Mark Bonocore offers his final rebuttal on Gary DeMar's poor excuses for leaving the Catholic faith and embracing the heresy of sola scriptura. Gary's comments are in red.
You know, apostasy and obstinate heresy are amazingly powerful things. Of course, in our modern, pluralistic society, one must be careful not to accuse a former Catholic of such sins too readily. Each generation, thousands of cradle Catholics turn their backs on the Catholic Church and its authority, most to embrace secular values that are incompatible with the Gospel, others because they have supposedly ‘found Jesus’ in one of the innumerable Evangelical Protestant sects that pepper our nation. In both of these scenarios, however, it must be assumed (with good reason) that most of these ‘apostates’ have little if any appreciation for the Christian truths they are rejecting, and so leave the Catholic Church based on general apathy, stupidity or genuine ignorance. This is why the Church makes a clear distinction between “formal heresy” (in which one intentionally denies a defined dogma of the Catholic Faith, and so commits the mortal sin of heresy) and “material heresy” (in which one follows some false doctrine, and so is technically a heretic, but does not incur the guilt of the moral sin …for reasons of genuine ignorance). It was my Pollyanna assumption that Gary DeMar (a former Catholic turned Protestant apologist) was of the latter persuasion. However, I was sorely mistaken about that. I now believe that Gary is an obstinate heretic who has broken faith with the apostolic Church for purely personal and irrational reasons that have nothing to do with objective reality, the content of the Bible, or the will of Jesus Christ. If it were otherwise, Gary would not behave in the unreasonable and cowardly way he does, but (as 1 Peter 3:15 commands us) he would be ready to give an explanation for his positions, rather than evading valid and substantive challenges when they come his way. Gary has been tested, and he has objectively failed the test. This is clear for all the world to see.
A few weeks ago, after first encountering Gary as my debate opponent on Stu Epperson’s TruthTalk Live radio show, I read and responded to an article by Gary in which he makes a number of profoundly foolish and objectively untenable arguments in defense the heresy of sola Scriptura (Bible alone). In my response, I painstakingly addressed each of Gary’s arguments and exposed them as the delusional fantasies that they are. The most disturbing of these was, of course, Gary’s shameless misuse of Scriptural context –misuses that no honest Christian can deny. I then, for the benefit of his Christian walk and his (supposed) commitment to the Truth, sent my response to Gary. Yet, rather than addressing his errors honestly and maturely, Gary has pulled the proverbial blanket over his head, and replied to me (indirectly and without even the personal courtesy of sending me a copy of his reply) in yet another woefully irrational article entitled, “Sola Scriptura Revisited: Dealing from the Middle of the Deck”.
In this latest ‘opus,’ Gary not only disregards (nay, ignores!) my substantive challenges to his first article, but side-steps the problems created by sola Scriptura all together! He writes:
“About ten years ago I wrote an article on the topic of Sola Scriptura. It was a response to former Protestants Scott and Kimberly Hahn’s book Rome Sweet Home: Our Journey to Catholicism. Since then, the article has made its way around the internet. It was never meant to be a comprehensive study of the subject. Since I had been raised Roman Catholic, I was responding to some of the arguments raised by the Hahns as to why they became Roman Catholic. In the final analysis, it all came down to what would be used to determine the basis of the Christian faith. It used to be that I could argue with a Roman Catholic based on the Bible. This is no longer the case. The new tactic reminds me of a story I heard about Allen Kennedy (1894–1961). While dealing from the top and bottom of a card deck was common among magicians, “the center deal”—the holy grail of card tricks—was nearly impossible. It was the stuff of legend, and Kennedy could do it. Debating with a Roman Catholic is like the center deal. When an appeal is made to what the Bible says, today’s Catholic apologists pull two cards from the center of the deck: the views of the early church fathers and church councils. No matter how compelling a biblical argument is formulated, it is always overridden by these two trump cards. This was my experience with a debate I had with a Catholic apologist on “TruthTalk Live,” hosted by Stu Epperson, Jr. Each time Stu and I would point to a series of biblical texts in support of a doctrine, we were told that this was just our opinion. The early church fathers taught something different. And if they weren’t enough authority for us, the church councils had spoken as well.”
Okay, let’s bring things back to reality now, shall we? First, Gary claims (as he also did in a private email to me when I sent him my initial response) that his first article on Sola Scriptura was “never meant to be a comprehensive study of the subject.” Oh? Then why, does Gary explicitly boast in this same article that “Demonstrating sola scriptura from the Bible is not very difficult” and then go on to make a number of arguments which supposedly “prove” sola Scriptura from the Bible itself? I’m sorry, but you can’t have it both ways, Gary. The truth here is obvious: You are trying to downplay your article’s intention (after the fact) to cover up your abysmal scholarship and your flagrant misuse of the Word of God, now that it has been exposed. I have addressed all this in detail in my first response. Also, let the reader please note that Gary may have amended his initial article (on his website) in reaction to my article, and so changed some details. I mention this because Gary told me by email that he might do so. However, the original text of his arguments is preserved in my article, and in those of other critics (e.g. Mario Derksen’s) available online.
Above, Gary also claims that he ‘used to be able to argue with Catholics based on the Bible.’ This complaint is simply laughable! I defy any honest individual to read my initial response to Gary and claim that I avoided the comprehensive content of the Scriptures themselves. For goodness sake, a good 95% of my article was devoted to correcting Gary’s MISinterpretations of various Scriptural passages, and pitting his inconsistent and disjointed use of Scripture against the consistent and comprehensive Catholic interpretation of Scripture, thereby showing that Gary’s misinterpretations cannot stand. What is this if not “arguing based on the Bible”? I did not, as Gary ignorantly maintains, pit the content of the Bible against extra-Scriptural Apostolic Traditions, even though that would be an entirely valid thing to do. But, as any novice apologist knows, one cannot convince a sola-Scriptura believer of Truth by appealing to things that are outside of his rule of faith (that is, the Scriptures alone). If one does this, the sola-Scriptura believer will merely dismiss the evidence. Ergo, I appealed to Scripture alone in my response to Gary, and illustrated (repeatedly) from the Scriptures themselves that his arguments are (to put it nicely) full of beans. Yet, Gary now pretends otherwise –the mark of someone whose mind is deluded by obstinate heresy. Indeed, when he says that he ‘used to be able to argue with Catholics using the Bible,’ what he REALLY means is that he used to be able to deceive ignorant American Catholics into thinking that he knew what he was talking about –that his interpretations of the Bible represent what the Bible really teaches. But, as I illustrated ad nausiam in my initial response, Gary’s grasp of Scripture is both childish and pathetic. That is, he is demonstrably prone to wrenching the Word of God out of its intended context, thereby disqualifying himself as a reliable or trustworthy Christian teacher.
And Gary’s grasp of history is evidently no better. For, he claims above that appealing to Tradition (viz. the Church fathers and the Ecumenical Councils) is a “new tactic” on the part of Catholics. Au contraire, Gary. Catholic Christians have always appealed to the testimony of the fathers and the rulings of the Councils, both during the 16th Century Protestant rebellion that gave birth to your man-made religion, and from earliest times. And we can cite countless historical examples of this …not that you would pay any attention to them, because you’d just dismiss such testimony as ‘additions to the Bible’ too. For your view of the Faith is just that narrow. Yet, as I showed you in my first article (which you also ignored), even the Bible itself acknowledges the authority of the oral Traditions of the Apostles (e.g. 2 Tim 3:14, 2 Thess 2:15) and the binding authority of magisterial Church councils (e.g. Acts 16:4). But the Bible says not one word in support of your man-made heresy of sola Scriptura (except to condemn its practice: 2 Peter 1:20, Heb 13:17). But, you will of course continue to ignore this Scriptural testimony, just like you ignore anything else that doesn’t fit with your heretical distortions of the Apostolic Christian Faith. You are an unreasonable man and no friend of the Truth.
Indeed, Gary puts his delusional spin on what supposedly took place on Stu Epperson’s radio show by depicting it as a “Bible vs. Church fathers” argument. This is the height of distortion and misrepresentation. For, the Catholic position is not that the Church fathers must be followed blindly or unquestioningly. Rather, our point is, and continues to be, that ALL the Church fathers –that is, the ENTIRE witness of the early Church –read Scripture DIFFERENTLY than most Evangelical Protestants do when it comes to various essential tenets of the Christian Faith. These include what Christians should believe in regard to the nature of Baptism, the nature of the Eucharist (Lord’s Supper), and the nature of salvation (i.e., whether it’s “once saved always saved” or whether a Christian can reject his or her salvation through unrepeated sin). It is in these areas (and others) that Protestants like Gary and Stu pit their, yes, mere opinions (that is, their modern and personal, and so fallible, interpretations of Scripture) against the universal witness of ALL early Christians –that is, the universal and consistent Faith of the Apostolic Church. But, the ‘cult of subjectivity’ doesn’t end there. For, Gary and Stu ALSO disagree with OTHER PROTESTANTS --that is, other SOLA SCRIPTURA BELIEVERS, who happen to read the Bible differently than they do! So, the REAL issue is this: How are Gary and Stu so sure that THEY are reading the Bible correctly?? …And this when a) they disagree with the universal testimony of the earliest Christians on the three essential doctrines cited above; b) when they rely on these SAME early Christians for the very identity of Scripture –that is, which early Christian books are inspired and canonical and which are not; and c) when different sola-Scriptura believing Protestants DISAGREE AMONG THEMSEVLES about how to read the Bible, and what the Bible is saying about the three essential tenets of the Faith mentioned above, as well as others. This is the issue that Gary (and I assume Stu Epperson as well) refuses to address. Why? Gary, for one, is clearly creating a smoke screen to avoid dealing with a problem he cannot solve. That is clear for any rational person to see. Again, this is the mark of a deluded heretic, not a faithful Christian.
And nowhere is Gary’s disregard for reality more obvious than in his assertion that Catholics are ‘dealing from the middle of the deck’ by appealing to the Church fathers and the ancient Ecumenical Councils. In accusing us of this, Gary has things precisely backwards. For, the “deck” (that is, the historical progression of the Christian faith) DOES NOT (as Gary unrealistically assumes) begin with the Bible itself. The Bible did not fall out of the sky one day and land in Martin Luther’s (or John Calvin’s or John Knox’s) hands. Rather, the Bible is the product of a greater authority, and it depends on this greater authority for its value and significance (read: its correct interpretation). And this authority is Jesus Christ, Who entrusted His very own authority to the Apostles (Matt 18:17-18), who, in turn, entrusted their authority to the successive shepherds of the Church (2 Tim 2:2, Heb 13:17, etc.). It is from THIS authority that the Bible receives its authority; and apart from this authority, the Bible has no authority at all --that is, even Satan can twist the words of Scripture and use them for his purposes (e.g. 2 Peter 1:20). For it is only when Scripture is used within its INTENDED CONTEXT that it is truly and practically the Word of God. And we discern that intended context by appreciating how Scripture was always read and understood (UNIVERSALLY AND CONSISTENTLY) by the Spirit-guided Church established by the Apostles. Yet, what men like Gary and Stu REALLY wish to claim (because of their sincere desire to promote ‘the Gospel’ as they know it, or think they know it) is that they alone have succeeded to this rightful authority of the Apostles, and so ONLY THEIR INTERPRETATIONS of Scripture should be followed, not those of other sincere Christians, and certainly not the interpretations of those who can SHOW that they rightfully succeed (objectively and according to Apostolic practice) to the pastoral authority of the Apostles. I refer to the bishops of the Catholic Church. But, even if one wishes to ignore Apostolic succession (as Gary and Stu so obviously do), one STILL has the little problem of historical consistency. …That is, IF men like Gary and Stu wish to say that Christianity is an objectively real and historical Faith, as opposed to some “make it up as you go along cult.” So, which is it to be? If the OPINIONS of Gary and Stu are correct, which means that the “opinions’ of every ancient Christian who ever lived were wrong (re: the nature of Baptism, of the Eucharist, and of salvation), then Gary and Stu must be able to justify WHY their knowledge of the Christian Faith is so superior to every Christian who lived and died for Jesus from c.A.D. 33 until at least the 1600’s (when Stu’s Baptist-style denial of Baptismal generation made its historical debut). They must also justify WHY their interpretations of Scripture are better than that of other sincere Christians alive today, ESPECIALLY other sola-Scriptura-believing Protestants, who understand Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and the nature of salvation VERY differently than Gary and Stu do. This is the challenge that Gary and Stu refuse to accept. BY WHAT AUTHORITY do they claim the right to interpret Scripture? It is clearly not the same authority from which they received the Scriptures (that is, the early Catholic Christians who preserved them and canonized them). We Catholics, however, base both our acknowledgement of Scripture and our interpretation of Scripture on the very same authority –that is, the consistent, historical, and UNIVERSAL witness of the Apostolic Church. And THIS is why Catholics rightly and validly point to the Church fathers and the ancient councils –not to pit them against Scripture itself, but to pit them against the anachronistic and novel (and, yes, sometimes loony and deluded) MISINTERPRETATIONS of Scripture made by modern and fallible men like Gary DeMar and Stu Epperson. …and even Mark Bonocore, if need be. For, it is inconceivable (given the promises of Christ and His ever-present Holy Spirit) that the ENTIRE ancient Church (and, indeed, the Church up until modern times) should misunderstand the content of Scripture when it comes to essential tenets of the Christian Faith, until Gary DeMar or Stu Epperson (or their self-proclaimed Protestant pastors) came along to read the Scriptures “correctly.” Such a position does nothing less than call Jesus Christ a liar. For Christ promised that His Church would receive the Spirit of Truth, Who would “REMAIN” with His Church “ALWAYS,” leading it to “ALL TRUTH” (John 14:16-17 & 16:13). The Church received this Spirit of Truth on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2), and He has been with Christ’s Church ever since, making it impossible for the Church to officially and universally teach or believe an error. This is why St. Paul calls THE CHURCH (and not the Bible or any individual apart from the Church) “the pillar and foundation of Truth” (1 Tim 3:15). However, according to Gary and Stu, the early Church (and the Church up until the Reformation and/or modern times) did not possess this Spirit of Truth, but was in darkness when it came to many essential things. Again, such a position is nothing short of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit and Christ’s promises about the Holy Spirit. And, if Gary and/or Stu would bother to ponder this seriously for a moment, perhaps they would see it.
Here, it may be appropriate to mention something that Stu Epperson (not Gary) shared with me in a private phone conversation after my recent appearance on his show. I relate it here because I do not want to automatically brand Stu as a delusional or self-condemned heretic, as I believe Gary to be. In discussing the inconsistency between the beliefs of the early Church and those of modern Evangelical Protestants, Stu said that he thinks that ‘the Church fathers are really the Church babies.’ By this, he meant no disrespect to these early witnesses to Christ, but called them ‘babies’ because (in Stu’s view) they were still ‘new to the faith’ and lacked our present 2,000 years of study in order to read the Scriptures “correctly.” In this, Stu added that we now have ‘computer programs which can isolate and compare Scripture verses for us,’ etc. Now, in making this otherwise silly argument (which both underestimates the saintly brilliance of the fathers and reduces the Faith to a mere academic exercise –a common Protestant error), Stu is advocating something that sounds very close to the Catholic concept of “development of doctrine” --that is, the principal by which the Church grows in its appreciation of Apostolic Truth over time, and so is able to clarify and refine its understanding of certain Apostolic doctrines. In this, we may compare the Apostolic Deposit of the Christian Faith to a precious jewel that was delivered to the Church once, and only once, by the Apostles (in the 1st Century A.D.). Yet, even though this jewel was in the Church’s possession since the 1st Century, it doesn’t prevent the Church from looking at this same jewel in new ways and from different angles that it may have never looked at it before, and so appreciate different aspects and facets of the jewel, which were of course always there, but which the Church may not have fully appreciated before. This is how “development of doctrine” works, and how Catholics understand it –a very valid principal. However, we must (by necessity) part ways with Stu Epperson’s view because valid development of doctrine builds upon that which is already firmly appreciated. It does not DENY or CONTRADICT that which is already appreciated. And, when it comes to the nature of Baptism, the nature of the Lord’s Supper, and the nature of salvation, as they were universally understood by the early Church, one must admit that Stu’s modern Evangelical Protestant view of these things clearly contradicts ancient Christianity. In other words, Stu and the Church fathers are not of the same Christian faith. Either Stu is a material heretic, or all of the early Christians were. Take your pick. For my part, I will side with the early Christians, since they were a) much closer in time to the Apostles than Stu Epperson is; b) subscribed to a language and a culture to which the Apostles themselves belonged; c) were members of Christian communities that were established by the Apostles and which lived according to their witness and examples (per Phil 4:9); and d) were the people who preserved (and eventually canonized) our Bible, and so presumably knew how to read it correctly, otherwise we have no reason to believe that these particular books are inspired or authoritative at all. And so, the Catholic position champions the principal of CONSISTENCY in doctrine, whereas the modern Evangelical faith has little (if any) respect for such consistency –that is, for objective historical truth. And, in taking such an unreasonable position, modern Evangelicalism (despite its intention) divorces Christianity from history, and reduces it to a non-historical faith like Islam, Mormonism, and other man-made cults. Ergo, if anyone is “dealing from the middle of the deck,” it is not the Catholic Church, but Evangelical Protestants like Gary DeMar!
Yet, Gary writes …
“It’s almost impossible to win a debate if there are multiple sources of authority that make up one’s arsenal. Mormons not only use the Bible, but they can appeal to the Book of Mormon, The Pearl of Great Price, Doctrine and Covenants, and their own concept of Mormon Church councils. Jehovah’s Witnesses are a little easier to deal with since they believe the Bible, “as correctly translated.” I’ve used their New World Translation to show that their doctrines cannot be supported by their own translation.”
This is a loony comparison for two obvious reasons: Firstly, we Catholics do not advocate “multiple sources of authority” at all. Rather, we advocate one authority: that of the Christ-established, Spirit-protected Catholic Church itself. The Catholic Church is the Divinely-appointed custodian of both Scripture and Apostolic oral Tradition, and the final arbiter of both. Gary’s REAL problem is that he wishes to place HIMSELF in this position and make HIMSELF the final arbiter (read: interpreter) of the Apostolic deposit of Faith, which he foolishly believes is contained in the pages of the Bible alone (I say “foolishly” because the Bible itself says otherwise: 2 Thess 2:15). Thus, our disagreement is not about “multiple sources” at all. Our disagreement is about who possesses the final authority to interpret Scripture. I say that it is the Catholic Church, which has held to the Apostolic Faith CONSISTENTLY for 2,000 years and has never changed its position on any formal dogma. Gary, however, does not even agree with his fellow sola Scriptura-believing Protestants about various essential tenets of the Christian faith. And he certainly has no appreciation for what the ancient Church believed universally and consistently prior to the Reformation; or, I should say, his brand of reformed theology (a modified form of Presbyterianism). Ergo, why should anyone listen to Gary or follow his novel beliefs and interpretations?
And, secondly, as already mentioned, in my earlier response to Gary, I cited Scripture against his misuses of Scripture, and showed that his interpretations were indisputably wrong. In other words, I met Gary “on his own turf” and refuted him by his own standard of authority. Yet, rather then responding maturely and reasonably, or even acknowledging his errors, Gary simply ignores them and runs away: The mark of a deluded heretic. Indeed, Gary boasts that he has refuted the Mormons and JW’s using their own translation of the Bible. Well, woop-di-doo! It’s easy to take on a man-made cult, Gary. I myself proved it in my previous response to you by dismantling the faulty interpretations of your man-made Protestant religion. Yet, I don’t see a come-back on your part. Why not? It’s because you know I’m right and because you CAN’T respond to me –because Truth, that is Christ Himself –is on my side in this matter, and not yours. You follow a false, man-made cult and you have rejected the Church of Jesus Christ and its Divine authority over you. Turn back before it’s too late.
But, Gary goes on ….
“Roman Catholics notoriously equivocate on the definition of “tradition” by reading into Scripture an already formulated Roman Catholic doctrine. When it is pointed out that Jesus rebuked “some Pharisees and Scribes” who accused Him of transgressing “the tradition of the elders” (Matt. 15:1–2), we’re told that Jesus was only “condemning the sectarian traditions of the Pharisees alone, which had no binding authority over the Jewish people as a whole.” How does a person know what’s sectarian and what’s authoritative tradition? For a Protestant, it’s quite simple: Sola Scriptura. But this isn’t the case for the Roman Catholic. He or she must wait to make a determination on these points.”
More looniness and ignorance. Above, Gary is referring to my response to an argument he drew from Matthew 15, in which Jesus condemns the traditions of the Pharisees. Gary wishes to depict this as a wholesale rejection of oral Tradition on the part of the Lord Jesus (a very common and worn-out Fundamentalist argument, I might add). Yet, as anyone who has studied Judaism well knows, there is a clear distinction between the universal Mosaic oral traditions in Judaism (known collectively as the Mishnah) and the sectarian traditions of different Jewish movements or rabbinical schools, such as the Pharisees, as opposed to the Sadducees or the Essenes, etc. If Jesus were condemning ALL Jewish oral tradition in Matthew 15, then He would be CONTRADICTING HIMSELF in Matthew 23:1-3 and elsewhere, where He a) tells the people to obey the united, magisterial authority of Israel (i.e., the entire Sanhedrin, as opposed to the Pharisees alone) and b) invokes a UNIVERSAL Mosaic oral Tradition in order to do this –namely, the principal of the “Chair of Moses” as the binding teaching authority of Israel, which is not found anywhere in the Old Testament Scriptures, but in Jewish ORAL Tradition alone. I covered all this in great detail in my previous response to Gary, but he of course ignored it. He also ignores the fact that St. Paul clearly advocated oral Tradition (2 Thess 2:15, 1 Corinth 11:2, etc.), and this oral Tradition was distinct and different from the oral traditions of the Pharisees and other Jewish sects, being the oral Traditions of the Apostles. And so, even if Jesus were condemning all Jewish oral tradition in Matt 15 (which He’s clearly not), Gary would still not be free to use Matt 15 to argue against Apostolic oral Tradition. …not without claiming that St. Paul is contradicting the Lord Himself! …a very common pitfall for myopic Fundamentalists who do not know how to read Scripture correctly or comprehensively (e.g. compare Matt 23:9 with 1 Corinth 4:15).
Gary did, however, deign to address another example that I cited, which was the Lord’s appeal to the oral teaching of Hillel. Gary writes …
“Here’s one argument I found interesting. In Matthew 7:12, Jesus gives us the famous “Golden Rule”: “Therefore whatever you want others to do for you, do so for them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.” The Roman Catholic apologist I debated explained the verse this way: “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.” There are all kinds of things that Jesus said that aren’t found in Scripture. His words are Scripture. The truth of the Golden Rule resided in the mind of God long before it found its way into the Talmud. Jesus also quoted common expressions of the day (Matt. 16:2–3). They are Scripture because Jesus used them for His own purposes. This is true of all Scripture, even the words of Satan.”
Does anybody spot Gary’s obvious problem here??? He’s now changing the argument. Above, and in his previous article, he advocates “Scripture alone” as the only rule for Christ. In other words, Gary wishes to say that ‘Christ used Scripture and nothing but Scripture, to show us that we should only use Scripture.’ But now he admits that Jesus did not only use Scripture. Ergo, end of argument: the Catholic position is proven. Jesus drew from BOTH Scripture and from oral Tradition. St. Paul and others did the same (as I also illustrated in my previous article). For Gary to now say that “[Jesus’] words are Scripture” is totally beside the point. Yes, everything that Jesus ever said is the Word of God. And everything that the Apostles ever preached to their flocks is the Word of God. And this is why we Catholics correctly say that EVERYTHING Jesus and the Apostles entrusted to the Church is “the Word of God” (1 Thess 2:13), whether it was delivered ‘by an oral statement or in writing’ (2 Thess 2:15). There is nothing in Scripture or in the ancient Christian Faith which EVER advocated anything like “Scripture alone.” It is a man-made doctrine cooked up by 16th Century apostates in an attempt to justify their rebellion against the Christ-given authority of the Catholic Church (contra Heb 13:17). And, if historical truth isn’t enough to illustrate this, it is proven by the results: Over 30,000 separated and divided sola-Scriptura believing sects –all with the SAME Bible, but all INTERPRETING the Bible DIFFERENTLY! Thus, when Gary asks: “How does a person know what’s sectarian and what’s authoritative tradition? For a Protestant, it’s quite simple: Sola Scriptura,” his total disregard for reality is obvious. It is the man-made error of sola Scriptura which CREATES the sectarian divisions in Protestantism. Just as the lack of kingly (that is, Messianic) authority in 1st Century Judaism created sectarian divisions among the Jews. Nowhere is this more brilliantly illustrated (and exploited) than in Acts 23:6-10, where St. Paul is standing trial before the assembled Sanhedrin, which is at first united against him. But the Apostle then turns the tables on the Sanhedrin by exploiting their disunity, as we read:
“Paul was aware that some were Sadduccees and some Pharisees, so he called out before the Sanhedrin, ‘My brothers, I am a Pharisee, the son of Pharisees; I am on trial for hope in the resurrection of the dead!’ When he said this, a dispute broke out between the Pharisees and Sadducees, and the group became divided. For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection or angels or spirits, while the Pharisees acknowledge all three. A great uproar occurred, and some scribes belonging to the Pharisee party stood up and sharply argued, ‘We find nothing wrong with this man. Suppose a spirit or an angel has spoken to him?’ The dispute was so serious that the commander …ordered his troops to …take Paul into the compound.”
What men like Gary and the Protestant reformers have done is reduce the Church of Jesus Christ to such sectarian confusion and disunity. But, the TRUE Church of Jesus Christ is not this way, and never has been. It does not, like 1st Century Judaism, lack a King or kingly vicars who can speak with the King’s own authority. And, in the pages of the Bible, all the Apostolic city-churches (that is, the universal Church) are clearly united in formal doctrine under the authority of the Apostles, who were able to maintain them in common formal doctrine (per Acts 16:4). We see this again and again in Scripture: Acts 4:32, 1 Corinth 1:10, Philippians 1:27, Philippians 2:2, Ephesians 4:1-6, 1 Peter 3:8, etc. But, the Protestants (that is, those who follow sola Scriptura) cannot even agree on the nature of Baptism, or the nature of the Eucharist (Lord’s Supper), or the nature of salvation itself! How is this better?? How is this a good thing? Indeed, if a modern Presbyterian were accused of heresy by an assembled court composed of Presbyterians and Baptists, he might, like St. Paul, cry out that he is on trial for the sake of his belief in Baptismal regeneration and infant Baptism –something that Presbyterians accept, but which Baptists strongly deny. And so this issue –this INTERPRETATION of Scripture –divides Christians. To say otherwise is to simply ignore reality. So, WHO gets to decide the truth, Gary??????? And by what authority???? And how do you account for the fact that all early Christians held to my Catholic faith and not your Protestant faith??? This is the issue that you continue to side-step and hide from. So, why do your continue, not only to “deal from the middle of the deck,” but to walk away from the card table all together??? …Simply because the “hand” you are holding cannot win. Might I suggest that you “fold” while you can or, even better, ask for a new “deal” –for “new cards” that are Apostolic and true, as opposed to false and apostate in nature. But I suppose that’s hoping for too much from you, huh?
Lastly, Gary writes ….
“The biblical authors, as “moved by the Holy Spirit” (2 Pet. 1:21), used numerous “sources” to communicate God’s redemptive message. To equate what men moved by the Holy Spirit did to the opinions of the early church fathers and church councils is reading Roman Catholic doctrine into the Bible.”
More silliness. First of all, it is ridiculous that Gary would cite 2 Peter 1:21 while ignoring the previous verse (2 Peter 1:20), which clearly condemns the Protestant practice of sola Scriptura. For if “no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of personal interpretation,” it therefore follows that it is THE CHURCH that possesses the ultimate, Christ-given authority to interpret Scripture --the very thing that Protestants deny. Secondly, one must wonder how Gary knows that 2 Peter is inspired and apostolic itself, since many early city-churches (well into the 390’s A.D.) denied that 2 Peter was written by Peter and that it was inspired by God. So, aside from the authority of the Catholic Church (which canonized 2 Peter at the Council of Carthage in A.D. 397), how does Gary even know that he is appealing to the Word of God??? Obstinate heretics refuse to address this obvious problem –that is, they take the canonization of inspired Scripture for granted. But it was the CATHOLIC CHURCH that did this canonization for them. There was no settled New Testament (or Christian Old Testament) before the Catholic Church established the present Biblical canon in c. 397. Thirdly, while 2 Peter clearly speaks about Scripture being inspired by God, it does not say WHICH Scriptures it is referring to (or not referring to), and the New Testament does not negate or deny the inspiration of oral Tradition, or limit inspiration to the pages of Scripture alone. Rather, Gary merely assumes that because, to paraphrase his own statement, he ‘reads 16th Century Protestant heresy into the Bible.’ The Bible, however, clearly speaks of the Word of God REMAINING with those who heard it ORALLY, and being lived and practiced by the active faith of these early Christians. For, as it says in 1 Thess 2:13:
“For in receiving the WORD OF GOD from HEARING us (i.e., orally), you did not receive a human word, but as it truly is, THE WORD OF GOD, which is now AT WORK IN YOU WHO BELIEVE.”
And this living WORD OF GOD continued to be “AT WORK” in the early Church fathers (who lived and DIED for Christ) and in the authoritative Councils of the Church which possessed the Christ-given power to bind-and loosen (per Matt 18:17-18). If Gary wishes to deny this, then he once again denies Scripture, denies Christ and the Apostles, and blasphemes the Holy Spirit! What more needs to be said?
In conclusion, let me share a simple observation. The late Bishop Fulton Sheen once said that millions of people reject the Catholic Church because of what they think it teaches; but hardly anyone rejects the Catholic Church because of what it really teaches. He further added how he never met anyone who walked away from the Catholic Church with a full realization of what he was actually walking away from. This is because, as I said in the beginning of this article, most people who leave the Catholic Church do so, not for doctrinal reasons, but for reasons that are purely personal, and often objectively sinful. It is my deep belief that Gary DeMar was, and continues to be, motivated by a purely personal agenda in opposing the authoritative teachings of the Catholic Church. I do not say that this agenda is necessarily sinful. And, even if it is, God knows that I myself am a sinner and in no condition to sit in judgment of Gary or anyone else. But, the fact remains and is obvious for any honest person to see that Gary cannot defend his false, sola Scriptura religion in the face of Catholic Truth, and he cannot objectively justify his rejection of Catholic authority. I pray that Gary would come to see this problem and deal with it by turning to the Lord in sincerity and in Truth. But, after years in the apologetics game and after encountering hundreds of such obstinate people, let’s just say that I’m wise enough not to “hold my breath.” So, for now, I’ll just shake the dust from my feet and entrust Gary to our Lord …and to His mother.
Mark Bonocore
The Catholic Legate
October 18, 2006