The Armchair Apologist is a series of posts at SouthCon dedicated to matters of faith and religion. Click here to see an index of Armchair Apologist posts. You are welcome to comment on any of these items, but before commenting, please READ THE RULES. To suggest a topic or make a comment by e-mail, send your remarks to armchair@darwen.us

---

(A note: In the discussion following my last Armchair Apologist series, I learned a lot from Pastor Scott. Specifically, I learned, I hope, not to tilt at straw men. However, learning and applying what I've learned are often worlds apart. I hope I do a little better job with this entry. If not, please forgive me. I am, I remind you, a rank amateur... and God knows I often enjoy being cocky.)

Sola Nonnulla Scriptura

One of the principle protestant justifications for disregarding the teachings, traditions and authority of the Roman Catholic Church is the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura is the principle that holy scripture alone (i.e., the Bible) is the sole Christian authority. According to those who adhere to Sola Scriptura, the Bible must be believed in it's entirety, and the Bible is the only accurate and righteous guide for Christian living, beliefs and teaching.

I think that, of all the five solas that prop up Protestantism, Sola Scriptura is the most obviously erroneous. The other "solas" can be called correct in principle… but they've been twisted by years of protestant tradition into something more than what they say. Sola Christus, for example, is the belief that Christ is the sole and acceptable mediator that saves man from sin. That is correct, but it has been used perversely by many protestants to justify their neglect (and often disrespect) for the Saints in Heaven. Sola Fide teaches that it is our faith in Christ that saves us. Fine, but Sola Fide is easily perverted into a justification of antinomianism (thanks again for the word, Pastor Scott!), the rejection of Gospel law and moral behavior.

Sola Scriptura in practice turns out to really be Sola Nonnulla Scriputra, the belief in the authority of only some scripture. Because protestants reject the authority of the Holy Roman Catholic Church and reject (for the most part) the traditions of Catholic Christianity, they've had to manipulate and twist the Bible, removing and reinventing verses that support Roman Catholic teaching. The great irony of Sola Scriptura, a pillar of protestantism, is this… only the Roman Catholic Church really recognizes the authority and teaching of all of the Holy Bible.

The Partial Protestant Bible

Many protestants are as surprised as I was to learn, as I did during my discernment of Roman Catholic Christianity, that protestant churches don't even preach from the entire Bible. There are seven books in the complete Christian Old Testament that were removed from the Bible during the reformation.

You read that correctly. The reformers literally removed books from the Bible.

Those seven books, often called the Deuterocanonicals, are 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, Tobit, and Judith.

A cradle protestant, first looking at a Catholic Bible, might be surprised to see these books. His initial reaction, as mine was, might be to ask why the Catholic church had "made up" these books and stuck them in the Bible.

Here's what happened in a nutshell: After Jerusalem’s destruction, Jamnia became the home of the Great Sanhedrin. Around 100 AD, a council of rabbis there established what has become the final structure of the Jewish Bible, and along the way they pruned several books from the canon. When the reformers decided to start "from scratch" and rebuild the Christian Bible, the Old Testament they eventually adopted was the one established by the Sanhedrin around the year 100.

Think of it. The protestant Old Testament is, in fact, a canon established by the Sanhedrin… the very judicial body that campaigned for the execution of Christ. That fact alone is chilling.

If you're like me, that's sufficient to shake Sola Scriptura to it's very core. I remember shuddering when I learned about this quiet deception. It directly contradicts 2 Tim. 3:16: " All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness." I asked myself just how the protestants who'd raised me could claim the authority of scripture alone when protestant's had actually found excuses over the years to actually remove scripture from the Bible. And, make no mistake… this truncation of Scripture was a political maneuver, not something guided by the Holy Spirit. That becomes obvious when you study the history of the protestant Bible. Martin Luther, for instance, included the Deuteronocanonicals in his first German translation of the Bible. Those books even show up in early King James Bibles and in the Guttenberg Bible, published a century before the Council of Trent. I had to ask myself, what was hidden in those books that someone somewhere didn't want me to see? Or, was it simply one more sly way of usurping the authority of the Church Christ actually established? I'll leave it to you to decide for yourself… meanwhile, you can read more about the Deuterocanonicals here.

Christ Came To Build A Church, Not To Write A Book

Another simple fact about the Catholic church that many protestants never learn (and certainly something I was never taught) was that the Apostle Peter was the first Pope (or, Bishop of Rome) of the Catholic Church. Peter's authority in the early Christian church was established by Christ himself, as is well documented in the scripture. I'll get to that in a minute, but first let me quickly deal with the silliest and most obvious protestant objection to this simple and basic fact of Christian history.

Many protestants I know simply flat out deny the papacy of Peter because, as they point out, it doesn't specifically say in the New Testament that "Peter was the First Pope." The problem with that line of reasoning is that it treats the New Testament as though it were a work of fiction rather than a historical document. In a work of fiction, if there isn't a passage that details any given action by one of the characters, then it's safe to say that the character never participated in said action. In any historical document, however, the people described are real, flesh-and-blood human beings who walked and talked actually did things before and after what you find in the text. No, the New Testament doesn't say that Peter went on to Rome after the last account of his actions in the book of Acts. Nor does the New Testament say that Peter was born of his mother's womb, lived as a child, and grew to be a man. It's common sense that Peter did those things, though… just as it's common sense that Peter didn't simply disappear after his last described actions in the book of Acts. Remember, Peter was a real person, flesh and blood. He really existed, and he did more things than what's documented in the New Testament.

For details on Peter's papacy, I'd refer you to a number of documents from the early Church. You can read relevant excerpts here. You might also be interested to know that even the early reformers never doubted the papacy of Peter. Even John Calvin saw the first six hundred years of the Church as "pure and undefiled" (Rob Bennett, Four Witnesses, page 303). No, much like the theory of the Rapture, doubt about Peter's papacy is a relatively new invention by Catholic haters.

And so, where in scripture is the papacy of Peter established? See Matthew 16, verses 16 through 21. I suppose it might be necessary to mention that Peter's original name was Simon and that he is sometimes mentioned by one name or the other and sometimes by both names. Let's examine those verses:

Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God."

Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Then he strictly ordered his disciples to tell no one that he was the Messiah. From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer greatly from the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed and on the third day be raised.

It may be that I read that passage for the first time when I actually sat down and read the entire book of Matthew during my discernment of Roman Catholicism. (The first clergyman to suggest to me that I read the Bible was a Roman Catholic Priest. Baptist and Fundamentalist clergymen had always pointed me toward books by Bruce H. Wilkinson, Rick Warren, and that pablum-peddler, Max Lucado.) Anyway, I certainly can't remember ever having heard a single Fundamentalist sermon on that particular passage. I'd suggest that the Fundamentalists of my youth avoided that passage for one simple reason: In that passage, Christ clearly and unavoidably establishes the authority of Peter, the first Pope, to lead the Church after the passion, resurrection and ascension.

Let's examine the words of Jesus a few at a time:

Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.

Clearly, the Holy Spirit was working through the apostle. Simon Peter the simple Fisherman hadn't figured out on his own that Jesus was the Christ. God himself had chosen Peter and given him special understanding by which to discern the truth.

And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church

And there you have it: The papacy of Peter is established. Even the tradition of changing one's name upon receiving the mantle of Vicar of Christ is established right off the bat. Most importantly, though, make sure that you note that Christ said that he was going to "build his church" upon Peter. He didn't say "write my book" or "establish my scripture." The words are right there, in black and white (or, depending on your printing, red and white.) You might even say that it's… ahem… Fundamental.

… and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

The Church that Christ established, right then and there, has stood for 2000 years, hasn't it? The papacy of Peter, Vicar of Christ, is still with us today. Of course, today, instead of the weather-worn face of a Judean fisherman, the Vicar of Christ is present in the wise and gentle eyes of a German scholar. There it is, though, just the same. There is the rock upon which the Church has stood, and nothing on Earth, nor in Hell, has prevailed against it.

Now, that is emphatically not to say that every Catholic, every Priest, every Bishop… nor even every Pope… has been perfect and flawless. The people who make up the church are humans, subject to sin, and often subject to the worst kinds of sin. Just search for the right terms at Google News... or read about the crusades... or do a little research on the Spanish Inquisition. No, the people who have made up the Church have often been terrible sinners. That includes some of the ones who've worn Peter's fisherman's ring. Nonetheless, the office itself... and the Church as an eternal body established by Christ... still stands. Even when Hell would tear it down from within, it is powerless to do so.

Back to those verses from Matthew:

I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.

Peter was a human, a mere mortal, and he was entrusted by Christ with the keys to Heaven. A mighty responsibility, right? I don't envy him… nor do I envy any of his successors. I'd never hope to be responsible for that kind of authority. And yet that authority was granted by Christ to a simple Jewish fisherman. Why? Again, the power of the Holy Spirit was clearly at work in Simon Peter.

Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Wow. WOW. Read that again. Christ could not have spoken more clearly. Peter, through his bishopric, has been burdened with TREMENDOUS responsibility. Simon Peter must have been loved and trusted incomparably by the Lord himself. In spite of his failures (See Matthew 26:69-75)… in spite of his frequent thickheadedness (right after the establishment of his bishopric, Peter slips back into obstinacy -- Matthew 16:22-23)… even though he often had to be taught the basics repeatedly (John 21:15-17 and Acts 10:10-34… the number three seems to come up a whole lot with Peter!) … in spite of all this, Christ entrusted Simon Peter with the power to bind and loosen on Earth and in Heaven. That's amazing authority.

That, pure and simple, is the power of the Church that Christ established. Not the book, not the scriptures, and not the verses printed in red. The Church. The Church built upon the rock of Peter. Go there and you will find Christ present this very day.

Who Is To Interpret?

The Canon of the Christian Bible, established by the Holy Spirit through the Catholic Church, is without a doubt the most important book in the home of any Christian. And yet, without the guidance of the Church Christ established upon the rock of Peter, it has been twisted, manipulated, pruned and dressed up in every possible way by protestant churches ever since the reformation. Every protestant church picks at least a few verses to change or deny, some more than others.

When I first sat down and tried to read the Bible… actually read it rather than listen to selective interpretations of a few cherry-picked Sunday morning verses… it became clear that there is only one Christian Church that teaches the whole thing. With this we come full circle on Sola Nonnulla Scriptura: Teach some of the Bible and you can justify just about any protestant faith you want. Only one Church can tech all of the Bible.

Here are a few verses (besides the obvious passage regarding Peter from Matthew, quoted above) that present an exclusively Catholic understanding of Scripture when taken as a whole. I'll present the ones I've come across in my own reading of Scripture first… and then a few I've heard mentioned by other converts.

Holy Mary

Luke 1:41 -- When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the infant (John The Baptist) leaped in her womb.

The mere presence of Mary caused tremendous joy in the as-yet unborn John The Baptist. If you're like me, you might have assumed that this was because of the Christ-child growing inside of Mary. Not so. Imagine my surprise when I got further into the book of Luke and read this:

Luke7:18-22 -- … John summoned two of his disciples and sent them to the Lord to ask, "Are you the one who is to come, or should we look for another?"

Even late in his ministry, John was unsure if Jesus was the Messiah. Wow. I had to ask myself, if John had doubts about Jesus even shortly before his (John's) death, why had he leapt at the presence of Mary before his very birth? It could only have been the presence of Mary herself, the holy and blessed virgin, the arc of the new covenant, that excited the unborn John so much. How ironic: Unlike so many of today's "Baptists," the original Baptist knew a holy and godly Saint as soon as he was near her.

The Law and Faith

Romans 3:31 -- Are we then annulling the law by this faith? Of course not! On the contrary, we are supporting the law.

All my life I've heard Fundamentalists say things like "We no longer live under the law but under the spirit," which I suppose they support with verses like Galatians 5:16-18. The above verse from Romans makes it clear that our faith is not intended to cancel the law. It is intended to support it.

Behavior Around Non-Christians

Romans 14:22 -- Keep the faith that you have to yourself in the presence of God; blessed is the one who does not condemn himself for what he approves.

Believe it or not, I've heard fundamentalists argue that their behavior around non-Christians… or around those who don't know that they profess Christianity… shouldn't be held to the same standard as their behavior around other Christians. I'm not making that up, that's a common fundamentalist belief. It is, of course, a belief that contradicts that verse from Romans.

And, besides... The Man Himself gave us pretty clear instructions about how we are to convey our Christianity to the world around us:

John 13:35 --"This is how all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another."

Denominationalism

1 Corinthians 1:11-13 -- For it has been reported to me about you, my brothers, by Chloe's people, that there are rivalries among you. I mean that each of you is saying, "I belong to Paul," or "I belong to Apollos," or "I belong to Cephas," or "I belong to Christ." Is Christ divided?

That's still going on today… only now it's "I belong to Martin Luther" or "I belong to John Calvin" or "I belong to Jerry Falwell…" etc, etc, etc. Of course the denominationalists don't use the word belong… but talk to them and ask yourself, who is their real Savior, Rabbi and King? With some folks, it seems that they really look to someone other than Christ.

The Real Presence In The Eucharist

Obviously, Christ established the meaning of the Eucharist in the sixth book of John. It's tacitly impossible to come to a Calvinist understanding of the Eucharist as a purely symbolic gesture without twisting John 6 into something strange and unChristian. I believe that those who celebrate "communion" as a mere symbolic memorial are, to be blunt, explained in the ominous sounding John 6:66, which reads:

As a result of this, many of his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.

Remember, Jesus came to fulfill the law, not to cast it aside. Judaism is and always was a highly sacramental understanding of man's relationship to God. Naturally, the religion established by God in the form of a human Jew would be just as sacramental, just as reverent, just as tangible and immediate as the faith described in Exodus and Deuteronomy.

Therefore, it's not surprising that the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is described not just in John 6, but throughout the New Testament. Here's a favorite passage of mine, describing an encounter by two disciples with the Resurrected Christ:

Luke 24:28-35 -- As they approached the village to which they were going, he gave the impression that he was going on farther. But they urged him, "Stay with us, for it is nearly evening and the day is almost over." So he went in to stay with them. And it happened that, while he was with them at table, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them. With that their eyes were opened and they recognized him, but he vanished from their sight. Then they said to each other, "Were not our hearts burning (within us) while he spoke to us on the way and opened the scriptures to us?" So they set out at once and returned to Jerusalem where they found gathered together the eleven and those with them who were saying, "The Lord has truly been raised and has appeared to Simon!" Then the two recounted what had taken place on the way and how he was made known to them in the breaking of the bread.

I choke up when I read that. It's so clear… it's as plain as the nose on my face. "He was made known to them in the breaking of the bread."

Have you ever read anything more beautiful in your life? Imagine what it must have been like for those two disciples, to receive the Holy Eucharist, the real and eternal presence of Christ, from the hands of the Master himself. Here, in plain and simple terms, we see the Eucharist of our Lord, Jesus Christ, celebrated by the risen Christ himself. It takes my breath.

If you need it spelled out more clearly, read 1 Corinthians, 11:29:

For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.

And, just for the record, that's why non-Catholics aren't invited to take communion at Catholic Mass. It's not to exclude non-Catholics. It's to protect them from the damnation that accompanies misunderstanding of what takes place at the Holy Eucharist.

Marcus Grodi's Observations

Marcus Grodi of the Coming Home Network is a former Presbyterian pastor and a convert to the Catholic faith. In a recent episode of his program (The Journey Home on EWTN), Marcus pointed out some other biblical passages that were key to him during his own conversion:

1 Timothy 3:15 --…you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.

Note that it is the church, not the Bible, that Paul calls the pillar and foundation of truth.

Proverbs 3:5-6 -- Trust in the LORD with all your heart, on your own intelligence rely not; in all your ways be mindful of him, and he will make straight your paths.

The emphasis above was mine, and I think it's self explanatory.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 --Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours

Traditions! Oral statements! Duh! :)

The words of Christ from Matthew 28:19-20 -- "Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age."

The Great Commission. Go forth, make disciples, baptize and teach. That is what Christ expected of his followers. He wanted them to play an active role. He most emphatically did not say "Go and write down all that I have told you in a big book." Christ established a Church, not a book.

And that Church, that very specific, historic, precise and exact Church, still stands today.