I am replying to a portion of a piece from Turretin simply entitled “The Scriptures”: from the website, A Puritan’s Mind. No further information was provided as to what work it is drawn from, but a search revealed that it is from Institutes of Elenctic Theology. His words will be in blue.
1 Timothy 3:15 (RSV) if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.
The church is called “pillar and bulwark of truth” (I Tim. 3:15), not because it keeps truth from falling and provides authority for it, since truth is rather the foundation of the church, upon which it is built (Eph. 2:20), . . .
This is just silly, and plainly illegitimate exegesis (actually, a classic specimen of eisegesis). One doesn’t explain the phrase “the church [is] the pillar and bulwark of truth” by saying that truth is its own pillar. Indeed, both things might be (and this case, are) true, in the paradoxical Hebraic “both/and” mindset. But the first proposition is not explained by the other. It’s simply changing the subject, or in logic, what’s known as the Ignoratio elenchi fallacy; more popularly known as a “red herring.”
Ephesians 2:19-22 So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but 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; [22] in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.
This citation he gives (I’ve provided a fuller context) doesn’t specifically assert that the Church was built upon “truth” (that word never appears in it). What it does add to the discussion, however, merely supports the Catholic position, and not Turretin’s. I wrote about Ephesians 2:19-22 in my book, 100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura (2012, pp. 105-106, #82):
1 Timothy 3:15 defines “household of God” as “the church of the living God.” Therefore, we know that Ephesians 2:19-21 is also referring to the Church, even though that word is not present. Here the Church’s own “foundation” is “the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone.” The foundation of the Church itself is Jesus and apostles and prophets.
Prophets spoke “in the name of the Lord” (1 Chron 21:19; 2 Chron 33:18; Jer 26:9), and commonly introduced their utterances with “thus says the Lord” (Is 10:24; Jer 4:3; 26:4; Ezek 13:8; Amos 3:11-12; and many more). They spoke the “word of the Lord” (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).
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’s 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.
but because [the Scripture] offers itself and shows itself to the sight of all in the church as on a bulletin board. So “pillar” is used not in its architectural meaning, as pillars “‘ are placed to hold up a building, but in its forensic and political meaning, as the edicts of the princes and the decrees and laws of the magistrate used to ‘be posted on pillars in front of the curias and praetoriums, and the doors of [secular] basilicas, so that they might become known by everybody, as Pliny and Josephus report (Historia Naturalis 6.28 [(32) 152]; Antiquities 1.4 [book 1.69 – 71]). So the church is the pillar of truth both in the matter of its proclamation, for it is obliged to proclaim the laws of God, and the heavenly truth is posted on her so that it may be known by all, [my added italics]
In an effort to escape the plain and evident meaning of the text, he goes back to Roman examples, drawing from Pliny and Josephus. This is valid, provided there is a clearly indicated link to a particular biblical text. I submit that this is not the case here, and that this is more desperate eisegesis. Turretin somehow (in his mind) can transform the notion of the Church being a “pillar and bulwark of the truth”: literally holding it up and supporting it, to the idea that it is merely a post where decrees and laws (analogous to theological doctrines) were posted in ancient Rome (sort of like Luther’s door of the Wittenberg church, where he posted his 95 feces, er, Theses). Nothing whatsoever in the biblical text (that I can see) suggests this.
[T]he same Church is painted as a massive pillar, holding up and displaying before men and angels thetruth—the saving truth of the gospel. In the first picture, the thought of a great company gathered together for God to dwell among is prominent: in the second, the thought of the great redemption-truth alone comes to the front, and the Church of God is no longer viewed as a company of separate individuals, but as one massive foundation-pillar, supporting and displaying the glories of redemption.
This peculiar aspect of the Church, ”the support and pillar of the truth,” was dwelt upon probably by the Apostle as “defining—with indirect allusion to nascent and developing heresies—the true note, office, and vocation of the Church. . . . Were there no Church, there would be no witness, no guardian of archives, no basis, nothing whereon acknowledged truth could rest” (Ellicott). (Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers)
[T]the truth of God – that revealed truth which he had given to save the world – was entrusted to the church; that it was designed to preserve it pure, to defend it, and to transmit it to future times; and that, therefore, every one to whom the administration of the affairs of the church was entrusted, should engage in this duty with a deep conviction of his responsibility. On the construction of the passage, Bloomfield Rosenmuller, and Clarke, may be consulted. The word “pillar” means a column, such as that by which a building is supported, and then any firm prop or support; Galatians 2:9; Revelation 3:12. If it refers to the church here, it means that that is the support of the truth, as a pillar is of a building. It sustains it amidst the war of elements, the natural tendency to fall, and the assaults which may be made on it, and preserves it when it would otherwise tumble into ruin.
Thus it is with the church. It is entrusted with the business of maintaining the truth, of defending it from the assaults of error, and of transmitting it to future times. The truth is, in fact, upheld in the world by the church. The people of the world feel no interest in defending it, and it is to the church of Christ that it is owing that it is preserved and transmitted from age to age. The word rendered “ground” – ἑδραίωμα hedraiōma – means, properly, a basis, or foundation. The figure here is evidently taken from architecture, as the use of the word pillar is. The proper meaning of the one expression would be, that truth is supported by the church. as an edifice is by a pillar; of the other, that the truth rests “on” the church, as a house does on its foundation. It is that which makes it fixed, stable, permanent; that on which it securely stands amidst storms and tempests; that which renders it firm when systems of error are swept away as a house that is built on the sand; compare notes on Matthew 7:24-27.
The meaning then is, that the stability of the truth on earth is dependent on the church. It is owing to the fact that the church is itself founded on a rock, that the gates of hell cannot prevail against it, that no storms of persecution can overthrow it, that the truth is preserved from age to age. Other systems of religion are swept away; other opinions change; other forms of doctrine vanish; but the knowledge of the great system of redemption is preserved on earth unshaken, because the church is preserved, and because its foundations cannot be moved. This does not refer, I suppose, to creeds and confessions, or to the decisions of synods and councils; but to the living spirit of truth and piety “in” the church itself. As certainly as the church continues to live, so certain it will be that the truth of God will be perpetuated among people. (Barnes’ Notes on the Bible)
The Church is “the pillar of the truth,” as the continued existence (historically) of the truth rests on it; for it supports and preserves the word of truth. He who is of the truth belongs by the very fact to the Church. Christ is the alone ground of the truth in the highest sense (1Co 3:11). The apostles are foundations in a secondary sense (Eph 2:20; Re 21:14). The Church rests on the truth as it is in Christ; not the truth on the Church. But the truth as it is in itself is to be distinguished from the truth as it is acknowledged in the world. In the former sense it needs no pillar, but supports itself; in the latter sense, it needs the Church as its pillar, that is, its supporter and preserver [Baumgarten]. The importance of Timothy’s commission is set forth by reminding him of the excellence of “the house” in which he serves; and this in opposition to the coming heresies which Paul presciently forewarns him of immediately after (1Ti 4:1). The Church is to be the stay of the truth and its conserver for the world, and God’s instrument for securing its continuance on earth, in opposition to those heresies (Mt 16:18; 28:20). The apostle does not recognize a Church which has not the truth, or has it only in part. (Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary)
It is therefore better to understand this clause as descriptive of the Church of God. The Church is the pillar of the truth. It supports it; holds it together – binds together its different parts. And it is the ground of the truth. By it the truth is made fast, firm, and fixed. The ground (ἑδραίωμα). This word only occurs here at all; ἑδραῖος, common both in the New Testament, the LXX., and in classical Greek, means “fixed,” “firm,” or” fast.” In the A.V. of 1 Corinthians 7:37 and 1 Cor 15:58, “steadfast;” Colossians 1:23 (where it is coupled with τεθεμελιωμένα), “settled.” Thence ἑδραιόω in late Greek, “to make firm or fast,” and ἑδραίμα, the “establishment” or “grounding” of the truth; that in and by which the truth is placed on a sure and fixed basis. (Pulpit Commentary)
The idea is that the church is the pillar, and, as such, the prop or support of the truth. It is quite beside the mark to press the architectural metaphor into detail. . . . The church is the pillar of the truth, and the function of the pillar is to support. (Vincent’s Word Studies)
[T]he pillar and the basement both belong to the house. . . . The way in which the congregation of the faithful is the pillar and basement of the truth is . . . that it is the element in which and medium by which the truth is conserved and upheld. (Greek Testament Critical Exegetical Commentary – Alford)
While our Lord was on earth He said, “I am the truth.” He is so still; and His Word is the truth. The church is here to maintain this truth on earth, to contend earnestly for the faith delivered unto the saints. She is the witness for Christ on earth, Christ who is hidden now with God. Therefore the true Church is the pillar of the truth, in proclaiming it. Woe! to the men who meddle with the truth of God, and by their wicked criticism try to undermine the support of the pillar and the house of God. God shall destroy them for their evil work (1Corinthians 3:17). When the Church leaves the earth, then the truth will be abandoned, and complete apostasy has come. As long as the true Church (though it only may be a feeble remnant) the pillar and support of the truth, is on the earth, the complete apostasy cannot come (2Thessalonians 2:1-17). From all this we learn that the presence of the living God and the maintenance of the truth are the foremost characteristics of the house of God. (Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible)
The meaning couldn’t be clearer or more perspicuous than it is. In relation to the truth, the Church — according to the above Protestant commentaries (direct quotes) — is the massive foundation-pillar, guardian, preserver, defender, transmitter, prop, support, upholder, foundation, God’s instrument for securing its continuance, and preventer of apostasy.
All that remains is the notion of infallibility and indefectibility of the Church. I wrote further in my sola Scriptura book, making the case:
Pillars and foundations support things and prevent them from collapsing. To be a “bulwark” of the truth, means to be a “safety net” against truth turning into falsity. If the Church could err, it could not be what Scripture says it is. God’s truth would be the house built on a foundation of sand in Jesus’ parable. For this passage of Scripture to be true, the Church could not err — it must be infallible. . . .
Jesus is without fault or untruth, and he is the cornerstone of the Church [1 Pet 2:4-9]. The Church is also more than once even identified with Jesus himself, by being called his “Body” (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.
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 “Body of Christ.” 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 pure truth, unmixed with error. That was certainly how Paul conceived his own “tradition” that he received and passed down.
Knowing what truth is, how can its own foundation or pillar be something less than 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 greater than the foundation. If it were, the whole structure would collapse.
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.
Therefore, we must conclude that if the Church is the foundation of truth, the Church must be infallible, since truth is infallible, and the foundation cannot be lesser than that which is built upon it. And since there is another infallible authorityapart from Scripture, sola scriptura must be false.
[and pillar] also in the sense of guardian, who not only proclaims the Scripture but also vindicates and protects it, and so it is called not only “pillar,” but also “bulwark” (I Tim. 3:15), a support (firmamentum) by which known truth is vindicated and preserved, whole and safe against all corruptions, but not a foundation (qemelion; fundamentum), which gives truth itself its hypostasis and the basis on which it stands. [my added italics]
Now Turretin seems to be talking our language. He says that the Church is the guardian, vindicator, preserver, and protector of the truth. Yes it is! And to do that she must needs be infallible and indefectible. He denies that the Church is a foundation of the truth, but that’s silly, since the text plainly asserts that she is. Nothing good comes from doubting or flat-out rejecting plain and evident teachings of Holy Scripture.
Turretin then vainly attempts to argue that the Church is not infallible because some martyrs, bishops, and Church fathers were called “pillars.” That’s neither here nor there, since it has nothing to do with the text at hand, and as such, is simply the Ignoratio elenchi fallacy again.
Whatever is here attributed to the church is attributed to the local church of Ephesus (I Tim. 1:3) to which the Roman Catholics do not attribute the privilege of infallibility, and it refers to the collective church of believers, in which Timothy ought to be included, . . .
That is not at all evident from the text. St. Paul referred to both the Church at large and the local church. This was an instance of the former, similar to his other usages in that respect:
Acts 20:28 . . . the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son.
1 Corinthians 10:32 Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God,
1 Corinthians 11:22 . . . do you despise the church of God . . .? . . .
1 Corinthians 12:14 For the body does not consist of one member but of many. (“the body”: 12:12, 15-16, 18-19, 22-25)
1 Corinthians 12:27 Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it.
1 Corinthians 12:28 And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, . . .
1 Corinthians 15:9 . . . I persecuted the church of God.
Galatians 1:13 . . . I persecuted the church of God . . .
Ephesians 1:22 and he has put all things under his feet and has made him the head over all things for the church,
Ephesians 3:10 . . . the church . . . (the same in 3:21; 5:23-25, 27, 29, 32; Phil 3:6)
Ephesians 4:12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ,
Ephesians 5:23 . . . Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior.
Ephesians 5:30 because we are members of his body.
Colossians 1:18 He is the head of the body, the church; . . .
Colossians 1:24 . . . his body, that is ,the church,
When he is referring only to a local congregation or assembly, on the other hand, he makes that clear:
Romans 16:1 . . . the church at Cen’chre-ae,
Romans 16:4 . . . all the churches of the Gentiles . . .
Romans 16:5 greet also the church in their house. . . .
Romans 16:6 . . . All the churches of Christ greet you.
1 Corinthians 1:2 To the church of God which is at Corinth, . . .
1 Corinthians 7:17 . . . This is my rule in all the churches.
1 Corinthians 11:16 . . . the churches of God.
1 Corinthians 14:33 . . . all the churches of the saints,
1 Corinthians 14:34 . . . the churches. . . .
1 Corinthians 16:1 . . . the churches of Galatia . . .
1 Corinthians 16:19 . . . the church in their house . . .
2 Corinthians 1:1 . . . the church of God which is at Corinth . . .
2 Corinthians 8:1 . . . the churches of Macedo’nia,
2 Corinthians 8:18 . . . the churches . . . (the same in 8:19, 23-24; 11:28; 12:13)
Galatians 1:2 . . . the churches of Galatia:
Galatians 1:22 . . . the churches of Christ in Judea;
Colossians 4:15 . . . the church in her house.
Colossians 4:16 . . . the church of the La-odice’ans . . .
1 Thessalonians 1:1 . . . the church of the Thessalo’nians . . .
1 Thessalonians 2:14 . . . the churches of God in Christ Jesus which are in Judea . . .
2 Thessalonians 1:1 . . . the church of the Thessalo’nians . . .
2 Thessalonians 1:4 . . . the churches of God . . .
Philemon 1:2 . . . the church in your house:
There were a few other equally silly arguments that Turretin made, but they’re worth no further effort. He already stands refuted.
***
Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,000+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
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’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.
Summary: 17th century Reformed theologian François Turretin made terrible exegetical arguments in order to deny that 1 Timothy 3:15 teaches the infallibility of the Church.
Last updated on: February 21, 2023 at 3:30 pm By Dave Armstrong
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’s human nature after His death. He has a Master’s degree in theology, a degree and postgraduate work in history, a license in letters, and is a history teacher, author of 25 books, as well as blogmaster (but now inactive) for six blogs. He’s active on YouTube.
***
The words of Lucas Banzoli will be in blue. I used Google Translate to transfer his Portugese text into English.
1 Timothy 3:15 (RSV). . . the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.
Papists love (pardon my redundancy) to quote a text in Paul’s first epistle to Timothy, when he said that the Church is the “pillar and support of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). At least ten thousand times I had to read the repeated jargon that “the Church is the pillar of truth, not the Bible.”
I can beat that. At least ten trillion times have I heard the supposed “prooftext” that in fact proves nothing regarding sola Scriptura: “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (2 Tim 3:16). Folks do indeed often repeat what they think are strong arguments. Whether in fact the argument is strong is another question, and it has to be argued through and demonstrated. I’ve done that with 1 Timothy 3:15 and will again today. I thank Lucas and I’m very grateful for the opportunity to strengthen a rock-solid biblical argument about the infallibility of the Church.
The later addition that makes a point of saying that “it is not the Bible” is there only to accentuate the value they place on Scripture. A complete contempt.
Sheer nonsense. I’ve been a Catholic for 31 years and a Catholic apologist almost as long. I’ve never heard any orthodox Catholic ever say that the Bible is not also a support of the truth, or not completely true. Catholics revere Holy Scripture as God’s infallible and uniquely inspired revelation. It’s an infallible pillar of the truth; so is the Church and sacred apostolic tradition. We canonized Holy Scripture, preserved it (painstaking work by thousands of monks, transcribing), translated it for 1500 years, before the Protestant Revolution arose. Protestants don’t have a “monopoly” on the Bible.
The problem here is that whenever Catholics acknowledge infallible authority of anything besides the Bible (to the Church or sacred tradition or apostolic succession or ecumenical councils or the pope), Protestants automatically assume that we are running down the Bible (because this contradicts their false and unbiblical doctrine of sola Scriptura). That doesn’t follow at all, of course.
This comes from their “dichotomous / “either/or” mindset, as if it were a zero-sum game (belief in the authority of the Church must mean less belief in the Bible, etc.). This is kindergarten thinking. The Bible itself gives councils and the Church authority; therefore, Catholics believing in and following the same biblical teachings is pro-Bible, not anti-Bible. But this is the drivel we Catholic apologists must constantly encounter and refute: “A complete contempt.” Blatantly misrepresenting other Christians’ beliefs is a serious sin, and is against the Ten Commandments (bearing false witness).
In response to this argument, we must point out in conjunction with what has been written in the book:
1) Paul was not talking about the Roman Church. The “Roman” addition in the text does not exist. In fact: it exists, but only in the head of those who need to find “Roman” there to make sense of their argument.
Yes and no. He was talking about the Church established by Jesus Christ (with Peter as its head). This Church is historically the same as what later became known as the Catholic Church, headed by the popes (Peter’s successors) in Rome. “Rome” or “Roman” isn’t present in this text, but it’s beside the point. Paul is referring to the one true Church: an actual historical, concrete institution that can be identified (it’s not a mere abstraction or “mystical” only).
2) Paul was not talking about the Church as an institution. In chapter 2 of this book we check out numerous biblical proofs that the real and true concept of ekklesia is not that of a religious institution, much less a Roman one, but refers to Christians themselves, as the Body of Christ.
This is also false, and reflects Lucas’ very “low” and unbiblical ecclesiology. In the Bible, ekklesia refers to both local churches (as in Paul’s epistles and in the first three chapters of Revelation: the “seven churches”). It also refers to the one true institutional, universal, Catholic Church that can be pointed to and identified. The Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) is a prime example of this institutional authority. A council there decreed certain things regarding what laws Christians are bound to obey. It did so by invoking the infallible protection of the Holy Spirit (“it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you . . “: 15:28).
The instruction was initially sent to “the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cili’cia” (15:23). These are areas not in Israel; therefore, this can’t possibly be merely a local church in play. It’s the universal Church: a council of elders and apostles including St. Peter and St. Paul, and James, the bishop of Jerusalem. Paul himself delivered its decrees to many more cities in Asia Minor (Turkey): see Acts 16:1-8. This is one unified Church and an exercise of authority “from the top” which applied to all Christians henceforth. Christian men have not been required to be circumcised as an “entrance rite” into Christianity ever since that decision.
Other instances of “Church” as the universal, institutional Church (not merely the local congregation):
Matthew 16:18 . . . on this rock I will build my church . . .
Acts 5:11 And great fear came upon the whole , and upon all who heard of these things.
Acts 9:31 So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Sama’ria had peace and was built up . . .
Acts 20:28 . . . the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son
1 Corinthians 10:32 . . . the church of God
1 Corinthians 11:32 . . . the church of God . . .
1 Corinthians 12:28 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.
1 Corinthians 15:9 . . . I persecuted the church of God. (cf. Gal 1:13; Phil 3:6)
Ephesians 1:22 and he has put all things under his feet and has made him the head over all things for the church, (cf. 3:10, 21; 5:23-25, 27, 29, 32)
Colossians 1:18 He is the head of the body, the church . . .
Colossians 1:24 . . . for the sake of his body, that is, the church,
3) Column is a completely different thing from foundation. The papist who argues that the truth is subject to the Church shows that he understands nothing of the meaning of “Church” and still less of “pillar.” The column is not a foundation, but is built on the foundation! Here Paul used two Greek words, one called hedraioma, which means: “support, support, support” [De acordo com a Concordância de Strong, 1477]. The other was stulos, which means “pillar or column” [De acordo com a Concordância de Strong, 4769]. As we can see, none of them has the sense of “foundation” (as some adulterated Catholic translations render it), but of something that is on the foundation.
However these two words are particularly defined, it remains true that they support the truth, which is on “top” of them (“pillar and bulwark of the truth” in RSV). I agree about the meaning of stulos (“pillar”). But hedraióma (Strong’s word #1477, as Lucas cited) is a stronger term. Strong defines it as “a foundation, stay, support” (Lucas conveniently omitted the definition of “foundation”). HELPS Word-studies on the same web page for hedraióma noted: Cognate: 1477hedraíōma – the base, which ultimately supports the foundation itself (used only in 1 Tim 3:15). See also 1476 (hedraíos). [my bolding and italics].
But Lucas falsely claimed that “none of them has the sense of “foundation” (as some adulterated Catholic translations render it)”. I regret to inform him (but happy to inform readers) that this is a glaring falsehood, and it is proven not just by Catholic translations (in English), but by (mostly) Protestant Bibles, which translate hedraíōma as follows (Catholic Bibles in green) — including 24 of them which have foundation or foundation-stone:
base (Darby, Smith’s Literal, Literal Emphasis, JUB)
[see web pages with most of these translations written out: one / two]
So much for Lucas’ groundless argument (no pun intended) . . .
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.
The text says the exact opposite of what Lucas argues, as shown. Far from the Church being “dependent on the truth”, The Bible says it is the foundation or ground or base of the truth: exactly what we Catholics are saying. It doesn’t follow that the Bible is not that (either/or reasoning). But the Church is, along with or alongside the Bible: precisely as in the Catholic rule of faith. This doesn’t make the Church inspired; only infallible. And that is quite enough to destroy sola Scriptura as a supposed biblical principle and rule of faith.
4) To clarify the issue, let us quote the text where Paul uses the same Greek word stulos (column) when saying:
“Recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James, Peter and John, regarded as pillars [stulos], stretched out their right hands to me and Barnabas as a sign of fellowship” (Galatians 2:9)
James, Peter and John were obviously not “above the truth,” much less the Church as a whole. This also does not mean that the Church would not exist without them. They were just “columns” that stood out from the rest. If Peter had been above the truth because he was a pillar, he could not have been rebuked by Paul (Gal.2:11-14), or denied Jesus (Jn.18:27). Being a column does not guarantee always preaching the truth, much less being above the truth.
The apostles, as well as Christians today (Church), had the function of preaching this truth, as they are pillars of it. If Christians do not preach the truth, the world will not hear it, and consequently will not believe the gospel. This is why, and in this sense, the Church is the pillar of truth, for she has the obligation to proclaim the truth of the Scriptures and keep the truth as it is.
The heart of the Catholic argument is not the word stulos, but the word hedraíōma, as shown. First Lucas defines it wrongly, and then ignores it as if it isn’t there. But the meaning is crystal-clear; couldn’t be more clear than it is!
[skipping over his section stating that the Bible is truth, which no one denies . . . also skipping over his one-sided, slanted presentation of the biblical data on tradition. The topic is 1 Timothy 3:15 and what it means]
. . . the Church, which is not a “foundation” 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.
The Church alsoisthe foundation (or ground or base or bulwark) of “the truth”: as shown above. Lucas is foolishly denying what ought to be right in front of his face. I know it’s difficult to have one’s cherished (but false) belief crushed. But we all have to be strong enough to endure correction from the Bible. We can’t fight against it. That won’t do us any good at all.
Readers have now seen the utter weakness and blatantly Bible-opposing nature of Lucas’ argument. Now I will make my own concluding statement, to nail down the case beyond all argument. Here is the related portion of my book, 100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura (2012, pp. 104-107, #82):
Pillars and foundations support things and prevent them from collapsing. To be a “bulwark” of the truth, means to be a “safety net” against truth turning into falsity. If the Church could err, it could not be what Scripture says it is. God’s truth would be the house built on a foundation of sand in Jesus’ parable. For this passage of Scripture to be true, the Church could not err — it must be infallible. A similar passage may cast further light on 1 Timothy 3:15:
Ephesians 2:19-21 . . . 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;
1 Timothy 3:15 defines “household of God” as “the church of the living God.” Therefore, we know that Ephesians 2:19-21 is also referring to the Church, even though that word is not present. Here the Church’s own “foundation” is “the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone.” The foundation of the Church itself is Jesus and apostles and prophets.
Prophets spoke “in the name of the Lord” (1 Chron 21:19; 2 Chron 33:18; Jer 26:9), and commonly introduced their utterances with “thus says the Lord” (Is 10:24; Jer 4:3; 26:4; Ezek 13:8; Amos 3:11-12; and many more). They spoke the “word of the Lord” (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).
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’s 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.
1 Peter 2:4-9 Come to him, to that living stone, rejected by men but in God’s 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: “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and he who believes in him will not be put to shame.” [7] To you therefore who believe, he is precious, but for those who do not believe, “The very stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner,” [8] and “A stone that will make men stumble, a rock that will make them fall”; 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’s 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)
Jesus is without fault or untruth, and he is the cornerstone of the Church. The Church is also more than once even identified with Jesus himself, by being called his “Body” (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.
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 “Body of Christ.” 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 pure truth, unmixed with error. That was certainly how Paul conceived his own “tradition” that he received and passed down.
Knowing what truth is, how can its own foundation or pillar be something less than 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 greater than the foundation. If it were, the whole structure would collapse.
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.
Therefore, we must conclude that if the Church is the foundation of truth, the Church must be infallible, since truth is infallible, and the foundation cannot be lesser than that which is built upon it. And since there is another infallible authorityapart from Scripture, sola scriptura must be false.
***
Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,000+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
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’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.
Summary: Brazilian Protestant apologist Lucas Banzoli presents a very weak argument against the plain meaning of 1 Timothy 3:15 (which is that the Church is infallible).
Last updated on: May 14, 2020 at 12:07 pm By Dave Armstrong
Steve Hays of Tribalblogue is an anti-Catholic polemicist and sophist. I’ll be responding to one portion of Steve’s article, “Catholic prooftexts” (12-17-17, Tribalblogue). His words will be in blue.
*****
1 Timothy 3:15b (RSV) . . . the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.
Catholic apologists quote this passage to prove the infallibility of their sect. However.
*
1. A basic problem is quoting the verse out of context. A pitfall of chapter and verse division is that Christians sometimes read a particular verse while failing to place that verse in the flow of argument. They don’t consider what comes before or after.
*
Catholic apologists say, “See, Paul doesn’t say “Scripture” is a pillar of truth, but “the Church”. Yet they completely ignore the preceding verse. Paul is directing Timothy to what he wrote. Look at what I just wrote you!
*
2. Moreover, he wrote Timothy so that Timothy would know how to conduct himself in church, based on Paul’s written instructions. If, however, the church is the source of truth, then that’s superfluous. Yet Paul points Timothy to Paul’s explicit, written directives. That’s the benchmark.
Catholic apologists quote v15 but disregard the preceding verse. Yet we need to back up one verse to get the overall thrust: . . .
I don’t see how it changes anything, because Paul was writing about how Christians ought to behave. Behave where? Well, in the Church: an essential attribute of which he then describes (which seems to me to stand alone as a proposition). Here is the previous verse and the complete 1 Timothy 3:15:
1 Timothy 3:14-15 I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that, [15] if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.
If Paul had written all this, ending with “behave in the marketplace” or “behave in the academies” 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 “behave in such-and-such a manner.” It’s two distinct propositions. The behavior he refers to would apply in pretty much all situations (“temperate, faithful in all things . . . let them manage their children and their households well”: 1 Tim 3:11-12). Paul simply threw in a description of the Church for no extra charge.
*
And that is inspired Scripture as well, and has a great significance, since it is a description of an essential characteristic of the Church by the great Apostle Paul. The Church is “the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” We have to look at what this particular clause could plausibly mean; and the meaning does not change because of the passage just before it. Again, it is an isolated statement that stands on its own (almost like a footnote added to what he was asserting).
*
3. Syntactically, v14 refers back to the preceding section (2:1-3:13). But the principle extends to the rest of the letter. Since Paul can’t instruct Timothy and the congregation in person, the letter is a stand-in, which serves that purpose.
*
Sure, but again, this has no bearing on Paul’s short and sweet description of the fundamental characteristics of the Church. It doesn’t wipe out the description. Basically, this argument of Steve’s is a non sequitur; that is, of no relevance to the topic at hand.
*
4. By Paul’s own admission, his letter takes the place of Paul’s face-to-face teaching. Catholic apologists claim we need a “living voice”. An infallible interpreter. Yet the function of an apostolic letter is to instruct the faithful in the apostle’s absence (cf. 2 Cor 13:10).
*
It would be insubordinate to say, that’s only a text, so we can’t know what Paul really meant. That’s why we have apostolic successors like Timothy, to infallibly expound the deposit of faith.
*
Yet Paul takes for granted that his written instructions should suffice in his absence. And even if we anachronistically classify Timothy as a bishop, Timothy has no independent authority. Timothy can’t say, by virtue of his “office”, how Christians are supposed to behave in church. That’s based, not on Timothy’s teaching authority, but on Paul’s teaching authority, in written form. Timothy simply transmits what he was taught by Paul. There’s nothing here about the necessity of an infallible teaching office to interpret the deposit of faith, even though Paul is nearing the end of his career. He will soon pass from the scene. He will have to hand off the work to the next Christian generation.
*
5. Even if Timothy received oral instruction from Paul in the past, the letter is an aid to memory.
*
This is all fine and good as well, but perfectly irrelevant as to the question of what Paul means by the phrase “pillar and bulwark of the truth.”
*
6. In addition, it’s funny when Roman Catholics quote Bible verses about “the Church,” because, for them, “the Church” instantly shrinks down to the papacy or current pope or so-called ecumenical councils.
*
I don’t see how. For us, the Church incorporates all of those things and much more (bishops, priests, religious, laity, etc.).
*
But, of course, Paul didn’t say anything about the pope or papacy or a episcopal council in 1 Tim 3:15.
*
It was not logically required that he do so. He was making a general statement about the nature of the Church. In the same way, one might say, “the presidency is the pillar and bulwark of the American system of government” without getting into a host of specific aspects of the office of the presidency. The idea is that it is central to the whole thing, just as the Church is central in the matter of ascertaining and determining what is the truth in theological and spiritual matters.
*
Notice what Paul doesn’t say. He doesn’t say the papacy is a pillar and foundation of truth. He doesn’t say the Roman episcopate under the Roman pontiff is the pillar and foundation of truth. He doesn’t say church councils ratified by the pope constitute a pillar and foundation of truth.
*
Again, he doesn’t have to for our point to stand. This line of reasoning is perfectly irrelevant and absurdly sophistical. But then again, this sort of thing is Steve’s trademark, so we fully expect to see it from him, when he has no good, solid counter-argument to Catholic (and, as it were, also scriptural) claims.
*
When Catholic apologists read this verse, they mentally substitute something it doesn’t say in place of what it actually says.
*
Timothy was one of his handpicked deputies. Once again, you can’t legitimately extrapolate from that to claimants centuries after the fact.
*
In this verse there’s no lay/clerical dichotomy. No doubt Paul thought pastors should be guardians of doctrinal truth, but he doesn’t drive a wedge between pastors and laymen in that regard.
*
More mere obfuscation . . .
*
Most of his letters are addressed to the entire congregation. To be read aloud in church.
*
Incomplete sentences will not impress many readers . . .
*
Christians in general are supposed to uphold the Gospel truth. It’s not as if he thinks pastors are supposed to safeguard the truth while laymen are not supposed to safeguard the truth. When Paul says “the church” in 1 Tim 3:15, he’s not excluding the congregation, as if elders and deacons are the church, but the congregation is not. As a Catholic prooftext, this verse either proves too much or too little.
*
He’s talking about the Church as a whole, as an institution, not just the local congregation. That’s the “whole ball of wax.”
*
7. In Pauline ecclesiology, the church is the people of God. Christians. Hence, Christians have a duty to uphold the truth.
*
So, for instance, you had mid-1C churches planted by Paul. It was incumbent on individual members comprising the congregation to uphold what Paul taught them. They received the truth from St. Paul. Their duty was to remain faithful to what he taught them–or in some cases his handpicked deputies.
*
That’s true, but it’s a different proposition. St. Paul writes a great deal about “the truth” (which to him is synonymous with “the gospel” and “the word of God” and [true, apostolic, passed-down] “tradition”) and Christian’s duty to correctly discern and apply it:
Romans 2:8 but for those who are factious and do not obeythe truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury.
*
2 Corinthians 13:8 For we cannot do anything againstthe truth, but only forthe truth.
*
Colossians 1:5 because of the hope laid up for you in heaven. Of this you have heard before in the word ofthe truth, the gospel
*
2 Thessalonians 2:10 . . . they refused to lovethe truth and so be saved. (cf. 2:12-13)
*
1 Timothy 2:4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge ofthe truth.
*
1 Timothy 4:3 . . . those who believe and knowthe truth.
*
2 Timothy 1:14 guardthe truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us. (cf. Jude 3)
*
2 Timothy 4:4 and will turn away from listening tothe truth and wander into myths. (cf. 2:18, 25; 3:7-8; Titus 1:14)
What none of these passages do is state that any individual Christian is a support, foundation, or upholder of the truth. Scripture says that about apostles in the Church, as I will show below, but not about Joe Everyman Christian. But Paul says it about the Church. So this reasoning of Steve’s is “apples and oranges.” He keeps talking about stuff that is not our topic at hand. And that’s what sophists and folks with weak arguments do (hoping that no one will notice).
*
8. Moreover, Paul doesn’t say the church is the source of truth. And he doesn’t say the church has the authority or prerogative to determine the truth. Rather, the church is tasked with the responsibility of upholding the truth.
*
For that matter, “determine” is ambiguous. That can mean “ascertain” or “arbitrate”. Those are two very different concepts. To ascertain is an act of understanding. To arbitrate is an act of authority. To obligate other people. . . .
*
10. A Catholic apologist just decide for himself what it means (1 Tim 3:15). His denomination can’t very well determine that for him, because he must to know if it’s even applicable to his denomination. Unless it refers to his church, or includes his church, then his church isn’t a ground and pillar of truth. In which case it isn’t qualified to interpret that passage on his behalf.
*
That’s a Catholic conundrum. You can’t rely on your denomination to determine what is true before you determine that your denomination is a rightful candidate for that distinction.
*
More on this below, when I make my exegetical argument.
*
9. The NT doesn’t command blind submission to church leaders. After all, some church leaders were false teachers. The NT warns Christians to be on the lookout for false teachers. That means Christians have to exercise some degree of independent judgment, using the Bible as their standard.
*
Off-topic again. Nice try.
11. Did Paul consider “the church” to be infallible?
Yes. See my reasoning below.
Paul didn’t even regard Pauline churches as infallible.
Individual congregations or “churches” are not the same as the entire institutional Church set up by our Lord Jesus Christ, with St. Peter as its first appointed leader, or what was later known as “pope.”
*
Would he call the church of Corinth a “pillar and foundation of truth”? Would he call the Galatian churches “a pillar and foundation of truth”?
*
No. See my previous comment.
*
Even churches he planted and supervised were prone to moral and doctrinal aberrations.
*
Of course they were. It’s not individual congregations or bishops that are protected by God from doctrinal error, but the Church as a whole (including the pope), in her (and his) authoritative proclamations — such as we see in the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15. That was the institutional Catholic Church (not merely the local Jerusalem church), led at that time by the apostles, including the leader of the apostles, Peter. And when they made a decision, it “seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” (15:28). There’s your infalliblity. And this binding infallibility led Paul himself to deliver to the “cities, . . . for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem.”
*
It was a decision made by the entire Church (represented by its leaders in a sublimely authoritative council), that bound Christians everywhere: with Paul himself proclaiming the decision in his missionary journeys. If all that doesn’t demonstrate infallibility and an infallible Church, I don’t know what conceivable thing does. It couldn’t be more clear than it is. And it couldn’t be more contradictory to sola Scriptura than it is: since sola Scriptura proclaims that only Holy Scripture is the only final infallible authority: not also the Church: as this passage and 1 Timothy 3:15 and other passages teach.
*
12. A Catholic apologist might object that God doesn’t protect individual congregations from falling into heresy.
*
You got it. Since I am answering as I read, I didn’t see this before I asserted the same thing.
*
But this means Catholic theologians must add qualifications to 1 Tim 3:15 that are conspicuously absent from the text.
*
Not really, since the passage is rather clearly talking about the entire institutional, hierarchical, visible Church.
*
Now how about some honest, in-depth, straightforward exegesis of our text in question, rather than the obscurantist, illogical, obfuscatory sophistry that Steve has offered?
1 Timothy 3:15 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.
Pillars and foundations support things and prevent them from collapsing. To be a “bulwark” of the truth, means to be a “safety net” against truth turning into falsity. If the Church could err, it could not be what Scripture says it is. God’s truth would be the house built on a foundation of sand in Jesus’ parable. For this passage of Scripture to be true, the Church could not err — it must be infallible. A similar passage may cast further light on 1 Timothy 3:15:
Ephesians 2:19-21 . . . 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;
1 Timothy 3:15 defines “household of God” as “the church of the living God.” Therefore, we know that Ephesians 2:19-21 is also referring to the Church, even though that word is not present. Here the Church’s own “foundation” is “the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone.” The foundation of the Church itself is Jesus and apostles and prophets.
Prophets spoke “in the name of the Lord” (1 Chron 21:19; 2 Chron 33:18; Jer 26:9), and commonly introduced their utterances with “thus says the Lord” (Is 10:24; Jer 4:3; 26:4; Ezek 13:8; Amos 3:11-12; and many more). They spoke the “word of the Lord” (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).
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’s 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.
1 Peter 2:4-9 Come to him, to that living stone, rejected by men but in God’s 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: “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and he who believes in him will not be put to shame.” [7] To you therefore who believe, he is precious, but for those who do not believe, “The very stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner,” [8] and “A stone that will make men stumble, a rock that will make them fall”; 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’s 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)
Jesus is without fault or untruth, and he is the cornerstone of the Church. The Church is also more than once even identified with Jesus himself, by being called his “Body” (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.
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 “Body of Christ.” 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 pure truth, unmixed with error. That was certainly how Paul conceived his own “tradition” that he received and passed down.
Knowing what truth is, how can its own foundation or pillar be something less than 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 greater than the foundation. If it were, the whole structure would collapse.
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.
Therefore, we must conclude that if the Church is the foundation of truth, the Church must be infallible, since truth is infallible, and the foundation cannot be lesser than that which is built upon it. And since there is another infallible authorityapart from Scripture, sola scriptura must be false.
“. . . the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” (RSV)
* * * * *
Some Protestants have argued that “church” here means simply all believers, and/or that “truth” in 1 Timothy 3:15 refers to the gospel only, not all spiritual matters. This is not at all obvious, and I see nothing in the immediate context that proves it beyond any doubt. The gospel is certainly a very important part of Christian truth, but not the sum and total of it.
We see this in the many instances of truth (Gk., aletheia and cognates) in the New Testament. For example, John 16:13: “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth.” Jesus was speaking to the disciples, who were obviously believers, who understood (and had received) the gospel. Therefore, the “truth” referred to must include more than the gospel itself. In fact, the later part of the same verse proves this: “he will declare to you the things that are to come.”
Many other counter-examples could be given. In Romans 1:18 Paul refers to wicked men who “suppress the truth.” This truth, in context, goes beyond simply the gospel, to “what can be known about God” (1:19): His “eternal power and deity.” God’s attributes are not the gospel (cf. 1:25: “the truth about God”). The larger meaning in many places can be seen in any linguistic reference work, such as Vine’s Expository Dictionary, Kittel, Robertson, Vincent, Thayer, or other such aids. Jesus says “I am the truth” (Jn 14:6). Obviously, He didn’t mean, “I am the gospel.”
Granted, “church” has a wide latitude of meaning in the New Testament. Whether it means “all believers” in 1 Timothy 3:15 or a more strict meaning of an organization with bishops, etc. (or both) may be disputed by well-meaning exegetes in good faith, with honestly held differences. The difficulty remains, however, in either scenario, of how to interpret being the “pillar and bulwark” of truth if “church” is defined in a less hierarchical or institutional or “visible” way. In what sense does the doctrinal chaos and inability to unify on so many doctrines in Protestantism constitute supporting (the one) “truth”?
How do we determine the truths (indeed, the one “truth”) of the Christian faith? How do we wade through all of the interminable Protestant internal disagreements? In what fashion do they possess “authority” to present to the unbelieving world the one truth, given their own inability to agree on it? How can they claim to be one, as Jesus and the Father were one? At least our view (agree or disagree) is coherent, self-consistent, and sensible, whereas Protestantism (if we are talking about Protestantism as the alleged purveyor of “one truth” and the “pillar and support” of it) is virtually meaningless and cannot be defended except in the vaguest generalities.
The Bible provides a crystal-clear example of the Church exercising its infallible authority: the council of Jerusalem, that made a binding pronouncement, guided by the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:28-29), which was binding upon the faithful, and proclaimed as such by Paul himself, in his missionary journeys (16:4).
The Church isn’t the “source” of Christian truth, if by that one means “origin.” That is clearly God. The Church preserves this truth with the direct aid of God the Holy Spirit. One doesn’t think that a “preserver” of something was the origin of that same thing. That would be as foolish as saying that the salt used to preserve meat (in pre-refrigerator times) created the meat (salt would then equal a bull or a pig). It’s absurd. A guard or guardian doesn’t originate the things he guards (be it a child or a bicycle or a bank).
Gerhard Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (abridged edition, translated and edited by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1985), in its commentary on stylos (pillar) on p. 1097 states, discussing 1 Timothy 3:15 in particular:
The cultic community is the house of God and as such it is the pillar and ground of the truth.
Likewise, the same work comments on hedraioma (bulwark) as used in our passage, on p. 200:
The church is here a solid defense against the confusion of myths, offering individual faith and thought a sure ground with its confession (v. 16).
NIV uses the word “foundation.” Other translations use similar terminology:
KJV / NKJV / ASVpillar and ground
Phillipspillar and the foundation
Williams / Moffattpillar and foundation
Barclay pillar and buttress
CEVstrong foundation of truth
Amplified pillar and stay — the prop and support — of the Truth
As for infallibility, that follows straightforwardly from what we see in the Jerusalem council. The Holy Spirit guided the decision; therefore it was infallible, and regarded as such by everyone. It was binding. Catholics see something like the Jerusalem Council as a concrete application of the notion under consideration in 1 Timothy 3:15.
I don’t deny that there is a sense of the Mystical Church. Catholics believe that, too (and I’ve written about it), but we don’t deny the visible, institutional, historically continuous Church. That’s where Protestants go astray. Some try to maintain the visible church in some sense (Calvin tried). But then it is a matter of implausible definition, as if some Protestant denomination can fit the biblical specifications for what “Church” in this visible sense means. His problems continue to be: what is this visible Church? What does it teach? How is it the pillar and ground of truth, as Holy Scripture describes it?
Protestants cannot do this, pure and simple. Their ecclesiology and rule of faith do not logically permit it. Even if we grant this invisible church, the problem remains of identifying the doctrines of this ethereal, nebulous, mysterious entity. And until the Protestant can do that, it is folly and a pipe dream to pretend it is a foundation or support of “truth.” It is playing games with reality and logic and the Bible.
The same Paul who gave us 1 Timothy 3:15 also participated in the Jerusalem Council and promulgated its binding and infallible decrees. so obviously he does not believe only in an invisible church or remnant, by his own actions.
1 Timothy 3:15b (RSV) . . . the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.
Roman Catholics often cite 1 Timothy 3:15 in support of their view of their denomination.
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, established by Jesus Christ with St. Peter as its first pope. We don’t believe in denominations, which are not a biblical concept and which essentially began as a scandalous novelty (even Luther and Calvin — very unlike modern Protestants — utterly detested them) 15 centuries after Christ.
But:
– The context makes it more likely that Paul is referring to the local church than that he’s referring to a worldwide denomination, like the Roman Catholic Church. He’s writing to Timothy about the latter’s work in Ephesus (1:3).
Paul was writing about how Christians ought to behave. Behave where? Well, in “the church“: an essential attribute of which he then describes (which seems to me to stand alone as a proposition). If Paul had written all this, ending with “behave in the marketplace” or “behave in the academies” 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 “behave in such-and-such a manner.”
*
It’s two distinct propositions. The behavior he refers to would apply in pretty much all situations (“temperate, faithful in all things . . . let them manage their children and their households well”: 1 Tim 3:11-12). Paul simply threw in a description of the Church for no extra charge.
*
St. 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 Church, the Body of Christ:
1 Corinthians 12:26-30 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?
Now, according to Jason’s 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. That would mean that Corinth was the entire “Body of Christ” and that only it has prophets, apostles, teachers, administrators, etc. This is clearly a ridiculous reductio ad absurdum. Therefore, he is speaking of the institutional Church here, and also in 1 Timothy 3:15.
*
It’s 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 “the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” That’s clearly ludicrous, but this is the desperation that Protestant apologists are reduced to, in trying to “refute” our best prooftexts for Catholic positions. I understand that the stakes are high. They must discredit this passage because it alone destroys sola Scriptura and strongly backs up the Catholic rule of faith.
*
– What we read about the Ephesian church elsewhere, such as in Acts 20:17-38 and Revelation 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.
*
No doubt, but none of this proves that 1 Timothy 3:15 was only referring to Ephesus. It’s absurd. I know a weak argument when I see one, after doing apologetics these past forty years.
*
In Acts 20, Paul expects wolves to come in among the Ephesian leadership and calls on them to remember the teaching they’d received from Jesus and Paul. He says nothing of an assurance that they’ll 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 1 Timothy 3:15 applied so directly to it, could also be addressed in the terms of Acts 20 and Revelation 2.
*
All of this is perfectly irrelevant (in logic, what we call a non sequitur) 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’s an unenviable task. It’s much easier to defend the truth. You don’t have to play all these games.
*
– 1 Timothy 3:15 is addressing a function the church has.
*
Precisely! And we will unpack the implications of this below.
*
There’s no reason within the text or nearby context to think that the church will infallibly carry out that function.
*
Oh but yes there is, as we shall shortly prove.
*
Similarly, the people of Israel are referred to as God’s witnesses (Isaiah 43:10-12), Christians are called salt and light (Matthew 5:13-14), etc., but it doesn’t follow that they’ll infallibly fulfill that role or that they’ll have the other relevant characteristics Catholics associate with the 1 Timothy 3 passage.
*
That’s irrelevant, too. Jason has to explain what it means for the Church to be “the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” He’s trying mightily to explain it away, but he’s miserably failing.
*
– Even if the church were sure to always fulfill the function described in the passage, the church wouldn’t have to be infallible in the particular way Roman Catholicism claims to be.
*
Obviously a biblical text would not be as developed as Catholic ecclesiology over 2,000 years. Yet the basic concept is here, very strongly expressed.
*
For 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’t be equivalent to the church always fulfilling 1 Timothy 3:15 in 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’t the only candidate available, and there are other candidates that are superior.
*
Well, this gets into the vexed, controversial question of which institutional, historical Christian communion is most plausibly viewed as the one true Church. I’d be absolutely delighted to have that discussion with Jason or anyone else. But he ignores all of my refutations . . .
*
– We normally think of multiple pillars, not just one, supporting a structure (e.g., Judges 16:29, Galatians 2:9). But the passage uses the singular, “pillar”. The implication is that at least one other entity has the same role the church is described as having.
*
Nonsense. So Jason notes that the text refers to one pillar, and to him this implies that there are other 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 “one of many pillars and bulwarks of the truth.” But it says no such thing, and Jason is desperately special pleading.
*
– The theme of the last part of 1 Timothy 3:15 (upholding the truth) is so broadly applicable that you can’t limit it to the local church, some worldwide denomination like Roman Catholicism, or any other concept of the church.
*
This 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 being “the pillar and bulwark of the truth.”
*
There 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., Luke 8:3, Romans 11:18, 2 Corinthians 8:4, Revelation 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.
*
Yes, 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’s take note of Jason’s pathetic view: some of the worst argumentation I have ever seen him make in 21 years of debates with him.
*
The 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’t make sense, and it would lead to absurd conclusions if applied to other passages. The language Paul uses in 1 Timothy 3:15 is 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, Micah 7:8, John 8:12), and so are other entities (Isaiah 62:1, Matthew 5:14, Philippians 2:15). But they’re lights in a variety of ways. When metaphors like these are used, involving architecture, light, or whatever else, there isn’t much you can derive from them. That kind of metaphor typically isn’t meant to convey as much as Catholics want it to in the context of 1 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’s 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.
*
Jason: the master of the non sequitur and obfuscation. Just throw any type of manure against the “wall” [of a rational, logical, exegetical position] and hope some of it will stick . . . Well, it ain’t stickin’, but it’s sure stinkin’ up the place.
*
– 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’ day, and that document refers to a man named Attalus as “a native of Pergamos where he had always been a pillar and foundation” (Church History 5:1:17). Irenaeus wrote, “We 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.” (Against Heresies, 3:1:1) He refers to how “the pillar and ground of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life” (3:11:8).
*
– In Paul’s 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’re to “speak the truth” (4:15), for example. In fact, relative to how short the letter is, there are a lot of references to truth in Paul’s 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.
*
Again, none of this exegetes the passage at hand. It just doesn’t.
*
– The language Paul uses to describe the church in 1 Timothy 3:15 (“the household of God”, “the church of the living God”) and his reference to “how one ought to conduct himself in” that church make more sense if his focus is on the congregation in general. See the similar concepts in Ephesians 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’t infallible in their role of upholding the truth, neither are those serving in the hierarchy. Furthermore, Paul’s 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’t want to assign attributes like an unbroken succession and infallibility to the church in general.
*
He gets a little closer to the actual text here, but is still very far away. Now let me give you an example of how Catholics 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 Sola Scriptura (2012, pp. 104-107, #82; with one “footnote-type” bracketed interjection added):
Pillars and foundations support things and prevent them from collapsing. To be a “bulwark” of the truth, means to be a “safety net” against truth turning into falsity. If the Church could err, it could not be what Scripture says it is. God’s truth would be the house built on a foundation of sand in Jesus’ parable. For this passage of Scripture to be true, the Church could not err — it must be infallible. A similar passage may cast further light on 1 Timothy 3:15:
Ephesians 2:19-21 . . . 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;
1 Timothy 3:15 defines “household of God” as “the church of the living God.” Therefore, we know that Ephesians 2:19-21 is also referring to the Church, even though that word is not present. Here the Church’s own “foundation” is “the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone.” The foundation of the Church itself is Jesus and apostles and prophets.
Prophets spoke “in the name of the Lord” (1 Chron 21:19; 2 Chron 33:18; Jer 26:9), and commonly introduced their utterances with “thus says the Lord” (Is 10:24; Jer 4:3; 26:4; Ezek 13:8; Amos 3:11-12; and many more). They spoke the “word of the Lord” (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).
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’s 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.
1 Peter 2:4-9 Come to him, to that living stone, rejected by men but in God’s 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: “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and he who believes in him will not be put to shame.” [7] To you therefore who believe, he is precious, but for those who do not believe, “The very stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner,” [8] and “A stone that will make men stumble, a rock that will make them fall”; 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’s 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)
Jesus is without fault or untruth, and he is the cornerstone of the Church. The Church is also more than once even identified with Jesus himself, by being called his “Body” (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.
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 “Body of Christ.” 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 pure truth, unmixed with error. That was certainly how Paul conceived his own “tradition” that he received and passed down.
[Romans 2:8 but for those who are factious and do not obeythe truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury.
*
2 Corinthians 13:8 For we cannot do anything againstthe truth, but only forthe truth.
*
Colossians 1:5 because of the hope laid up for you in heaven. Of this you have heard before in the word ofthe truth, the gospel
*
2 Thessalonians 2:10 . . . they refused to lovethe truth and so be saved. (cf. 2:12-13)
*
1 Timothy 2:4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge ofthe truth.
*
1 Timothy 4:3 . . . those who believe and knowthe truth.
*
2 Timothy 1:14 guardthe truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us. (cf. Jude 3)
*
2 Timothy 4:4 and will turn away from listening tothe truth and wander into myths. (cf. 2:18, 25; 3:7-8; Titus 1:14) ]
*
Knowing what truth is, how can its own foundation or pillar be something less than 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 greater than the foundation. If it were, the whole structure would collapse.
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.
Therefore, we must conclude that if the Church is the foundation of truth, the Church must be infallible, since truth is infallible, and the foundation cannot be lesser than that which is built upon it. And since there is another infallible authorityapart from Scripture, sola scriptura must be false.
Summary: Protestant anti-Catholic polemicist Jason Engwer engages in extraordinary efforts to try to explain away 1 Timothy 3:15. It’s a lost cause and has no foundation.
Including Inscripturation; 2 Timothy 3:16; Is Only the Bible Inspired?; Oral Torah
Photo credit: cover for my own book, designed by Davin Schadt: from the version originally published by Catholic Answers (San Diego) in 2012.
Norman L. Geisler (1932 – 2019) was an American evangelical Protestant theologian, philosopher, and apologist. He obtained an M.A. in theology from Wheaton College and a Ph.D. in philosophy from Loyola University, and made scholarly contributions to the subjects of classical Christian apologetics, systematic theology, philosophy of religion, Calvinism, Catholicism, biblical inerrancy, Bible difficulties, biblical miracles, the resurrection of Jesus, ethics, and other topics. He wrote or edited more 90 books and hundreds of articles.
Dr. Geisler was the Chairman of Philosophy of Religion at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (1970–79) and Professor of Systematic Theology at Dallas Theological Seminary (1979–88) and a key figure in founding the Evangelical Philosophical Society. He also co-founded Southern Evangelical Seminary. He was known as an evangelical Thomist and considered himself a “moderate Calvinist”. He was not an anti-Catholic (i.e., he didn’t deny that Catholicism was fully a species of Christianity).
This is one of a series of comprehensive replies to his book, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences (co-author, Ralph E. MacKenzie, graduate of Bethel Theological Seminary-West; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 1995). It’s available online in a public domain version, which has no page numbers, so I will utilize page numbers from my paperback copy, for the sake of full reference. I consider it the best Protestant critique of Catholicism (especially in terms of biblical arguments) that I have ever found, from any time period. The arguments are, for the most part, impressively presented, thought-provoking, respectful, respectable, and worthy of serious consideration (which I’m now giving them).
I’ll be concentrating on the eight sections of Part Two: “Areas of Doctrinal Differences” (202 pages). These installments will be listed and linked on my Calvinism & General Protestantism web page, in section XVII: “Catholics and Protestants” (second from the end). Dr. Geisler’s and Ralph MacKenzie’s words will be in blue. My biblical citations are from RSV.
*****
Protestants, of course, believe all apostolic tradition is inscripturated in the Bible. (p. 180)
. . . the point of difference between Protestants and Catholics, namely, whether there exists today any authoritative normative teachings outside those revealed to apostles and prophets and inscripturated in the Bible. (p. 186)
Dr. Geisler, again writing with Ralph MacKenzie, stated in an earlier article, “A Defense of Sola Scriptura” (Christian Research Institute, 4-8-09):
It is not legitimate to appeal to any oral revelation in New Testament times as proof that nonbiblical infallible authority is in existence today. . . .
Since the death of the apostles the only apostolic authority we have is the inspired record of their teaching in the New Testament. That is, all apostolic tradition (teaching) on faith and practice is in the New Testament. . . . all apostolic teaching that God deemed necessary for the faith and practice (morals) of the church was preserved (2 Timothy 3:15-17). . . .
There is not a shred of evidence that any of the revelation God gave them to express was not inscripturated by them in the only books — the inspired books of the New Testament — that they left for the church.
Inscripturation as a counter-reply to the biblical and Catholic rule of faith utterly fails, and is itself merely an unbiblical tradition of men (therefore, self-refuting, given Protestant premises of sola Scriptura). It’s simply not taught in the Bible. Rather, it’s assumed without any biblical indication (neither expressly stated nor even deduced).
The Bible never teaches that “all apostolic tradition (teaching) on faith and practice is in the New Testament.” Therefore, how could Dr. Geisler or any Protestant supposedly know the contrary? There is nothing whatsoever along these lines in 2 Timothy 3:15-17. It simply teaches that Scripture is great for teaching and reproof, etc. (which no one disagrees with).
Protestants agree that what apostles taught was binding, but they fail to see that some of that teaching wouldn’t be recorded in Scripture. The Bible itself teaches us that there are such teachings and deeds not recorded in it (Jn 20:30; 21:25; Acts 1:2-3; Lk 24:15-16, 25-27). The logic is simple: Apostles’ teaching was authoritative and binding (i.e., for all practical purposes, “infallible”). Some of that teaching was recorded in Scripture, but some was not. The folks who heard their teaching were bound to it whether it was later “inscripturated” or not. Therefore, early Christians were bound to “unbiblical” teachings or those not known to be “biblical” (as the Bible would not yet be canonized until more than three centuries later).
If they were so bound, it stands to reason that we could and should be, also. Scripture itself does not rule out the presence of an authoritative oral tradition, not recorded in words. Paul refers more than once to a non-written tradition (e.g., 2 Tim 1:13-14; 2:2). Scripture informs us that much more was taught by Jesus and apostles than what is recorded in it. Scripture nowhere teaches that it is the sole rule of faith or that what is recorded in it about early Church history has no relevance to later Christians because this was the apostolic or “inscripturation” period. Those are all arbitrary, unbiblical traditions of men.
Where in the Bible does it say that this period is absolutely unique because the Bible was being written during it? When Paul was preaching he did so authoritatively, as an apostle. Not everything he said was later included in the Bible; therefore it was not all inspired (he was no walking Bible-machine any more than Jesus was). But he was an authority, and acted consciously upon this authority. Inscripturation teaches that anything not recorded in Scripture could not have been passed down by Paul: a contention that is absurd on its face.
As an example of a Protestant who accepts the binding, infallible nature of a teaching even if it isn’t taught in the Bible, I submit Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism. He wrote a letter to Albrecht (or Albert), Margrave of Brandenburg and Duke of Prussia, dated April 1532 by some and February or early March by others. The well-known Luther biographer Roland H. Bainton cites the following portion of it:
This testimony of the universal holy Christian Church, even if we had nothing else, would be a sufficient warrant for holding this article [on the Real Presence in the Eucharist] and refusing to suffer or listen to a sectary, for it is dangerous and fearful to hear or believe anything against the unanimous testimony, belief, and teaching of the universal holy Christian churches, unanimously held in all the world from the beginning until now over fifteen hundred years. (Studies on the Reformation, Boston: Beacon Press, 1963, p. 26; primary source: WA [Werke, Weimar edition in German], Vol. XXX, 552; my bolding)
Protestant historian Philip Schaff, in The Reformed Quarterly Review, July, 1888, p. 295, cited the passage and commented:
Luther combined with the boldest independence a strong reverence for the historical faith. He derives from the unbroken tradition of the church an argument against the Zwinglians for the real presence in the Eucharist . . . A Roman controversialist could not lay more stress on tradition than Luther does in this passage.
St. Augustine had taught the same 1100 years earlier:
As to those other things which we hold on the authority, not of Scripture, but of tradition, and which are observed throughout the whole world, it may be understood that they are held as approved and instituted either by the apostles themselves, or by plenary Councils, whose authority in the Church is most useful, . . . For often have I perceived, with extreme sorrow, many disquietudes caused to weak brethren by the contentious pertinacity . . . of some who, in matters of this kind, which do not admit of final decision by the authority of Holy Scripture, or by the tradition of the universal Church. (Letter to Januarius, 54, 1, 1; 54, 2, 3)
The Bible teaches sola Scriptura. Two points must be made here. First, as Catholic scholars themselves recognize, it is not necessary that the Bible explicitly and formally teach sola Scriptura in order for this doctrine to be true. Many Christian teachings are a necessary logical deduction of what is clearly taught in the Bible. (p. 184)
I agree so far. I disagree, however, that sola Scriptura is even a deduction from what is taught on the Bible, or an “indirect” teaching, etc. And I assert, moreover, that much in the Bible contradicts sola Scriptura. I’ve written three books about it, in addition to hundreds of articles:
The Bible does teach implicitly and logically, if not formally and explicitly, that the Bible alone is the only infallible basis for faith and practice. This it does in a number of ways. Scripture states that it is “inspired” and “competent” for a believer to be “equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17). If the Bible alone is sufficient to do this, then nothing else is needed. Also, this text teaches that the Bible alone is inspired and capable of saving, edifying, and equipping believers. (p. 184)
2 Timothy 3:16-17 All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
Elsewhere (exegesis), St. Paul frequently espouses oral tradition (Rom 6:17; 1 Cor 11:2, 23; 15:1-3; Gal 1:9, 12; Col 2:8; 1 Thess 2:13; 2 Thess 2:15; 3:6). The “exclusivist” or “dichotomous” form of reasoning employed by Protestant apologists here is fundamentally flawed. For example, to reason by analogy, let’s examine a very similar passage:
Ephesians 4:11-15 And his gifts were that some should be apostle, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, for the equipment of the saints, for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ; so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are able to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ,
If the Greek artios (RSV, complete / KJV, perfect) proves the sole sufficiency of Scripture in 2 Timothy, then teleios (RSV, mature manhood / KJV, perfect) in Ephesians would likewise prove the sufficiency of pastors, teachers and so forth for the attainment of Christian perfection. Note that in Ephesians 4:11-15 the Christian believer is equipped, built up, brought into unity and mature manhood, knowledge of Jesus, the fulness of Christ, and even preserved from doctrinal confusion by means of the teaching function of the Church. This is a far stronger statement of the perfecting of the saints than 2 Timothy 3:16-17, yet it doesn’t even mention Scripture.
Therefore, the Protestant interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 proves too much, since if all non-scriptural elements are excluded in 2 Timothy, then, by analogy, Scripture would logically have to be excluded in Ephesians. It is far more reasonable to synthesize the two passages in an inclusive, complementary fashion, by recognizing that the mere absence of one or more elements in one passage does not mean that they are nonexistent. Thus, the Church and Scripture are both equally necessary and important for teaching. This is precisely the Catholic view.
Also, this text teaches that the Bible alone is inspired and capable of saving, edifying, and equipping believers. This is evident from several things stated in the text. First, only the Scriptures are “inspired” or God-breathed. (p. 184)
I used to casually assume that this as true, until recently, even as a Catholic, for many years. But then I thought about it more deeply and concluded that it wasn’t, and that the Bible itself taught that this wasn’t the case. The Bible is certainly unique, and Catholics wholeheartedly agree. But it’s not exclusively inspired. I shall explain why I now think that.
Prophets in the Old Testament are another example of infallible authorities. They were not simply “walking Bibles.” They said many things that were not recorded in the Bible, but were still from God, and as such, effectively inspired. So, for example, the prophet Samuel told Saul that he would “make known” to him “the word of God” (1 Sam 9:27). It was written that “the word of God came to Shemaiah the man of God” (1 Kgs 12:22). “The Word of the LORD” appears 243 times in the Protestant Old Testament (RSV); mostly coming through men. For example:
Genesis 15:1 . . . the word of the LORD came to Abram in a vision . . .
Numbers 3:16 So Moses numbered them according to the word of the LORD, as he was commanded.
1 Samuel 3:21 . . . the LORD revealed himself to Samuel at Shiloh by the word of the LORD.
2 Samuel 7:4 But that same night the word of the LORD came to Nathan,
2 Samuel 24:11 . . . the word of the LORD came to the prophet Gad, David’s seer . . .
1 Kings 6:11 Now the word of the LORD came to Solomon,
1 Kings 14:18 . . . the word of the LORD, which he spoke by his servant Ahijah the prophet.
1 Kings 18:1 . . . the word of the LORD came to Elijah, . . .
2 Kings 20:19 Then said Hezekiah to Isaiah, “The word of the LORD which you have spoken is good.” . . .
2 Chronicles 36:21 to fulfil the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah . . .
Etc., etc. . . .
The prophet Ezekiel wrote down the phrase, “the word of the LORD came to me” 49 times.
Nor is this only in the Old Testament. Prophets still exist in the New Testament, too, such as the “prophetess” Anna (Lk 2:36). St. Luke again wrote: “Now in these days prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. And one of them named Agabus stood up and foretold by the Spirit that there would be a great famine over all the world; and this took place in the days of Claudius” (Acts 11:27-28; cf. 21:10-11, where he predicts Paul’s captivity, prefacing his words with “Thus says the Holy Spirit, . . .”). Luke almost casually mentions the fact that “in the church at Antioch there were prophets . . ” (Acts 13:1) and that “Judas and Silas . . . were themselves prophets” (Acts 15:32).
St. Paul includes “prophets” — whom “God has appointed in the church” — as one of the Church offices (1 Cor 12:28-29; 14:29, 32, 37; Eph 4:11), and refers to “prophesy[ing]” (1 Cor 14:1, 3-5, 24, 31, 39) and “prophecy” (1 Cor 14:6, 22). Paul even wrote that “the mystery of Christ, . . . has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit” (Eph 3:4-5) and noted the “prophetic utterances” that accompanied the ordination of Timothy (1 Tim 1:18; 4:14). Philip the evangelist “had four unmarried daughters, who prophesied” (Acts 21:8-9).
Therefore, there are many examples of infallible and virtually inspired revelation in both Testaments that are distinct from Holy Scripture itself. Whatever of it was recorded, would be part of Scripture, but of course there was a lot that wasn’t recorded. It still had the same ontological essence nonetheless (just as Jesus’ hundreds of thousands of words to His family or disciples that are unrecorded, remained inspired and infallible). And all of this disproves sola Scriptura, as classically formulated, because it claims that only Scripture is infallible (let alone inspired). The “word of the LORD” given to a prophet is just as “God-breathed” (the literal meaning of “inspiration”) as Scripture, because it comes straight from God, as Scripture does.
Prophets (including prophets after Pentecost) are inspired, and the first Christian council at Jerusalem was inspired, too, since the Holy Spirit agreed with it (Acts 15:28). The first pope, Peter, even made an infallible declaration in the council (Acts 15:7-11) that was crucial in its determination. This in turn was largely based on a “vision” (Acts 10:17) that God gave to Peter (Acts 10:11-16), while he was in a “trance” (Acts 10:10). Peter was at first “perplexed” by it (10:17), but then God showed him the meaning by sending to him the Gentile centurion, Cornelius (Acts 10:25 ff.), to whom He had communicated by an angel (10:22, 30-32). The larger point is that so much of this had nothing directly to do with Scripture at all. Yet it was infallible (and arguably inspired as well).
Inspiration also occurs in God’s communication to prophets or to others through visions and direct encounters. In other words, it goes far beyond only Holy Scripture. Moreover, when Jesus was talking to His disciples about future persecution, He said, “do not be anxious how or what you are to answer or what you are to say; for the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say” (Lk 12:11-12). Mark in his parallel passage puts it even more strongly: “it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit” (Mk 13:11). Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist “was filled with the Holy Spirit, and prophesied” (Lk 1:67). Simeon also had a close relationship with the Holy Spirit (Lk 2:25-26).
Now, if the Holy Spirit can talk to Jesus’ disciples in that way (and by extension possibly to any follower of Christ), or literally talk through them, is that, too, “divine speech” or “the words of God” or inspired? Since the Holy Spirit is God, the answer must be yes. But again, that’s not Scripture. Paul also refers to two spiritual gifts that seem to involve direct communication from God to human beings: “To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. To one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit” (1 Cor 12:7-8). Here again God the Holy Spirit is communicating to persons. Is that “inspired” and “the words of God”? It seems to me that all words that authentically come from God must be so. In other words, the words of God are “God-breathed.” And they go far beyond Holy Scripture.
Even the prophet himself was not to add to the revelation God gave him, for prophets were not infallible whenever they spoke but only when giving God’s revelation. . . . if there is no normative revelation after the time of the apostles and even the prophets themselves were not to add their teachings to the revelations God gave them in the Scriptures, then it follows that the Scriptures are the only infallible source of divine revelation. (p. 186)
Geisler is confused in his categories. As argued at length above, from Scripture, prophets were not only infallible, but also conveyors of inspired utterances from God — that went beyond the Bible. And that is quite contrary to sola Scriptura. Geisler, however, discusses prophets in relation to revelation, which is a different category. Yes, Catholics agree with Protestants that public — though not private — revelation ended with the apostles (as Geisler notes on the same page, in context). But what has to be grappled with is the notion that prophets passing along the very words of God must also be inspired. Thus, there is indeed not only infallibility, but also inspiration apart from the Bible, which is utterly contrary to sola Scriptura.
I did a search of “prophet” and “revelation” occurring in proximity in the Bible, and they never do (at least not in RSV). So why is Geisler arguing in non-scriptural ways, according to unbiblical categories? Why does he associate those two things, when the Bible doesn’t, and not associate prophets and prophecy with inspiration, which the Bible does put together? Once again, the authentic “word of God” must always be inspired by its very nature and essence, whether it has to do with God’s words in the Bible (passed through men) or through prophets.
The total absence of reference to any other instrument or source of authority than the written Word (Gk. graphe) reveals that the locus of this sufficient authority is in the written Word (= Scripture). . . . Paul repeatedly stresses the need to cling to the Scriptures (1:13; 2:15; 3:15-16; 4:2). Finally, given that this [2 Timothy) was his last book (4:6-8), if there was some other apostolic authority other than the written Word of God the apostle surely would have mentioned it. (p. 184).
*
Yes, he did mention tradition in 2 Timothy. He made reference to oral tradition three times (1:13-14; 2:2; 3:14). In the latter instance, St. Paul says of the tradition, “knowing from whom you learned it.” The personal reference proves he is not talking about Scripture, but himself as the tradition-bearer, so to speak:
2 Timothy 1:13-14 Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; [14] guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.
*
2 Timothy 2:2 and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.
*
2 Timothy 3:14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it
The Bible constantly warns us “not to go beyond what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6). This kind of exhortation is found throughout Scripture. Moses was told not to “add to what I command you nor subtract from it” (Deut. 4:2). (p. 186)
*
What Moses was commanded to teach is not identical to the written words that he recorded in the Torah (first five books). The Jews also believed that he received oral tradition on Mt. Sinai. The mainstream pharisaic tradition, of which Jesus and Paul were a part (more on that below) accepted this as well, so it passed into early Christianity. Does Scripture indicate such an oral Torah / tradition, not — in its specifics — recorded in the Torah or Pentateuch? Yes; here’s some biblical evidence for it:
The law in Deut. xxiv. 1 et seq. says that if a man dismisses his wife with a bill of divorce (“sefer keritut”), and she marries again but is dismissed with a bill of divorce by her second husband also, the first husband may not remarry her. The fact that a woman may be divorced by such a bill has not, however, been mentioned, nor is it stated how she is divorced by means of the “sefer keritut,” or what this document should contain, although it must have had a certain form and wording, though possibly not that of the later “geṭ.” These examples, to which many more might be added, are held to imply that in addition to and side by side with the written law there were other laws and statutes which served to define and supplement it, and that, assuming these to be known, the written law did not go into details.
*
It appears from the other books of the Old Testament also that certain traditional laws were considered to have been given by God, although they are not mentioned in the Pentateuch. Jeremiah says to the people (Jer. xvii. 21-22): “Bear no burden on the Sabbath day, nor bring it in by the gates of Jerusalem; neither carry forth a burden out of your houses on the Sabbath day, neither do ye any work, but hallow ye the Sabbath day, as I commanded your fathers.” In the Pentateuch, on the other hand, there is only the interdiction against work in general (Ex. xx. 9-11); nor is it stated anywhere in the Torah that no burdens shall be carried on the Sabbath, while Jeremiah says that the bearing of burdens, as well as all other work, was forbidden to the fathers. It is clear, furthermore, from Amos viii. 5, that no business was done on the Sabbath, and in Neh. x. 30-32 this prohibition, like the interdiction against intermarrying with the heathen, is designated as a commandment of God, although only the latter is found in the Pentateuch (Deut. vii. 3), while there is no reference to the former. Since the interdictions against carrying burdens and doing business on the Sabbath were regarded as divine laws, although not mentioned in the Pentateuch, it is inferred that there was also a second code. . . .
*
The chief argument against the oral law is based on Deut. iv. 2: “Ye shall not add to the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish aught from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.” Those who deny the existence of the oral law refer the phrase “the commandments which I command you” to the written law only, which is, therefore, designated by this passage as a complete code needing no amplification and admitting no diminution, whence the conclusion is deduced that there was no oral law in ancient times, since the written law precluded its existence. On the other hand it is held that the phrase “the commandments which I command you” does not necessarily exclude oral laws and statutes.
*
Moreover, the interdiction against adding to the law was directed only against individuals, not against the Sanhedrin or the judges, who were expressly empowered (Deut. xvii. 9-11) to expound and interpret the laws and to make new statutes; for the Sanhedrin or any other court would formulate their decisions only after examining the traditions preserved among the people and in conformity with certain logical and hermeneutic rules deduced from Scripture. . . .
*
The entire oral law in the wider sense, namely, the entire material of the Mishnah, the Tosefta, and the halakic midrashim, was preserved only orally, and was not reduced to writing until the beginning of the third century C.E., because there was a prejudice against recording halakot. (1906 Jewish Encyclopedia, “Oral Law”)
I drew the following information from a fabulous article by a Messianic Jew, Reb Yhoshua, entitled, The Oral Torah and the Messianic Jew. He provides the example of the prophet Samuel sacrificing in the high places:
According to the written Torah, sacrifices were not permitted anywhere but at the Tabernacle. (Lev 17:1-5) . . . After the Tabernacle was erected the written Torah does not seem to endorse the High Places at all. (Lev 17:8-9) One of the most startling proofs that an oral Torah existed is that the prophet Samuel continued to sacrifice at the High Places after the Tabernacle had been built. When Saul first met Samuel, Samuel was preparing a sacrifice at one of the High Places. (1Sam 9:12-13) Later in Israel’s history, Israel would be strongly rebuked for sacrificing at such cult sites, but because the Tabernacle was not at Shiloh or Jerusalem, the text of 1 Samuel seems to defer to the oral Torah, and allows the apparent transgression to pass without comment.. . . The only explanations possible are that either a leniency existed that was not mentioned in the written text of the Pentateuch, but was ordained by God and known to Samuel; or that Samuel was spiritually severed from Israel on the same day that he met Saul. Because Samuel continued to serve God and Israel for many more years, it is doubtful that he had been spiritually cut off from his people.
God had made the following condemnation in the Torah: “. . . I will destroy your high places . . .” (Lev 26:30). And it had been written a few hundred years before Samuel’s time:
Joshua 22:29 Far be it from us that we should rebel against the LORD, and turn away this day from following the LORD by building an altar for burnt offering, cereal offering, or sacrifice, other than the altar of the LORD our God that stands before his tabernacle!”
Surprisingly enough, the written Torah never specifies that Jerusalem would be the central place of worship, or that a Temple was to be built there (neither the words “temple” — in this sense — nor “Jerusalem” ever appears in the Pentateuch or Torah: first five books of the Bible).
The written Torah never acknowledges Jerusalem as the proper place for worship, and only briefly mentions that the Lord will someday chose a special place for Himself. (Lev. 18:6) Only the oral Torah identifies the chosen place as Jerusalem, yet David knew where he wanted to build the Temple. The written Torah also gives detailed instructions for how to build God’s sanctuary. It was to be a tent erected by the priests. . . . there is no provision in the Torah for a permanent structure to replace the Tabernacle. It was forbidden to add or detract from the commands that God gave to Moses (Duet. 4:2), and Moses never wrote down any plan for the Tabernacle to be permanently folded up and put away. If God did not pass his plan to someday have a Temple on to Moses, than all of Israel’s worship from the reign of Solomon on was invalid. Because Jesus frequented the Temple, Messianic Jews, as believers in Jesus as sinless, can be sure this too was clearly not the case.
Reb Yhoshua notes that Jesus was a follower of the Pharisaical tradition:
It is easy to overly simplify Jesus’ relationship with Pharisaic Judaism by anachronistically projecting modern Protestant doctrine into the New Testament. . . . The fact that Jesus also had differences with the Sadducees, the virulent anti-Oral Torah sect, is often downplayed; as is the fact that whenever he disagreed with them, it was because he held to a doctrine found only in the oral Torah – resurrection from the dead.
I noted this in an old paper of mine:
Jesus Himself followed the Pharisaical tradition, as argued by Asher Finkel in his book The Pharisees and the Teacher of Nazareth (Cologne: E.J. Brill, 1964). He adopted the Pharisaical stand on controversial issues (Matthew 5:18-19, Luke 16:17), accepted the oral tradition of the academies, observed the proper mealtime procedures (Mark 6:56, Matthew 14:36) and the Sabbath, and priestly regulations (Matthew 8:4, Mark 1:44, Luke 5:4). This author argues that Jesus’ condemnations were directed towards the Pharisees of the school of Shammai, whereas Jesus was closer to the school of Hillel.
The Encyclopedia Judaica (Jerusalem: 1971) backs up this contention, in its entry “Jesus” (v. 10, 10):
In general, Jesus’ polemical sayings against the Pharisees were far meeker than the Essene attacks and not sharper than similar utterances in the talmudic sources. This source contends that Jesus’ beliefs and way of life were closer to the Pharisees than to the Essenes, though He was similar to them in many respects also (poverty, humility, purity of heart, simplicity, etc.).
St. Paul actually called himself a Pharisee twice, after his conversion to Christianity (Acts 23:6; 26:5). Jesus opposed the doctrine of the Sadducees (but not of the Pharisees: Matt 23:2). The Pharisees adhered to oral tradition and the Sadducees rejected it. Reb Yhoshua observes that Jesus and the early Christians (even the Jerusalem Council) “held a standard of kashrut, proper eating, that was consistent with the Oral Torah” (his footnotes incorporated:
three of the four commandments that the Jerusalem Council insisted all believers observe immediately upon becoming Jesus believers dealt with food. (Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25) Two of these came from the oral Torah: not to eat things sacrificed to idols, [Mishnah Avodah Zorah 2:3] and not to eat things strangled. [Mishnah Chullin 1:2] The written Torah does not forbid either of these types of food, yet Jesus, in Revelation, is portrayed as strongly rebuking the communities of Pergamum and Thyatira for breaking the ban on their consumption. (Rev 2:14 and 20) The authority of the Oral Torah in the lives of early Messianic believers cannot be doubted when half of the commands the Jerusalem council required of Gentiles were from the Oral Torah.
Jesus’ famous teaching on lust in the Sermon on the Mount was derived from the oral Torah (footnote incorporated):
Many scholars have struggled with Jesus’ teaching, “You have heard that our fathers were told, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ And I tell you that a man who even looks at a woman with the purpose of lusting after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (Mat 5:27-28) It seems to demand something impossible of men, something the written Torah never asked. . . . Jesus was not arbitrarily adding an unnatural stringency to the Torah; he was teaching from a tradition Moses received at Sinai, “Not only is he who sins with his body considered an adulterer, but he who sins with his eye is also considered one.” [Leviticus Rabba 23:12]
So were His teachings on prayer:
Jesus’ ideas on prayer mirror those in the oral Torah, as well. He taught his disciples not to babble when they prayed (Mat. 6:7), and advised them to never stop praying for something they really needed. (Luke 18:1-6) What Jesus called babbling, Chazal labeled calculating, purposely making one’s prayers long so that they would be answered. Calculating, or babbling, was forbidden by the Oral Torah; [Babylonian Talmud, Berekhot 32b] and just as Jesus advised his disciples to continue asking God for what they wanted, the oral Torah commanded the Israelites, “If a man realizes that he has prayed and not been answered, he should pray again.” [Babylonian Talmud, Berekhot 32b]
Conclusion: the oral Torah seems to be fairly conclusively established from the written biblical record. By analogy, Christian oral apostolic tradition is also upheld as valid in the new covenant, which was a direct development of the old covenant (Matthew 5:17-20).
*
***
*
Practical Matters: I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 5,000+ free online articles or fifty-six books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become a Catholic or to return to the Catholic Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them. If you believe my full-time apostolate is worth supporting, please seriously consider a much-needed monthly or one-time financial contribution. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV).
You can support my work a great deal in non-financial ways, if you prefer; by subscribing to, commenting on, liking, and sharing videos from my two YouTube channels, Catholic Bible Highlights and Lux Veritatis (featuring documentaries), where I partner with Kenny Burchard (see my own videos and documentaries), and/or by signing up to receive notice for new articles on this blog. Just type your email address on the sidebar to the right (scroll down quite a bit), where you see, “Sign Me Up!” Thanks a million!
*
***
*
Photo credit: cover for my own book, designed by Davin Schadt: from the version originally published by Catholic Answers (San Diego) in 2012.
*
Summary: I refute Dr. Geisler’s insufficient arguments regarding inscripturation, 2 Timothy 3:16, and whether only the Bible is inspired. I also provide biblical evidence for the Oral Torah.
Particularly With Regard to Being Led by the Holy Spirit
Photo credit: Image of the title page of The Faith of Our Forefathers (New York: Thomas Whittaker, 6th edition, 1879), by Edward Josiah Stearns [public domain / Bookmarxbooks page for this title]
Edward Josiah Stearns (1810-1890) was an Episcopal clergyman from Maryland and author of several books. His volume, The Faith of Our Forefathers (New York: Thomas Whittaker, 1879), was a reply to The Faith of Our Fathers(1876), by James Cardinal Gibbons (1834-1921), one of the best and most well-known Catholic apologetics works, with an emphasis on scriptural arguments and replies to Protestant critiques of Catholicism. It had sold over 1.4 million copies by the time of its 83rd edition in 1917 and was the most popular book in the United States until Gone With the Wind was published in 1939. This volume highly influenced my own development as a soon-to-be Catholic apologist in the early 1990s: especially with regard to my usual modus operandi of focusing on “biblical evidence” for Catholicism.
The words of Rev. Stearns will be in blue, and those of Cardinal Gibbons in green. I use RSV for biblical citations.
***
Another “shining mark” of the Church, though not contained in the creed, is, according to the Archbishop, her ” Infallible Authority.”
“That the Church was infallible in the Apostolic age, is denied by no Christian. We never question the truth of the Apostles’ declarations; they were, in fact, the only authority in the Church for the first century. The New Testament was not completed till the close of the first century. There is no just ground for denying to the Apostolic teachers of the nineteenth century in which we live, a prerogative clearly possessed by those of the first, especially as the divine Word nowhere intimates that this unerring guidance was to die with the Apostles”(p. 83).
There is an unmistakable “intimation” in St. John, 14:25, 26, that this guidance was “to die with” them: “These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.” The part I have italicized, confines the promise to the Apostles; it is physically impossible that it should be fulfilled to their successors. (pp. 47-48)
This is very odd exegesis. Rev. Stearns seems blissfully unaware that the disciples and apostles represented Christian authority in perpetuity. The Holy Spirit was to be the Guide and Helper of Church leaders. It makes no sense that this was to be the case only for the apostles, and then cease to exist. But such is the bankruptcy in many Protestant circles with regard to the continuance of charismatic gifts. The Protestant Benson Commentary states: “Here is a clear promise to the apostles, and their successors in the faith, that the Holy Ghost should teach them all that truth which was needful for their salvation.”
But if a Protestant wishes to claim that this promise of profound assistance from the Holy Spirit applied only to the disciples — despite the fact that the Holy Spirit indwells every believer — , then he would have to explain why St. Paul casually assumes that He would also be operative as a spiritual Guide for each non-apostle Gentile Christian (thus, by extension, every Christian at all times):
Romans 8:14, 16 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. . . . it is the Spirit himself bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God,
Romans 8:26 Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with sighs too deep for words.
1 Corinthians 2:14 The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.
1 Corinthians 3:16 Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you?
1 Corinthians 12:3 Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking by the Spirit of God ever says “Jesus be cursed!” and no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except by the Holy Spirit.
1 Corinthians 12:7-11 To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. [8] To one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, [9] to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, [10] to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. [11] All these are inspired by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills.
2 Corinthians 3:17-18 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. [18] And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.
Galatians 5:18 But if you are led by the Spirit you are not under the law.
Ephesians 3:5 which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; [prophets were not apostles, and the office of prophet and gift of prophecy is present in the new covenant and continues on, as is assumed in the New Testament]
Hebrews 10:15 And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; . . .
2 Peter 1:21 because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
This charism was to be passed on in a special way to the leaders of the Church:
2 Timothy 1:14 guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us. (cf. Acts 15:28 below)
The Archbishop’s argument is, An infallible God cannot create a fallible Church. He might as well argue that an infallible God cannot create a fallible man. We know that an infallible God did create a fallible Church, to wit, the Jewish; the fact, therefore, that the Catholic Church was created by an infallible God, is no proof that she is herself infallible. (p. 51)
That’s true as far as it goes, but is a non sequitur, since the Bible teaches — apart from all of these observations — that the Church is infallible:
Acts 15:28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: . . . [this is a council of the Church in Jerusalem at that time, led by “apostles and elders” (16:4) — elders not being apostles — and prevented from error by the Holy Spirit Himself; hence, infallible]
Acts 16:4 As they [Paul and Silas] went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem. [the decrees from the council were binding on Christians far and wide; this is assuredly not a local church ecclesiology. Silas was also a prophet (15:32)]
Now, one might argue about where this infallible Church is to be found, or whether it is the Catholic Church led by popes, but the Bible undoubtedly teaches that the Church was to be infallible: in the general assertion of 1 Timothy 3:15 and the concrete application and exercise of this authority at the Jerusalem Council: to which even St. Paul is bound.
In the same chapter, Rev. Stearns trots out the obligatory polemical arguments regarding Popes Vigilius and Honorius, who supposedly disproved the decree on papal infallibility in 1870 at Vatican I in their beliefs and actions (they did not). What he doesn’t do (also almost obligatory) is present the Catholic counter-argument in each case. I have several links which will provide that service to my readers:
Practical Matters: I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 5,000+ free online articles or fifty-six books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them. If you believe my full-time apostolate is worth supporting, please seriously consider a much-needed monthly or one-time financial contribution. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV).
You can support my work a great deal in non-financial ways, if you prefer; by subscribing to, commenting on, liking, and sharing videos from my YouTube channel, Catholic Bible Highlights, where I partner with Kenny Burchard (see my own videos), and/or by signing up to receive notice for new articles on this blog. Just type your email address on the sidebar to the right (scroll down quite a bit), where you see, “Sign Me Up!” Thanks a million!
*
***
*
Photo credit: Image of the title page of The Faith of Our Forefathers (New York: Thomas Whittaker, 6th edition, 1879), by Edward Josiah Stearns [public domain / Bookmarxbooks page for this title]
Summary: Reply to Anglican Edward Josiah Stearns regarding the Church’s infallibility, including passages about the Holy Spirit’s leading, 1 Timothy 3:15, & the Jerusalem council.
Agreement on Ecumenism and Various Doctrines; Sola Scriptura
Photo credit: portrait of Pusey from For all the Saints (18 September 2014).
Edward Bouverie (E. B.) Pusey (1800-1882) was an English Anglican cleric, professor of Hebrew at Oxford University for more than fifty years, and author of many books. He was a leading figure in the Oxford Movement, along with St. John Henry Cardinal Newman and John Keble, an expert on patristics, and was involved in many theological and academic controversies. Pusey helped revive the doctrine of the Real Presence in the Church of England, and because of several other affinities with Catholic theology and tradition, he and his followers (derisively called “Puseyites”) were mocked by over-anxious adversaries in 1853 as “half papist and half protestant”. But, unlike Newman and like Keble, he never left Anglicanism.
This is the first of two replies to his book, An Eirenicon (New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1864), which was a letter to his former colleague and “dearest friend”William Lockhart: the first of the tractarians to convert to Catholicism (in August 1843, even before Newman’s reception in October 1845). Cardinal Newman himself replied to this book in 1865, in his volume, Certain Difficulties Felt by Anglicans in Catholic Teaching, Volume 2. I haven’t read it, so it won’t have any influence on these replies. Pusey’s words will be in blue. These two and additional replies to Pusey will be collected under the “Anglicanism” section of my Calvinism and General Protestantism web page, under his name. I use RSV for Bible citations.
*****
You know how long it has been my wish to part with all controversy, and to consecrate the evening of my life to the unfolding of some of the deep truths of God’s Holy Word, as God might enable me, by aid of those whom He has taught in times past. This employment, and practical duties which God has brought to me, were my ideal of the employments of the closing years of a laborious life. The inroad made upon the Gospel by unbelievers, or half-believers, compelled me in part to modify this my hope. Still, since there is a common foe, pressing alike upon all who believe in Jesus, I the more hoped, at least, to be freed from any necessity of controversy with any who hold the Catholic faith. The recent personal appeal of Dr. Manning to myself seems, as you and other friends think, to call for an exception to this too; . . . (p. 2)
Delightful ecumenical sentiment, in wonderful prose. I’m not enthralled with “controversy” either (it may surprise many to hear). My interest is in constructive, substantive, amiable dialogue and debate, with the aim of always seeking truth and to learn about other views, even if I disagree with them. This is as rare as hen’s teeth to find anymore (if it ever was readily obtainable). But in any event, it’s not merely controversy for its own sake, or “quarreling” or “squabbling” endlessly and aimlessly. I desire what it looks like I will find here: interaction with a well-meaning, articulate, thoughtful theological opponent, with whom I can agree in many important ways, too. It’s a well-intentioned conversation between brothers in the Christian faith.
Ever since I knew them (which was not in my earliest years) I have loved those who are called “Evangelicals.” I loved them, because they loved our Lord. I loved them, for their zeal for souls. I often thought them narrow; yet I was often drawn to individuals among them more than to others who held truths in common with myself, which the Evangelicals did not hold, at least explicitly. I believe them to be “of the truth.” I have ever believed and believe, that their faith was and is, on some points of doctrine, much truer than their words. I believed and believe, that they are often withheld from the clear and full sight of the truth by an inveterate prejudice, that that truth, as held by us, is united with error, or with indistinct acknowledgment of other truths which they themselves hold sacred. Whilst, then, I lived in society, I ever sought them out, both out of love for themselves, and because I believed that nothing (with God’s help) so dispels untrue prejudice as personal intercourse, heart to heart, with those against whom that prejudice is entertained. I sought to point out to them our common basis of faith. (p. 2)
This is another refreshing ecumenical expression, with which I very much agree, in my great affection for Protestant evangelicals, among whom I proudly counted myself between 1977 and 1990. Just as they misunderstand Pusey’s high Anglicanism, so they lack accurate knowledge — then and now — about an even “higher” Catholicism.
I have not united with them in any of those things which were not in accordance with my own principles. It was not any thing new, then, when, in high places, fundamental truths had been denied, I sought to unite with those, some of whom had often spoken against me, but against whom I had never spoken. It was the pent-up longing of years. I had long felt that common zeal for faith could alone bring together those who were opposed; I hoped that, through that common zeal and love, inveterate prejudices which hindered the reception of truth would be dispelled. This, however, was a bright vista which lay beyond. The immediate object was to resist unitedly an inroad upon our common faith. . . .
But while, on the one hand, I profess plainly that love for the Evangelicals which I ever had, I may be, perhaps, the more bound to say, that, in no matter of faith, nor in my thankfulness to God for my faith, have I changed.(p. 3)
And here he describes how often in actuality ecumenical goals and hopes die a sad death. Again, I, too, have always had the attitude he expresses: unite where possible against the enemies of Christianity. I had that view towards Catholics as a Protestant, and towards Protestants now as a Catholic. Disagreement is not the same as disrespect or malice. But of course I dispute (hopefully amiably) in areas where we hold honest disagreements. This need not be acrimonious or even not pleasurable, but we all know that all too often it descends to those things.
“I believe explicitly all which I know God to have revealed to His Church; and implicitly (implicitè) any thing, if He has revealed it, which I know not.” In simple words, “I believe all which the Church believes.” . . . This I confess when I say to God, “I believe one Catholic and Apostolic Church.” (p. 3)
This, of course, is very un-Protestant, and an area (the rule of faith) where we have strong agreement. We disagree, however, on the nature and location of the one Church of God.
As individuals, we, too, thankfully acknowledge that whoever teaches any true faith in Jesus is, so far, one of God’s instruments against unbelief. (p. 5)
Agreed.
There is not one statement in the elaborate chapters on Justification in the Council of Trent which any of us could fail of receiving; nor is there one of their anathemas on the subject, which in the least rejects any statement of the Church of England. (p. 8)
This is a pretty amazing statement. I can see why some (more evangelical) Anglicans would be suspicious of Pusey!
The Church of England, while teaching (as the fathers often do) that Baptism and the Holy Eucharist have a special dignity, . . . is careful not to exclude other appointments of God from being in some way sacraments, as channels of grace, or (in the old definition of sacraments), “visible signs of an invisible grace.” This is indeed inseparable from the idea of Confirmation, Orders, Absolution, Marriage.
Marriage is, we know, directly called a “Sacrament” in the Homilies. . . . “Absolution, it says, “has the promise of forgiveness of sins.” . . .
Even as to Extreme Unction, it only objects to the later abuse before the Council of Trent, when it was customarily administered to those only, of whom there was a moral certainty that they could not recover; . . .(pp. 9-10)
Blessed agreement on the sacraments as well . . .
I am persuaded that, on this point, the two Churches might be reconciled by explanation of the terms used. The Council of Trent, in laying down the doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass, claims nothing for the Holy Eucharist but an application of the One meritorious sacrifice of the Cross. An application of that sacrifice the Church of England believes also. Many years have flowed away since we have taught this, and have noticed how the words, “sacrifice,” “proper,” or “propitiatory sacrifice,” have been alternately accepted or rejected, according as they were supposed to mean that the Eucharistic sacrifice acquired something propitiatory in itself, or only applied what was merited once and for ever by the One sacrifice of our Lord upon the Cross. (p. 12)
This is pretty amazing, too. I didn’t know this.
The chief controversy I hold to be about the sovereignty of the Pope. For this is at this time the great wall of separation which divides the two Churches. (p. 27)
It’s certainly one of the main points of dispute.
The office of our Divine Lord, as a Teacher, was, to be the perfect Revealer of the whole truth as to God, which God willed to disclose to His creatures here. This same office God the Holy Ghost undertook after the Resurrection, teaching invisibly to the Apostles that same divine truth. Our Lord said to His Apostles, “He shall teach you the whole truth, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatever I have said unto you” [Jn 14:26; 16:13]. The whole revelation then was completed at the first. (p. 37)
Of course it was. Catholics agree! It doesn’t follow, however, that all of this revelation and apostolic deposit was in the Bible or that oral tradition ceased after the writing of the New Testament.
He, “the Spirit of Truth,” was to teach the Apostles the whole truth. It was a personal promise to the Apostles, and fulfilled in them. (p. 37)
It never states in the Bible that all of this was in writing, or, for that matter, in the Bible (as determined by the Church, since it doesn’t name its own books).
The Church of this day cannot know more than St. John, else the promise would not have been fulfilled to him, that God, the Holy Ghost, should teach him the whole truth. Whatever the Apostles received, that they were enjoined to teach [Mt 10:27; 28:20]. And that whole truth the Apostles taught, orally and in writing, committing it as the deposit to the Bishops whom they left in their place, and, under inspiration of God the Holy Ghost, embodying it in Holy Scripture. (p. 37)
Again, Scripture doesn’t teach “inscripturation”: the notion that all of the truth God wanted to preserve for posterity is in the Bible, and infallibly only there. John 20:30 informs us that “Jesus did many other signs . . . not written in this book.” John 21:25 refers to “many other things which Jesus did” that were so numerous that a written record would be such that “the world itself could not contain” all of it. Certainly this is hyperbole, but in any event, it’s referring to a lot of extrabiblical material that — it stands to reason — could have been largely or wholly contained in oral traditions passed down.
At least we know from the testimony of those who followed, that they taught it orally in all its great outlines; and St. Paul himself says, “I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God.” It does not indeed absolutely follow, that they so taught in detail all which is contained in Holy Scripture. (p. 37)
Nor does it absolutely follow that we must deny that there was a great deal of the apostolic deposit not contained in Scripture, and beyond it (though in harmony with it), or if contained at all, not explicitly spelled out.
How much, e. g., is taught in the Epistles incidentally, in answer to doubts which had arisen, whether this were so or no, even as to Apostolic teaching, or in correction of nascent heresies! But there is this difference between the teaching of the Apostles and that of the Church after them, that what the Apostles taught as the original and Fountain-head, that the Church only transmitted. (p. 37)
Again, we agree. But all doctrines develop as well, which is consistent with being present from the beginning. They were simply mostly primitive and basic at first.
According to the Council of Trent, then, as well as ourselves, the revelation was finished in and through the Apostles. (p. 38)
Exactly right; in terms of the apostolic deposit. He cited Session IV in this regard. It references unwritten tradition as well as the Holy Scripture:
The sacred and holy, ecumenical, and general Synod of Trent . . . keeping this always in view, that, errors being removed, the purity itself of the Gospel be preserved in the Church; which (Gospel), before promised through the prophets in the holy Scriptures, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, first promulgated with His own mouth, and then commanded to be preached by His Apostles to every creature, as the fountain of all, both saving truth, and moral discipline; and seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand; (the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament–seeing that one God is the author of both –as also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ’s own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession. (Decree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures: beginning)
This statement alone proves that the Catholic Church adheres to a tradition regarded as infallible, just as the Bible is. It’s also quite arguable that authentic apostolic tradition is inspired, too, since it’s referred to as having been derived “from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating.” Whatever is dictated by the Holy Spirit is, by definition, inspired. And there are many many such communications detailed in the Bible itself, as I recently compiled in great detail in my article, 601+ Bible Passages Disprove Sola Scriptura [1-6-25].
*
Extraordinary operations of this same teaching of God the Holy Ghost have been on those occasions, when the Church has had to state, explicitly and formally, in correction of emerging heresies, the truth which God the Holy Ghost ever taught by her. I call these “extraordinary,” because such occasions have been comparatively rare in the history of the Church. (p. 38)
*
This means that such councils were not only infallible, but also inspired, insofar as they passed along teachings which (to use Pusey’s words) “God the Holy Ghost . . . taught by her” — which was also true of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 (see especially 15:28). This annihilates sola Scriptura, which is precisely the false premise that causes Anglicans like Pusey to deny that there is a perpetual infallible teaching office in the Church. Hence, he hastens to claim that such instances are “extraordinary” and “comparatively rare.”
*
But I fail to see why that must be the case, in light of St. Paul describing the Church as “the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15). That means something “extraordinary” also, and I think I have identified its essential and necessary meaning. It’s not confined to a few “rare” instances, but rather, this is an ongoing or perpetual role of the Church, by God’s express decree in His Word, the Bible.
*
In the three first centuries a General Council was obviously impossible. It would only have marked out Christian bishops for martyrdom, on the supposition that they were engaged in a conspiracy against the State; yet emergent heresies were condemned, and the mind of the whole Church was ascertained as clearly without them as with them. (p. 39)
*
Yes, spearheaded and led by popes and to a lesser extent, other prominent bishops . . .
*
*
***
*
Practical Matters: I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 5,000+ free online articles or fifty-six books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them. If you believe my full-time apostolate is worth supporting, please seriously consider a much-needed monthly or one-time financial contribution. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV).
You can support my work a great deal in non-financial ways, if you prefer; by subscribing to, commenting on, liking, and sharing videos from my YouTube channel, Catholic Bible Highlights, where I partner with Kenny Burchard (see my own videos), and/or by signing up to receive notice for new articles on this blog. Just type your email address on the sidebar to the right (scroll down quite a bit), where you see, “Sign Me Up!” Thanks a million!
*
***
*
Photo credit: portrait of Pusey from For all the Saints (18 September 2014).
Summary: This is the first of two replies to E. B. Pusey’s Eirenicon (1866). Here I joyfully note many areas of agreement and discuss sola Scriptura and an infallible teaching Church.
Ecclesial Infallibility; Trent: Protestants Are Regenerated Christians By Virtue of Baptism; Total Clearness of Scripture?; St. Bernard & the Catholic Church on Meritorious Works
Photo credit: Johann Gerhard (1582-1637) [public domain / Internet Archive Open Library: Confessio Catholica]
Lutheran scholars and apologists widely consider Johann Gerhard (1582-1637), a Protestant scholastic, to be the most knowledgeable Lutheran apologist in history. What’s particularly notable about him is that he actually directly interacted with the best Catholic apologetics and theological sources (such as St. Robert Bellarmine: 1542-1621). According to the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannicaarticle on Gerhard, he was “regarded as the greatest living theologian of Protestant Germany.” And it described his multi-volume book, “the Confessio Catholica (1633–1637)” as “an extensive work which seeks to prove the evangelical and catholic character of the doctrine of the Augsburg Confession [1530, written by Philip Melanchthon] from the writings of approved Roman Catholic authors.”
*
Gerhard’s words will be in blue. The first volume of this work is 1008 pages, and is in the public domain. I will be utilizing Google Translate to render the original Latin into English (with my own slight modifications to make it more readable). I use RSV for scriptural citations.
*****
Paul the Apostle, arguing against the Gentiles, produces testimony from three gentile poets, . . .First, he opposes the philosophers of the Athenians from the Phenomena ofAratus [Acts 17:28]. . . The Corinthians, some of whom deny the flesh, adduce a different refutation from . . .Menander [1 Cor 15:33]. . . . The third is . . .Epimenidesof Crete [Acts 17:28; Titus 1:12]. . . . Moses, Christ, and Paul . . . bring to light the power of truth from the fact that it bursts forth even from the mouths of the unwilling.
Gerhard is explaining how one can appeal to certain portions of one’s opponents’ views (in this instance, Catholics) in order to bolster one’s own arguments, and how St. Paul used the same technique in his preaching and epistles. I fully agree with the principle, insofar as it is applicable in a given case. I edited an entire book consisting of “traditional / Catholic” utterances of Martin Luther.
I deny, of course, that Lutheran doctrine is entirely in accord with Catholic doctrine (so would, I’m pretty sure, the vast majority of Lutherans today), as Melanchthon seems to have vainly imagined in 1530; and that will be the thesis lying behind my replies in this series. But it’ll be fun to see Gerhard reiterate Melanchthon’s endeavor and give it the old college try.
Gerhard will be citing arguments from Catholics that he deems to be in harmony with Lutheran doctrine, just as I often happily note many points of teaching of Luther and Calvin that are perfectly consistent with our view. Truth is truth, wherever it is found (and unity is always to be sought as much as possible), and there is a lot of truth in Protestantism, unfortunately mixed with significant error.
Bellarmine, . . . Book 4, on Ecclesiastes, chapter 16, § 1, among the notes of Ecclesiastes, in the thirteenth place, refers to the confession of adversaries, and adds: “Such is the force of truth, that it sometimes compels even adversaries to give their testimony.”
He shows that Catholics like St. Robert Bellarmine also argue in the same fashion: citing opponents in agreement on particular points. I think virtually any good debater would be found doing the same.
The papal writers are fond of boasting the most.1. Of the infallibility of the Roman Church.Our argument is, writes Bellarmine, lib. 3. de Ecclesiastes, chap. 14, “The Church cannot err absolutely, neither in absolutely necessary things, nor in others, which it proposes to us to believe or do, whether they are expressly stated in the Scriptures or not.” . . . We do not construct such an argument against this boasting.When the sons of the Roman Church bring forth such things in controversial dogmas, which confirm our belief, then they either err or do not err.If the former is stated, the boasting of the Pontiffs that the Roman Church does not err is false.If the latter, the accusation of the Pontiffs that our churches are promoting erroneous dogmas is false.
The famous baseball pitcher of the 1930s, Dizzy Dean, once remarked that “it ain’t braggin’ if you can do it.” The first task in this discussion is to determine what the Bible teaches about the Church. Is it infallible in matters of doctrines made binding on Christian believers? And of course we argue that it is, and we do because we believe that the Bible teaches it.
The two clearest reasons why are the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15), in which a decision was made — confirmed by the Holy Spirit Himself (15:28) which makes it not only infallible but inspired — that was binding on Christians many hundreds of miles away, in Asia Minor (Turkey: see Acts 16:4). The second compelling prooftext is 1 Timothy 3:15 (“. . . the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.”), which, when analyzed deeply enough, strongly asserts ecclesial infallibility.
Once this is determined, then the relevant question is how to locate and identify the one true Church that is assumed to be in existence in Holy Scripture, as opposed to whether this Church is infallible or not. Gerhard assumes that the very claim is ridiculous “boasting” out of necessity, because, I submit, no Protestant can dare assert an infallible Church, lest their own claims become immediately ridiculous: seeing that in their relentless divisions, they can never completely agree with each other on doctrine. In that profoundly unbiblical scenario of denominationalism, infallibility isn’t even on the radar screen, since Protestants can’t even agree on things as basic as baptism and the Holy Eucharist. I have pointedly described this tragi-comic state of affairs as “the Protestant quest for uncertainty.”
Therefore, rather than seriously grapple with the biblical teaching regarding the Church, they must belittle one of our self-consistent claims to be in adherence to that same biblical teaching. This argument (or, rather, accusation, I should say) is just plain silly and unserious. It’s also fascinating and telling that Gerhard uses the term “our churches” — whereas Bellarmine is presupposing and discussing the biblical terminology of “the Church” and (for many and various other reasons) identifying this with the Catholic Church.
2. On the denial of the truth of our Churches.Bellarmine, book 4, on Ecclesiastes, chapter 16, writes: “Catholics are nowhere found praising the doctrine or life of any heretics.”Therefore, if it were demonstrated that the sons of the Roman Church in many ways praised and approved our doctrine, differing from the common confession of the Roman Church, and indeed in those very chapters about which there is controversy between us and the Pontiffs, Bellarmine would be forced to admit that either that boasting was vain and futile, or that we were not heretics.
There is a middle position here, which I think is the actual true state of affairs. Catholics don’t assert that Protestants are utter heretics in the sense that, say, Arians and Sabellians (those who deny the Holy Trinity) are. It’s a mixed bag of many lesser errors, but not the most dangerous and heretical ones, that remove one from the category of Christian altogether. And in fact, most Lutherans (including Luther and Melanchthon in the beginning) believe the same about Catholics. We hold that Protestants are partially heretical in those instances where they depart from constant apostolic tradition, passed down in the Catholic Church from the beginning.
The Council of Trent (which occurred before Gerhard was born), in its Canon IV on baptism stated that “baptism which is even given by heretics in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, with the intention of doing what the Church doth, is . . . true baptism” and even anathematizes those who would deny this. It inexorably follows that Protestants are fellow Christians in the Body of Christ. Contrary to a widespread myth, these notions were not invented in Vatican II in the 1960s. They are actually rooted in St. Augustine, who argued that Donatist baptisms were valid.
The Catholic Church has always taught that baptism regenerates; brings about the new birth (Council of Florence, 1439: “Through baptism . . . we are reborn spiritually”: Denzinger 1311; cf. 239). Trent itself in a different section (Decree on the Sacrament of Penance, ch. 2: Denz. 1671-1672, plainly states, by logical deduction (by the nature of baptism), that Protestants are fellow Christians in the Body of Christ:
The Church exercises judgment on no one who has not entered therein through the gate of baptism. . . . It is otherwise with those who are of the household of the faith, whom Christ our Lord has once, by the laver of baptism, made the members of His own body . . . For, by baptism putting on Christ, we are made therein entirely a new creature, obtaining a full and entire remission of all sins . . . baptism itself is for those who have not as yet been regenerated.
So, going back to Gerhard’s argument, Protestants are regarded as fellow Christians by Catholics because of baptism. We agree with Lutherans and some other Protestants, too, that baptism brings about spiritual regeneration and ushers one into the kingdom of God, in a state of good graces and initial total forgiveness of sins. Agreeing on this is highly significant, but it doesn’t follow that we deny that Lutherans are heretical in several other particular areas. Gerhard offers a false a vs. b choice of how to classify Lutherans from a Catholic perspective. The anathemas of Trent are complex as well, and do not sweepingly condemn all Protestants, let alone Lutherans. Even Pope Benedict XVI, when he was a theologian before becoming pope, confirmed that.
Bellarmine, in lib.3. on the Word of God chapter 1, argues among other things that the obscurity of Scripture is proved.
I’m sure he wasn’t contending that all Scripture is utterly obscure, but rather, that parts of it are obscure enough to require an authoritative interpreter, in order to bring about doctrinal unity. Protestants lack that very thing, and claim that Scripture is perspicuous (clear) enough for any layperson to understand it. Bellarmine had good solid scriptural grounds to argue in that way. When Ezra read “the book of the law of Moses which the LORD had given to Israel” to the people (Neh 8:1), note that reading / hearing alone wasn’t sufficient. Levites “helped the people to understand the law, . . . and they gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading” (8:7-8).
St. Peter described St. Paul’s letters as follows: “There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures” (2 Pet 3:16). And he stated, “no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation” (2 Pet 1:20). St. Philip heard the Ethiopian eunuch “reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, ‘Do you understand what you are reading?’ And he said, ‘How can I, unless some one guides me?’ ” (Acts 8:30-31). The risen Jesus’ encounter with the two men on the road to Emmaus is also very instructive in this regard:
Luke 24:25-27, 32, 45 And he said to them, “O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! [26] Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” [27] And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. . . . [32] They said to each other, “Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the scriptures?” . . . [45] Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures,
St. Paul noted how learning the Scripture and the Christian faith itself properly takes time; it’s not a simple process: “I fed you with milk, not solid food; for you were not ready for it; and even yet you are not ready” (1 Cor 3:2). The writer of Hebrews reiterates the same point:
Hebrews 5:11-14 About this we have much to say which is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. [12] For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need some one to teach you againthe first principles of God’s word. You need milk, not solid food; [13] for every one who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a child. [14] But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their faculties trained by practice to distinguish good from evil.
St. Paul warns about people who are “burdened with sins and swayed by various impulses, who will listen to anybody and can never arrive at a knowledge of the truth” (2 Tim 3:6-7) and those who “will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths” (2 Tim 4:3-4).
Jesus also warned about the potential dangers of following one’s own inclinations in theological matters, rather than true spiritual leaders in the Church: “many false prophets will arise and lead many astray” (Mt 24:11); “if any one says to you, ‘Lo, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. [24] For false Christs and false prophets will arise and show great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect” (24:23-24). Jesus even rebuked Nicodemus, a Pharisee sympathetic to Him, who would have been a teacher, in the matter of baptismal regeneration: “Are you a teacher of Israel, and yet you do not understand this?” (Jn 3:10).
This is why we need the Church to guide us. The Bible is clear that it’s not always clear just by reading it. If we try to do it on our own, much error will be present in too many people, and that’s exactly what we observe in Protestantism, where innumerable internal contradictions mean that either both or one of the parties who disagree with and contradict each other in any given instance are believing in falsehood. And that’s not good. It’s the devil who is the father of lies and all false doctrine. Erasmus, the great Catholic scholar, in opposing Martin Luther in 1526, wrote brilliantly about the shortcomings of perspicuity:
And then, as for what you say about the clarity of Scripture, would that it were absolutely true! But those who laboured mightily to explain it for many centuries in the past were of quite another opinion. (p. 129 of Hyperaspistes)
But if knowledge of grammar alone removes all obscurity from Sacred Scripture, how did it happen that St. Jerome, who knew all the languages, was so often at a loss and had to labour mightily to explain the prophets? Not to mention some others, among whom we find even Augustine, in whom you place some stock. Why is it that you yourself, who cannot use ignorance of languages as an excuse, are sometimes at a loss in explicating the psalms, testifying that you are following something you have dreamed up in your own mind, without condemning the opinions of others? . . . Finally, why do your ‘brothers’ disagree so much with one another? They all have the same Scripture, they all claim the same spirit. And yet Karlstadt disagrees with you violently. So do Zwingli and Oecolampadius and Capito, who approve of Karlstadt’s opinion though not of his reasons for it. Then again Zwingli and Balthazar are miles apart on many points. To say nothing of images, which are rejected by others, but defended by you, not to mention the rebaptism rejected by your followers but preached by others, and passing over in silence the fact that secular studies are condemned by others but defended by you. Since you are all treating the subject matter of Scripture, if there is no obscurity in it, why is there so much disagreement among you? (pp. 130-131)
Nor did I say that some places in Scripture offer difficulties in order to deter anyone from reading it, but rather to encourage readers to study it acutely and to discourage the inexperienced from making snap judgments. (p. 135)
But still, if I were growing weary of this church, as I wavered in perplexity, tell me, I beg you in the name of the gospel, where would you have me go? To that disintegrated congregation of yours, that totally dissected sect? Karlstadt has raged against you, and you in turn against him. And the dispute was not simply a tempest in a teapot but concerned a very serious matter. Zwingli and Oecolampadius have opposed your opinion in many volumes. And some of the leaders of your congregation agree with them, among whom is Capito. Then too what an all-out battles was fought by Balthazar and Zwingli! I am not even sure that there in that tiny little town you agree among yourselves very well. Here your disciples openly taught that the humanities are the bane of godliness, and no languages are to be learned except a bit of Greek and Hebrew, that Latin should be entirely ignored. There were those who would eliminate baptism and those who would repeat it; and there was no lack of those who persecute them for it. In some places images of the saints suffered a dire fate; you came to their rescue. When you book about reforming education was published, they said that the spirit had left you and that you were beginning to write in a human spirit opposed to the gospel, and they maintained you did it to please Melanchthon. A tribe of prophets has risen up there with whom you have engaged in most bitter conflict. Finally, just as every day new dogmas appear among you, so at the same time new quarrels arise. And you demand that no one should disagree with you, although you disagree so much among yourselves about matters of the greatest importance! (pp. 143-144)
You quarrel so much among yourselves, each of you claiming all the while to have the Spirit of Christ and a completely certain knowledge of Holy Scripture, how can you still . . . be outraged that an old man like me who knows nothing of theology should prefer to follow the authoritative consensus of the church rather than to join you, who dissent no less from the church than you dissent from each other? (p. 144)
You offend precisely in that you continually foist off on us your interpretation as the word of God . . . in interpreting Scripture I prefer to follow the judgment of the many orthodox teachers and of the church rather than that of you alone or of your few sworn followers . . . (pp. 180-181)
And so away with this ‘word of God, word of God.’ I am not waging war against the word of God but against your assertion; nor is the word of God inconsistent with itself but rather human interpretations collide with one another. If you are influenced by the judgment of the church, what you assert is human fabrication, what you fight against is the word of God. (p. 181)
I am not making the passages obscure, but rather God himself wanted there to be some obscurity in them, but in such a way that there would be enough light for the eternal salvation of everyone if he used his eyes and grace was there to help. No one denies that there is truth as clear as crystal in Holy Scripture, but sometimes it is wrapped and covered up by figures and enigmas so that it needs scrutiny and an interpreter. (pp. 219-220)
You say this as if I said that all Scripture is obscure and ambiguous, though I confess that it contains a treasure of eternal and most certain truth, but in some places the treasure is concealed and not open to just anybody, no matter who. (p. 223)
For which of them [the Church Fathers], in explaining the mysteries in these volumes, does not complain about the obscurity of Scripture? Not because they blame Scripture, as you falsely charge, but because they deplore the dullness of the human mind, not because they despair but because they implore grace from him who alone closes and opens to whomever he wishes, when he wishes, and as much as he wishes. (pp. 244-245)
Bernard . . . rejected . . . the merits of works . . .
Not at all. He taught precisely that which the Catholic Church teaches about merit (“both/and”), in harmony with 50 Bible passages: all the grace that alone and necessarily brings about good works comes from God, Who works with the person, who in turn cooperates with God; then God crowns His own gifts, in regarding the resultant voluntary good works as meritorious (as Augustine said). This is what the Catholic Church has always taught.
Hence, Trent, in its Decree on Justification, chapter 16, stated, “Jesus Christ Himself continually infuses his virtue into the said justified, — as the head into the members, and the vine into the branches, — and this virtue always precedes and accompanies and follows their good works, which without it could not in any wise be pleasing and meritorious before God . . .” (Denz. 1546). St. Bernard of Clairvaux [1090-1153] agrees:
If both the words and the works are not Paul’s, but God’s, Who speaketh in Paul or worketh through Paul; wherefore, in such case, are the merits Paul’s? Wherefore is it that he so confidently affirmed: “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith: henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give to me at that day”? Was it, perchance, that he was assured that the crown was laid up for him, because it was through him that those deeds were done?
But many good things are done by means of the wicked, whether angels or men; yet they are not reckoned unto them as meritorious. Or was it rather because they were done with him, that is to say, with his good will? “For,” saith he, “if I preach the gospel unwillingly, a stewardship hath been entrusted to me, but if willingly, I have whereof to glory.”
Moreover, if not so much as the very will, on which dependeth all merit, is from Paul himself; on what ground doth he speak of the crown, which he believeth to be laid up for him, as a crown of righteousness? Is it because whatsoever is even freely promised is yet asked for justly and as a matter of due? Finally he saith: “I know Whom I have believed, and I am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I have intrusted unto Him.” The promise of God he calls his deposit; and because he believed Him that promised, he asketh for the fulfilment of the promise. What was indeed promised in mercy is yet due in justice. Thus it is a crown of righteousness that Paul expecteth; but of God’s righteousness; not of his own. It is forsooth just that God should pay what He oweth; but it is what He hath promised that He oweth.
This then is the righteousness upon which the Apostle presumeth, namely, God’s fulfilment of His promise; lest, if, disdaining this righteousness, he would establish his own, he be not subject to the righteousness of God; when it was all the while God’s will that he should be partaker of His righteousness, in order that He might also make him meritorious of a crown. For He constituted him partaker of His righteousness, and meritorious of a crown, when He deigned to take him as His fellow-worker in the works as a reward for which the crown of righteousness was laid up. Further He made him His fellow-worker, when He made him His willing worker, that is to say, consentient with His will. Accordingly the will is held to be God’s aid; the aid it gives is held to be meritorious. If then, in such a case, the will is from God, so also is the merit. Nor is there any doubt but that both to will, and to perform according to the good will, are from God. God therefore is the author of merit, who both applieth the will to the work, and supplieth to the will the fulfilment of the work. (Concerning Grace And Free Will, chap. 14)
*
***
* Practical Matters: I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 5,000+ free online articles or fifty-six books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
*
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’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.
Summary: First of two replies to the “Confessio” of Lutheran theologian Johann Gerhard (1582-1637), in which he sought to confirm Lutheran doctrines by various Catholic statements.
Featuring an Emphasis on the Scriptural Data Regarding the Strong Influence of Jewish Tradition in Early Christianity
Photo credit: self-designed cover of my discontinued, self-published book (2009).
The material below was partially derived from a withdrawn book of mine, entitled 501 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura: Is the Bible the Only Infallible Authority? (2009). I wrote it as a direct result of a Protestant claiming that there were no arguments against sola Scriptura in the Bible (!). It was condensed and modified into my book, 100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura (Catholic Answers: May 2012).
The present goal is to utilize biblical passages only as arguments against sola Scriptura. I’ve added a great number of new additional passages. The only non-Bible portions of this article below will be the topical categories, explanatory “footnotes” (in blue font) and the following introduction for the purpose of carefully defining sola Scriptura (drawing from solid Protestant sources). All passages are from RSV.
*****
Table of Contents
1) Introduction / Definition
2) Oral Apostolic Proclamation and Tradition / Jesus’ Oral Preaching
3) Prophetic Oral Proclamation
4) Direct Supernatural Guidance from the Holy Spirit
5) Direct Supernatural Guidance from Dreams or Visions
6) Mosaic Law / Jewish Pharisaical & Apocalyptic Tradition
7) Jesus and Christians Attended Temple Worship and Sacrificial Rites
8) Jesus and Christians Attended Synagogues on the Sabbath
9) Jesus & Christians Observed Jewish Feasts
10) Oral Torah
11) Binding Authority in the One Church / Impermissibility of Competing Denominations
12) Definitive Interpretation of Scripture from Ecclesiastical Leaders
13) Apostolic Succession
*****
1) Introduction / Definition
The late Dr. Norman L. Geisler was a very prominent evangelical Protestant apologist, who published many books. His definition is as follows:
By sola Scriptura orthodox Protestants mean that Scripture alone is the primary and absolute source of authority, the final court of appeal, for all doctrine and practice (faith and morals). . . . What Protestants mean by sola Scriptura is that the Bible alone is the infallible written authority for faith and morals. . . . Scripture is the sufficient and final written authority of God. As to sufficiency, the Bible — nothing more, nothing less, and nothing else — is all that is necessary for faith and practice . . . This is not to say that Protestants obtain no help from the Fathers and early councils . . . this is not to say that there is no usefulness to Christian tradition, but only that it is of secondary importance. (Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences, co-author Ralph E. Mackenzie, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1995, 178)
Reformed Protestant writer Keith A. Mathison concurs, while emphasizing the role of the Church a little more strongly:
Scripture alone is inspired and inherently infallible. Scripture alone is the supreme normative standard. But Scripture does not exist in a vacuum. It was and is given to the Church within the doctrinal context of the apostolic gospel. Scripture alone is the only final standard, but it is a final standard that must be utilized, interpreted, and preached by the Church within its Christian context. . . .
It is important to notice that sola scriptura, properly understood, is not a claim that Scripture is the only authority altogether. . . . There are other real authorities which are subordinate and derivative in nature. Scripture, however, is the only inspired and inherently infallible norm, and therefore Scripture is the only final authoritative norm. (The Shape of Sola Scriptura, Moscow, Idaho: Canon Press, 2001, 259-260)
It must be emphasized that the fallibility of the Church does not render her authority invalid. (Ibid., 269)
But does the Bible itself teach that it’s the only infallible authority? Does it ever present the Church or tradition or oral apostolic or prophetic teaching or a “pope” as “infallible” or as a binding authority? I shall argue that the following biblical passages provide proof of all of those things, and more, and that therefore, sola Scriptura is a falsehood and not the biblical rule of faith. Catholics need to establish, based on unassailable biblical evidence, examples of tradition or Church proclamations that were binding and obligatory upon all who heard and received them. Whether these were infallible is another more complex question, but a binding decree is already either expressly contrary to sola Scriptura, or, at the very least, a thing that casts considerable doubt on the formal principle.
2) Oral Apostolic Proclamation and Tradition / Jesus’ Oral Preaching
Matthew 2:23 And he went and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, “He shall be called a Nazarene.” [“He shall be called a Nazarene ” cannot be found in the Old Testament, yet it was passed down “by the prophets” orally, rather than through Scripture]
Matthew 13:3 And he told them many things in parables, . . . (cf. Mk 4:2, 33) [i.e., not all were recorded]
Matthew 13:20 As for what was sown on rocky ground, this is he who hearsthe wordand immediately receives it with joy; (other instances of “the word”: Matt 13:21-23; Mk 2:2; 4:14-20,33; Lk 1:2; 8:12-13,15; Jn 1:1,14 [of Jesus]; Jn 14:24; Acts 6:4; 8:4; 11:19; 14:25; 16:6; Gal 6:6; Eph 5:26; Col 4:3; 1 Pet 3:1)
Matthew 28:20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age. [all of this was oral teaching, and almost certainly far more than we know about in the Gospels]
Mark 6:34 . . . he began to teach them many things. (cf. Lk 11:53) [not all were recorded]
Luke 3:2-3 in the high-priesthood of Annas and Ca’iaphas, the word of God came to John the son of Zechari’ah in the wilderness; and he went into all the region about the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
Luke 5:1 While the people pressed upon him to hear theword of God, he was standing by the lake of Gennes’aret. (other instances of “word of God”: Lk 8:11, 21; Acts 6:2; 13:5, 7, 44, 48; 17:13; 18:11; Rom 9:6; 1 Cor 14:36; Eph 6:17; Phil 1:14; Col 1:25; 1 Tim 4:5; 2 Tim 2:9; Titus 2:5; Heb 6:5; 13:7; 1 Jn 2:14; Rev 1:9; 20:4)
Luke 11:28 But he said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”
John 16:12 I have yetmany things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.
John 20:30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book;
John 21:25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.
Acts 1:2-3 until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commandment through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen. [3] To them he presented himself alive after his passion by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days, and speaking of the kingdom of God.
Acts 4:4 But many of those who heardthe wordbelieved; . . .
Acts 8:25 Now when they had testified and spoken theword of the Lord, they returned to Jerusalem, preaching the gospel to many villages of the Samaritans. (other instances of “word of the Lord”: Acts 15:36; 16:32; 19:10, 20; 1 Thess 1:8; 4:15)
Acts 10:36-37 You know the word which he sent to Israel, preaching good news of peace by Jesus Christ (he is Lord of all), [37] the word which was proclaimed throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee after the baptism which John preached:
Acts 11:1 Now the apostles and the brethren who were in Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received theword of God.
Acts 12:24 But theword of God grew and multiplied.
Acts 13:46, 49 And Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly, saying, “It was necessary that theword of God should be spoken first to you. . . . [49] And theword of the Lord spread throughout all the region.
Acts 14:3 So they remained for a long time, speaking boldly for the Lord, who bore witness to theword of his grace, granting signs and wonders to be done by their hands. (cf. 20:32)
Acts 15:7 And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear theword of the gospel and believe.”
Acts 15:27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things byword of mouth.
Acts 15:35 But Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch, teaching and preaching theword of the Lord, with many others also.
Romans 10:8 But what does it say? The word is near you, on your lips and in your heart (that is, theword of faith which we preach);
Romans 16:25 Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to therevelation of the mystery which was kept secret for long ages
1 Corinthians 2:1, 4, 13 When I came to you, brethren, I did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God in lofty words or wisdom. . . . [4] and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, . . . [13] And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit.
1 Corinthians 10:4 and all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ. [The OT says nothing about such miraculous movement, in the related passages about Moses striking the rock to produce water (Ex 17:1-7; Num 20:2-13). But rabbinic tradition does]
1 Corinthians 11:2 I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.
2 Corinthians 10:11 Let such people understand that what we say by letter when absent, we do when present.
Ephesians 1:13 . . . you also, who have heard theword of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and have believed in him, . . . (cf. 2 Tim 2:15)
Ephesians 3:2 assuming that you have heard of the stewardship of God’s grace that was given to me for you,
Ephesians 4:21 assuming that you have heard about him [Christ] and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus.
Philippians 4:9 What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do; and the God of peace will be with you. [The Philippians and the other churches Paul wrote to were bound to “do” not only what they learned from Paul’s letters, but also what they heard him orally teach]
Colossians 1:5 because of the hope laid up for you in heaven. Of this you have heard before in theword of the truth, the gospel
Colossians 1:23 . . . not shifting from the hope of the gospel which you heard, . . .
Colossians 2:8 See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ. [there are false “human” traditions which oppose the true tradition “according to Christ”]
1 Thessalonians 1:6 And you became imitators of us and of the Lord, for you received the word in much affliction, with joy inspired by the Holy Spirit;
1 Thessalonians 2:13 . . . when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers. [in 1 Thessalonians “Scripture” or “Scriptures” never appear. “Word,” “word of the Lord,” or “word of God” appear five times (1:6, 8, 2:13 [twice], 4:15), but in each instance it is clearly in the sense of oral proclamation, not Scripture]
1 Thessalonians 3:2-4 and we sent Timothy, our brother and God’s servant in the gospel of Christ, to establish you in your faith and to exhort you, [3] that no one be moved by these afflictions. You yourselves know that this is to be our lot. [4] For when we were with you, we told you beforehand that we were to suffer affliction; just as it has come to pass, and as you know.
2 Thessalonians 2:1-2, 5 Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our assembling to meet him, we beg you, brethren, [2] not to be quickly shaken in mind or excited, either by spirit or by word, or by letter purporting to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. . . . [5] Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you this?
2 Thessalonians 2:15 . . . stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth, or by letter.
2 Thessalonians 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.
2 Timothy 1:13-14 Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me . . . [14] guard the truth which has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.
2 Timothy 3:8: “As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses . . . ” [These two men cannot be found in the related Old Testament passage (Exodus 7:8 ff.), or anywhere else in the Old Testament.]
2 Timothy 4:2 preach the word, be urgent in season and out of season, convince, rebuke, and exhort, be unfailing in patience and in teaching.
Hebrews 1:7 Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you theword of God; consider the outcome of their life, and imitate their faith.
Hebrews 2:1-3 Therefore we must pay the closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it. [2] For if the message declared by angels was valid and every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution, [3] how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard him,
James 1:22 But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves.
1 Peter 1:25 “but theword of the Lord abides for ever.” That word is the good news which was preached to you.
1 John 2:7 Beloved, I am writing you no new commandment, but an old commandment which you had from the beginning; the old commandment isthe wordwhich you have heard.
1 John 2:24 Let what you heard from the beginning abide in you. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, then you will abide in the Son and in the Father.
1 John 3:11 For this is the message which you haveheard from the beginning, that we should love one another,
2 John 1:6 And this is love, that we follow his commandments; this is the commandment, as you haveheard from the beginning, that you follow love.
3) Prophetic Oral Proclamation
Deuteronomy 8:20-22 But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name which I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.’ [21] And if you say in your heart, `How may we know the word which the LORD has not spoken?’ — [22] when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word which the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously, you need not be afraid of him.
1 Samuel 9:27 . . . “that I [Samuel] may make known to you the word of God.”
1 Kings 12:22 But the word of God came to Shemai’ah the man of God:
1 Chronicles 29:29 Now the acts of King David, from first to last, are written in the Chronicles of Samuel the seer, and in the Chronicles of Nathan the prophet, and in the Chronicles of Gad the seer,
2 Chronicles 9:29 Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, from first to last, are they not written in the history of Nathan the prophet, and in the prophecy of Ahi’jah the Shi’lonite, and in the visions of Iddo the seer concerning Jerobo’am the son of Nebat?
2 Chronicles 12:15 Now the acts of Rehobo’am, from first to last, are they not written in the chronicles of Shemai’ah the prophet and of Iddo the seer? . . .
2 Chronicles 13:22 The rest of the acts of Abi’jah, his ways and his sayings, are written in the story of the prophet Iddo. [Wikipedia presents many more similar fascinating examples in its article,“Non-canonical books referenced in the Bible.”]
[“The Word of the LORD”appears 243 timesin the Protestant Old Testament (RSV); mostly coming through men. For example]:
Genesis 15:1 . . . the word of the LORD came to Abram in a vision . . .
Numbers 3:16 So Moses numbered them according to the word of the LORD, as he was commanded.
1 Samuel 3:21 . . . the LORD revealed himself to Samuel at Shiloh by the word of the LORD.
2 Samuel 7:4 But that same night the word of the LORD came to Nathan,
2 Samuel 24:11 . . . the word of the LORD came to the prophet Gad, David’s seer . . .
1 Kings 6:11 Now the word of the LORD came to Solomon,
1 Kings 14:18 . . . the word of the LORD, which he spoke by his servant Ahijah the prophet.
1 Kings 18:1 . . . the word of the LORD came to Elijah, . . .
2 Kings 20:19 Then said Hezekiah to Isaiah, “The word of the LORD which you have spoken is good.” . . .
2 Chronicles 36:21 to fulfil the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah . . .
[The prophet Ezekiel wrote down the phrase, “the word of the LORD came to me”49 times.]
Luke 1:67 And his [John the Baptist’s] father Zechari’ah was filled with the Holy Spirit, and prophesied, . . .
Luke 2:36 And there was a prophetess, Anna, . . .
Acts 2:17-18 ‘And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; [18] yea, and on my menservants and my maidservants in those days I will pour out my Spirit; and they shall prophesy.
Acts 6:2 And the twelve summoned the body of the disciples and said, “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables.”
Acts 8:25 Now when they had testified and spoken theword of the Lord, they returned to Jerusalem, preaching the gospel to many villages of the Samaritans.
Acts 11:27-28 Now in these days prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. And one of them named Agabus stood up and foretold by the Spirit that there would be a great famine over all the world; and this took place in the days of Claudius
Acts 13:1 Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers, Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyre’ne, Man’a-en a member of the court of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.
Acts 15:32 And Judas and Silas, who were themselves prophets, exhorted the brethren with many words and strengthened them.
Acts 19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.
Acts 21:9 And he [Philip] had four unmarried daughters, who prophesied.
Acts 21:10-11 While we were staying for some days, a prophet named Ag’abus came down from Judea. [11] And coming to us he took Paul’s girdle and bound his own feet and hands, and said, “Thus says the Holy Spirit, `So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man who owns this girdle and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.”
1 Corinthians 11:4-5 Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, [5] but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head — it is the same as if her head were shaven.
Ephesians 3:2-5 assuming that you have heard of the stewardship of God’s grace that was given to me for you, [3] how the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I have written briefly. [4] When you read this you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ, [5] which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
1 Thessalonians 5:19-20 Do not quench the Spirit, [20] do not despise prophesying,
1 Peter 4:10-11 As each has received a gift, employ it for one another, as good stewards of God’s varied grace: [11] whoever speaks, as one who utters oracles of God; . . .
2 Peter 3:2 . . . you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets . . .
[Jesus called John the Baptist “more than a prophet” (Lk 7:26) and stated, “among those born of women none is greater than John; yet he who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he” (Lk 7:28). St. Paul includes “prophets” — whom “God has appointed in the church” — as one of the Church offices (1 Cor 12:28-29; 14:29, 32, 37-38; Eph 4:11), and refers to “prophesy[ing]” (1 Cor 14:1, 3-5, 24, 31, 39) and “prophecy” (1 Cor 14:6, 22) and prophetic “revelation” (1 Cor 14:30) and noted the “prophetic utterances” that accompanied the ordination of Timothy (1 Tim 1:18; 4:14).]
***
“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”!If you have received benefit from this or any of my other 5,000+ articles, please follow my blog by signing up (with your email address) on the sidebar to the right (you may have to scroll down a bit), above where there is an icon bar, “Sign Me Up!”: to receive notice when I post a new blog article. This is the equivalent of subscribing to a YouTube channel. My blog was rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT: endorsed by influential Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Actually, I partner with Kenny Burchard on the YouTube channel, Catholic Bible Highlights. Please subscribe there, too! Please also consider following me on Twitter / X and purchasing one or more of my 55 books. All of this helps me get more exposure, and (however little!) more income for my full-time apologetics work. Thanks so much and happy reading!
***
4) Direct Supernatural Guidance from the Holy Spirit
Numbers 11:29 But Moses said to him, “. . . Would that all the LORD’s people were prophets, that the LORD would put his spirit upon them!”
2 Chronicles 24:20 Then the Spirit of God took possession of Zechari’ah the son of Jehoi’ada the priest; and he stood above the people, and said to them, “Thus says God, . . .”
Nehemiah 9:30 Many years thou didst bear with them, and didst warn them by thy Spirit through thy prophets . . .
Ezekiel 3:24 But the Spirit entered into me, and set me upon my feet; and he spoke with me . . .
Ezekiel 11:5 And the Spirit of the LORD fell upon me, and he said to me, . . .
Zechariah 7:12 . . . the words which the LORD of hosts had sent by his Spirit through the former prophets. . . .
Mark 12:36 David himself, inspired by the Holy Spirit, declared, . . .
Mark 13:11 And when they bring you to trial and deliver you up, do not be anxious beforehand what you are to say; but say whatever is given you in that hour, for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit. (cf. Mt 10:19-20; Lk 12:11-12)
Luke 2:25-27 Now there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon, and this man was righteous and devout, looking for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon him. [26] And it had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he should not see death before he had seen the Lord’s Christ. [27] And inspired by the Spirit he came into the temple . . .
John 14:16-17 And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever, [17] even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you.
John 14:26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.
John 15:26 But when the Counselor comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness to me;
John 16:13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.
Acts 1:16 Brethren, the scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David, . . .
Acts 4:31 And when they had prayed, the place in which they were gathered together was shaken; and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke theword of God with boldness.
Acts 8:29 And the Spirit said to Philip, “Go up and join this chariot.”
Acts 10:19-20 And while Peter was pondering the vision, the Spirit said to him, “Behold, three men are looking for you. [20] Rise and go down, and accompany them without hesitation; for I have sent them.”
Acts 11:12 And the Spirit told me to go with them . . .
Acts 13:2, 4 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” . . . [4] . . . sent out by the Holy Spirit . . .
Acts 16:6-7 And they went through the region of Phry’gia and Galatia, having been forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia. [7] And when they had come opposite My’sia, they attempted to go into Bithyn’ia, but the Spirit of Jesus did not allow them;
Acts 28:25 Paul had made one statement: “The Holy Spirit was right in saying to your fathers through Isaiah the prophet: (see 28:26-27)
Romans 8:14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.
1 Corinthians 2:10, 12-13 God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. . . . [12] Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God, that we might understand the gifts bestowed on us by God. [13] And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit. (cf. 2:14)
1 Corinthians 12:3-11 Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking by the Spirit of God ever says “Jesus be cursed!” and no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except by the Holy Spirit. [4] Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; [5] and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; [6] and there are varieties of working, but it is the same God who inspires them all in every one. [7] To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. [8] To one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, [9] to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, [10] to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. [11] All these are inspired by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills.
Galatians 4:6 And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!”
2 Timothy 1:14 guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.
1 Peter 1:12 . . . those who preached the good news to you through the Holy Spirit . . .
2 Peter 1:21 . . . no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. (cf. 1:19: ” the prophetic word”)
5) Direct Supernatural Guidance from Dreams or Visions
Genesis 15:1 After these things the word of the LORD came to Abram in a vision, “Fear not, Abram, I am your shield; your reward shall be very great.”
Genesis 20:3 But God came to Abim’elech in a dream by night, and said to him, . . . (cf. 20:6)
Genesis 28:12-16 And he [Jacob] dreamed that there was a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven; and behold, the angels of God were ascending and descending on it! [13] And behold, the LORD stood above it and said, “I am the LORD, the God of Abraham your father and the God of Isaac; the land on which you lie I will give to you and to your descendants; [14] and your descendants shall be like the dust of the earth, and you shall spread abroad to the west and to the east and to the north and to the south; and by you and your descendants shall all the families of the earth bless themselves. [15] Behold, I am with you and will keep you wherever you go, and will bring you back to this land; for I will not leave you until I have done that of which I have spoken to you.” [16] Then Jacob awoke from his sleep and said, “Surely the LORD is in this place; and I did not know it.”
Genesis 31:11-13 Then the angel of God said to me in the dream, ‘Jacob,’ and I said, ‘ere I am!’ [12] And he said, ‘Lift up your eyes and see, all the goats that leap upon the flock are striped, spotted, and mottled; for I have seen all that Laban is doing to you. [13] I am the God of Bethel, where you anointed a pillar and made a vow to me. Now arise, go forth from this land, and return to the land of your birth.'”
Genesis 31:24 . . . God came to Laban the Aramean in a dream by night, and said to him, . . .
Genesis 41:25 Then Joseph said to Pharaoh, “The dream of Pharaoh is one; God has revealed to Pharaoh what he is about to do.”
Genesis 46:2 And God spoke to Israel in visions of the night, and said, “Jacob, Jacob.” And he said, “Here am I.”
Numbers 12:6 And he said, “Hear my words: If there is a prophet among you, I the LORD make myself known to him in a vision, I speak with him in a dream.
1 Samuel 3:1, 4 Now the boy Samuel was ministering to the LORD under Eli. And the word of the LORD was rare in those days; there was no frequent vision. . . . [4] Then the LORD called, “Samuel! Samuel!” and he said, “Here I am!”
1 Samuel 28:6 And when Saul inquired of the LORD, the LORD did not answer him, either by dreams, or by Urim, or by prophets.
2 Samuel 7:17 In accordance with all these words, and in accordance with all this vision, Nathan spoke to David. (see 7:4; 1 Chr 17:15)
1 Kings 3:5 At Gibeon the LORD appeared to Solomon in a dream by night; and God said, “Ask what I shall give you.”
2 Chronicles 9:29 Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, from first to last, are they not written in the history of Nathan the prophet, and in the prophecy of Ahi’jah the Shi’lonite, and in the visions of Iddo the seer concerning Jerobo’am the son of Nebat?
2 Chronicles 32:32 Now the rest of the acts of Hezeki’ah, and his good deeds, behold, they are written in the vision of Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz, in the Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel.
Psalm 89:19 Of old thou didst speak in a vision to thy faithful one, and say: “I have set the crown upon one who is mighty, I have exalted one chosen from the people.”
Isaiah 1:1 The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzzi’ah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezeki’ah, kings of Judah.
Isaiah 29:10-11 For the LORD has poured out upon you a spirit of deep sleep, and has closed your eyes, the prophets, and covered your heads, the seers.
[11] And the vision of all this has become to you like the words of a book that is sealed. . . .
Jeremiah 23:28 Let the prophet who has a dream tell the dream, but let him who has my word speak my word faithfully. . . .
Jeremiah 24:1 . . . the LORD showed me this vision . . .
Jeremiah 38:21 But if you refuse to surrender, this is the vision which the LORD has shown to me:
Ezekiel 1:1 In the thirtieth year, in the fourth month, on the fifth day of the month, as I was among the exiles by the river Chebar, the heavens were opened, and I saw visions of God.
Ezekiel 8:3-4 . . . the Spirit lifted me up between earth and heaven, and brought me in visions of God to Jerusalem, . . . [4] And behold, the glory of the God of Israel was there, like the vision that I saw in the plain.
Ezekiel 11:24 And the Spirit lifted me up and brought me in the vision by the Spirit of God into Chalde’a, to the exiles. Then the vision that I had seen went up from me.
Ezekiel 12:23 Tell them therefore, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD: I will put an end to this proverb, and they shall no more use it as a proverb in Israel.’ But say to them, ‘The days are at hand, and the fulfilment of every vision.’ [the prophets also often describe false visions from false prophets — e.g., Ezek 13:7, 9, 16, 23 –, but the counterfeit is no disproof of the genuine . . .]
Ezekiel 40:1-2 . . . the hand of the LORD was upon me, [2] and brought me in the visions of God into the land of Israel, and set me down upon a very high mountain, on which was a structure like a city opposite me.
Ezekiel 43:3 And the vision I saw was like the vision which I had seen when he came to destroy the city, and like the vision which I had seen by the river Chebar; and I fell upon my face.
Daniel 1:17 . . . Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams.
Daniel 2:19 Then the mystery was revealed to Daniel in a vision of the night. Then Daniel blessed the God of heaven.
Daniel 2:28 but there is a God in heaven who reveals mysteries, and he has made known to King Nebuchadnez’zar what will be in the latter days. Your dream and the visions of your head as you lay in bed are these:
Daniel 2:45 [Daniel said to Nebuchadnezzar] “just as you saw that a stone was cut from a mountain by no human hand, and that it broke in pieces the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold. A great God has made known to the king what shall be hereafter. The dream is certain, and its interpretation sure.”
Daniel 7:1 In the first year of Belshaz’zar king of Babylon, Daniel had a dream and visions of his head as he lay in his bed. Then he wrote down the dream, and told the sum of the matter. [what follows is one of the most well-known messianic prophecies]
Daniel 8:1 In the third year of the reign of King Belshaz’zar a vision appeared to me, Daniel, . . . [many more mentions of visions occur in Daniel, chapters 4, 7-10]
Hosea 12:10 I spoke to the prophets; it was I who multiplied visions, and through the prophets gave parables.
Joel 2:28 And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit on all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions. [cited in Acts 2:17; Peter applied it to the events on the Day of Pentecost, including miraculous speaking in other languages]
Habakkuk 2:2 And the LORD answered me: “Write the vision; make it plain upon tablets, . . .”
Matthew 1:20 But as he considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit;
Matthew 2:12-13 And being warned in a dream not to return to Herod, they departed to their own country by another way. [13] Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, “Rise, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there till I tell you; for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him.”
Matthew 2:19-20 But when Herod died, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, saying, [20] “Rise, take the child and his mother, and go to the land of Israel, for those who sought the child’s life are dead.”
Matthew 27:19 Besides, while he [Pontius Pilate] was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent word to him, “Have nothing to do with that righteous man, for I have suffered much over him today in a dream.”
Luke 1:21-22 And the people were waiting for Zechari’ah, and they wondered at his delay in the temple. [22] And when he came out, he could not speak to them, and they perceived that he had seen a vision in the temple; and he made signs to them and remained dumb.
Acts 9:10 Now there was a disciple at Damascus named Anani’as. The Lord said to him in a vision, “Anani’as.” And he said, “Here I am, Lord.”
Acts 10:3 About the ninth hour of the day he saw clearly in a vision an angel of God coming in and saying to him, “Cornelius.”
Acts 10:17, 19 . . . Peter was inwardly perplexed as to what the vision which he had seen might mean, . . . [19] . . . while Peter was pondering the vision, the Spirit said to him, “Behold, three men are looking for you.”
Acts 11:5 “I was in the city of Joppa praying; and in a trance I saw a vision, something descending, like a great sheet, let down from heaven by four corners; and it came down to me.” (cf. 12:9)
Acts 16:9-10 And a vision appeared to Paul in the night: a man of Macedo’nia was standing beseeching him and saying, “Come over to Macedo’nia and help us.” [10] And when he had seen the vision, immediately we sought to go on into Macedo’nia, concluding that God had called us to preach the gospel to them.
Acts 18:9 And the Lord said to Paul one night in avision, “Do not be afraid, but speak and do not be silent;”
Acts 26:19 “Wherefore, O King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision,”
2 Corinthians 12:1-4 . . . I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord. [2] I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven — whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows. [3] And I know that this man was caught up into Paradise — whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows — [4] and he heard things that cannot be told, which man may not utter.
Revelation 4:1 After this I looked, and lo, in heaven an open door! And the first voice, which I had heard speaking to me like a trumpet, said, “Come up hither, and I will show you what must take place after this.”
Revelation 7:1 After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, . . . [the phrase “I saw” occurs 39 times in the book of Revelation, and “I heard” 25 times; also 14 timesin Ezekiel]
Revelation 9:17 And this was how I saw the horses in my vision: . . .
Revelation 10:1 Then I saw another mighty angel coming down from heaven, . . .
Revelation 12:1 And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars;
Revelation 13:1 And I saw a beast rising out of the sea, with ten horns and seven heads, . . .
Revelation 21:1 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more.
[also, the many biblically sanctioned communications from angels or from God Himself to man (such as the burning bush or various theophanies and encounters with the Angel of the Lord, and in, particularly, Isaiah, Daniel, Revelation, and the appearance of Jesus to the unconverted Paul) fall under this general category, too. I won’t even bother listing them. They could well be an additional hundred or more passages. They all convey absolute, undoubted, inspired truth, and so they constitute yet more contra-sola Scriptura scriptural data]
6) Mosaic Law / Jewish Pharisaical & Apocalyptic Tradition
Matthew 5:17-20 “Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. [18] For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. [19] Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. [20] For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” [Jesus’ condemnations, many believe, were broadly directed towards the Pharisees of the school ofShammai, whereas Jesus was closer to the school ofHillel. This seems to reflect Leviticus Rabbah 19:2: Should all the nations of the world unite to uproot one word of the Torah, they would be unable to do it.”]
Matthew 15:3-9 He answered them, “And why do you transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? [4] For God commanded, `Honor your father and your mother,’ and, `He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die.’ [5] But you say, ‘If any one tells his father or his mother, What you would have gained from me is given to God, he need not honor his father.’ [6] So, for the sake of your tradition, you have made void the word of God. [7] You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said: [8] ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; [9] in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.'” (cf. Mk 7:8-9, 13) [Jesus was rebuking this particular Pharisaical tradition as a corruption of the ten commandments. His point isn’t “anti-tradition” per se; rather, it’s “pro-God’s tradition” over against false “precepts of men”]
Matthew 19:17-19 . . . “If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” [18] He said to him, “Which?” And Jesus said, “You shall not kill, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, [19] Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (cf. Mk 10:17-19; Lk 18:18-20)
Matthew 23:2-3 “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; [3] so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.” [here is legitimate, binding authority, but the phrase (and idea) of Moses’ seat cannot be found anywhere in the OT. It is found in the (originally oral) Mishna, where a sort of “teaching succession” from Moses on down is taught. Jesus referenced the Pharisees’ oral traditions and interpretations of the written Torah]
Mark 6:56 . . . the fringe of his garment . . . [cf. Mt 14:36 and Num 15:38: “tassels on the corners of their garments”]
Luke 1:5-6 In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechari’ah, of the division of Abi’jah; and he had a wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. [6] And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. [Protestants claim that no one can perfectly keep the Law, but they did; so did Paul: Phil 3:6 below]
John 11:49-52 But one of them, Ca’iaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all; [50] you do not understand that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish.” [51] He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation, [52] and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.
Acts 15:5 . . . some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees . . . [Christians, following Paul’s self-description, are described as Pharisees]
Acts 23:1-5 And Paul, looking intently at the council, said, “Brethren, I have lived before God in all good conscience up to this day.” [2] And the high priest Anani’as commanded those who stood by him to strike him on the mouth. [3] Then Paul said to him, “God shall strike you, you whitewashed wall! Are you sitting to judge me according to the law, and yet contrary to the law you order me to be struck?” [4] Those who stood by said, “Would you revile God’s high priest?” [5] And Paul said, “I did not know, brethren, that he was the high priest; for it is written, `You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.'” [Paul believes he is still under the authority of the Jewish high priest: who was even a Sadducee. According to The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Ananias was “lawless and violent . . . haughty, unscrupulous, filling his sacred office for purely selfish and political ends” (vol. 1, p. 129). But Paul nonetheless showed him respect; even regarding him as his own “ruler”.]
Acts 23:6 . . . “Brethren, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees . . .” [Paul twice describes himself as a Pharisee at his trial. The Pharisees accepted oral tradition, given to Moses on Mt. Sinai]
Acts 26:4-5 “My manner of life from my youth, spent from the beginning among my own nation and at Jerusalem, is known by all the Jews. [5] They have known for a long time, if they are willing to testify, that according to the strictest party of our religion I have lived as a Pharisee.” [St. Paul didn’t think that Christianity and Judaism were two separate religions]
Philippians 3:5-6 circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews; as to the law a Pharisee, [6] as to zeal a persecutor of the church, as to righteousness under the law blameless. [note that St. Paul kept the law in a “blameless” fashion]
1 Peter 3:19 in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison, [at least two ancient Jewish texts refer to fallen angels in a similar way; e.g.,1 Enoch18:13-16: “. . . the spot was desolate. And there I beheld seven stars, like great blazing mountains, and like spirits entreating me. Then the angel said, This place, until the consummation of heaven and earth, will be the prison of the stars, and the host of heaven. The stars which roll over fire are those which transgressed the commandment of God before their time arrived; for they came not in their proper season. Therefore was He offended with them, and bound them, until the period of the consummation of their crimes . . .”; or2 Enoch7:1-2: “And those men took me and led me up on to the second heaven, and showed me darkness, greater than earthly darkness, and there I saw prisoners hanging, watched, awaiting the great and boundless judgment, and these angels were dark-looking, more than earthly darkness, and incessantly making weeping through all hours. And I said to the men who were with me: Wherefore are these incessantly tortured? They answered me: These are God’s apostates, who obeyed not God’s commands, but took counsel with their own will, and turned away with their prince, who also is fastened on the fifth heaven.” 1 Enoch dates from c. 300-100 BC;2 Enoch probably from the first century]
Jude 9 But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, “The Lord rebuke you.” [not found in the OT, but Origen (De Principiis, Bk III, ch. 2, sec, 1) traced it to the presently incomplete 1st century work, The Assumption of Moses]
Jude 14-15 It was of these also that Enoch in the seventh generation from Adam prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord came with his holy myriads, [15] to execute judgment on all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness which they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him. [direct citation of1 Enoch2:1: “Behold, he comes with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment upon them, and destroy the wicked, and reprove all the carnal for everything which the sinful and ungodly have done, and committed against him.” Note how Jude — writing inspired, God-breathed Scripture (2 Tim 3:16) — assumes that this is legitimate prophecy]
7) Jesus and Christians Attended Temple Worship and Sacrificial Rites
Matthew 5:23-24 So if you are offering your gift at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, [24] leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. [Mishnah: Yoma 8:9: “If a man said, “I will sin and repent, and sin again and repent”, he will be given no chance to repent. [If he said,] “I will sin and the Day of Atonement will effect atonement”, then the Day of Atonement effects no atonement. For transgressions that are between man and God the Day of Atonement effects atonement, but for transgressions that are between a man and his fellow the Day of Atonement effects atonement only if he has appeased his fellow.”]
Mark 14:12 And on the first day of Unleavened Bread, when they sacrificed the passover lamb, his disciples said to him, “Where will you have us go and prepare for you to eat the passover?”
Luke 2:22-24 And when the time came for their purification according to the law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord
[23] (as it is written in the law of the Lord, “Every male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord”) [24] and to offer a sacrifice according to what is said in the law of the Lord, “a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.”
Luke 2:41-43 Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the Passover. [42] And when he was twelve years old, they went up according to custom; [43] and when the feast was ended, as they were returning, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem.
Luke 5:14 And he charged him to tell no one; but “go and show yourself to the priest, and make an offering for your cleansing, as Moses commanded, for a proof to the people.” (cf. Mt 8:4; Mk 1:44)
Luke 22:7-8 Then came the day of Unleavened Bread, on which the passover lamb had to be sacrificed. [8] So Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, “Go and prepare the passover for us, that we may eat it.” [the Last Supper included a lamb sacrificed at the temple]
Acts 2:46 And day by day, attending the temple together . . . [this would have certainly included St. Paul, too, when he was in Jerusalem, and he himself alludes to his presence in the Temple (Acts 24:12) ]
Acts 3:1 Now Peter and John were going up to the temple at the hour of prayer, the ninth hour. [The notes in my RSV explain that the ninth hour was 3 PM “when sacrifice was offered with prayer (Ex 29.39; Lev 6.20; Josephus, Ant. xiv.4.3).”]
Acts 21:26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day he purified himself with them and went into the temple, to give notice when the days of purification would be fulfilled and the offering presented for every one of them.
Acts 24:11-12 As you may ascertain, it is not more than twelve days since I went up to worship at Jerusalem; [12] and they did not find me disputing with any one or stirring up a crowd, either in the temple or in the synagogues, . . . (cf. 22:17)
Acts 24:17-18 Now after some years I came to bring to my nation alms and offerings. [18] As I was doing this, they found me purified in the temple, . . .
8) Jesus and Christians Attended Synagogues on the Sabbath
Mark 1:21 And they went into Caper’na-um; and immediately on the sabbath he entered the synagogue and taught. (cf. 1:39; Mt 4:23; 9:35; 13:54)
Mark 6:2 And on the sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue . . .
Luke 4:15-16 And he taught in their synagogues, being glorified by all. [16] And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up; and he went to the synagogue, as his custom was, on the sabbath day. And he stood up to read; (cf. 4:44)
Luke 6:6 On another sabbath, when he entered the synagogue and taught . . .
Luke 13:10 Now he was teaching in one of the synagogues on the sabbath. (cf. Jn 6:59; 18:20)
Acts 9:20 And in the synagogues immediately he [Paul] proclaimed Jesus, saying, “He is the Son of God.”
Acts 13:5 When they arrived at Sal’amis, they proclaimed the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews. . . .
Acts 13:13-16 Now Paul and his company set sail from Paphos, and came to Perga in Pamphyl’ia. And John left them and returned to Jerusalem; [14] but they passed on from Perga and came to Antioch of Pisid’ia. And on the sabbath day they went into the synagogue and sat down. [15] After the reading of the law and the prophets, the rulers of the synagogue sent to them, saying, “Brethren, if you have any word of exhortation for the people, say it.” [16] So Paul stood up, and motioning with his hand said: (cf. 14:1)
Acts 17:1-2 Now when they had passed through Amphip’olis and Apollo’nia, they came to Thessaloni’ca, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. [2] And Paul went in, as was his custom, and for three weeks he argued with them from the scriptures, (cf. 17:10, 17; 18:7-8)
Acts 18:4 And he argued in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded Jews and Greeks. (cf. 18:19, 26; 19:8)
9) Jesus & Christians Observed Jewish Feasts
John 2:13, 23 The Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. . . . [23] Now when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover feast, many believed in his name when they saw the signs which he did;
John 4:45 So when he came to Galilee, the Galileans welcomed him, having seen all that he had done in Jerusalem at the feast, for they too had gone to the feast.
John 5:1 After this there was a feast of the Jews, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. [either the feast of unleavened bread or the feast of tabernacles or booths: Lev 23:34]
John 10:22-23 It was the feast of the Dedication at Jerusalem; [23] it was winter, and Jesus was walking in the temple, in the portico of Solomon. [this is another name for the feast of Hanukkah, which falls in December, near Christmas]
Acts 2:1 When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. [feast of Pentecost or weeks: Lev 23:15-22]
Acts 20:6 but we sailed away from Philip’pi after the days of Unleavened Bread, . . .
1 Corinthians 5:8 Let us, therefore, celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. [feast of unleavened bread: Lev 23:6]
1 Corinthians 16:8 But I will stay in Ephesus until Pentecost,
10) Oral Torah
Exodus 23:19 . . . “You shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk.” (cf. 34:26; Dt 14:21) [this is all we have in the OT regarding the common traditional Jewish prohibition of mixing meat and dairy products (which I first heard of when I visited Israel in 2014). MishnahChullinis the written version of the oral Torah that expands this far more broadly than the original very specific application]
Jeremiah 17:21-22, 27 Thus says the LORD: Take heed for the sake of your lives, and do not bear a burden on the sabbath day or bring it in by the gates of Jerusalem. [22] And do not carry a burden out of your houses on the sabbath or do any work, but keep the sabbath day holy, as I commanded your fathers. . . . [27] But if you do not listen to me, to keep the sabbath day holy, and not to bear a burden and enter by the gates of Jerusalem on the sabbath day, then I will kindle a fire in its gates, and it shall devour the palaces of Jerusalem and shall not be quenched. [nothing in the Pentateuch prohibits carrying things out of one’s house on the Sabbath, yet Jeremiah informs us that Jerusalem was destroyed in part due to this violation. If it’s not part of written Mosaic Law, then it must be attributed to the oral Torah that the mainstream pharisaical tradition believed was also given to Moses on Mt. Sinai]
Matthew 5:21-22 “You have heard that it was said to the men of old, `You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.’ [22] But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, `You fool!’ shall be liable to the hell of fire. [Talmud: Bava Mezia 58b: “He who publicly shames his neighbour is as though he shed blood”]
Matthew 5:27-28 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ [28] But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” [Jesus drew from the oral Torah, specifically fromLeviticus Rabba: “Adultery can be committed with the eyes.” The Sermon on the Mount was primarily a condemnation of the heretical doctrines of the Saduccees, and an endorsement of the doctrines of the Pharisees]
Matthew 5:29-30 If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. [30] And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell. [Jesus drew from the oral Torah later written inNiddah 13b: “R. Eleazar stated: Who are referred to in the Scriptural text, Your hands are full of blood? Those that commit masturbation with their hands. It was taught at the school of R. Ishmael, Thou shalt not commit adultery implies, Thou shalt not practise masturbation either with hand or with foot.”]
Matthew 5:39 . . . I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also [in the Talmud, a person struck in this way is urged to forgive even if the offender doesn’t ask forgiveness (Tosefta Baba Kanima 9:29). People are commanded to cheerfully submit to suffering (Yoma 23a)]
Matthew 5:44 . . . I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, [this idea is found in the Talmud: Yoma 23a, Gitin 36b, and Shabat 88b]
Matthew 6:7 And in praying do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do; for they think that they will be heard for their many words. [Talmud: Berachot 55a: “If one draws out his prayer and expects therefore its fulfilment, he will in the end suffer vexation of heart, . . .”]
Matthew 6:25 Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you shall eat or what you shall drink, nor about your body, what you shall put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? [Talmud: Sotah 48b: “Rabbi Eliezer the Great declares: Whoever has a piece of bread in his basket and says, ‘What shall I eat tomorrow?’ belongs only to them who are little in faith.“]
Matthew 11:25 At that time Jesus declared, “I thank thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to babes;” [Talmud: Bava Batra 12b: “Rabbi Johanan said: Since the Temple was destroyed, prophecy has been taken from prophets and given to fools and children.”]
Matthew 12:10-12 And behold, there was a man with a withered hand. And they asked him, “Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath?” so that they might accuse him. [11] He said to them, “What man of you, if he has one sheep and it falls into a pit on the sabbath, will not lay hold of it and lift it out? [12] Of how much more value is a man than a sheep! So it is lawful to do good on the sabbath.” [The rabbis in the Talmud (oral Torah) cited Hosea 6:6, that helping people was of greater importance than observing the rituals and customs (Sukkah 49b, Deuteronomy Rabbah on 16:18, etc.), just as Jesus did]
Matthew 25:45 Then he will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.’ [Tosefta Sh’vuot, ch. 3: “One who betrays his fellow, it is as if he has betrayed God”]
Mark 2:27 And he said to them, “The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath;” [this phrase appears in the Talmud (Mekilta 103b, and Yoma 85b: “Rabbi Jonathan ben Joseph said: For it is holy unto you; I.e., it [the Sabbath] is committed to your hands, not you to its hands”), and was believed by many rabbis in Jesus’s day: particularly in the School of Hillel]
Acts 7:38 This is he who was in the congregation in the wilderness with the angel who spoke to him at Mount Sinai, and with our fathers; and he received living oracles to give to us.
Romans 3:2 . . . the Jews are entrusted with the oracles of God. [possibly refers to the oral Torah along with the written]
11) Binding Authority in the One Church / Impermissibility of Competing Denominations
Matthew 16:18-19 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. [19] I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Luke 22:31-32 “Simon, Simon [Peter], behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, [32] but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.”
John 17:19-23 [Jesus praying for His disciples] And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth. [20] “I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, [21] that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. [22] The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, [23] I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me.
John 21:15-17 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” [16] A second time he said to him, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” [17] He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” And he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep.”
Acts 4:32 Now the company of those who believed were of one heart and soul, . . .
Acts 14:22-23 strengthening the souls of the disciples, exhorting them to continue in the faith, and saying that through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God. [23] And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting they committed them to the Lord in whom they believed.
Acts 15:28-29 “For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: [29] that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”[This infallible and arguably inspired binding declaration (see Acts 16:4) — confirmed by the Holy Spirit — in the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:7-11) was essentially based on a “vision” (10:17) that God gave St. Peter (10:11-16), and helped him understand by sending to him the Gentile centurion, Cornelius (10:25 ff.), to whom He had communicated by an angel (10:22, 30-32). Virtually none of this process was directly related to Scripture or the written Mosaic Law at all. Three of the four had to do with food. (Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25). Two of these derived from the oral Torah: abstaining from food sacrificed to idols (Mishnah Avodah Zarah 23a) and foods that were strangled (Mishnah Chullin, which addresses matters of “non-sacred consumption of meat, such as ritual slaughter of non-consecrated animals”).]
Acts 16:4 . . . they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem.[Paul was proclaiming the conciliar decision in Jerusalem as binding upon Christians hundreds of miles away in Asia Minor (Turkey)]
Acts 20:28 Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son.
1 Corinthians 1:10, 13 I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. . . . [13] Is Christ divided? . . .
1 Corinthians 10:17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.
1 Corinthians 12:12-14, 20 For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. [13] For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body — Jews or Greeks, slaves or free — and all were made to drink of one Spirit. [14] For the body does not consist of one member but of many.. . . [20] As it is, there are many parts, yet one body.
Ephesians 4:4-5, 13-16 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, [5] one Lord, one faith, one baptism, . . . [13] until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ; [14] so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. [15] Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, [16] from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by every joint with which it is supplied, when each part is working properly, makes bodily growth and upbuilds itself in love.
Colossians 2:6-7 As therefore you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so live in him, [7] rooted and built up in him and established in the faith, . . .
1 Timothy 2:4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
1 Timothy 3:15 . . . the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. [seemy analysis of this passage, showing how it proves the infallibility of the Church]
1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons,
1 Timothy 4:3 . . . those who believe and know the truth.
2 Timothy 2:25 God may perhaps grant that they will repent and come to know thetruth,
2 Timothy 3:7-8 who will listen to anybody and can never arrive at a knowledge of thetruth. [8] As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of corrupt mind and counterfeit faith;
Titus 1:5 . . . appoint elders in every town as I directed you,
1 Peter 5:1-5 So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ as well as a partaker in the glory that is to be revealed. [2] Tend the flock of God that is your charge, not by constraint but willingly, not for shameful gain but eagerly, [3] not as domineering over those in your charge but being examples to the flock. [4] And when the chief Shepherd is manifested you will obtain the unfading crown of glory. [5] Likewise you that are younger be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for “God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.”
1 John 2:21 I write to you, not because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and know that no lie is of the truth.
12) Definitive Interpretation of Scripture from Ecclesiastical Leaders
Exodus 18:19-20 Listen now to my voice; I will give you counsel, and God be with you! You [Moses] shall represent the people before God, and bring their cases to God; [20] and you shall teach them the statutes and the decisions, and make them know the way in which they must walk and what they must do.
Exodus 32:26 then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, “Who is on the LORD’s side? Come to me.” And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together to him.
Leviticus 10:8, 11 And the LORD spoke to Aaron, saying, “. . . [11] and you are to teach the people of Israel all the statutes which the LORD has spoken to them by Moses.”
Deuteronomy 24:8 “Take heed, in an attack of leprosy, to be very careful to do according to all that the Levitical priests shall direct you; as I commanded them, so you shall be careful to do.”
Deuteronomy 27:14 And the Levites shall declare to all the men of Israel with a loud voice: [followed by twelve curses for various sins. [the Levites were teaching priests (2 Chr 15:3) in the old covenant and also in charge of the tabernacle and the temple and sacred items like the ark of the covenant]
Deuteronomy 33:8, 10 And of Levi he said, . . . [10] They shall teach Jacob thy ordinances, and Israel thy law; . . .
2 Chronicles 17:8-9 and with them the Levites, Shemai’ah, Nethani’ah, Zebadi’ah, As’ahel, Shemi’ramoth, Jehon’athan, Adoni’jah, Tobi’jah, and Tobadoni’jah; and with these Levites, the priests Eli’shama and Jeho’ram. [9] And they taught in Judah, having the book of the law of the LORD with them; they went about through all the cities of Judah and taught among the people.
2 Chronicles 35:3 . . . the Levites who taught all Israel and who were holy to the LORD, . . .
Ezra 7:6, 10, 25-26 this Ezra went up from Babylonia. He was a scribe skilled in the law of Moses which the LORD the God of Israel had given; and the king granted him all that he asked, for the hand of the LORD his God was upon him. . . . [10] For Ezra had set his heart to study the law of the LORD, and to do it, and to teach his statutes and ordinances in Israel. . . . [25] “And you, Ezra, according to the wisdom of your God which is in your hand, appoint magistrates and judges who may judge all the people in the province Beyond the River, all such as know the laws of your God; and those who do not know them, you shall teach. [26] Whoever will not obey the law of your God and the law of the king, let judgment be strictly executed upon him, whether for death or for banishment or for confiscation of his goods or for imprisonment.”
Nehemiah 8:1-3, 7-9, 12 And all the people gathered as one man into the square before the Water Gate; and they told Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses which the LORD had given to Israel. [2] And Ezra the priest brought the law before the assembly, . . . [3] And he read from it . . . [7] Also Jesh’ua, Bani, Sherebi’ah, Jamin, Akkub, Shab’bethai, Hodi’ah, Ma-asei’ah, Keli’ta, Azari’ah, Jo’zabad, Hanan, Pelai’ah, the Levites, helped the people to understand the law, . . . [8] And they read from the book, from the law of God, clearly; and they gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading. [9] . . . and the Levites who taught the people . . . [12] . . . they had understood the words that were declared to them.
Malachi 2:4-7 So shall you know that I have sent this command to you, that my covenant with Levi may hold, says the LORD of hosts. [5] My covenant with him was a covenant of life and peace, and I gave them to him, that he might fear; and he feared me, he stood in awe of my name. [6] True instruction was in his mouth, and no wrong was found on his lips. He walked with me in peace and uprightness, and he turned many from iniquity. [7] For the lips of a priest should guard knowledge, and men should seek instruction from his mouth, for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts.
Mark 4:33-34 With many such parables he spoke the word to them, as they were able to hear it; [34] he did not speak to them without a parable, but privately to his own disciples he explained everything.
Luke 24:25-27, 32 And he said to them, “O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! [26] Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” [27] And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. . . . [32] They said to each other, “Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the scriptures?”
Luke 24:44-45 Then he said to them, “These are my words which I spoke to you, while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled.” [45] Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures,
Acts 8:26-27, 30-35 But an angel of the Lord said to Philip, “Rise and go toward the south to the road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.” This is a desert road. [27] And he rose and went. And behold, an Ethiopian, a eunuch, a minister of the Can’dace, queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of all her treasure, had come to Jerusalem to worship . . . [30] So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” [31] And he said, “How can I, unless some one guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. [32] Now the passage of the scripture which he was reading was this: “As a sheep led to the slaughter or a lamb before its shearer is dumb, so he opens not his mouth. [33] In his humiliation justice was denied him. Who can describe his generation? For his life is taken up from the earth.” [34] And the eunuch said to Philip, “About whom, pray, does the prophet say this, about himself or about some one else?” [35] Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this scripture he told him the good news of Jesus.
2 Peter 1:20 First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,
2 Peter 3:15-17 . . . So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, [16] speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. [17] You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability.
13) Apostolic Succession
Acts 1:20-26 For it is written in the book of Psalms, `Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it’; and `His office let another take.’
[21] So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, [22] beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us — one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.” [23] And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsab’bas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthi’as. [24] And they prayed and said, “Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two thou hast chosen [25] to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside, to go to his own place.” [26] And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthi’as; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles.
Acts 2:42 And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, . . .
Ephesians 2:19-21 . . . 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;
1 Timothy 1:2 To Timothy, my true child in the faith . . .
1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you.
2 Timothy 1:14 guard thetruth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.
2 Timothy 2:2 And what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.
Titus 1:4 To Titus, my true child in a common faith . . .
Jude 3 . . . contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.
Revelation 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
*
***
* Practical Matters: I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 5,000+ free online articles or fifty-six books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
*
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’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.
Photo credit: self-designed cover of my discontinued, self-published book (2009).
Summary: Collection of 601+ Bible passages proving that sola Scriptura (Scripture as the only infallible rule of faith) is a false, relentlessly self-defeating, and utterly unbiblical novelty.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In