singular, \u201cpillar\u201d. The implication is that at least one other entity has the same role the church is described as having.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nNonsense. So Jason notes that the text refers to one pillar, and to him this implies that there are other<\/em> ones in the sense that the passage expresses. Quite obviously, if that were the case, then the passage would say (duh!) that the Church was \u201cone of many<\/em> pillars and bulwarks of the truth.\u201d But it says no such thing, and Jason is desperately special pleading.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n\u2013 The theme of the last part of\u00a01 Timothy 3:15\u00a0(upholding the truth) is so broadly applicable that you can\u2019t limit it to the local church, some worldwide denomination like Roman Catholicism, or any other concept of the church.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nThis is remarkable! Once again, Jason simply ignores what the text says and goes sailing off into fantasy-land, pretending that it is something other than the Church<\/em><\/strong> being \u201cthe pillar and bulwark of the truth.\u201d<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nThere are many individuals and groups throughout history who have been called on to be a pillar and support of the truth in some sense. Many individuals and groups outside of any church hierarchy are referred to as having some sort of supporting role, comparable to a pillar, a support, a foundation, or whatever term you want to use (e.g.,\u00a0Luke 8:3,\u00a0Romans 11:18,\u00a02 Corinthians 8:4,\u00a0Revelation 3:12). In the Romans 11 passage just cited, Paul is addressing the Roman Christians in particular, warning them not to be arrogant in light of their dependence on the Jewish people. Later in 1 Timothy, Paul refers to wealthy Christians building a foundation for their future through good works (6:17-19). The concept of some entity serving as a support of some other entity, communicated by using architectural terms (a pillar, a foundation, a rock, a bulwark, etc.) or communicated in some other way, is commonplace.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nYes, and what does any of that have to do with the passage under consideration? How is it to be sensibly understood? I will eventually give my view. But right now let\u2019s take note of Jason\u2019s pathetic view: some of the worst argumentation I have ever seen him make in 21 years of debates with him.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nThe idea that an individual, group, or object has to have attributes like the relevant ones Roman Catholicism claims to have in order to serve as something like a pillar or support of the truth doesn\u2019t make sense, and it would lead to absurd conclusions if applied to other passages. The language Paul uses in\u00a01 Timothy 3:15\u00a0is too vague, making it open to a variety of applications, to justify the Catholic use of the passage. We see the same sort of variability with the metaphors used in other contexts. God is referred to as a light (Isaiah 60:19,\u00a0Micah 7:8,\u00a0John 8:12), and so are other entities (Isaiah 62:1,\u00a0Matthew 5:14,\u00a0Philippians 2:15). But they\u2019re lights in a variety of ways. When metaphors like these are used, involving architecture, light, or whatever else, there isn\u2019t much you can derive from them. That kind of metaphor typically isn\u2019t meant to convey as much as Catholics want it to in the context of\u00a01 Timothy 3:15. You have to bring in other evidence if you want to justify the sort of conclusions Catholics often claim to be deriving from 1 Timothy 3. But, then, it\u2019s no longer just a matter of what that 1 Timothy 3 passage tells us. And if Catholics are going to bring in other considerations, so can their opponents.<\/span>
\n*
\nJason: the master of the non sequitur and obfuscation. Just throw any type of manure against the \u201cwall\u201d [of a rational, logical, exegetical position] and hope some of it will stick . . . Well, it ain\u2019t stickin\u2019<\/em>, but it\u2019s sure stinkin\u2019<\/em> up the place.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n\u2013 The wide applicability of the language is illustrated in some second-century sources. Eusebius quotes a document providing an account of some martyrs in Irenaeus\u2019 day, and that document refers to a man named Attalus as \u201ca native of Pergamos where he had always been a pillar and foundation\u201d (Church History<\/em> 5:1:17). Irenaeus wrote, \u201cWe have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.\u201d (Against Heresies<\/em>, 3:1:1) He refers to how \u201cthe pillar and ground of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life\u201d (3:11:8).<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n\u2013 In Paul\u2019s letter to the Ephesians (recall what I said above about the relationship between 1 Timothy and Ephesus), he refers to how Christians in general, not just a church hierarchy, a Pope, or ecumenical councils, for example, are to uphold the truth in various ways. They\u2019re to \u201cspeak the truth\u201d (4:15), for example. In fact, relative to how short the letter is, there are a lot of references to truth in Paul\u2019s letter to the Ephesians (1:13, 4:15, 4:21, 4:24, 4:25, 5:9, 6:14). All of those references to truth are applicable to Christians in general, not just a church hierarchy or an allegedly infallible portion of the hierarchy.<\/span>
\n*
\nAgain, none of this exegetes the passage at hand<\/em>. It just doesn\u2019t<\/em>.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n\u2013 The language Paul uses to describe the church in\u00a01 Timothy 3:15\u00a0(\u201cthe household of God\u201d, \u201cthe church of the living God\u201d) and his reference to \u201chow one ought to conduct himself in\u201d that church make more sense if his focus is on the congregation in general. See the similar concepts in\u00a0Ephesians 2:19-22, for example. The language is less likely to be referring only to the hierarchy, to some portion of the hierarchy that allegedly is infallible, or some such thing. And just as laymen aren\u2019t infallible in their role of upholding the truth, neither are those serving in the hierarchy. Furthermore, Paul\u2019s references to the Ephesians in general upholding the truth in his letter to the Ephesians (as discussed above) offer another line of evidence that he had the church in general in mind. Even if we assumed that Paul was using the language of the church in general as shorthand for a particular portion of the church, there would be no way to justify the conclusion that the portion of the church Paul was thinking of is the portion Catholicism has in mind. But, again, the most sensible way to take the passage is that the church in general is being referred to, and Catholics don\u2019t want to assign attributes like an unbroken succession and infallibility to the church in general.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nHe gets a little closer to the actual text<\/em> here, but is still very far away. Now let me give you an example of how Catholics<\/em> interpret it. You be the judge as to which interpretation is more plausible. Here is the related portion of my book, 100 Biblical Arguments Against\u00a0<\/i>Sola Scriptura<\/a> (2012, pp. 104-107, #82; with one \u201cfootnote-type\u201d bracketed interjection added):\n*<\/div>\n2 Corinthians 13:8<\/strong>\u00a0For we cannot do anything against\u00a0<\/b>the truth, but only for\u00a0<\/b>the truth.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nColossians 1:5<\/strong>\u00a0because of the hope laid up for you in heaven. Of this you have heard before in the word of\u00a0<\/b>the truth, the gospel<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n2 Thessalonians 2:10<\/strong>\u00a0. . .\u00a0they refused to love\u00a0<\/b>the truth\u00a0and so be saved. (cf. 2:12-13)<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n1 Timothy 2:4<\/strong>\u00a0who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of\u00a0<\/b>the truth.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n1 Timothy 4:3<\/strong>\u00a0. . .\u00a0those who believe and know\u00a0<\/b>the truth.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n2 Timothy 1:14<\/strong>\u00a0guard\u00a0<\/b>the truth\u00a0that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us. (cf. Jude 3)<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n2 Timothy 4:4<\/strong>\u00a0and will turn away from listening to\u00a0<\/b>the truth and wander into myths. (cf. 2:18, 25; 3:7-8; Titus 1:14) ]<\/div>\n<\/div>\n***<\/div>\n<\/div>\nSummary<\/em>: Protestant anti-Catholic polemicist Jason Engwer engages in extraordinary efforts to try to explain away 1 Timothy 3:15. It\u2019s a lost cause and has no foundation.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"