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
The Three Most UnProtestant Bible Verses (Transcript)

The Three Most UnProtestant Bible Verses (Transcript)

Last updated on: June 13, 2026 at 1:07 pm by Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

The Three Most UnProtestant Bible Verses (Transcript) 2026-06-13T13:07:25-04:00 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.

This is the initial transcript (minus our spontaneous discussion) of our video, “The 3 Most UN-PROTESTANT Bible Verses” (10-9-25).

*****

Summary: We discuss three NT passages that are devastatingly “UnProtestant”: having to do with sola Scriptura and an infallible Church, faith alone (sola fide), and penances for the dead.

***

Some parts of the New Testament fit into the Protestant outlook only with great difficulty. We will examine (arguably) three of the clearest examples of that.

1 Timothy 3:15 (RSV) . . . the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

Sola Scriptura or “Bible Alone” is the Protestant rule of faith. What it means is that only the Bible is a final infallible authority. Nothing else is. This verse, however, asserts in effect that the Church is also an infallible authority. And so it’s an “un-Protestant verse.” It seems to me that if sola Scriptura is indeed a true and biblical principle, this couldn’t even be in the Bible. It would read, rather, something like, “the word of the living God is the pillar and bulwark of the truth.’

So what does a Protestant do with this? Who knows? They can speak for themselves. For our part, we are explaining why we believe this teaches the infallibility of the Church, and undeniably so. I made an extended argument about that very thing 13 years ago in my book, 100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura, which we are now offering in an updated form. I will try to be as brief as I can in summarizing it, without missing anything important.

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 make mistakes when proclaiming doctrine, it could not be what the Bible here says it is. God’s truth would be the house built on a foundation of sand in Jesus’ parable. For this passage to be true, the Church must be infallible: at least in its most important decrees about doctrine.

Similarly, in Ephesians 2:19-20 Paul refers to the “household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone.”

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, etc.). These communications cannot contain any untruths insofar as they truly come from God, with the prophet serving as His spokesman or intermediary (Jer 2:2; 26:8; Ezek 11:5; Zech 1:6; and many more). Likewise, apostles proclaimed truth unmixed with error (1 Cor 2:7-13; 1 Tim 2:7; 2 Tim 1:11-14; 2 Pet 1:12-21).

Does this foundation have any faults or cracks? Since Jesus is the cornerstone, He can hardly be a faulty foundation. And in the way that apostles and prophets are infallible, likewise, so is the Church, “built upon” them. Our Lord Jesus is without fault or untruth, and he is the cornerstone of the Church. The Church is also more than once even 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, is itself a strong argument that it’s infallible and without error regarding doctrine.

In the Bible, nowhere is truth presented as anything less than pure truth, unmixed with error. That was certainly how Paul conceived what he constantly refers to as “the truth” that he received and passed down (Rom 2:8; 2 Cor 13:8; Col 1:5; 2 Thess 2:10; 1 Tim 2:4, 18, 25; 4:3; 2 Tim 1:14; 3:7-8; 4:4; Jude 3).

Knowing what truth is, how can its own foundation be something less than total truth (since truth itself contains no falsehoods or errors)? It cannot. It’s impossible, and common sense. A stream can’t rise above its source. What’s built upon a foundation can’t be greater than the foundation. If it were, the whole thing would collapse.

An elephant can’t stand on the shoulders of a man. The base of a skyscraper has to hold the weight above it. The foundations of a suspension bridge over a river have to be strong enough to support it.

Therefore, we conclude that the Church must be infallible, since truth is infallible, and the foundation cannot be lesser than what is built upon it. Therefore, sola scriptura must be false, as a result of this inspired verse alone, along with countless others.

Mark 10:17-21 And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him, and asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” [18] And Jesus said to him, . . . [19] You know the commandments: `Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.'” [20] And he said to him, “Teacher, all these I have observed from my youth.” [21] And Jesus looking upon him loved him, and said to him, “You lack one thing; go, sell what you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”

The rich young ruler sincerely asked Jesus how one attained eternal life, assuming (in his word “do”) that “good deeds” would be what is required (since the Old Testament is full of these deeds). If Jesus had been a good Protestant, He obviously would have had to respond, “you can’t do any work to attain eternal life! You’re dead wrong. You must have faith alone!” But in fact, Jesus didn’t rebuke his premise; far from it, He reinforced his train of thought by asking whether he kept the commandments. That’s what our Lord thought was the “road” to heaven.

He didn’t oppose him by asking, “why do you ask me about works? Don’t you know that they have nothing to do with salvation and are done only in gratefulness to God for a salvation already attained?” His replies are massively contrary to Protestantism’s faith alone. His replies are not like any sermon I ever heard in my 13 years as an evangelical! This is not how we were taught to spread the faith in street witnessing, in order to “get people saved.”

According to Protestantism, we can’t do anything to be saved. No work we do is sufficient. All we can do is have faith in Jesus Christ. Jesus would have failed Soteriology 0101 in any evangelical seminary or divinity school.

“When the man said, “all these I have observed from my youth,” Jesus had a second chance — if Protestantism is right, — to affirm, “you must believe in Me with faith alone to attain eternal life.” But He again chose to answer like a Catholic and recommended another meritorious work: “You lack one thing; go, sell what you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.” Selling all that he owned was, of course, another work, as opposed to faith and assenting belief. Thus, the rich young ruler’s rejection of Jesus’ advice was based on his unwillingness to do one extraordinary work that he was told would save him.

His fatal flaw was placing possessions above God (a form of idolatry). Nothing here upholds faith alone at all. I think that a hypothetical Protestant who was writing part of the Bible would and could never have written the passage this way. Jesus twice emphasizes that works save a soul; never mentioning faith or belief in Himself (though we fully agree that those things are also true and necessary). The point is that Jesus highlighted and made central the very thing that Protestants falsely claim has nothing to do with salvation. How can this be?

The young man went away and Jesus observed, “How hard it will be for those who have riches to enter the kingdom of God!” (10:23). Why is it so “hard”? It isn’t because he didn’t exercise the faith that Jesus never recommended. It’s “hard” because the work that was required to attain salvation (giving away all that he owned) is difficult.

If faith alone were true and in fact the only way to get to heaven, it seems that Jesus would have said so when directly asked about that very thing. But He didn’t; therefore, “faith alone” is false, since it’s foreign and unknown to Jesus Himself. The Bible we have is plainly far too “Catholic.” The “Protestant” Jesus would have talked something like the following in this encounter:

“If you would enter life, exercise faith alone in the son of man. No commandments can save you. Say the sinner’s prayer, so you will be saved; and come, follow me. Truly, I say to you, it will be hard for a man without faith alone to enter the kingdom of heaven.”

1 Corinthians 15:29-30, 32 Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf? [30] Why am I in peril every hour? . . . [32] What do I gain if, humanly speaking, I fought with beasts at Ephesus? If the dead are not raised, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.”

In 2004 in my book, The Catholic Verses, I called this “the most ‘Un-Protestant verse in the Bible.” Protestant commentators almost agree, but from a different perspective. One of them, the well-known Methodist Adam Clarke, writes about it:

This is certainly the most difficult verse in the New Testament; for, notwithstanding the greatest and wisest men have labored to explain it, there are to this day nearly as many different interpretations of it as there are interpreters.

Likewise, the famous Presbyterian commentator, Albert Barnes, in his Barnes’ Notes on the Bible states:

There is, perhaps, no passage of the New Testament in respect to which there has been a greater variety of interpretation than this; and the views of expositors now by no means harmonize in regard to its meaning.

But Barnes also includes among the various interpretations the following take:

There remain two other opinions, both of which are plausible, and one of which is probably the true one. One is, that the word baptized is used here as it is in Matthew 20:22-23; Mark 10:39; Luke 12:50, in the sense of being overwhelmed with calamities, trials, and sufferings; . . . That the word is thus used to denote a deep sinking into calamities, there can be no doubt. . . . That this view is plausible, and that it suits the strain of remark in the following verses, is evident. But there are objections to it: . . . This interpretation does not relieve us from any of the difficulties in regard to the phrase “for the dead” . . .

He goes a long way towards the exegesis that we will submit. But in the end he can’t get over the hurdle of human beings doing anything whatever to assist the dead. It’s too foreign to his Protestantism.

St. Francis de Sales (1567-1622) in his book, The Catholic Controversy [translated by Henry B. Mackey, Rockford, Illinois: TAN Books, 1989, from the 1886 edition (London and New York); originally 1596], derived from pamphlets that are said to have played a direct role in more than 70,000 converts returning to the Catholic faith in France, provides what I think is the most plausible view, and it incorporates and expands upon the elements that Barnes made reference to:

This passage properly understood evidently shows that it was the custom of the primitive Church to watch, pray, fast, for the souls of the departed. For, firstly, in the Scriptures to be baptized is often taken for afflictions and penances; as in St. Luke chapter 12 [12:50] . . . and in St. Mark chapter 10 [10:38-39] . . . in which places Our Lord calls pains and afflictions baptism [cf. Matthew 3:11, 20:22-3, Luke 3:16].

This then is the sense of that Scripture: if the dead rise not again, what is the use of mortifying and afflicting oneself, of praying and fasting for the dead? And indeed this sentence of St. Paul resembles that of 2 Maccabees 12:44: It is superfluous and vain to pray for the dead if the dead rise not again. (p. 368)

From this perspective, Paul’s thought clearly harmonizes with and likely even draws upon the parallel passage in Maccabees about prayer for the dead. St. Paul in context further indicates this by asking, rhetorically, “Why am I in peril every hour?” In other words, he is tying in his own suffering with the previous reference of people being baptized for the dead. That is, he is doing activities that will help the dead, and he explains why he does it: because the dead are raised.

The problem for Protestants is that their overall outlook has no place for this concept and practice, and so it’s ruled out from the outset. Therefore, the text remains mysterious for them because of the false preconceived view that they bring to it and also their denial that 2nd Maccabees is part of the Bible. Because of the latter they can’t utilize the verse in 2nd Maccabees: a clearer passage on the same topic, to help understand it, according to the standard practice of all Bible commentators, because they deny that Maccabees is canonical.

***

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 Catholics 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).

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle and 100% tax-deductible donations if desired), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information.

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, in partnership 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!

***

Bible and Tradition

Calvinism & General Protestantism

Church (Ecclesiology)

Saints & Purgatory & Penance

Salvation & Justification

Videos

1 Timothy 3:15

baptism for the dead

pillar & foundation of the truth

rich young ruler

Sola Fide

Sola Scriptura

Previous Post

October 9, 2025

The Three Most "UnProtestant" NT Passages

Next Post

October 22, 2025 St. Peter the First Pope: 120 Bible Proofs

Recent Comments

0 | Leave a Comment

"Special pleading, and not a serious response to my arguments . . ."

Dave Armstrong

Is Venerating Men & Angels Worship? ..."

""no man needs to teach us."Didn't you just teach us?"

Dave Armstrong

Is Venerating Men & Angels Worship? ..."

""Catholics say they are the only church that can lead people into heaven."In fact, we ..."

Dave Armstrong

Is Venerating Men & Angels Worship? ..."

"And lastly, I belong to no denomination and am free to serve God as He ..."

Mariah

Is Venerating Men & Angels Worship? ..."

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