![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2025\/10\/CBHMostUnProtestantVerses.jpg\")
<\/a>\u00a0<\/p>\n
This is the initial transcript (minus our spontaneous discussion) of our video, \u201cThe 3 Most UN-PROTESTANT Bible Verses<\/a>\u201d (10-9-25).<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n Summary<\/em>: We discuss three NT passages that are devastatingly \u201cUnProtestant\u201d: having to do with sola Scriptura<\/em> and an infallible Church, faith alone (sola fide<\/em>), and penances for the dead.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Some parts of the New Testament fit into the Protestant outlook only with great difficulty. We will examine (arguably) three of the clearest examples of that.<\/p>\n 1 Timothy 3:15<\/strong> (RSV) . . . the household of God, which is the church<\/em><\/strong> of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth<\/em><\/strong>.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Sola Scriptura<\/em> or \u201cBible Alone\u201d is the Protestant rule of faith. What it means is that only the Bible<\/em> is a final infallible authority. Nothing else <\/em>is. This verse, however, asserts in effect that the Church is also<\/em> an infallible authority. And so it\u2019s an \u201cun-Protestant verse.\u201d It seems to me that if sola Scriptura<\/em> is indeed a true and biblical principle, this couldn\u2019t even be in<\/em> the Bible. It would read, rather, something like, \u201cthe word<\/em> of the living God is the pillar and bulwark of the truth.\u2019<\/p>\n So what does a Protestant do<\/em> with this? Who knows? They can speak for themselves. For our part, we are explaining why we <\/em>believe this teaches the infallibility of the Church, and undeniably so. I made an extended argument about that very thing 13 years ago in my book, 100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura<\/em>, which we are now offering in an updated form. I will try to be as brief as I can in summarizing it, without missing anything important.<\/p>\n Pillars and foundations support<\/em> 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 make mistakes when proclaiming doctrine, it could not be what the Bible here says it is<\/em>. God\u2019s truth would be the house built on a foundation of sand in Jesus\u2019 parable. For this passage to be true, the Church must<\/em> be infallible: at least in its most important decrees about doctrine.<\/p>\n Similarly, in Ephesians 2:19-20 Paul refers to the \u201chousehold of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone.\u201d<\/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, etc.). These communications cannot contain any untruths insofar as they truly come from God, with the prophet serving as His spokesman or intermediary (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<\/em> can hardly be a faulty foundation. And in the way that apostles and prophets are infallible, likewise, so is the Church, \u201cbuilt upon\u201d them. Our Lord 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, is itself a strong argument that it\u2019s\u00a0 infallible and without error regarding doctrine.<\/p>\n In the Bible, nowhere is truth presented as anything less than\u00a0pure<\/em>\u00a0truth, unmixed with error. That was certainly how Paul conceived what he constantly refers to as \u201cthe truth\u201d that he received and passed down (Rom 2:8;\u00a02 Cor 13:8; Col 1:5;\u00a02 Thess 2:10; 1 Tim 2:4, 18, 25; 4:3; 2 Tim 1:14;\u00a03:7-8; 4:4; Jude 3).<\/p>\n Knowing what truth is, how can its own foundation be something\u00a0less<\/em>\u00a0than total truth (since truth itself contains no falsehoods or errors)? It cannot. It\u2019s impossible, and common sense. A stream can\u2019t rise above its source. What\u2019s built upon<\/em> a foundation can\u2019t be\u00a0greater<\/em>\u00a0than the foundation. If it were, the whole thing would collapse.<\/p>\n An elephant can\u2019t stand on the shoulders of a man. 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 it.<\/p>\n Therefore, we conclude that the Church must<\/em>\u00a0be\u00a0infallible<\/em>, since truth is infallible, and the foundation cannot be lesser\u00a0than what is built upon it. Therefore, sola scriptura<\/em>\u00a0must be false, as a result of this inspired verse alone, along with countless others.<\/p>\n Mark 10:17-21 <\/strong>And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him, and asked him, \u201cGood Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?\u201d [18] And Jesus said to him, . . . [19] You know the commandments: `Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.'\u201d [20] And he said to him, \u201cTeacher, all these I have observed from my youth.\u201d [21] And Jesus looking upon him loved him, and said to him, \u201cYou lack one thing; go, sell what you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.\u201d<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n The rich young ruler sincerely asked Jesus how one attained eternal life, assuming (in his word \u201cdo\u201d) that \u201cgood deeds\u201d would be what is required (since the Old Testament is full of these deeds). If Jesus had been a good Protestant, He obviously would have had to respond, \u201cyou\u00a0can\u2019t<\/em>\u00a0do any<\/em> work to attain eternal life! You\u2019re dead wrong. You must have\u00a0faith alone<\/em>!\u201d But in fact, Jesus didn\u2019t rebuke his premise; far from it, He\u00a0reinforced<\/em>\u00a0his train of thought by asking whether he kept the commandments. That\u2019s what our Lord thought was the \u201croad\u201d to heaven.<\/p>\n He didn\u2019t oppose him by asking, \u201cwhy do you ask me about\u00a0works<\/em>? Don\u2019t you know that they have\u00a0nothing<\/em>\u00a0to do with salvation and are done only in\u00a0gratefulness<\/em>\u00a0to God for a salvation already attained?\u201d His replies are massively contrary to Protestantism\u2019s\u00a0faith alone<\/em>. His replies are not like\u00a0any<\/em>\u00a0sermon I ever heard in my 13 years as an evangelical! This is\u00a0not<\/em>\u00a0how we were taught to spread the faith in street witnessing, in order to \u201cget people saved.\u201d<\/p>\n According to Protestantism, we can\u2019t do\u00a0anything<\/em>\u00a0to be saved. No work we\u00a0do<\/em>\u00a0is sufficient. All we can do is have faith in Jesus Christ. Jesus would have failed Soteriology 0101 in any evangelical seminary or divinity school.<\/p>\n \u201cWhen the man said, \u201call these I have observed from my youth,\u201d Jesus had a second chance \u2014 if Protestantism is right, \u2014 to affirm, \u201cyou must believe in Me with faith alone to attain eternal life.\u201d But He again chose to answer like a Catholic and recommended another meritorious work: \u201cYou lack one thing; go, sell what you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.\u201d Selling all that he owned was, of course, another\u00a0work<\/em>, as opposed to faith and assenting belief. Thus, the rich young ruler\u2019s rejection of Jesus\u2019 advice was based on his unwillingness to do\u00a0one extraordinary work<\/em>\u00a0that he was told would save him.<\/p>\n His fatal flaw was placing possessions above God (a form of idolatry). Nothing here upholds faith alone at all. I think that a hypothetical Protestant who was writing part of the Bible would and could\u00a0never<\/em>\u00a0have written the passage this way. Jesus twice emphasizes that works save a soul; never mentioning faith or belief in Himself (though we fully agree that those things are\u00a0also true and necessary<\/em>). The point is that Jesus highlighted <\/em>and made central<\/em> the very thing that Protestants falsely claim has\u00a0nothing<\/em>\u00a0to do with salvation. How can this be<\/em>?<\/p>\n The young man went away and Jesus observed, \u201cHow hard it will be for those who have riches to enter the kingdom of God!\u201d (10:23). Why is it so \u201chard\u201d? It isn\u2019t because he didn\u2019t exercise the faith that Jesus never recommended. It\u2019s \u201chard\u201d because the work that was required to attain salvation (giving away all that he owned) is difficult.<\/p>\n If faith\u00a0alone<\/em>\u00a0were true and in fact the only way to get to heaven, it seems that\u00a0Jesus would have said so<\/em>\u00a0when directly asked about that very thing. But He didn\u2019t; therefore, \u201cfaith alone\u201d is false, since it\u2019s foreign and unknown to Jesus Himself. The Bible we have is plainly far too \u201cCatholic.\u201d The \u201cProtestant\u201d Jesus would have talked something like the following in this encounter:<\/p>\n \u201cIf you would enter life,\u00a0exercise faith alone\u00a0in the son of man. No commandments can save you. Say the sinner\u2019s prayer, so you\u00a0will be saved; and come, follow me.\u00a0Truly, I say to you, it will be hard for a man\u00a0without faith alone\u00a0to\u00a0enter the kingdom of heaven.\u201d<\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 15:29-30, 32<\/strong> Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead<\/em><\/strong>? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf? [30] Why am I in peril every hour? . . . [32] What do I gain if, humanly speaking, I fought with beasts at Ephesus? If the dead are not raised, \u201cLet us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n In 2004 in my book, The Catholic Verses<\/em>, I called this \u201cthe most \u2018Un-Protestant verse in the Bible.\u201d Protestant commentators almost<\/em> agree, but from a different perspective. One of them, the well-known Methodist Adam Clarke, writes about it:<\/p>\n This is certainly the most difficult verse in the New Testament; for, notwithstanding the greatest and wisest men have labored to explain it, there are to this day nearly as many different interpretations of it as there are interpreters.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Likewise, the famous Presbyterian commentator, Albert Barnes, in his Barnes\u2019 Notes on the Bible<\/em> states:<\/p>\n There is, perhaps, no passage of the New Testament in respect to which there has been a greater variety of interpretation than this; and the views of expositors now by no means harmonize in regard to its meaning.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n But Barnes also<\/em> includes among the various interpretations the following take:<\/p>\n There remain two other opinions, both of which are plausible, and one of which is probably the true one. One is, that the word baptized is used here as it is in\u00a0Matthew 20:22-23;\u00a0Mark 10:39;\u00a0Luke 12:50, in the sense of being overwhelmed with calamities, trials, and sufferings; . . . That the word is thus used to denote a deep sinking into calamities, there can be no doubt. . . . That this view is plausible, and that it suits the strain of remark in the following verses, is evident. But there are objections to it: . . . This interpretation does not relieve us from any of the difficulties in regard to the phrase \u201cfor the dead\u201d . . .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n He goes a long way towards the exegesis that we will submit. But in the end he can\u2019t get over the hurdle of human beings doing anything whatever to assist the dead<\/em>. It\u2019s too foreign to his Protestantism.<\/p>\n St. Francis de Sales (1567-1622) in his book, The Catholic Controversy<\/em> [translated by Henry B. Mackey, Rockford, Illinois: TAN Books, 1989, from the 1886 edition (London and New York); originally 1596], derived from pamphlets that are said to have played a direct role in more than 70,000 converts returning to the Catholic faith in France, provides what I think is the most plausible view, and it incorporates and expands upon the elements that Barnes made reference to:<\/p>\n This passage properly understood evidently shows that it was the custom of the primitive Church to watch, pray, fast, for the souls of the departed. For, firstly, in the Scriptures to be baptized is often taken for afflictions and penances; as in St. Luke chapter 12 [12:50] . . . and in St. Mark chapter 10 [10:38-39] . . .\u00a0 in which places Our Lord calls pains and afflictions baptism [cf. Matthew 3:11, 20:22-3, Luke 3:16].<\/p>\n This then is the sense of that Scripture: if the dead rise not again, what is the use of mortifying and afflicting oneself, of praying and fasting for the dead? And indeed this sentence of St. Paul resembles that of 2 Maccabees 12:44: It is superfluous and vain to pray for the dead if the dead rise not again.<\/em> (p. 368)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n From this perspective, Paul\u2019s thought clearly harmonizes with and likely even draws upon<\/em> the parallel passage in Maccabees about prayer for the dead. St. Paul in context further indicates this by asking, rhetorically, \u201cWhy am I in peril every hour?\u201d In other words, he is tying in his own suffering with the previous reference of people being baptized for the dead. That is, he is doing activities that will help<\/em> the dead, and he explains why<\/em> he does it: because the dead are raised.<\/p>\n The problem for Protestants is that their overall outlook has no place<\/em> for this concept and practice, and so it\u2019s ruled out from the outset. Therefore, the text remains mysterious for them because of the false preconceived view that they bring to it and also their denial that 2nd Maccabees is part of the Bible. Because of the latter they can\u2019t utilize the verse in 2nd Maccabees: a clearer passage on the same topic, to help understand it, according to the standard practice of all Bible commentators, because they deny that Maccabees is canonical<\/em>.<\/p>\n Related Book<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n The Catholic Verses: 95 Bible Passages That Confound Protestants\u00a0<\/em><\/a>(Aug. 2004, 235 pages)<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" \u00a0 This is the initial transcript (minus our spontaneous discussion) of our video, \u201cThe 3 Most UN-PROTESTANT Bible Verses\u201d (10-9-25). ***** Summary: We discuss three NT passages that are devastatingly \u201cUnProtestant\u201d: having to do with sola Scriptura and an infallible Church, faith alone (sola fide), and penances for the dead. *** Some parts of the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":93797,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[31,312,131,206,50,20171],"tags":[4277,20165,20168,1116,2343,47],"class_list":["post-93824","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-bible-and-tradition","category-calvinism-general-protestantism","category-church-ecclesiology","category-saints-purgatory-penance","category-salvation-justification","category-videos","tag-1-timothy-315","tag-baptism-for-the-dead","tag-pillar-foundation-of-the-truth","tag-rich-young-ruler","tag-sola-fide","tag-sola-scriptura"],"yoast_head":"\n\n