Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Catholic
History and Religion
Confirming Paul’s Apostleship: Infallible Church Proof

Confirming Paul’s Apostleship: Infallible Church Proof

Last updated on: January 4, 2022 at 3:49 pm by Dave Armstrong

Confirming Paul’s Apostleship: Infallible Church Proof 2022-01-04T15:49:38-04:00 Dave Armstrong

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

— and Biblical Disproof #185 of sola Scriptura —

Protestants tells us that there is no such thing as an infallible Church, and that only Scripture is the infallible source and standard and norm for the Christian faith and doctrine. We can never put our trust in Church or tradition as a guide to determine truth or falsity of propositions or rightness or wrongness of actions, since they are not guaranteed infallibility. So Protestants tell us, and this is their notion of sola Scriptura, which they have arbitrarily and illogically made their entire rule of faith.

Showing that the Bible is infallible, or inspired, or inerrant, or revelation proves nothing whatsoever, as to the rule of faith or sola Scriptura. No one disagrees that it is all of those things.

As always, the necessary Protestant task is to prove from Scripture that Scripture is the sole infallible standard, source, and norm for Christian doctrine and theology and that nothing else (tradition, Church, apostolic succession, bishops, councils) is ever that. The latter is just as much part of sola Scriptura as the former strict definition. It’s a claim of exclusivity; therefore, it is the task of the sola Scriptura adherent to prove that nothing besides Scripture is ever the infallible standard, source, and norm for Christian doctrine and theology.

Protestants can’t do that because it’s impossible to do, and I’ve never observed an Protestant — in my thirty-one years of Catholic apologetics — ever do it. What Protestants almost always do when faced with this simple challenge is hem and haw, major on the minors, beat around the bush, engage in obscurantism and obfuscation, change the topic: all the while ignoring the elephant in the room.

I don’t mean to belabor the point, or to harangue our separated brethren (who have many fine qualities and whom I respect and admire), but as a simple intellectual duty and matter of theology and apologetics, Protestants need to get honest with themselves and either prove sola Scriptura from Scripture once and for all, or else concede that it in fact is not in the Bible at all and that it has been a sort of mass delusion these past 500 years.

This current article will be yet another argument for the infallibility of the Church. Recently, I contended that the choosing of Matthias as an apostle was an exercise in Church infallibility: the very thing that Protestants tell us is untrue. Perhaps the best argument for the infallibility of the Church is the Jerusalem Council, which I’ve written about many times. The other “killer argument” is concerning the meaning of 1 Timothy 3:15, where the Church is described as the pillar and bulwark (or foundation) of the truth. I’ve explained that argument in at least three lengthy articles as well.

So that is three strong biblical arguments establishing a notion (an infallible Church) that Protestants deny as an ongoing reality. They can’t prove sola Scriptura from Scripture, and they can’t disprove these biblical arguments that are fatal to it. It’s quite a logical and theological bind. Small wonder, then, that it is quite the rarity to see a Protestant actually seriously respond to Catholic critics of sola Scriptura, who make biblical arguments.

St. Paul, as every Bible student knows, originally was a violent opponent of the new Christian Church and of Christians (Acts 7:54-60; 8:1-3; 9:1-2, 13-14, 21, 26; 22:4-5, 18-20; Gal 1:13, 23), until he experienced a dramatic encounter with Jesus and was converted to Christianity on the spot (Acts 9:3-31; 22:6-16).

Acts 9:26-29 (RSV) And when he [Paul] had come to Jerusalem he attempted to join the disciples; and they were all afraid of him, for they did not believe that he was a disciple. [27] But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared to them how on the road he had seen the Lord, who spoke to him, and how at Damascus he had preached boldly in the name of Jesus. [28] So he went in and out among them at Jerusalem, [29] preaching boldly in the name of the Lord. . . .

Benson Commentary It does not appear that on this occasion any thing was said, either by Barnabas or by Saul, concerning Christ’s making Saul an apostle at the time he converted him, or concerning his sending him to preach to the idolatrous Gentiles, as is related by the apostle himself, Acts 26:16-18. These things were not mentioned in Jerusalem till Paul went up to the council, fourteen years after his conversion, Galatians 2:2; Galatians 2:7-9.

Galatians 1:15-19 But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through his grace, [16] was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with flesh and blood, [17] nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned to Damascus. [18] Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. [19] But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.

Galatians 2:9 and when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised;

Benson Commentary [B]y giving them the right hands of fellowship, the three apostles acknowledged them to be true ministers of the gospel, each according to the nature of his particular commission. Paul they acknowledged to be an apostle of equal authority with themselves; and Barnabas they acknowledged to be a minister sent forth by the Holy Ghost to preach the gospel to the Gentiles. This distinction it is necessary to make, because it doth not appear that Barnabas was an apostle, in the proper sense of the word.

Meyer’s NT Commentary [I]t is evident that the recognition . . . really amounted to an acknowledgment of apostolic equality . . .

John Gill’s Exposition of the Bible [A]s a token of a covenant or agreement between them; they took them, as it were, into partnership with them, admitted them as apostles into their society, and gave their full consent . . .

This is the argument. It’s very simple and elegant. After Paul’s conversion, he is accepted by Peter (Cephas), James, and John as a fellow apostle (Gal 2:9). This is the infallible act of the Church and cannot not be. If St. Paul had not been acknowledged by the Church as an apostle, then he could and would have never been the greatest evangelist of all time. He would not have been the author of approximately 24% of the New Testament, and its primary systematic theologian and thinker (as opposed to the — mostly — storytelling of the Gospels, Acts, and Revelation).

St. Paul had to be recognized as an apostle who had witnessed Jesus Christ in an encounter (albeit subsequent to His resurrection and ascension), in order for his witness to be authentic. Protestants readily agree that Paul was an apostle, as he claimed to be many times. When Peter, James, and John acknowledged this by accepting Paul as an equal (Gal 2:9) it was clearly an infallible pronouncement or corporate understanding, coming from the Church as it was at that time, led by Peter. If it is denied that this is infallible, then whenever Paul appealed to his status as an apostle, he would be lying and deceiving.

Now, Protestants may say that Paul was already an apostle and did not necessarily need human approval, even from those in the leadership of the Church. Well, yes and no. That’s not how New Testament Christianity works. It’s a unified team. There are no loose cannons or “lone rangers.” The need still exists for an authoritative pronouncement, so that all and sundry are aware of the truth.

Likewise, as a fifth exercise of Church infallibility, in a time long after the New Testament had been written (late fourth century), the Catholic Church proclaimed which books were part of the New Testament canon (a thing the Bible itself never does). Does it follow that the canon wasn’t what it was before it was proclaimed, or that the Church created the inspired Bible when it detailed the canon? No (as I have written about). The canon already was what it was: inspired revelation. The Catholic Church taught that in both Vatican I and Vatican II. But it was good and very practical to have the authoritative list, so human beings could agree.

In the same manner, Paul was already an apostle before he was extended the “right hand of fellowship” as a fellow apostle in the Church. Yet it was good and necessary for the Church (run on the human level by human beings) to make this clear. The Church could not have possibly been wrong in arriving at this decision. Therefore it is an instance of Church infallibility and a disproof of sola Scriptura, to add to the long list of same.

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 3,900+ 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.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***

Photo credit: Jorge Elías (7-27-13). Peter and Paul (c. 1612), by Jusepe de Ribera (1591-1652) [Flickr / CC BY 2.0 license]

***

Summary: When Peter, James, and John agreed in confirming Paul’s apostleship (Gal 2:9), this was obviously an infallible act and thus also one of many disproofs of sola Scriptura.

Bible and Tradition

Church (Ecclesiology)

conciliar infallibility

Confirming Paul's Apostleship

hierarchical church

hierarchy

infallibility

infallibility of the Church

Previous Post

December 31, 2021

"New" Apostle Matthias: Proof of Church Infallibility

Next Post

January 13, 2022 Dialogue: Are More Married Catholic Priests Desirable?

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category & Last Things About Me Anti-Catholicism Atheism & Agnosticism Baptism and Sacramentalism Bible and Tradition Blessed Virgin Mary Books by Dave Armstrong C. S. Lewis Calvinism & General Protestantism Catholic Apologetics Catholic Apologists Catholic conversion Catholic converts Christmas Church (Ecclesiology) Church History Conversion and Converts Development of Doctrine Eastern Orthodoxy Ecumenism & Christian Unity Eucharist & Liturgy Fathers of the Church French Translations G. K. Chesterton Hell Hell & Satan Hell & Satan & Last Things Heresies & Comparative Religion Holistic Health Inquisition & Crusades & Scandals James White Jews & Judaism & Old Testament John Calvin John Henry Newman Liberal / Modernist Theology Life Issues Literary Resume Lutheranism Mariology Martin Luther Music Orthodoxy Papacy & Infallibility Personal Page Philosophy & Science Political & Ethical & Moral Issues Protestant Persecution & Intolerance Protestantism Purgatory Purgatory & Penance Romantic & Imaginative Theology Saints & Purgatory & Penance Salvation Salvation & Justification Satan & Last Things Sexuality and Gender Issues Spanish Translations Traditionalism vs. Radical Catholic Reactionaries Traducciones al español / tradução para português Trinitarianism & Christology Uncategorized Videos

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 April 2010 March 2010 December 2009 October 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 March 2009 February 2009 October 2008 September 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 May 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 October 2005 June 2005 April 2005 February 2005 July 2004 May 2004 April 2004

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz