| Answers In-Depth to Questions about Christianity |
| Paul DOES expect the Catholic Rule of Faith to abide |
QUESTION: When my best friend left the Catholic Church over a year ago, I felt that I could win him back. He hates contradiction, and I had an ace in the hole, or so I thought. I would simply show him that the "Bible alone" teaching is not taught in the Bible, and his new-found faith would crumble. Well, he joined a Church of Christ, and his present leaders are not afraid to debate and argue for the truth of their beliefs. I was quite surprised to learn that they teach that First Corinthians, chapter 13, proves that someday, future to the time of the Apostle Paul, only the Bible would decide what all true Christian should believe. Poor naive me! I thought of First Corinthians, chapter 13, as only the "love chapter." They woke me up to another use for it. How can I expose this as wrong? Answered by Rev. Paul L. Rothermel |
It is patently clear that the New Testament writings nowhere suggest that they were the only norm for belief during the period in which they were being written. There is only one avenue left for classical Protestants. To make a reasonable biblical case for the "Bible alone" teaching, someone must find a verse that says that the New Testament writings will begin to be the only norm AFTER ALL of them are written. For this, some, such as members of the so-called "churches of Christ," turn to First Corinthians 13: 10. "(8) Love never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall be done away; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall be done away. (9) For we know in part, and we prophesy in part; (10) BUT WHEN THAT WHICH IS PERFECT IS COME, THAT WHICH IS IN PART SHALL BE DONE AWAY. (11) When I was a child, I spake as a child, I felt as a child, I thought as a child: how that I am become a man, I have put away childish things. (12) For now we see in a mirror, darkly; but then face to face: NOW I KNOW IN PART; BUT THEN I SHALL KNOW FULLY EVEN AS ALSO I WAS FULLY KNOWN. (13) But now abideth faith, hope, love, these three; and the greatest of these is love." (American Standard Version) This seems to confirm that oral prophecy continued to be a norm while First Corinthians was written. So it is not consistent for a Protestant or a member of the "churches of Christ" to find the "Bible only" norm predicted here yet already instituted and enforced nine chapters earlier, in First Corinthians 4:6. Clearly, one verse cannot teach the "Bible only" is the present rule of faith while the other passage in the same book teaches that it will start to be the rule of faith only sometime in the future! Those who opt for finding this notion in First Corinthians 13:10 reason as follows. 1) Since the things Paul calls "in part" are incomplete means of revelation, prophecy, tongues, and knowledge, what he calls "perfect" must be the complete means of revelation that replaces the incomplete ones. 2) Prophecy is a miraculous sign-gift that ceased by the time the last apostle died, and since Paul teaches that the perfect comes when the imperfect passes away, the perfect came before the last apostle died. So "that which is perfect" can only mean the completing of the revelatory process which resulted in the New Testament. This view is constructed on two rather doubtful assumptions. The first assumption is that this passage says that one form of revelation will replace the rest. But this is reading into the text. It directly says that what Christians, including Paul, shall know sometime in the future, when they no longer think like children but like mature persons, shall greatly surpass what they know now by revelatory gifts. The second assumption is that the apostles had a monopoly on imparting the ability to do miraculous signs. But Jesus did miracles for the Galatians while the apostle Paul was absent (Gal. 3:5), James expected God to heal the sick through the elders of the church, and Stephen and Philip did miracles (Acts 6:8, 8:5-7,13). Although the apostles did lay hands on Stephen and Philip, who can prove conclusively from the Bible only that one or more of the apostles laid hands upon absolutely everyone who had a miraculous gift in the New Testament? Nor can anyone prove that none who prophesied outlived an apostle, or that all who prophesied lost their prophetic gift the moment the last book of the New Testament was written. To rely on this passage to establish the “Bible only” teaching is to construct whole churches upon a pious wish. From the very beginning of the church more than the apostles spoke in tongues and magnified God. On the first Pentecost, Peter announced that this miraculous event fulfilled Joel’s prophecy that God’s “sons and daughters,” His servants and handmaidens, would prophesy. Females were in the group in the upper room, but none of them were apostles. That day women as well as the apostles received the miraculous gift directly from God. These females did not receive the gift by the apostles laying their hands on them. History in fact shows that many of the miraculous gifts, such as prophecy, outlived the apostles and those who knew them personally. We have the testimonies of Justin Martyr in A.D. 160, Irenaeus and Tertullian in A.D. 200, and Origen in A.D. 250. But is it possible that the phrase, “that which is perfect,” refers to the completed process of writing the New Testament documents as a whole? “Possible” is not good enough to justify the Protestant Revolt, especially when there is a more reasonable way of taking this phrase. The person who takes this passage to teach a post-New Testament era in which only the New Testament Scriptures should guide true Christians must eliminate any view but his or her own, or that person will make his or her case convincing to few beyond the already convinced. Another reasonable way of taking this phrase, in the context of this same letter and the rest of the New Testament writings, is much more probable. In this part of his letter, Paul is showing that love is superior to gifts like prophecy because those gifts will pass away but love will not pass away. I do not think that anybody should object to this summary statement. But the understanding that prophecy totally and finally passed away when the last sentence of the last book of the New Testament was written can hardly fit Paul’s statement in verse 12: “THEN I shall know fully even as also I was fully known.” Some claim that reading the New Testament properly will give an understanding equalling Paul’s understanding before the New Testament was completed (Ephesians 3:4). But this would mean that Paul’s knowledge was perfect even when he wrote these words and that the New Testament is just all of Paul’s and the other inspired men’s perfect knowledge committed to writing. But this overlooks the “Now I know in part; but then I” of verse 12. Is the Apostle Paul thinking that when all the other New Testament writers finish their writing, he himself will suddenly gain such a remarkable change in knowledge? If the “perfect” is the finished New Testament writings, then this must be what verse 12 means, but many Protestants who believe the “Bible alone” teaching find such an unconvincing view hard to swallow. For example, Dr. D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones writes about it: “It means that you and I, who have the Scriptures open before us, know much more than the apostle Paul of God’s truth . . . . It means that we are altogether superior . . . even to the apostles themselves, including the apostle Paul! It means that we are now in a position in which . . . ‘we know, even as also we are known’ by God . . . . [I]ndeed there is only one word to describe such a view, it is nonsense” (from his book, Prove All Things, pp. 32-33). Paul is not contrasting the time he is writing and the time thirty-five years later, when the last book of the New Testament will be written, almost thirty years after his death. Surely he is not saying, “I know love will never end, because it will last beyond the next thirty-give years.” No, he is contrasting the present age with the age to come, and saying that love will last for eternity. Paul is saying that love is so basic to God’s purposes for the universe that it will survive every change from this age into the age to come. He is saying that when this present age ends, at the Second Coming, then all partial forms of knowing God will give way to a full, personal knowledge of Him. It is just common sense to think that “that which is perfect” comes when Jesus returns in glory. Earlier in this same letter, Paul tied having spiritual gifts with waiting for the Lord’s return, “so that you come behind in no gift; waiting for the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ; who shall also confirm you unto the end, that ye be unreprovable in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 1:7-8). Later, in Ephesians, chapter 4, Paul goes on to tie perfect knowledge with the church growing to maturity in “the unity of the faith.” Surely this “perfecting of the saints” did not take place when the last writer of the New Testament laid down his pen! Most Christians believe that this will take place at our Lord’s Second Coming. In Ephesians, Paul describes the church as eventually becoming a “full-grown man” in knowledge, and he contrast this future state with those Christians who, in his day, were “children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine.” It is no accident that he mentions childishness when expressing very similar thoughts in First Corinthians. Both passages, 1 Cor. 13:8-13 and Eph. 4:11- 14, contrast perfection with childishness, and both share at least one other theme, the role of prophecy. One says that prophecy will pass away, and the other says that Christ’s gift of prophets is part of God’s plan for bringing His church to perfect maturity. Since Ephesians is about what will happen at the Second Coming, it is very likely that “that which is perfect” in First Corinthians will arrive at this very same event. The most common use of the Greek word, “perfect,” in First Corinthians, is to refer to the maturity of a human being, and in Ephesians, the church is likened to a person who finishes growing to maturity at the Second Advent. Both passages seem to teach the same thing with similar images. Is the classical Protestant belief in “the Scriptures alone” true? Is it correct that all we need to believe in order to be saved is to be found written in the Bible? Non-Catholics often point to 2 Timothy 3:15-17 as proof that this is true. It is always wise to follow the guidance of God’s Word. And one important reason that God speaks is to lead all of us to salvation. Since St. Paul tells Timothy that the Scriptures possess the potential to bring Timothy (“you”) to salvation, this salvation is future to the time of this writing. It is “through faith in Christ Jesus” that his Old Testament books can lead Timothy to his future salvation, which depends upon accomplishing the good works that God-given wisdom and faith make possible. This requires turning away from evil (2:21). Second Timothy 3: 16 stresses that “the man of God,” Timothy, needs every inspired writing, because all of the truths they contain play a part in making Timothy spiritually complete. This is different from saying that all the truths necessary for his spiritual completeness are in his Scriptures. This analogy may help. Mother says to junior, “You need to eat all your vegetables to grow up big and strong.” Now is this the same thing as saying, “All you need to grow up big and strong is to eat your vegetables"? Of course not. He needs meat and milk and other foods. In context, St. Paul exhorts Timothy to keep on benefiting from oral Apostolic teachings (3:10-14) and the Scriptures (3:15). A wise person realizes that both of these are necessary to enter everlasting life. If our goal is to be “fully equipped” men of God, then every inspired writing is in some way profitable toward that goal. Whatever revelation God preserves in Tradition we also need to be spiritually complete. Much, if not all, revelation is to be found in the Catholic Bible, which reliably points out where we can locate the entire Apostolic faith. Before the very last New Testament book was written, God’s people had everything they needed for life and godliness (2 Peter 1:3). All of this may be in the Bible, but the Bible does not say that it is. The Bible in Jude, verse three, states that the faith was “once for all delivered” to God’s people, which is the true church. We can locate the true faith for sure only when we locate the authentic church. But all of this faith may or may not be recorded in our New Testament apart from a form of Tradition (2 Tim. 1:13-14, 2:2). First Timothy 3:15, when it is understood in its proper context, has power to expose the error of the “Bible only” teaching. The truths in this verse and in 2 Tim. 3:16-17 are truths that are supported by the church, “the pillar and ground of the truth.” St. Paul teaches that the Church has the task of guarding and keeping safe and sound the truths that come from God. This is exactly what the Catholic Church does. One example is when the Church discerned which books belong to the inspired Scriptures. There is no historical proof that each believer in the early Church tried on his or her own to work out the extent of the canon. When the Church put all these parts together, could she have arrived at the wrong conclusions? For you and me to be absolutely sure that we possess a pure Word of God, we must believe that God would not allow any error in the writing itself and in the conclusion of the long discernment process for the collecting. The biblical writers and the Catholic Church were infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit. When it comes to religious truth, the so-called "churches of Christ" believe that a faithful preacher will teach only what the Bible teaches, and will reject any teaching that the Bible does not teach. This form of the "Bible only" teaching is the easiest to refute. Although it is about the Bible, it is a non-biblical teaching against all non-biblical teachings, including itself! It is a tradition as old as the Reformation arrogantly designed to undermine traditions older than the Reformation. The Catholic Church, the church with traditions older than the Reformation, gave us the Bible, a collection of infallible books. If this Church is not infallible, then the Bible is a fallible collection of infallible books. That is, the Church could have mistakenly included one or mores books that are not really infallible. This causes big problems for a Christian who thinks clearly. No, the Bible is an infallible collection of infallible books, and so the Church that did the collecting, the original Church, was infallible in sorting out the books, and also infallible in proclaiming the apostolic origins and truthfulness of its sacred traditions. The so-called "churches of Christ" do NOT believe that the true Church has existed on earth in every century since Jesus Christ walked among other men. They claim that, not long after the Catholic Rule of Faith was replaced by the "Bible alone," the original Church it ruled lost its identity as truly belonging to Christ. Over a millennium later the Bible became the sole "blue-print" that Alexander Campbell used to restore the true Church to earth! All this does not fit the Bible. The Catholic Church has ALWAYS retained its genuine identity as the sole Church of Christ. THE END. |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
WARNING! This is an advanced website. To maximize benefit, you should first acquire a basic and intermediate understanding of Christianity. There are many intermediate websites. For an entry level experience, feel free to browse my other website: What You Should Know about ULTIMATE REALITY "A little learning is a dangerous thing...." --Alexander Pope |