Scripture
Gary DeMar Is Chasing Shadows: A Response to His Very Misguided Defense of Sola Scriptura
Mark Bonocore goes to town on Gary DeMar, a former Catholic who has not done his home work. Read how Mark summons up the wealth of biblical evidence for oral apostolic tradition and completely empties sola scriptura of its false claims. Gary's comments are in red.
I was recently asked to be a guest on Stu Epperson’s Evangelical Protestant radio show, TruthTalk Live. The topic of the show (or so I was told) was to be why Evangelical scholars seem to use of the writings of the Church fathers inconsistently. As anyone interested in Christian media is well aware, over the past year, a score of Evangelical writers and speakers have appealed to the testimonies of the early Church fathers to counter the ridiculous historical distortions presented in Dan Brown’s infamous book/movie, The DaVinci Code. Kudos to our Evangelical brothers for that! But, while these Evangelicals are happy to accept what the fathers have to say about the Divinity of Christ and the early acceptance of certain New Testament books as Scripture (both called into question in Brown’s silly novel), they simultaneous deny (and/or ignore) what these very same fathers have to say –universally and consistently –about essential tenets of the early Christian faith, such as the regenerating nature of Sacramental Baptism, the Real and Sacrificial Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and the ability of a Christian to reject and forfeit his or her salvation due to serious sin (contra the thoroughly-modern Evangelical doctrine of “Eternal Security”). This, once again, is what I thought we would be discussing. In reality, the show turned into a very disjointed and fairly unreasonable ‘debate’ on sola Scriptura (“Bible alone”), with the host spinning the issue via such ‘open-minded’ quips as “Who should you trust: the Church fathers or the Word of God?” – an obviously biased and ignorant ‘either-or’ proposition, which is alien to both the Catholic position and objective historical reality. So, needless to say, there was not much exploration of substantive “Truth” on “TruthTalk Live.” I strongly encourage the producers of the show (who I believe do care about objective Truth) to work on this intellectual shortcoming.
My opponent in this poorly structured ‘debate’ was a very nice and clearly sincere Presbyterian apologist named Gary DeMar. I had never met Gary before; and just had a very brief opportunity to say hello to him (by phone) a few minutes prior to the radio show. At this point, I was told that Gary himself used to be a Catholic; but, during the course of the show, I was quite surprised by some of Gary’s comments about the Catholic faith, which strongly implied that he does not possess a very mature appreciation of authentic Catholic doctrine. (More on this below.) Throughout the show, Gary also passionately promoted the Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura (Bible alone), and used this to essentially dismiss the testimony of the Church fathers, as if such universal and consistent ancient Christian testimony is irrelevant. Needless to say, this is not a position shared by the vast majority of reasonable Christians, and certainly not by the Evangelical scholars who use the fathers to defend historical Christianity against The DaVinci Code. Indeed, appealing to “Bible alone” is certainly no way to prove to a secular-liberal (or any non-Christian) that the early Church always believed in the Divinity of Christ or that the Gospel of Matthew was accepted as apostolic and inspired from earliest times. Rather, one must appeal to external and objective historical reality –the same historical reality that shows that all early Christians interpreted the Scriptures differently than most modern Evangelicals do in regard to the nature of Baptism, the nature of the Eucharist, and the nature of salvation (viz. the modern Evangelical doctrine of “Eternal Security”)
Now, during our ‘debate,’ it of course did not surprise me that Gary wanted to move the conversation away from an area that no Protestant can objectively defend –that is, the fact that many Evangelical Protestant interpretations of Scripture are entirely unhistorical and inconsistent with the essential beliefs of ancient Christianity. What does surprise me, however, is that an otherwise intelligent and well-educated Christian like Gary DeMar would cite such profoundly weak and thoroughly unScriptural reasons for subscribing to sola Scriptura in the first place! Having never encountered Gary prior to the show, I was of course not aware of his comprehensive beliefs. But, after reading an online article by him entitled “Denying Sola Scriptura: The Attempt to Neutralize the Bible” (http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive/denying_sola_scriptura.asp), I must admit that my opinion of Gary’s scholarship is not a very high one. Indeed, the arguments presented in his article are not only objectively unreasonable, but they also reveal a profound ignorance of Scripture itself! I certainly do not mean, in any way, to insult Gary. But, his poor grasp of this issue makes me seriously concerned for his immortal soul, since he has (by his own admission) apparently left the Catholic Church for reasons that are entirely divorced from reality.
For example, he writes …
“There is much I appreciate about my Catholic training. I was taught the cardinal doctrines of the faith as expressed in the Apostles' Creed. …Many of the basic tenets of Catholicism are biblical. One of the distinguishing characteristics of a cult is the denial of the divinity of Christ. There is no such denial in Catholicism. Roman Catholics teach and adhere to the Apostles' Creed. This is why men like Luther and Calvin are called Reformers: they wanted to reform the church, not replace it. They recognized that not everything within Catholicism was in error. …. After becoming a Christian in February of 1973, I began to question a number of Catholic doctrines. The Bible had become the standard of faith for me. It was sola scriptura -- Scripture alone -- not the Bible plus anything else that led me to reconsider what I had been taught as a child about Catholicism. Those doctrines that lined up with the Bible, I retained. Those doctrines that could not be supported by an appeal to the Bible, I rejected. Again, sola scriptura was the reference point.”
Can anyone spot the flaw in this argument?? Gary basically claims that he left the Catholic Church because it holds to doctrines (oral Traditions) that are not found in the Bible. Okay-dokie. But, if that’s Gary’s standard, then he should also reject the doctrine of “Scripture alone,” since that cannot be found anywhere in the Bible either! No verse of Scripture commands Christians to live by “Scripture alone” or to make Scripture their sole rule of Faith. Christ never commands this, nor did the Apostles. Thus, Gary follows a non-Scriptural, non-Apostolic rule of faith that was also clearly unknown to the early Church. In other words, he follows a man-made oral tradition created by the Protestant reformers and, in doing this, he violates his own standard of binding authority. For, he follows a rule of faith (sola Scriptura) that is not taught anywhere in his rule of faith (the Scriptures alone). It is amazing to me that Gary and other intelligent, well-meaning Protestants like him are apparently unable to see this obvious contradiction.
But, Gary is also under the (very false) impression that sola Scriptura is advocated in Scripture. For, he also writes …
"Demonstrating sola scriptura from the Bible is not very difficult. Jesus used the Bible to counter the arguments of Satan. Scripture was quoted, not tradition (Matthew 4:1-10 and Luke 4:1-12). The same can be said about His debates with the religious leaders. He asks them, "Did you never read in the Scriptures?" (Matthew 21:42). The appeal is not made to any ecclesiastical body, the priesthood, or tradition.
“The Sadducees, who denied the doctrine of the resurrection, hoped to trap Jesus with a question that seems to have no rational or biblical answer. Jesus, with all the prerogatives of divinity, could have manufactured a legitimate and satisfactory answer without an appeal to Scripture. He did not. Instead, he tells them, "You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures, or the power of God" (Matthew 22:29). Here we find Jesus rejecting ecclesiastical opinion -- as represented by the Sadducees -- in favor of sola scriptura.
“To whom does Abraham appeal in the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus? Does he point to tradition? He does not. Ecclesiastical Authority? No. A saint? (Abraham himself may have qualified.) No. Abraham answers, "They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them" (Luke 16:29). The rich man is not satisfied with this response. "No, Father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!" (verse 30). Maybe a miracle is in order, the rich man suggests. Abraham's appeal, however, is to Scripture: "But he said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone rises from the dead'" (verse 31).
“On the road to Emmaus, Jesus presents an argument to explain His death and resurrection: "And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures" (Luke 24:27). No mention is made of tradition. If you want eternal life, what are you to search? The Bible says, "You search the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is these that bear witness of me" (John 5:39). The religious leaders were searching the correct revelation, but they were looking for the wrong savior.
The Pharisees, who were notorious for distorting the Word of God by means of their "tradition" (Mark 7:8), still could speak the truth as long as they stuck with sola scriptura. When the "scribes and the Pharisees" seat "themselves in the chair of Moses," that is, when they are faithful in their use of Scripture, "do and observe" what they tell you (Matthew 23:2-3).”
Needless to say, none of the examples cited by Gary above demonstrate the Protestant principal of “Scripture alone.” The Catholic Church does not deny the supreme importance of Scripture, nor do we claim that Scripture is not a principal source of Divine truth. Far from it! Catholics hold to the Divine inspiration and authority of Scripture just as Protestants do. So, it does not surprise us that Jesus would quote the Scriptural Word of God when responding to Satan, or the Sadducees, or others. It is also not surprising that the risen Lord would recount for His disciples the Messianic prophecies about Him, which are of course recorded in Scripture. Scripture is a Divine authority, and a Divine authority of supreme importance. No one is disputing that. The issue here is whether or not Scripture is our only Divine authority. And none of the examples cited above illustrate that principal.
On the contrary, the Gospels are full of examples in which both their authors and the Lord Himself present and promote Jewish oral traditions that are found nowhere in the Old Testament Scriptures. Gary seems to be totally unaware of this, however.
Case in point, in Matt 23:1-3, it says …
“Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, saying, ‘The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the Chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all the things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example.’ ”
As any devout Jew can tell you, the “Chair of Moses” is the religious teaching authority of Israel; and, according to ancient Jewish oral tradition, it was passed on by succession to the various religious leaders who came after Moses. However, search as one may, this concept of a successive “Chair of Moses” is not found anywhere in the Old Testament Scriptures. Nor are the scribes and Pharisees (that is, the assembled Sanhedrin) ever depicted as succeeding to it. Rather, this was known to the Lord and all other Jews of His day by oral tradition, and oral tradition alone.
For example, it is recorded in the Midrash Rabbah: “They made for him (Moses) a chair like that of the advocates, in which one sits and yet seems to be standing.” (Exodus Rabbah 43:4)
Also, the Pesikta siRav Kahana 1:7 mentions the “chair of Moses,” and the editors of the English edition comment: “The particular place in the synagogue where the leaders used to sit was known metaphorically as the ‘chair of Moses’ or as the ‘Throne of the Torah,’ symbolizing the succession of teachers of Torah (from Moses) down through the ages.”
It should be quickly noted here that Gary ignorantly assumes that the “Chair of Moses” refers to Scripture or the sole use of Scripture. It does not. For Jews (both ancient and modern), the “Torah” consists of both the Five Books of Moses along with the Mishnah or binding oral Traditions of Moses, which together make up the Mosaic Law. The “Chair of Moses” was the final interpreter of both. Above, Gary repeatedly says that Jesus rejects ecclesial authority. Matt 23:1-3 shows otherwise, as does John 11:49-52 and numerous Scripture verses in reference to the Church of Christ itself (e.g. Matt 18:17-18, Acts 15:2, Acts 15:28, Acts 16:4, Heb 13:17, Philemon 8, etc.). The reason that Jesus condemns the “traditions” of the Pharisees in Mark 7:8, yet endorses the authority of “the scribes and Pharisees” in Matt 23:1-3, is because, in the latter, Jesus is referring to the common rule of the entire, assembled Sanhedrin, consisting of scribes (in this case, priest-scribes: Matt 2:4) and Pharisees together. In Mark 7:8, Jesus is condemning the sectarian traditions of the Pharisees alone, which had no binding authority over the Jewish people as a whole. So, properly understood, Jesus is far from “anti-tradition.”
Indeed, in Matthew 7:12, Jesus declares what is known to Christians as the “Golden Rule.” He says …
“Do to others whatever you would have them do to you. This is the Law and the Prophets.”
Here, the Lord is directly quoting, not Scripture, but an oral tradition of the famous Jewish rabbi Hillel, who also taught (a generation before Christ’s birth) that this maximum sums up the Law and the Prophets. Thus, Jesus is drawing from oral, rabbinical tradition, not from Scripture alone.
Likewise, in John 10:22, we are told that …
“The Feast of the Dedication was then taking place in Jerusalem. It was winter. And Jesus walked about in the Temple area in the Portico of Solomon.”
What many Protestants fail to spot here is that the so-called “Feast of Dedication,” which took place in winter, is the very same festival celebrated by Jews today as “Hanukkah” –a feast commemorating the recapture and rededication of the Temple under Judah Maccabees. However, the establishment of this feast is not found anywhere in the Protestant Bible, but only in 2 Maccabees 10, which is of course recognized as inspired Scripture by Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians. And, since John 10 clearly depicts Jesus participating in the observance of this feast, what this obviously means is that either the Protestant Bible is lacking or that Jesus is observing an extra-Scriptural tradition. Take your pick. Modern Jews (who also do not have 2 Maccabees in their Biblical canon) of course observe Hanukkah based on oral tradition. So, unless one wishes to accept the Divine inspiration of 2 Maccabees, a Protestant must assume that Jesus was in Jerusalem in observance of the feast for the very same reason –that is, He was following an oral tradition.
We can also cite other Gospel examples that reference, not Scripture, but oral Tradition. For example, in Matthew 2:23, we are told …
“He went and dwelled in a town called Nazareth, so that what had been spoken through the prophet might be fulfilled, ‘He shall be called a Nazorean.’ “
This is not a prophecy found anywhere in the Old Testament Scriptures. And, notice what it specifically says: It refers to “…what had been spoken through the prophet,” not “written.” This is a reference to an oral Tradition –an oral understanding.
So, in short, the Gospels contain many references to oral Tradition. And, when we turn to the Epistles of St. Paul and the other Apostles, these references become even more prominent.
Gary, however, does not think so. He writes …
“When Paul "reasoned" with the Jews, what revelational standard did he use?" And according to Paul's custom "he reasoned with them from the Scriptures" (Acts 17:2). Paul, who claimed apostolic authority (Romans 1:1; 11:13 1 Corinthians 9:1; Galatians 1:1), did not rebuke the Berean Christians when they examined "the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things" he was telling them were so (Acts 17:11). Keep in mind that the Bereans are described as "more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica." Could a Roman Catholic put the Pope on the spot like this? Could a Catholic challenge a Church doctrine with such an appeal? Notice that the Bereans were equal to Paul when it came to evaluating doctrine by means of Scripture. Paul's argument for the defense of sola fide is an appeal to Scripture: "For what does the Scripture say?" (Romans 4:2). Roman Catholic doctrine would add, "and Church tradition." Paul "opposed" Peter, supposedly the first Pope, "to his face" on this doctrine (Galatians 2:11), demonstrating that "a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith [fide] in Christ Jesus" (verse 16).”
Oh, Gary, Gary, Gary … Where to begin? First of all, as with Gary’s Gospel citations above, none of these passages even remotely advocate the principal of “Scripture alone.” That goes without saying. What’s more, as I said above, we Catholics do not say that Scripture is not important or should not be appealed to as the Word of God. We merely say that Scripture is not our only source of Divine doctrinal authority. And the Apostle Paul felt exactly the same way.
For example, in 1 Corinth 10:4, referring to Moses and the Israelites traveling in the desert, Paul writes …
“All ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they drank from a spiritual rock that followed them, and that rock was Christ.”
Now, while the Old Testament certainly depicts Moses drawing water from a rock, there is not one word in Scripture about this rock “following” the Israelites in the desert, let alone about this rock being a type or sign of the Messiah. Rather, Paul is drawing from an oral rabbinical tradition (documented as early as 200 B.C.) that was known to the Jews of his day, and he presents this tradition as an authoritative doctrine.
Likewise, in 2 Timothy 3:8, Paul directly names the two Egyptian magicians who opposed Moses before Pharaoh in Exodus 7:11-13. He writes …
“Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so they (i.e., Christian heretics) also oppose the Truth …”
Needless to say, Exodus itself never names these magicians, nor does any other Old Testament book. Nor does Exodus limit their number to only two men. Rather, Paul is citing Jewish oral tradition.
Likewise, Hebrews 11 (which, if not personally written by Paul, is at least “Pauline”) recounts all the great heroes of Biblical literature, and then, in verse 35, it continues …
“Women received back their dead through resurrection. Some were tortured and would not accept deliverance in order to obtain a better resurrection.”
As with the difficulty created for Protestants in John 10:22, this verse (Heb 11:35) depicts an event that takes place nowhere in the Protestant Old Testament canon, but only in 2 Maccabees 7, where the Maccabean mother encourages seven of her sons to accept tortured and death in hope of the resurrection from the dead. So, if one accepts Hebrews 11:35 as the Word of God, then one has an important choice to make: Either 2 Maccabees is also the Word of God, or the Pauline author of Hebrews is citing an extra-Scriptural oral Tradition, and placing this tradition on equal footing with all the heroic examples of the saints recounted in the Old Testament Scriptures. Again, take your pick.
Likewise, in the Epistle of Jude, we have additional references to extra-Scriptural traditions. For, in Jude 9 we read …
“Yet the Archangel Michael, when he argued with the devil over the body of Moses, …said ‘May the Lord rebuke you!’ “
Where is this event found in the Old Testament Scriptures? It is not.
And, in Jude 14-15, the Apostle says …
“Enoch, of the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied also about them, when he said, ‘Behold, the Lord has come with his countless holy ones to execute judgment on all and to convict everyone for all the godless deeds that they committed and for all the harsh words godless sinners have uttered against Him.’ “
Where in the Bible is Enoch ever quoted as saying this? Again, these are extra-Scriptural traditions, showing that the Apostles did not operate by “Scripture alone.”
Yet, not only does Gary seem to be unaware of these things, but, in zealously defending what is obviously indefensible (I refer to the man-made novelty of “sola Scriptura”), he also profoundly misuses Scripture in outlandish ways and, in an argument worthy of a Fundamentalist, misrepresents the context of Acts 17. Once again, he writes (emphasis mine)…
“Paul, who claimed apostolic authority (Romans 1:1; 11:13 1 Corinthians 9:1; Galatians 1:1), did not rebuke the Berean Christians when they examined "the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things" he was telling them were so (Acts 17:11). Keep in mind that the Bereans are described as "more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica." Could a Roman Catholic put the Pope on the spot like this?”
“Berean Christians,” Gary???? Come now. As anyone who reads the passage honestly well knows, the Bereans being referred to here are, at the time, non-Chrisitan Jews –that is, people who had not yet come to a belief in Jesus Christ. For, the passage in question (Acts 17:11-12) reads:
“These Jews (i.e., of Beroea) were more fair-minded than those of Thessalonica, for they received the Word with all willingness and examined the Scriptures daily to determine whether these things were so. Many of them (i.e., not all) became believers …”
So, what’s really happening here, Gary? All that the author of Acts (not Paul himself) is saying is that the Jews of Beroea were more fair and open to the Gospel than the Jews of Thessalonica were. For, the Thessalonian Jews had tried to kill Paul (Acts 17:5-10). The Berean Jews, however, took the time to search the Old Testament Scriptures. And why? Because Scripture alone was their rule? No. It was to see if this “Jesus” Who Paul was talking about fulfilled the Messianic prophecies. That’s all. For, this was precisely what the Jews of Thessalonica refused to do (see Acts 17:2-5).
I find it very hard to believe that Gary is unaware of the obvious context of this passage. Yet, he blatantly uses a very common but mindless Fundamentalist argument (i.e., the old “Berean call”) to argue (most unsuccessfully) for sola Scriptura. I find this simply disgraceful, and very unworthy of a Presbyterian with a Masters degree! Indeed, in adopting this silly Fundamentalist argument, Gary reveals that he has obviously never visited Macedonia, where the cities of Thessalonica and Beroea still stand. If he did, and if he knew anything about their historical relationship, he would know that Beroea is a small town and a suburb of the great metropolis of Thessalonica, which was the capital of Macedonia in Roman times. And what this meant was that the 1st Century church of Beroea was a dependant of the greater church Thessalonica, meaning that the Christian community of Beroea was actually part of the church of Thessalonica. And what this means is that, when Paul wrote his two Epistles to the Thessalonians, what he teaches in them is addressed directly to the Bereans as well. And what does Paul teach in his Second Epistle to the Thessalonians? Sola Scriptura? On the contrary, in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, he writes …
“Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, whether by an oral statement, or by a letter from us.”
He further says, in 2 Thessalonians 3:6 …
“We instruct you, brothers, in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to shun any brother who conducts himself in a disorderly way, and not according to the Tradition they received from us.”
Likewise, in 1 Thessalonians 2:13, Paul calls his oral teaching the “Word of God,” declaring …
“…in receiving the Word of God from hearing us, you received not a human word, but as it truly is, the Word of God, which is now at work in you who believe.”
Clearly, once the Thessalonians and the Bereans (that is, the suburban Thessalonians) had become Christians, they were subject to St. Paul’s authority and bound by his oral Traditions. They were clearly not limited to Scripture alone. And, once one realizes this, the profoundly ridiculous nature of Gary’s argument is exposed. For, to address Gary’s ludicrous question, the Berean Christians (like modern Catholic Christians) were not in a position to put St. Paul “on the spot” at all. For, they did not (and could not) pit their own reading of Scripture against the inspired and authoritative oral teaching of the Apostle. They were not his “equals” in terms of evaluating doctrine by any stretch of the imagination. Rather, they were bound by the Apostle’s Christ-given authority and his oral Traditions. That’s what we see here in Scripture, Gary –not the outlandish distortion that you present.
As for Paul’s reference to Scripture to Romans 4:2, here the Apostle to the Gentiles is simply citing Genesis as an example (a very important example) to illustrate his doctrine that one is justified by faith apart from the works of the Mosaic Law –that is, one does not have to become a Jew to be saved by Jesus Christ. But, Paul does not get this doctrine from “Scripture alone,” but rather as a new revelation directly from Christ Himself. For, in Galatians 2:2 (referring to Acts 15:2) he writes …
“I went up in accord with a revelation, and I presented to them (i.e., the Apostles and Jerusalem presbyters) the Gospel that I preach to the Gentiles –but privately to those of repute –so that I might not be running or have run in vain.”
Notice what Paul is saying here. Not only is he saying that his understanding of the Gospel comes through an extra-Scriptural revelation directly from Christ, he also gladly submits his understanding to the authority of the Jerusalem hierarchy, so as to make sure that he is not preaching something that is incorrect – that his own understanding is not flawed. Gary, however, is under the impression that the Bible never advocates ecclesial authority. Far from it.
Ah! But what about Gary’s reference to Gal 2:11-14, where Paul opposes Peter (Kephas) “to his face.” Doesn’t this imply that Paul rejects ecclesial authority? Only in Gary’s very misguided imagination. For, not only would that mean that Paul is contradicting himself within this very same chapter in Galatians (i.e., Gal 2:2), but Paul’s conflict with Peter in Gal 2:11-14 actually demonstrates Peter’s primal authority! For why boast of opposing Peter unless Peter was indeed the one in charge? What’s more, notice that Gal 2:11-14 takes place after Gal 2:2-9 –that is, after the council of Jerusalem depicted in Acts 15:2-11, where Peter defends Paul’s position in favor of the Gentiles. Indeed, in Gal 2:13 (that is, after the council), Paul accuses Peter of acting “hypocritically” --that is, teaching one thing, but then acting contrary to one’s own teaching. Thus, Paul is not questioning Peter’s teaching authority at all. Rather, he is holding Peter personally responsible for what Peter himself teaches; and Peter apparently appreciated this correction, for in 2 Peter 3:15-16 (written years later), he speaks of Paul’s “wisdom.” So, so much for Paul challenging Peter’s authority. You are indeed chasing shadows, Gary; and you are also obviously unaware that many great saints throughout Church history (e.g. St. Catherine of Siena) have rebuked Popes to their face for personal sins and hypocrisy. But this does not amount to a denial of Papal teaching authority, anymore than criticizing an American president amounts to a denial of presidential authority or the Presidency itself.
But, again, Gary simply cannot see any of this because he does not view Scripture correctly or comprehensively, but according to a very narrow and unfortunate Protestant agenda. He writes …
“When church leaders met in Jerusalem to discuss theological matters, again, their appeal was to Scripture. Their deliberations had to "agree" with "the words of the Prophets" (Acts 15:15), The Book of Acts is filled with an appeal to sola scriptura: the appointment of a successor to Judas (1:20); an explanation of the signs at Pentecost (2:14-21); the proof of the resurrection (2:30-36); the explanation for Jesus' sufferings (3:18); the defense of Stephen (7); Philip's encounter with the Ethiopian and the explanation of the suffering Redeemer (8:32-35): "Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this Scripture [Isaiah 53] he preached Jesus to him" (verse 35). In the Book of Acts the appeal is always to Scripture (10:43; 13:27; 18:4-5; 24:14; 26:22-23, 27; 28:23). The word tradition is nowhere to be found.
More silliness. Gary’s assertion that “the Book of Acts is filled with an appeal to sola scriptura” is simply a delusional thing to say. It is clearly not there. Yes, the Apostles used Scripture. But, so what? As I keep pointing out, appealing to Scripture does not amount to a profession of “Scripture alone.” Indeed, Catholics appeal to Scripture too. I myself have invoked the sacred words of Scripture numerous times in this article. Does that make me a sola Scriptura advocate as well? I don’t think so. What Gary fails to consider is that the Apostles appealed to Scripture when it was appropriate to appeal to Scripture; and especially when their intention was to defend or justify their Christian beliefs to a Jewish audience that rightfully expected the Messiah to fulfill the Scriptural prophecies about Him. But this does not amount to a practice of “Scripture alone.”
As for Gary’s claim about the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, of course the Apostles and presbyters had to “agree” with “the words of the prophets” (Acts 15:15). All sound doctrine agrees with inspired Scripture, and cannot contradict it. Yet, as he does with the Bereans in Acts 17, Gary’s implication that the Apostles and presbyters were limited to what was written in Scripture is a ridiculous distortion of the passage. For, the statement of St. James in Acts 15:13-21 is merely an amendment made by the leader of the ultra-Jewish faction (James himself) to Peter’s definitive teaching (Acts 5:7-11). For, as we said above, it was Paul’s extra-Scriptural revelation (Gal 2:2) that Gentiles in Christ did not need to convert to Judaism that was the debated issue (Acts 15:4 & 15:12), and Peter likewise (Acts 15:7) speaks with the authority of the revelation given directly to him (Acts 10:15), which led to the Baptism of Cornelius and his household, who were the first Gentiles to be converted –that is, without any mandated circumcision (Acts 10:44-48). None of this has any authoritative precedent in the Old Testament Scriptures, but is all part of the new (extra-Scriptural) revelation of the New Covenant. And St. James merely justifies this for his Pharisaic disciples by showing how it is in accord with Scripture, and not a departure from it. But, the decision of the council itself is made via the council’s own Christ-given power to “bind and loosen” (Matt 16:19 & 18:18) due to the Christ-promised “Spirit of Truth,” Who would “remain” with the Church “always,” leading it to “all Truth” (John 14:16-17 & 16:13). And this is made abundantly clear by the statement of the Apostles and presbyters in Acts 15:28, where they write to the Antiochian Gentiles and say …
“It is the decision of the Holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden …”
In other words, the Christ-promised Spirit of Truth spoke through the authority of the council –that is, through the authority of those to whom Jesus had entrusted the Church. And, indeed, notice how the authoritative decision of the council is received. For, in Acts 16:4, we read …
“As they (Paul and Silas) traveled from city to city, they handed on to the people for observance the decision reached by the Apostles and presbyters in Jerusalem.”
Notice that no one was permitted to debate the issue. There was no “equal evaluation of doctrine” (as Gary would have it) between these people and the Jerusalem authorities. Rather, the people were to observe the decision that was made by those in authority. And the very word “decision” here is “dogmata” in Greek –that is, “dogma”: binding Church authority. However, Gary makes no room for any of this in his very poor and misguided reading of Scripture.
Indeed, Gary continues to display a very deficient grasp of both Scripture and Judeo-Christian history, as he criticizes 2 Thess 2:15 –a verse often used by Catholic apologists to illustrate the reality of binding oral Tradition. He writes …
“But what of those verses that discuss the validity of tradition …especially 2 Thessalonians 2:15: "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us." Before we look at this verse, consider the Old Testament. Prior to its inscripturation, most people heard God's Word "in many portions and in many ways" (Hebrews 1:1). Some of this revelation came by way of oral instruction and written communiqués. Over time, this revelation came together in inscripturated form, designated "Scripture" in the New Testament. By the time of Jesus' birth this body of written revelation was recognized as being authoritative (Matthew 2:5; Luke 2:22-24). No church council was called to place its imprimatur on these Old Testament books. The Old Testament canon -- Scripture -- was not the product of the Old Testament church. "The church has no authority to control, create, or define the Word of God. Rather, the canon controls, creates and defines the church of Christ.”
It is just amazing to me that any educated Christian could make such ignorant statements. Is it possible that Gary’s knowledge of Judeo-Christian history is so poor that he does not realize how the Jewish Scriptural canon (or the Christian Scriptural canon) came about? Without recounting the detailed history, let me simply mention that it is a documented historical fact that the Jewish canon in Jesus’ day was not universally defined or closed. Neither Matthew 2:5 nor Luke 2:22-24 illustrate a closed canon or any standardized collection of books. The Jewish people would not define a closed canon until A.D. 90 (that is, after Judaism and Christianity went their separate ways) at the rabbinical school of Jamnia. For, while the “Torah” (the Five books of Moses) and the “Prophets” (the twelve prophetic books, along with the books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles) were defined prior to the time of Jesus, the third class of Old Testament Scriptures, called “the Writings,” was still fluent and ‘up for grabs.’ This would not be settled for Jews until Jamnia, and it is why the early Christian Old Testament canon (which relied on the Greek Septuagint) is different from the present Jewish canon. (i.e., one criterion for inclusion at Jamnia was that a book had to have been written originally in Hebrew, and thus Aramaic and Greek-language books were rejected simply because of that). So, the idea that Jesus and the Apostles were in the possession of a closed, Old Testament canon is pure historical fiction. But, don’t take a Catholic’s word for this. The great Protestant scholar Albert C. Sundberg, Jr. proves the historical reality in his “The Old Testamet of the Early Church” (Harvard University Press, 1964). In this same work, Sundberg also shows how the “Torah” and the “Prophets” were also canonized during successive periods in Jewish history and by Jewish ecclesial authorities. The “Torah” was canonized by the Levitical priesthood and universally accepted about the time of the early Jewish monarchy, and certainly before the split between the southern Kingdom of Judah and the northern Kingdom of Israel, for both Jews (Judahites) and Samaritans (the remnant of the northern kingdom) accepted the same Torah as binding and canonical. The “Prophets,” however, were not accepted as Scripture at this early time, but were still open and fluent. It was only during the so-called “Great Assembly” which took place in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah, when the Jews returned from exile in Babylon, that “the Prophets” attained canonical status –but only for some Jews, not all. Indeed, even in Jesus’ day, the ultra-conservative Sadducees did not hold the “Prophets” to be of equal authority as the “Torah,” whereas the Pharisees and others accepted them as equally inspired and binding.
So, in short, despite what Gary says, the Old Testament canon was determined by the religious authorities of Israel –that is, by the “Chair of Moses” (the teaching authority of Israel) to which the various religious leaders of Israel succeeded (Matt 23:1-3). This is what the authority of the Old Testament Scriptures rests upon.
And the very same is of course true of the New Testament canon, which was predominantly fluent, and varied considerably from ancient Christian city-church to city-church until Pope Damasus I (A.D. 382) initiated the process to define one, universal canon for the entire Church, which would be free of any implication of Arian doctrine. This is what led to the formal debating of the New Testament canon at the councils of Hippo (A.D. 393) and Carthage (A.D. 397), which is where our present New Testament canon comes from –that is, from the binding, Spirit-guided teaching authority of the Catholic Church. Gary appears to be totally ignorant of these historical facts, however. Nor does he seem to place any importance on historical evidence at all, which of course does not speak very well for the historicity and objectivity of his Christian faith. Either Christianity is a historical faith supported by historical reality, or it is purely subjective and relative. We Catholics believe in the former, whereas Gary, and many Protestant like him, seem to promote the latter.
For, Gary continues …
“Once the completed written revelation was in the hands of the people, appeal was always made to this body of material as Scripture. Scripture plus tradition is not a consideration. In fact, Jesus condemns the Pharisees and scribes because they made the claim that their religious traditions were on an equal par with Scripture (Mark 7:1-13).”
I’m sorry, but that is simply incorrect, Gary. Both Judaism and ancient Christianity recognize the binding authority of both Scripture and oral Tradition. There is no point in either Jewish or ancient Christian history in which any group of believers appealed to “Scripture alone.” The view you express above is a total fabrication. You have either been misled or are self-deluded. As I already mentioned, in Mark 7, Jesus does not condemn the Pharisees for making oral Tradition equal with Scripture. Rather, He condemns them for placing “man-made traditions” before the Word of God –that is, Traditions that are inconsistent with Divine revelation, whether that Divine revelation is written or oral. Gary obviously fails to see this because he assumes (wrongly) that the “Word of God” can only mean “Scripture.” It does not. The Word of God can also be communicated and retained orally: 1 Thess 2:13, 1 Peter 1:25, etc. Jesus’ objection to the traditions of the Pharisees was not that they were “traditions,” and not that they were ‘oral’ in nature. Rather, He condemns them because they were “human” –that is, man-made, and not based on Divine authority. And the VERY SAME is true of the unScriptural, man-made doctrine of sola Scriptura! No verse of Scripture teaches it. No Apostle taught it, and no early Christian ever believed in anything like it. Rather, sola Scriptura is clearly and unquestionably a creation of men, and was employed by the 16th Century Protestant “reformers” to avoid the fact that they possessed no Christ-given authority whatsoever to re-vamp established Christian doctrine or to divide the Church. This is the real origin and nature of sola Scriptura –the reason it exists, and why Protestant so zealously (yet unreasonably) cling to it --NOT because it is found in the Bible itself; NOT because it comes from Almighty God. And any honest Christian is obliged to admit this, and stop playing games or creating outlandish arguments as Gary clearly does. More on this below.
Gary also writes ….
“The Roman Catholic answer to this is self-refuting: ‘Jesus did not condemn all traditions; he condemned only erroneous traditions, whether doctrines or practices, that undercut Christian truths.’ Precisely. But how does one determine whether a tradition is an "erroneous tradition"? Sola scriptura!”
Wrong again, Gary. And we will address why you really believe this in just a moment. But, the correct answer to your question is that a Christian determines whether a tradition is Apostolic or erroneous by appealing to the Christ-given, Spirit-guided authority of the Church. This is what Jesus says to do in Matt 18:17-18, and what Paul and Barnabas do in Acts 15:2 and Gal 2:2. For, it is the Church (as 1 Tim 3:15 says) that is the “pillar and foundation of Truth.” And why? Because it is the Church (and not Scripture apart from the Church) that received the “Spirit of Truth” on the day of Pentecost; and this Spirit of Truth has not abandoned the Church, but, as Jesus promised, He “remains” with the Church “always,” leading it to “all Truth” (John 14:16-17 & 16:13). This is why even “the gates of hell will not prevail” against Christ’s Church (Matt 16:18) --because Jesus promised that false doctrine (which comes from the father of lies) would never overcome His Church. You Protestants, however, seriously imply that Jesus Christ did not keep this promise –that He is, in effect, a liar. For, you assume that the Church that Jesus founded was overcome by Satanic corruption and that its Spirit-guided teaching authority was distorted. Thus, you are under the very false impression that each Christian is personally responsible for determining orthodox doctrine, and thus orthodoxy depends on one’s personal interpretation of Scripture. However, Scripture itself denies this. For, in 2 Peter 1:20, we are told …
“Know this, first of all, that there is no prophecy of Scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation.”
The rest of the passage speaks of “false teachers” who interpret the Scriptures differently than the Apostolic Church does –that is, who usurp the authority of the Church.
Likewise, Hebrews 13:17 clearly commands:
“Obey those who have the rule over you, and submit yourself, for they watch for your souls, as those that must give an account, that they may do so with joy and not with grief, for that is unprofitable for you.”
Simple question, Gary: Who in the Church on earth has “the rule” over you? Who must you “obey”? Who must you “submit” to? Well, if you are honest about your Protestant faith, the answer is obvious: No one. For all Protestants follow the man-made teaching of Luther who, in accord with sola Scriptura, declared that “In matters of faith, each Christian is Pope and Church unto himself” (Luther, WA 5, 407, 35). Thus, if you don’t agree with your Presbyterian pastor, you have every right as a Protestant to leave his church and go find one that does agree with you. And, no one is in a position to say who is objectively right or wrong. Ah! But that’s not what we are told in Scripture. Rather, Scripture speaks of binding Church authority. Thus, neither you nor any Protestant is able to obey or take seriously the Scriptural command of Hebrews 13:17. This alone proves that you are not the “Bible Christians” that you depict yourselves to be. In this sense, you are disciples of Luther, not the Bible.
Yet, you go on ….
“The Catholic Church maintains that the appeal must be made to the Church whose authority is based on Scripture plus tradition. But this is begging the question. How could anyone ever claim that a tradition is erroneous if the Catholic Church begins with the premise that Scripture and tradition, as determined by the Catholic Church, are authoritative?”
They can’t, Gary. That’s the whole point! The Christ-promised, Spirit-guided authority of the Church is the final and objective standard of orthodoxy for Catholic Christians, just as it was for Christians in the Bible. Christ speaks through His Church (e.g. Luke 10:16), a Church that He has never, and can never, abandon, because it is His own Body and possesses His own Holy Spirit. Now, you, as a Protestant, can thumb your nose at this Church’s authority all you like. Many Judaizing Christians did the same in rejecting the teaching authority of the Church in Acts 15 in regard to Gentile circumcision (e.g. compare Acts 16:4 with Gal 5:2-10, etc.). But, whether one accepts the teaching authority of the Catholic Church or not, the fact remains that it is still our objective standard for determining orthodoxy. Protestantism, however, has no such objective standard, but unwittingly reduces the Christian faith to something purely subjective and relative, since each Protestant sect interprets the Bible differently, thanks to the man-made error of sola Scriptura. We will discuss this problem (the lack of an objective standard of orthodoxy) in greater detail below.
But first, Gary continues …
“How, then, is Paul using tradition in 2 Thessalonians 2:15? New Testament tradition is the oral teaching of Jesus passed down to the apostles. This is why Paul could write: ‘Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which you also stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the scriptures (1 Corinthians 15:1-4).’ In time, these New Testament doctrines -- traditions – became inscripturated in the same way Old Testament doctrines became inscripturated”
One again, Gary fails to see the proverbial forest for the proverbial trees. For, here in 1 Corinthians, St. Paul in no way limits what he calls His “Gospel” to the content of the New Testament Scriptures alone. Rather, in 1 Corinth 11:2, he writes …
"I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the Traditions, just as I handed them on to you."
What “Traditions” are these? Only those things that would later be recorded in the New Testament Scriptures? Not at all. Rather, what Paul is talking about is the full and comprehensive substance of the Apostolic deposit of Faith --both those things that would later be written down and those things that would not (e.g. John 21:25). For, later in 1 Corinth 11, he picks up on what he says about “praise” and “Traditions” in 1 Corinth 11:2 and refers to the proper celebration of the Lord’s Supper (the Eucharist). In 1 Corinth 11:20-23, he writes ...
“When you meet in one place, then, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper, for in eating each one goes ahead with his own supper, and one goes hungry while another gets drunk. Do you not have houses in which you can eat and drink? Or do you show contempt for the Church of God and make those who have nothing feel ashamed? What can I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this matter, I do not praise you. For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you ...”
Notice the connection to 1 Corinth 11:2. Paul “praises” the Corinthians for maintaining all the Traditions he has “handed on” to them except the proper way to celebrate the Lord’s Supper. This “Tradition” they have failed to properly maintain. Indeed, where are detailed instructions for how to celebrate the Lord’s Supper ever communicated in the New Testament Scriptures? More specifically, where in the New Testament Scriptures are we informed how to hold a proper “Agape” (that is, early Christian “love feast”) in which the celebration of the Eucharist is conducted during the course of an actual meal? No where. Indeed, in 1 Corinth 11:27-32, Paul continues on this point and says …
"Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the Cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the Body and Blood of the Lord. A man should examine himself, and so eat the Bread and drink the Cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the Body, eats and drinks condemnation on himself. That is why many of you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying.”
Does Jesus ever warn anybody about this in the Scriptural accounts of the Last Supper? No, He does not. So, where is Paul getting it from? Clearly, this was part of the instruction that he delivered to the Corinthians when he lived among them –instructions which they neglected to follow –that is, Paul’s full and comprehensive oral teaching, which he only touches on briefly here in 1 Corinthians. And, indeed, this raises an all-important question: What did St. Paul personally believe and teach about the nature of the Lord’s Supper? Did he believe that it was the Real and Incarnational Presence of Christ (i.e., the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox position, and that of the early Church), or that it was just a holy symbol (i.e., the Baptist and common Evangelical position), or that it was just some kind of spiritual Presence that is only subjectively discernable by the believer (i.e., the common Presbyterian position)? The Scriptures themselves do not directly tell us what St. Paul’s position was. Indeed, if we go by Scripture alone, we can only surmise what his actual position was, depending on how we interpret the sacred text. And, of course, different sola Scriptura-believing Protestant Christians interpret this text very differently. Yet, the Corinthians themselves must have known what Paul’s true position was. According to Acts 18:11, Paul lived in Corinth for “a year and a half.” Surely, during all this time, the question must have come up; and Paul must have delivered to the Corinthians (and to the other city-churches he founded) a comprehensive teaching about the nature of the Eucharist and what Christians should really believe about it. This comprehensive teaching --the oral Traditions delivered by Paul –is precisely what he is talking about in 1 Corinth 11:2; and this must have included a full and formal understanding of how the Eucharist should be regarded –whether as a symbol, or as a mere spiritual Presence, or as the objectively Real and Incarnational Presence of Christ. However, we cannot know this by looking at Scripture alone. We can only know it by considering the universal testimony of the early city-churches that Paul founded, all of which testify to a belief in the Real and Incarnational Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (i.e., the modern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox belief). Only with this information at our disposal can we read 1 Corinth 11 correctly, not via the principal of “Scripture alone.” So, from this one example, it is very clear that not everything that Paul committed to the city-churches was “inscripturated” (as Gary calls it) into the written text of the New Testament. Rather, it was preserved in the living belief and practice of the city-churches that the Apostles founded (e.g. Philippians 4:9).
But, Gary’s position becomes even more untenable, and I would even say quasi-blasphemous (though unwittingly so), when he applies this silly argument to 2 Thess 2:15 itself. Here, St. Paul commands his flock to “Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, whether by an oral statement or by a letter …” According to Gary’s belief, this merely refers to the Apostolic testimonies that would eventually be written down in the New Testament Scriptures, and nothing more. But, as any Christian who believes in the Divine inspiration of Scripture must admit, such an interpretation simply cannot stand. Why do I say this? I say this because, not only is there no reference in this (or any other) verse of Scripture that even remotely implies that a time will come when Paul’s oral Traditions will all be written down, but if the oral Traditions that Paul refers to in 2 Thess 2:15 were all eventually written down, then it would mean that either 2 Thess 2:15 is not inspired by God or that the Holy Spirit was unable to see the future! Think about it: The inspired Scriptural command tells Christians to “stand firm” and “hold fast” to Apostolic oral Traditions as well as written ones. If these Traditions would not remain oral –that is, if the Apostles would eventually write them down, then this inspired command to “stand firm” and “hold fast” to them is pointless and empty. Indeed, why would the Holy Spirit move Paul to write this in Scripture if it would one-day be null and void? Surely, if the Holy Spirit can see the future (as we must believe He can), He would not inspire a Scriptural command that would soon cease to have any meaning or application for Christians. Such a thing would make no sense. For, as it says in Isaiah 55:11:
“So shall my Word be that goes forth from my mouth; It shall not return to me void, but shall do my will, achieving the end for which I sent it.”
Thus, if the Holy Spirit knew that all Apostolic Traditions would one-day be written down, He would not have inspired Paul to “inscriptuate” a command that is meaningless to us today or that cannot be observed. That should be obvious. So, it therefore follows that there must be Apostolic oral Traditions that were never written down by the Apostles themselves, but to which the true Church of Christ (by the Spirit’s command) still continues to “hold fast.” And I of course illustrated one of these oral Traditions above, in regard to 1 Corinth 11 and the Apostolic understanding of the nature of the Holy Eucharist. And, aside from the nature of the Eucharist, there are many, many other subtle but essential Apostolic Traditions (read: comprehensive understandings) which simply cannot be objectively determined via the principal of “Scripture alone.” If it were otherwise, then all sola-Scriptura-believing Protestant Christians would agree on doctrine (per 1 Corinth 1:10). However, they clearly do not. They clearly interpret the same Scriptures differently, and so do not agree on what the Apostles truly taught on a great number of essential issues.
But, yet again, Gary has no appreciation of this obvious reality. For, he concludes his article by saying (emphasis mine) …
“When the Old Testament canon closed, the canon was referred to as Scripture. The same is true of the development of the New Testament canon. After a complete end had been made of the Old Covenant order in A.D. 70, the canon closed. All New Testament books were written prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. All that God wanted His church to know about "faith and life" can be found in Scripture, Old and New Testament revelation. The Westminster Confession of Faith states it this way: ‘All synods and councils, since the Apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both (Ephesians 2:20; Acts 17:11; 1 Corinthians 2:5; 2 Corinthians 1:14)’ (WCF 31:4). Any "tradition" that the church develops after the close of the canon is non-revelational. Its authority is not in any way equal to the Bible. All creeds and confessions are subject to change based on appeal to Scripture alone. The denial of sola scriptura is Roman Catholicism's foundational error.”
Well, as long as we’re talking about “fundamental errors,” let’s recount what we’ve seen so far:
So, Gary DeMar’s Protestant religion is clearly and objectively in error in regard to all seven points listed above. It’s actually amusing that he can so boldly accuses Catholicism of “error” when his own position is obviously groundless and indefensible (e.g. Matt 7:3-5). Indeed, his position on point # 7 is particularly ignorant and unreasonable. Firstly, the canon of Scripture was not closed in A.D. 70, or at any time prior to the council of Carthage in A.D. 397. No honest student of history can claim otherwise. Secondly, it is simply untrue (as Gary maintains) that all of our present canonical books were in existence before A.D. 70. The Gospel of John, at the earliest, was certainly completed in the 90’s A.D. --that is, after the death of the Apostle John (see John 21:23). And, even if we accept Gary’s baseless premise and push the acceptable date back to, say, A.D. 100, … That is, even if all our present canonical books were written before A.D. 100 (which is certainly true); and even if all our present canonical books were used by ancient Christians (which they certainly were), this does not erase the fact that not all Christian city-churches accepted all of the present New Testament books. Some churches rejected some of them. Also, a great many city-churches accepted other books that are presently excluded from our New Testament canon. And these previously accepted books were all written before A.D. 100 as well! Just to cite one quick and easily accessible source, in about A.D. 321, the Church historian Eusebius of Caesarea describes the universal state of the canon in the mid-4th Century –that is, before the council of Carthage. He writes …
“Among the disputed writings, which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name. Among the rejected writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd (i.e., the Shepherd of Hermas), and the Revelation of Peter, and …the Revelation of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others class with the accepted books.” (Eusebius of Caesarea, Historia Ecclesia, Book III, Chapter 25)
…and also …
"There is extant an epistle of this Clement which is acknowledged to be genuine and is of considerable length and of remarkable merit. …We know that this epistle also has been publicly used in a great many churches both in former times and in our own.” (Ibid, Book III, Chapter 16).
So, as late as the mid-4th Century, certain books in our present canon (James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, and Revelation) were disputed (or rejected) in some city-churches, whereas the epistle known as 1 Clement to the Corinthians, as well as other books like it (now excluded from our canon) were accepted as canonical by some city-churches. Ergo, Gary’s argument above could not be more alien to authentic Christian history. In other words, he subscribes to a standard of faith (and an argument to support this standard of faith) that is purely fabricated and totally unhistorical. Is such a belief system worthy of a Christian? Christians are disciples of Jesus Christ, Who is Himself “the Truth.” It is disgraceful for a Christian to claim that he or she follows the Truth, while, at the same time, ignoring what is indisputable and objective reality. Jesus Christ is the Lord of reality, not of fantasy.
But, if the doctrine of sola Scriptura is not found in Scripture, not supported in Scripture, and directly contradicted by Scripture, and by history, and by sheer common sense, then why do Protestants cling to it so zealously and desperately? And why do they come up with all sorts of clearly indefensible arguments to promote it? Well, as must be admitted in all honesty and charity, they do so based on a very well-meaning and even noble-minded intention, which is to conservatively safeguard the Apostolic deposit of Faith (as they assume it to be) and to protect the Apostolic deposit of Faith from any possible ‘additions’ or ‘distortions’ in the form of man-made traditions that are alien or harmful to Christian orthodoxy. And we Catholics, who spent the first thousand years of our history fighting the false, man-made doctrines of Gnosticism, Sabellianism, Arianism, Monophysism, and other major heresies, can certainly sympathize with this noble-minded intention of our Protestant brothers and sisters. We only have two criticisms: Their chosen method to protect the Apostolic Faith from error is a) not from God (but purely human) and b) it doesn’t work!
As is demonstrated consistently throughout history, whenever man uses strictly human methods to preserve the “purity” of something, it almost always backfires and blows up in his face. Sola Scriptura is no different. It is certainly a “conservative” technique, but an unwarranted and inappropriate one. Many 1st Century Jews used exactly the same type of all-too-human “conservative” reasoning when they rejected the Divinity of Christ because they assumed (narrowly and wrongly) that it violated the Monotheism of the Old Testament Scriptures. In this, they were thinking “not as God but as man” (Matt 16:23), and they excluded themselves from the New Covenant in the process! In the same way, sola Scriptura Protestants exclude themselves from many revealed, Apostolic truths because they are using a strictly human method to (supposedly) preserve the “purity” of the Word of God. But, if that’s their objective, then the 400-year-old Protestant experiment can only be called a miserable failure.
For, consider the fruit of sola Scriptura: Over 30,000 (and counting) separate and divided Protestant denominations –all with the same Bible, and all subscribing to sola Scirptura, but all interpreting the Bible differently! If sola Scriptura were of God and if it were an effective method for determining Christian orthodoxy, then it would, at the very least, yield consistent and repeatable results. But this is not what we see. Rather, we see different Protestant denominations strongly at odds with one another over what “the Bible” supposedly teaches about essential aspects of the Faith, such as the nature of Baptism, the nature of the Eucharist, the nature of justification, and many other such things. Now contrast this with the relationship between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. Of the 2 billion Christians in the world, 1 billion of them are Catholic and another ½ billion are Eastern Orthodox (the 30,000 divided Protestant sects making up the remaining ½ billion). And while the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church have been separated by schism since the year 1054, we still share about 98% of the same comprehensive doctrines, and we most certainly share a common Faith when it comes to the most essential Apostolic doctrines (e.g. the nature of Baptism, the nature of the Eucharist, etc.). And why is this? It’s because we both hold to the same body of Apostolic oral Tradition. So, despite the East-West schism (which is actually more cultural than doctrinal; and if doctrinal, then over comparatively minor doctrinal points), our common body of Apostolic oral Tradition does yield consistent and repeatable results; and it does so, against all purely practical or academic (that is, human) assumptions, because it is in accord with the Word of God (e.g. 2 Thess 2:15) and is natural to how the Lord and the Apostles established the Church and instructed it to preserve the Faith in all its fullness. Sola Scriptura, on the other hand, has plunged the Protestant world into a hopeless state of disunity, heterodoxy and confusion –a condition that is nothing like the unity of doctrine shared by the ancient Christians, or as depicted in the New Testament itself:
But, again, this is not the state of the Protestant world, nor can it be as long as sola Scripture is its ‘rule’ of faith –that is, as long as Protestants ignore the fact that Scripture requires an authoritative interpreter (e.g. Acts 8:30-31), and each Protestant claims the ability to be his own final judge of Scripture. For, despite the title of Gary DeMar’s article, it is not we Catholics (or Eastern Orthodox) who have “neutralized the Bible,” but the wholesale heterodoxy of Protestantism has done so, because it essentially reduces the Scriptural Word of God to an exercise in pure subjectivity and relativism. Sola Scriptura is the cause behind this; and it robs Protestant Christians of any unifying or binding authority (contra Matt 18:17-18, Acts 15:28, Heb 13:17), leaving them with no objective standard for determining Christian orthodoxy. Indeed, Gary DeMar can accuse the Catholic Church of “error” all he likes; but, as I’ve already illustrated, his own grasp of Scripture is far from infallible, and so he must honestly admit that his perception of Catholic “error” is merely the product of his own subjective judgment, and nothing more.
But, what is a Protestant to do? What if someone like Gary DeMar is honest with himself and admits that his sola Scriptura arguments cannot stand and that, in following sola Scriptura, he is actually subscribing to an unScriptural and objectively futile principal? What then? This is an aspect of the problem that few Catholics have taken the time to sensitively consider. For, if you strip a Protestant of his sola Scriptura “cocoon,” he is essentially lost. That is to say, he is suddenly plunged into a doctrinal environment (or potential doctrinal environment) that he is totally unequipped to deal with. He is not about to automatically embrace or submit himself to Catholicism, which is of course an “alien religion” with a whole set beliefs and practices that are “highly questionable” at best. So, once a Protestant accepts the fact that sola Scriptura is objectively untenable, and admits that at least some kind of Apostolic oral Traditions must exist, where is he (as a Protestant) to honestly look for them and how is he to observe them? I strongly believe that it is this dilemma, more than anything else, that causes otherwise brilliant Protestants to turn a blind eye to objective reality and maintain a ‘rule of faith’ that they know to be objectively flawed.
However, one thing that a Protestant can do is properly study ancient Christian history and explore how the one, Apostolic Faith has manifested itself over time and in all places. In our radio exchange, Gary described himself as an “internalist” (meaning that he uses Scripture alone), as opposed to “externalists” (which is how Gary classified Evangelical scholars like Josh McDowell), who look at evidence outside the Bible. Well, needless to say, Gary’s “internalism” does not serve him very well and he needs to broaden his horizons.
Case in point, and as I mentioned above, Gary’s grasp of authentic Catholic doctrine is demonstrably nothing short of tragic! In our radio ‘debate,’ he criticized the Catholic Church of “changing its doctrines,” and the example he used was the pre-Vatican II obligation of “meatless Fridays” –a mere change in discipline, which, as any student of Catholicism knows, does not amount to a “change in doctrine” at all. Gary was clearly never taught the Catholic (and Eastern Orthodox) distinction between dogma, canon law (or disciplines) and theolegoumena. Likewise, in his article, Gary spends a great deal of time criticizing the Rosary, which he cites as an example of “Tradition.” If Gary was properly educated as a Catholic (which he apparently was not), he would not make such a misapplication. For, the Rosary is not what we mean by Apostolic Tradition, but merely a pious devotion which dates from the 13th Century, and which is limited only to the Western Church. The Eastern Catholic Church (like the Eastern Orthodox Church) does not have the Rosary and, even in the West, no Catholic is obliged to pray the Rosary. Gary seems unaware of this, and tries to juxtapose the “Tradition” of the Rosary with the content of Scripture –a faulty comparison, to say the least. When Catholics speak of “Tradition” in the sense of “Scripture and Tradition,” what we mean are the substantial and binding doctrines, understandings, and examples that were left to us organically by the Apostles, and which were held in common by all the Apostolic city-churches. While the Rosary certainly contains references to Traditions that are Apostolic in nature, it is certainly not what we mean by Tradition itself. Thus, Gary is indeed chasing shadows and not properly or maturely exploring oral Tradition at all.
It is indeed very sad that Gary DeMar has rejected the Catholic faith of his childhood without ever honestly or comprehensively exploring it with the understanding of an adult. In saying this, do I publicly call Gary back to the Catholic Church? Not specifically. What I do call him to is objective Truth, and I invite him to reevaluate the Apostolic heritage (present in both Catholicism and in Eastern Orthodoxy) that he has so unfortunately and unwisely deprived himself of. Once he has done that, then it is up to the Lord Jesus where he should go and what he should do. But, the need for Gary to reevaluate his very faulty and objectively indefensible beliefs is undeniable. I pray that he takes this opportunity seriously. For Truth (that is, Christ Himself) is calling Gary to account.
Mark Bonocore
The Catholic Legate
October 18, 2006