![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2023\/02\/Cover-330x499-.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nLucas Banzoli<\/a> is a very active Brazilian anti-Catholic polemicist, who holds to basically a Seventh-Day Adventist theology, whereby there is no such thing as a soul that consciously exists outside of a body, and no hell (soul sleep and annihilationism). This leads him to a Christology which is deficient and heterodox in terms of Christ\u2019s human nature after His death.\u00a0He has a Master\u2019s degree in theology, a degree and postgraduate work in history, a license in letters, and is a history teacher, author of 27 self-published books, as well as blogmaster (active on and off) for six blogs. He has many videos on YouTube<\/a>.<\/p>\n This is my\u00a058th refutation<\/a>\u00a0of Banzoli\u2019s writings. For almost half a year (5-25-22 to 11-12-22) he didn\u2019t write\u00a0one single<\/em>\u00a0word<\/em>\u00a0in reply, because my articles were deemed to be\u00a0\u201cwithout exception poor, superficial and weak . . .\u00a0only a severely cognitively impaired person would be inclined to take\u201d<\/span>\u00a0them\u00a0\u201cseriously.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0Despite this childish rationalizing, he found my refutations so\u00a0\u201centertaining\u201d<\/span>\u00a0that he bravely decided to\u00a0\u201cmake a point of rebutting\u201d<\/span>\u00a0them\u00a0\u201cone by one\u201d;<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span>this effort being his\u00a0\u201cnew favorite sport.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n He has now replied to me\u00a015 times<\/em>\u00a0(the last one\u00a0dated 2-9-23<\/a>). I disposed of the main themes of his slanderous insults in several Facebook posts under his name on my\u00a0Anti-Catholicism page<\/a>. I plan (by God\u2019s grace) to ignore the insults henceforth, and heartily thank him for these innumerable blessings and extra rewards in heaven (Matthew 5:11-12).<\/p>\n Google Translate is utilized to render Lucas\u2019 Portugese into English. Occasionally I slightly modify clearly inadequate translations, so that his words will read more smoothly and meaningfully in English. His words will be in\u00a0blue<\/span>.\u00a0Words from past replies of mine to him will be in\u00a0green<\/span>.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n This is my reply to a portion of Lucas Banzoli\u2019s article, \u201c1\u00aa Tim\u00f3teo 3:15 ensina que a Igreja Romana \u00e9 infal\u00edvel? Refutando o conceito de \u201cIgreja\u201d de Dave Armstrong\u201d<\/a>\u00a0 [Does 1 Timothy 3:15 teach that the Roman Church is infallible?\u00a0<\/em>Refuting Dave Armstrong\u2019s Concept of the \u201cChurch\u201d<\/em>] (12-26-22), which purports to be a \u201creply\u201d to my article,<\/span> \u201c1 Timothy 3:15 = Infallible Church (vs. Lucas Banzoli)\u201d<\/a> (6-3-22). As usual, Banzoli comprehends almost<\/em> none<\/em> of my argumentation, and so \u2014 true to form \u2014 he belittles what he is unable and\/or unwilling to understand, throughout his pathetic screed.<\/p>\n I will concentrate on one aspect of this debate: the Church as the \u201cfoundation<\/em> of the truth.\u201d\u00a0He didn\u2019t respond at all<\/em> to my best argument in this regard, which is why I will mostly repeat it here, but it\u2019s well worth nailing down and reiterating this crucial point. Repetition (as long as rational argument is part and parcel of it) is a great teacher. I have added bolding below, for \u201cfoundation\u201d as he uses the word; italics are his own throughout:<\/p>\n After distorting as many biblical texts as usual and machine-gunning passages out of context, Dave proceeds to distort the Greek as well.\u00a0. . . neither of the two Greek words used in 1 Timothy 3:15 mean \u201cfoundation,\u201d<\/strong> . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Even if \u201cfoundation\u201d<\/strong> were one of the possible meanings of\u00a0hedrai\u00f3ma,<\/i> this would not imply that it was the meaning in 1st Timothy 3:15 . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n [I]t would not make the slightest sense that Paul would say that the church (that is, Christians) are the \u201cfoundation\u201d<\/strong> of the truth, . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n To say that an institution like this is the very\u00a0<\/span>foundation<\/span><\/i><\/strong> of truth, . . . <\/span>is a crime against humanity. . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n [I]f the Church is not the \u201cfoundation\u201d<\/strong> of the truth, as if the truth were dependent on the Church, what is it anyway? <\/span>It is the \u201cpillar\u201d or \u201cpillar\u201d of truth, built\u00a0upon<\/i> the truth, not the truth in it. . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Dave . . . fails miserably to prove . . . <\/span>that the text speaks of being the \u201cfoundation\u201d<\/strong> of the truth, and not a \u201cpillar\u201d or support to it.\u00a0. . . he completely reverses the meaning and purpose of the Pauline text, turning a plain and simple message about Christians being truth-keepers into a burlesque message about a Roman institution being infallible and above all. . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n [E]xegesis is not done by joining disconnected verses at will. <\/span>With that same logic, we could take any other text where the word \u201cfoundation\u201d<\/strong> appears and relate it to 1st Timothy 3:15, which would obviously be stupid as well as begging the question (for wanting to inculcate this meaning into the text rather than to extract it from it). . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n [T]he foundation <\/strong><\/span>itself<\/span><\/i>\u00a0can be none other than Jesus, who is the very\u00a0<\/span>\u201cway, the truth and the life\u201d<\/span> (John 14:6), sharing no space with anyone else. . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n 1st Timothy 3:15 does not speak of \u201cfoundation\u201d<\/strong> . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n [B]oth Peter and James and John are called <\/span>pillars<\/span><\/i>\u00a0(exactly what I argue based on 1 Timothy 3:15),\u00a0<\/span><\/i>not\u00a0<\/span>foundation<\/span><\/i><\/strong>\u00a0(as Dave believes, removing Jesus from his post as sole foundation<\/strong>).\u00a0<\/span>As any child knows, and maybe even a baby, a pillar is not the foundation<\/strong>, but it is\u00a0<\/span>on\u00a0<\/span><\/i>the foundation<\/strong> (because the foundation<\/strong> is Christ, not themselves). . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Banzoli goes round and round, almost drowning in his own voluminous, ever-present verbal diarrhea. What he never did<\/em> throughout his entire ridiculous rant, was address one of my central, and most effective arguments. How is it that we best determine what word (translation of a Hebrew or Greek word) is proper in any specific Bible passage? Well, a great and relatively easy way to do that is to consult the many hundreds of linguists and Bible scholars who take part in the translation process of new versions of the Bible. I made this argument, but he utterly ignored it (I don\u2019t blame him; he operates with the mentality of \u201cif you can\u2019t overcome<\/em> an argument, just pretend that it doesn\u2019t exist<\/em>!\u201d).<\/p>\n 47 scholars<\/a> translated the famous King James Version (KJV, 1611). The RSV, the most well-known revision of the KJV, and the Bible that I use, was translated by 32 scholars<\/a> in conjunction with representatives from fifty denominations. The New International Version (NIV) was produced by fifteen scholars<\/a>. The New American Standard Bible (NASB) \u2014 the version I used when I first read the Bible \u2014 was produced by more than twenty linguists<\/a>. Etc., etc.<\/p>\n These people know what they\u2019re doing. They\u2019re actually scholars, not merely amateur ranters and ravers and anti-Catholic polemicists like Banzoli, who can\u2019t even manage to get a book published by an actual publisher outside of himself, and so is consigned to self-publishing only.<\/p>\n Lucas falsely claimed in his original paper<\/a> on the topic (not this latest one) that \u201c<\/span>none of them [Bible translations]<\/span> has the sense of \u2018foundation\u2019 (as some adulterated Catholic translations render it)\u201d<\/span>. I regret to inform him (but I\u2019m happy to inform my readers) that this is a glaring falsehood, and it is proven not just by Catholic translations (in English), but by (overwhelmingly) non-Catholic Bibles, which translate hedra\u00ed\u014dma\u00a0<\/i>as follows (Catholic Bibles in\u00a0green<\/span>) \u2014 including 24 of them that chose the rendering of foundation<\/em>\u00a0or\u00a0foundation-stone<\/em>:<\/span><\/p>\n foundation<\/em>\u00a0(NIV, NLT, Amplified, CSB, Holman, CEV, ISV, LSV,\u00a0NAB<\/span>, Young\u2019s Literal, Berean Study, Lamsa, EHV, EXB, GW, Phillips, MEV, NOG, NTE, TLV, Goodspeed,\u00a0Knox<\/span>, Williams)<\/span><\/p>\n foundation-stone<\/em>\u00a0(Weymouth)<\/p>\n buttress<\/em>\u00a0(ESV, Mounce, Barclay)<\/p>\n ground<\/em>\u00a0(KJV, NKJV, ASV,\u00a0Douay-Rheims<\/span>, WEB, AKJV, ERV, Webster, Geneva, Bishop\u2019s Bible, Coverdale, Tyndale, BRG, Good News, NMB, RGT)<\/p>\n bulwark<\/em>\u00a0(NET, NRSV,\u00a0NCB<\/span>, RSV, NEB, REB, Moffatt,\u00a0Kleist & Lilly<\/span>)<\/p>\n base<\/em>\u00a0(Darby, Smith\u2019s Literal, Literal Emphasis, JUB)<\/p>\n [see web pages with most of these translations written out:\u00a0one<\/a>\u00a0\/\u00a0two<\/a>]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n So much for Lucas\u2019 groundless argument (no pun intended) . . .<\/p>\n All of this was utterly ignored in Banzoli\u2019s purported \u201creply.\u201d He had desperately written in his original article:<\/p>\n Therefore, the meaning of the text is not that the truth is subject or dependent on the Church, but the opposite. As the pillar is dependent on the foundation, the Church is dependent on the truth. The foundation (truth) comes first, and the pillar (Church) comes later. The Church, therefore, has the role of announcing this truth, not manipulating that truth, as if whatever the Church said was true for the sole reason that the Church said it.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n The text says the exact\u00a0opposite<\/em> of what Lucas argues, as shown above (from actual scholars). Far from the Church being \u201cdependent on<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0the truth\u201d, The Bible says it is the\u00a0foundation<\/em>\u00a0or\u00a0ground<\/em>\u00a0or\u00a0base\u00a0of<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0the truth: exactly what we Catholics are saying. It doesn\u2019t follow that the Bible is\u00a0not<\/em>\u00a0that (either\/or reasoning). But the Church\u00a0is<\/em>, along\u00a0with<\/em>\u00a0or alongside the Bible: precisely as in the Catholic rule of faith. This doesn\u2019t make the Church\u00a0inspired<\/em>; only\u00a0infallible<\/em>. And that is quite enough to destroy\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/em> as a supposed biblical principle and rule of faith.<\/p>\n The heart of the Catholic argument is not the word\u00a0stulos<\/em>, but the word\u00a0hedra\u00ed\u014dma,\u00a0<\/i>as shown. First Lucas defines it wrongly, and then ignores it as if it isn\u2019t there. But the meaning is crystal-clear; couldn\u2019t be\u00a0more<\/em>\u00a0clear than it is!<\/span><\/p>\n . . . the Church, which is not a \u201cfoundation\u201d of the truth, but a pillar, . . . The Bible is not really the pillar of truth, because it is much more than a pillar. It is not like a pillar (which depends on something), but the foundation, the truth itself.<\/span><\/p>\n The Church\u00a0also<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0is<\/em>\u00a0the foundation<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0(or ground or base or bulwark)\u00a0of \u201cthe truth\u201d<\/em><\/strong>: as shown above. Lucas is foolishly denying what ought to be right in front of his face. I know it\u2019s difficult to have one\u2019s cherished (but false) belief crushed. But we all have to be strong enough to endure correction from the Bible. We can\u2019t fight against it. That won\u2019t do us any good at all.<\/p>\n For those who haven\u2019t yet read it, here is my most concise presentation of the \u201cCatholic argument\u201d from 1 Timothy 3:15, from my book,\u00a0100 Biblical Arguments Against\u00a0<\/i>Sola Scriptura<\/a> (Catholic Answers Press, 2012, pp. 104-107, #82):<\/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 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 than that which is built upon it. And since there is another infallible authority apart from Scripture,\u00a0sola scriptura<\/em>\u00a0must be false.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n ***<\/p>\n Practical Matters<\/em><\/strong>: Perhaps some of my 4,000+ free online articles (the most comprehensive \u201cone-stop\u201d Catholic apologetics site) or\u00a0fifty-one books<\/a>\u00a0have helped you (by God\u2019s grace) to decide to\u00a0become Catholic<\/a>\u00a0or to\u00a0return to the Church<\/a>,\u00a0or better understand some doctrines and\u00a0why<\/em>\u00a0we believe them<\/a>.<\/p>\n Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I\u2019m always in need of more funds: especially\u00a0monthly<\/em>\u00a0support. \u201cThe laborer is worthy of his wages\u201d (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a\u00a0full-time Catholic apologist<\/a>,\u00a0and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.<\/p>\n PayPal donations<\/a>\u00a0are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You\u2019ll see the term \u201cCatholic Used Book Service\u201d, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page:\u00a0About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong \/ Donation Information<\/a>.\u00a0Thanks a million<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0from the bottom of my heart!<\/p>\n<\/div>\n ***<\/p>\n Summary<\/em>: 1 Timothy 3:15 proves that the Church = foundation of the truth, and is infallible and indefectible (also disproving sola Scriptura<\/em>). Banzoli futilely ignores it.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Lucas Banzoli is a very active Brazilian anti-Catholic polemicist, who holds to basically a Seventh-Day Adventist theology, whereby there is no such thing as a soul that consciously exists outside of a body, and no hell (soul sleep and annihilationism). This leads him to a Christology which is deficient and heterodox in terms of Christ\u2019s […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":69738,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[231,131],"tags":[4277,16238,514,1879,1878,33,17049,1029,2028,890,11257,17046,1877,1529,16161,4279,4278,32,536,35,47],"class_list":["post-69735","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-anti-catholicism","category-church-ecclesiology","tag-1-timothy-315","tag-authority-of-the-church","tag-bible-only","tag-biblical-prooftexts","tag-biblical-theology","tag-christian-authority","tag-church-foundation-of-the-truth","tag-church-authority","tag-church-infallibility","tag-indefectibility-of-the-church","tag-indefectible-church","tag-infallibility-of-the-churh","tag-infallible-authority","tag-infallible-church","tag-lucas-banzoli","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"],"yoast_head":"\n