A Quick Ten-Step Refutation of Sola Scriptura

Catholic Fidelity.Com ^ | Dave Armstrong

[GonzoII]

A Quick Ten-Step Refutation of Sola Scriptura

By Dave Armstrong

1. Sola Scriptura Is Not Taught in the Bible

Catholics agree with Protestants that Scripture is a "standard of truth"—even the preeminent one—but not in a sense that rules out the binding authority of authentic apostolic Tradition and the Church. The Bible doesn’t teach that. Catholics agree that Scripture is materially sufficient. In other words, on this view, every true doctrine can be found in the Bible, if only implicitly and indirectly by deduction. But no biblical passage teaches that Scripture is the formal authority or rule of faith in isolation from the Church and Tradition. Sola scriptura can’t even be deduced from implicit passages.

2. The "Word of God" Refers to Oral Teaching Also

"Word" in Holy Scripture often refers to a proclaimed, oral teaching of prophets or apostles. What the prophets spoke was the word of God regardless of whether or not their utterances were recorded later as written Scripture. So for example, we read in Jeremiah:

"For twenty-three years . . . the word of the Lord has come to me and I have spoken to you again and again . . . ‘But you did not listen to me,’ declares the Lord. . . . Therefore the Lord Almighty says this: ‘Because you have not listened to my words. . . .’" (Jer. 25:3, 7-8 [NIV]).

This was the word of God even though some of it was not recorded in writing. It had equal authority as writing or proclamation-never-reduced-to-writing. This was true also of apostolic preaching. When the phrases "word of God" or "word of the Lord" appear in Acts and the epistles, they almost always refer to oral preaching, not to Scripture. For example:

"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" (1 Thess. 2:13).

If we compare this passage with another, written to the same church, Paul appears to regard oral teaching and the word of God as synonymous:

"Keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us" (2 Thess. 3:6).

3. Tradition Is Not a Dirty Word

Protestants often quote the verses in the Bible where corrupt traditions of men are condemned (e.g., Matt. 15:2–6; Mark 7:8–13; Col. 2:8). Of course, Catholics agree with this. But it’s not the whole truth. True, apostolic Tradition also is endorsed positively. This Tradition is in total harmony with and consistent with Scripture.

4. Jesus and Paul Accepted Non-Biblical Oral and Written Traditions

Protestants defending sola scriptura will claim that Jesus and Paul accepted the authority of the Old Testament. This is true, but they also appealed to other authority outside of written revelation. For example:

a. The reference to "He shall be called a Nazarene" cannot be found in the Old Testament, yet it was "spoken by the prophets" (Matt. 2:23). Therefore, this prophecy, which is considered to be "God’s word," was passed down orally rather than through Scripture.

b. In Matthew 23:2–3, Jesus teaches that the scribes and Pharisees have a legitimate, binding authority based "on Moses’ seat," but this phrase or idea cannot be found anywhere in the Old Testament. It is found in the (originally oral) Mishnah, which teaches a sort of "teaching succession" from Moses on down.

c. In 1 Corinthians 10:4, Paul refers to a rock that "followed" the Jews through the Sinai wilderness. The Old Testament says nothing about such miraculous movement. But rabbinic tradition does.

d. "As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses" (2 Tim. 3:8). These two men cannot be found in the related Old Testament passage (Ex. 7:8ff.) or anywhere else in the Old Testament.

5. The Apostles Exercised Authority at the Council of Jerusalem

In the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:6–30), we see Peter and James speaking with authority. This Council makes an authoritative pronouncement (citing the Holy Spirit) that was binding on all Christians:

"For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity" (Acts 15:28–29).

In the next chapter, we read that Paul, Timothy, and Silas were traveling around "through the cities," and Scripture says that "they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem" (Acts 16:4).

6. Pharisees, Sadducees, and Oral, Extrabiblical Tradition

Christianity was derived in many ways from the Pharisaical tradition of Judaism. The Sadducees, on the other hand, rejected the future resurrection of the soul, the afterlife, rewards and retribution, demons and angels, and predestinarianism. The Sadducees also rejected all authoritative oral teaching and essentially believed in sola scriptura. They were the theological liberals of that time. Christian Pharisees are referred to in Acts 15:5 and Philippians 3:5, but the Bible never mentions Christian Sadducees.

The Pharisees, despite their corruptions and excesses, were the mainstream Jewish tradition, and both Jesus and Paul acknowledge this. So neither the orthodox Old Testament Jews nor the early Church was guided by the principle of sola scriptura.

7. Old Testament Jews Did Not Believe in Sola Scriptura

To give two examples from the Old Testament itself:

a. Ezra, a priest and scribe, studied the Jewish law and taught it to Israel, and his authority was binding under pain of imprisonment, banishment, loss of goods, and even death (cf. Ezra 7:26).

b. In Nehemiah 8:3, Ezra reads the Law of Moses to the people in Jerusalem. In verse 7 we find thirteen Levites who assisted Ezra and helped the people to understand the law. Much earlier, we find Levites exercising the same function (cf. 2 Chr. 17:8–9).

So the people did indeed understand the law (cf. Neh. 8:8, 12), but not without much assistance—not merely upon hearing. Likewise, the Bible is not altogether clear in and of itself but requires the aid of teachers who are more familiar with biblical styles and Hebrew idiom, background, context, exegesis and cross-reference, hermeneutical principles, original languages, etc. The Old Testament, then, teaches about a binding Tradition and need for authoritative interpreters, as does the New Testament (cf. Mark 4:33–34; Acts 8:30–31; 2 Pet. 1:20; 3:16).

8. Ephesians 4 Refutes the Protestant "Proof Text"

"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" (2 Tim. 3:16–17).

This passage doesn’t teach formal sufficiency, which excludes a binding, authoritative role for Tradition and Church. Protestants extrapolate onto the text what isn’t there. If we look at the overall context of this passage, we can see that Paul makes reference to oral Tradition three times (cf. 2 Tim. 1:13–14; 2:2; 3:14). And to use an analogy, let’s examine a similar passage:

"And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip 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 fullness 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 to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ" (Eph. 4:11–15).

If 2 Timothy 3 proves the sole sufficiency of Scripture, then, by analogy, Ephesians 4 would likewise prove the sufficiency of pastors and teachers for the attainment of Christian perfection. In Ephesians 4, the Christian believer is equipped, built up, brought into unity and mature manhood, 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, yet it does not even mention Scripture.

So 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 recognize that the absence of one or more elements in one passage does not mean that they are nonexistent. The Church and Scripture are both equally necessary and important for teaching.

9. Paul Casually Assumes That His Passed-Down Tradition Is Infallible and Binding

If Paul wasn’t assuming that, he would have been commanding his followers to adhere to a mistaken doctrine. He writes:

"If any one refuses to obey what we say in this letter, note that man, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed" (2 Thess. 3:14).

"Take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them" (Rom. 16:17).

He didn’t write about "the pretty-much, mostly, largely true but not infallible doctrine which you have been taught."

10. Sola Scriptura Is a Circular Position

When all is said and done, Protestants who accept sola scriptura as their rule of faith appeal to the Bible. If they are asked why one should believe in their particular denominational teaching rather than another, each will appeal to "the Bible’s clear teaching." Often they act as if they have no tradition that guides their own interpretation.

This is similar to people on two sides of a constitutional debate both saying, "Well, we go by what the Constitution says, whereas you guys don’t." The U.S. Constitution, like the Bible, is not sufficient in and of itself to resolve differing interpretations. Judges and courts are necessary, and their decrees are legally binding. Supreme Court rulings cannot be overturned except by a future ruling or constitutional amendment. In any event, there is always a final appeal that settles the matter.

But Protestantism lacks this because it appeals to a logically self-defeating principle and a book that must be interpreted by human beings. Obviously, given the divisions in Protestantism, simply "going to the Bible" hasn’t worked. In the end, a person has no assurance or certainty in the Protestant system. They can only "go to the Bible" themselves and perhaps come up with another doctrinal version of some disputed doctrine to add to the list. One either believes there is one truth in any given theological dispute (whatever it is) or adopts a relativist or indifferentist position, where contradictions are fine or the doctrine is so "minor" that differences "don’t matter."

But the Bible doesn’t teach that whole categories of doctrines are "minor" and that Christians freely and joyfully can disagree in such a fashion. Denominationalism and divisions are vigorously condemned. The only conclusion we can reach from the Bible is what we call the "three-legged stool": Bible, Church, and Tradition are all necessary to arrive at truth. If you knock out any leg of a three-legged stool, it collapses.

 

[Iscool]

does not imply that marriage is a MUST because it leads to obvious absurdities. For one, if "the husband of one wife" really meant that a bishop had to be married, then by the same logic "keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way" would mean that he had to have children. Childless husbands (or even fathers of only one child, since Paul uses the plural) would not qualify. In fact, following this style of interpretation to its final absurdity, since Paul speaks of bishops meeting these requirements (not of their having met them, or of candidates for bishop meeting them), it would even follow that an ordained bishop whose wife or children died would become unqualified for ministry!

The logic of man vs. the logic of God...

IF the Bishop's wife and children die, the Bishop still has the life experience of a family...That's the point Paul makes...You can not minister to families if you've never had a family of your own, AND, you must show that you were successful at having a family...

Clearly, the point of Paul’s requirement that a bishop be "the husband of one wife" is not that he must have one wife, but that he must have only one wife. Expressed conversely, Paul is saying that a bishop must not have unruly or undisciplined children (not that he must have children who are well behaved), and must not be married more than once (not that he must be married).

NO...The point of God's requirement is just exactly what it says...If God wanted it to say what you claim it means, God would have written it that way...

[Cronos]

The dative case (abbreviated dat, or sometimes d when it is a core argument) is a grammatical case generally used to indicate the noun to whom something is given. For example, in "John gave Mary a book".

The thing being given may be a tangible object, such as "a book" or "a pen", or it may be an intangible abstraction, such as "an answer" or "help". The dative generally marks the indirect object of a verb, although in some instances the dative is used for the direct object of a verb pertaining directly to an act of giving something. In Russian, for example, the verb 'to call' [by telephone] is always followed by a noun in the dative.

In some languages the dative case has assimilated the functions of other now-extinct cases. In Ancient Greek, the dative has the functions of the Proto-Indo-European locative and instrumental as well as those of the original dative.

The dative was common among early Indo-European languages and has survived to the present in the Balto-Slavic branch and the Germanic branch, among others

The Old English language, current until approximately some time after the time of the Norman Conquest in 1066, had a dative case; however, the English case system gradually fell into disuse during the Middle English period, when the accusative and dative pronouns merged into a single objective pronoun used in both roles. This merging of accusative and dative functionality in Middle and Modern English has led most modern grammarians to discard the "accusative" and "dative" labels in English as obsolete, in favor of the term "objective".

While the dative case is no longer a part of modern English usage, it survives in a few set expressions. One good example is the word "methinks", with the meaning "it seems to me". It survives in this fixed form from the days of Old English (having undergone, however, phonetic changes with the rest of the language), in which it was constructed as "[it]" + "me" (the dative case of the personal pronoun) + "thinks" (i.e. "seems", < Old English thyncan -"to seem", a verb closely related to the verb thencan -"to think", but distinct from it in Old English; later it merged with "think" and lost this meaning).

The pronoun whom is a remnant of the dative case in English, descending from the Old English dative pronoun "hwām" (as opposed to the nominative "who", which descends from Old English "hwā") — though "whom" also absorbed the functions of the Old English accusative pronoun "hwone".

Likewise, "him" is a remnant of both the Old English dative "him" and accusative "hine", "her" serves for both Old English dative "hire" and accusative "hīe", etc.

[Cronos]

Finally, Paul says a bishop must be "the husband of one wife," and "must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way; for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he care for God’s Church?" (1 Tim. 3:2, 4–5). does not imply that marriage is a MUST because it leads to obvious absurdities.

For one, if "the husband of one wife" really meant that a bishop had to be married, then by the same logic "keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way" would mean that he had to have children. Childless husbands (or even fathers of only one child, since Paul uses the plural) would not qualify.

In fact, following this style of interpretation to its final absurdity, since Paul speaks of bishops meeting these requirements (not of their having met them, or of candidates for bishop meeting them), it would even follow that an ordained bishop whose wife or children died would become unqualified for ministry!

The theory that Church leaders must be married also contradicts the obvious fact that Paul himself, an eminent Church leader, was single and happy to be so. Unless Paul was a hypocrite, he could hardly have imposed a requirement on bishops which he did not himself meet. Consider, too, the implications regarding Paul’s positive attitude toward celibacy in 1 Corinthians 7: the married have worldly anxieties and divided interests, yet only they are qualified to be bishops; whereas the unmarried have single-minded devotion to the Lord, yet are barred from ministry!

Clearly, the point of Paul’s requirement that a bishop be "the husband of one wife" is not that he must have one wife, but that he must have only one wife. Expressed conversely, Paul is saying that a bishop must not have unruly or undisciplined children (not that he must have children who are well behaved), and must not be married more than once (not that he must be married). There is no continuing revelation in the church as you correctly point out.

[BenKenobi]

Sigh. Point was he referred to the Apostles. The words as handed down by the Apostles. I don’t see disciples anywhere in his statement and this is significant.

It shows me that the Gospels had to be approved by the Apostles before they became distributed through the Church, and passed on, as they were in Ireneus’s time.

[BenKenobi]

“Mary did not save herself in any way — we believe that all of what she did or was was due to God’s grace. All Mary did was say ‘yes’. The grace was freely given by God, the protectino by God, everything by God, Her Son and Savior.”

Agreed, and thank you. I hope I’ve stated it correctly so far.

[BenKenobi]

Never said it was equal. Simply that her participation was voluntary and that she chose to be Christ’s mother.

[BenKenobi]

Gates. of. Hell. will. not. prevail.

How hard is this to parse?

[Cronos]

My apologies Ben, I meant to cc you to an answer given to CB. I’ve sent you a freepmail.

[GonzoII]

"So what did Jesus says that is not recorded in the scriptures???"

Enough of what we need to know:

Acts:1:3:

"To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion, by many proofs, for forty days appearing to them, and speaking of the kingdom of God. (DRV)

In turn we received all that is necessary by the preaching of the apostles:

Mt:28:20:

"Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world!. (DRV)

[Iscool]

What if the "gates of Hell" being powerless to prevail has reference to people who had been on the INSIDE as captives until salvation was completed on the Cross, and justification was secured by the Resurrection, waiting to be led out captive by their Redeemer?

If we accept that, we'd have to actually believe Jesus...

While the 'gates of Hell' held those people, and the only way they could get out is to have the gates unlocked (Rev 1:18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death. ) by someone who has the keys, and the verse says the gates of Hell will not prevail,,,,,

Heaven forbid that we would actually consult God on the issue...

But we're supposed to believe that the verse is some extremely vague unBiblical reference to the Catholic religion surviving and prevailing against Satan forever, with no Biblical support whatsoever...

[Iscool]

You may as well post that junk...You certainly don't have any scripture to back up your words...

[Cronos]

The Tibeto-Kanauri or Bodish-Himalayish languages are a proposed intermediate level of classification of the Tibeto-Burman languages, centered on the Tibetan and Kanauri languages. The conception of the relationship, or if it is even a valid group, varies between researchers.

Sub-divisions are Bodish, West Himalayish and Tamangic

Some idiots who think they are cool can't understand normal English, so one has to explain to them in a variety of languages, but dropping down to their level is like trying to explain calculus to an ostrich that was dropped on it's head when a baby.

Tamangic The languages are Tamang (two divergent varieties, with a million speakers); Gurung (three varieties with low mutual intelligibility); Thakali (including the Seke dialect; ethnically Tamang), and the closely related Manang(ba) [Nyishang(ba)], Gyasumdo, and 'Narpa ('Nar-Phu); the Chantyal language; and the undescribed Kaike.

The Ghale language, spoken by the Ghale people who are ethnically Tamang, seems to be related to Tamangic, but not enough is known about it to be sure.

[John Leland 1789]

Let's face it, though, a lot of our Baptist brethren, infected with Landmarkism, and trying to prove a successionism that doesn't exist in the way Landmarkers want to believe, ALSO to prove some kind of controlling authority for themselves, have also contributed to the confusion on Matthew 16:13-19.

Bible-believers don't have to deny the connection of that "Church" with the future, Millennial, Davidic Kindom---the "kingdom of heaven," nor do we have to deny that the Apostles including Peter DO have a special authority. They will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

The problem is STILL the false idea that every time one sees the word "church" in the NT, it must be the same church in every passage. The context must determine which "church" it is in any given passage.

[Iscool]

It shows me that the Gospels had to be approved by the Apostles before they became distributed through the Church, and passed on, as they were in Ireneus’s time.

I don't know that they had to be approved by each Apostle but I can only assume they were not disputed by each other...I don't recollect any of the Apostles asking each other for permission to accept any scripture...

In fact, Peter accepted Paul's writing as scripture, but why??? Was it because of what could be proven by Peter or was it because Peter knew Paul was an Apostle and his preaching/writing was authorative???

It shows me that the Gospels had to be approved by the Apostles before they became distributed through the Church, and passed on, as they were in Ireneus’s time.

If you believe that, then you certainly know as I do that the Canon of the scripture ended with the words of John in Revelation, 'Even so, come Lord Jesus'...

[Iscool]

“Mary did not save herself in any way — we believe that all of what she did or was was due to God’s grace. All Mary did was say ‘yes’. The grace was freely given by God, the protectino by God, everything by God, Her Son and Savior.”

Did the Angel ask Mary any questions??? Did God know thousands or millions of years prior to that, that Mary would be the Mother of Jesus???

Did you ever make a left turn when you really wanted to turn right, but by doing so avoided an accident???

Is writing a Latin word in the middle of an English language paragraph suppose to impress someone???

I wonder if you guys do that to impress each other on how much you study Latin (instead of using that time to study the Scriptures)...

[Iscool]

Gates. of. Hell. will. not. prevail.

How hard is this to parse?

Gates of Hell is real easy...It means; Gates of Hell...

So now tell us, what does Gates of Hell mean to a Catholic???

[Iscool]

Enough of what we need to know:

Well, what is that 'enough'??? What did Jesus say that was not recorded in the scriptures???

You guys claim that your tradition is justified because Jesus taught things outside of the sciptures, apparently to your Church...So what did Jesus teach you guys??? Shirley you can answer that...

[CynicalBear]

I’m not using my words to prove a point. Study your own Church history and find what heresies the Church has embraced. I have given the source of all quotes.

>>“It originated in the fifth century with the heretics Pelagius and Celestius and was universally rejected by both Fathers and popes of the early church”<<

The first Father to promote the teaching of her assumption was Gregory of Tours in A.D. 590, and he based his teaching on an apocryphal gospel found in the Transitus literature. The assumption doctrine actually originated with this literature { This fact is affirmed by the Roman Catholic historian and Mariologist Juniper Carol (Mariology, 1:149) in these comments: 'The first express witness in the West to a genuine assumption comes to us in an apocryphal Gospel, the Transitus beatae Mariae of Pseudo-Melito.'} sometime in the fourth or fifth centuries and this specific teaching — the Transitus assumption of Mary was officially rejected as heretical. It was placed in the same category with such heretics as Arius, Pelagius, and Marcion and was condemned by two popes in the late fifth and early sixth centuries — Gelasius and Hormisdas. These popes place this doctrine, its authors and the contents of their writings, as well as all who follow their teachings, under an eternal anathema. { In his decree, Decretum de Libris Canonicis Ecclesiasticis et Apocrypha, which was later affirmed by Pope Hormisdas, Gelasius lists the Transitus teaching by the following title: Liber qui apellatur Transitus, id est Assumptio Sanctae Mariae under the following condemnation: 'These and writings similar to these, which....all the heresiarchs and their disciples, or the schismatics have taught or written....we confess have not only been rejected but also banished from the whole Roman and Apostolic Church and with their authors and followers of their authors have been condemned forever under the indissoluble bond of anathema' (St. Gelasius I, Epistle 42; taken from Henry Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma [London: Herder, 1954], 69-70). Cf. Migne P.L., vol. 59, col. 162, 164.}

There is no Scriptural proof for it, and even the Roman Catholic writer Eamon Duffy concedes that, ‘there is, clearly, no historical evidence whatever for it ...’ (Eamon Duffy, What Catholics Believe About Mary (London: Catholic Truth Society, 1989), p. 17). For centuries in the early Church there is complete silence regarding Mary’s end. The first mention of it is by Epiphanius in 377 A.D. and he specifically states that no one knows what actually happened to Mary. He lived near Palestine and if there were, in fact, a tradition in the Church generally believed and taught he would have affirmed it. But he clearly states that ‘her end no one knows.’ These are his words:

“But if some think us mistaken, let them search the Scriptures. They will not find Mary’s death; they will not find whether she died or did not die; they will not find whether she was buried or was not buried ... Scripture is absolutely silent [on the end of Mary] ... For my own part, I do not dare to speak, but I keep my own thoughts and I practice silence ... The fact is, Scripture has outstripped the human mind and left [this matter] uncertain ... Did she die, we do not know ... Either the holy Virgin died and was buried ... Or she was killed ... Or she remained alive, since nothing is impossible with God and He can do whatever He desires; for her end no-one knows.’ (Epiphanius, Panarion, Haer. 78.10-11, 23. Cited by juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. II (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), pp. 139-40).

In addition to Epiphanius, there is Jerome who also lived in Palestine and does not report any tradition of an assumption. Isidore of Seville, in the seventh century, echoes Epiphanius by saying that no one has any information at all about Mary’s death. The patristic testimony is therefore non-existent on this subject. Even Roman Catholic historians readily admit this fact:”

“In these conditions we shall not ask patristic thought—as some theologians still do today under one form or another—to transmit to us, with respect to the Assumption, a truth received as such in the beginning and faithfully communicated to subsequent ages. Such an attitude would not fit the facts...Patristic thought has not, in this instance, played the role of a sheer instrument of transmission’ (Juniper B. Carol, O.F.M., ed., Mariology, Vol. I (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1955), p. 154).”

You said >>“You don’t have a clue what you are talking about.<<

Yet I site the writings of your own Church fathers and historians.

I will leave you with this verse.

1 Timothy 2:5, "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus"

[aruanan]

Is writing a Latin word in the middle of an English language paragraph suppose to impress someone???

Ha ha ha, more than 28% of English is of Latin origin.

[Iscool]

Bible-believers don't have to deny the connection of that "Church" with the future, Millennial, Davidic Kindom---the "kingdom of heaven," nor do we have to deny that the Apostles including Peter DO have a special authority. They will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

The Bible is ransacked with information and truth...It just amazes me, one; that people will read Mat. 16: 18-20 and build a Theological monstrosity on those few verses and two; that people will accept that Theology without consulting or believing the words of the God that gave us those words...

The problem is STILL the false idea that every time one sees the word "church" in the NT, it must be the same church in every passage. The context must determine which "church" it is in any given passage.

I agree with that...