Grasping At Straws

Last year I wrote an article titled “Do Protestants Actually Believe Sola Scriptura?” in which I talked about the pretty much universally accepted doctrine among Protestants that the Bible is the sole authority for sound doctrine. This doctrine is mostly given lip service by Protestants…  and especially if a scripture supports a Catholic doctrine.

There are certain rules that most apologists cite for biblical (private) interpretation. However, it seems that number one rule among Evangelical Christians is: “Do these verses, if taken for what they say, support the Catholic teaching on the subject? If so, reinterpret the verses.”. The number two rule is: “Can this verse be taken out of context and used to attack Church doctrine?” In this article, we’re going to look at some of the favorite instances of this among non-Catholic writers both online and off.

Saint John 6:53-54

Nowhere is more read into a group of verses than here. This is one of the few areas that all Protestants agree on… the Catholic Church is wrong! Despite the fact that the Lord, at the Last Supper, made it abundantly clear what His “Flesh” and His “Blood” really is those verses are ignored (or reinterpreted). Then all sorts of odd meanings are run in here to correct the Lord. Most are fairly standard, but a couple are downright bizarre.

An example of the standard reinterpretation is that the Lord is talking about “faith” here. Since they are told that salvation is “by grace alone, through faith alone” (two of the 5 Solae) then the Lord must be speaking in parable or simile here. Having “faith” is therefore “eating His flesh and drinking His Blood”. This notion also ignores the fact that many of those who were following Jesus when He said this walked away and never followed Him again.  If the Lord merely meant “having faith” why would they have that reaction? No, His listeners knew exactly what He meant and they didn’t like it any better than Protestants do. In fact, some refer to those folks as “the first Protestants”.

A very bizarre one I ran across the other day rips several Scriptures out of their context and patches them into these verses. It actually brings in one of the other Solae… in fact the one that is the source of most other errors. Sola Scriptura is brought in, coupled with verses from Revelation, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and even Matthew (pretty much anyplace a prophet is told to eat a scroll or that “the word of God is mentioned even in passing) and made to say that “the Flesh and Blood the Lord is speaking about here is taking the Scriptures into you”

Even though the latter is more bizarre than the former, both betray a desperation to change what the Lord said to something more palatable to their sensibilities… anything but what the Church teaches. The reason for that is the implications contained in those same verses for those who refuse to obey. If the Lord said what He meant and meant what He said then those who don’t do this do not have eternal life and will not be included in the First Resurrection at the end of time. Only the Catholic Church teaches that He meant exactly what He said. And so they must grasp upon the thinnest of straws.

The Thief on the Cross

In my days as an Evangelical Christian apologist, when I would debate Baptism with some folks I used to wonder why there weren’t some Baptist churches called “The First Baptist Church of the Good Thief”. It’s odd that, given their name, there are fewer more vocal enemies of the place that the Scripture gives to Baptism in salvation theology than the Baptists. The Thief on the Cross was their number one guy!

The argument says that because the Thief was promised to be with the Lord in Paradise without being baptized the conclusion is that Baptism is optional and not required for salvation. He had “believed” and that is all that is required in their theology. This, of course, follows after another of their 5 Solae “Sole Fide” or “Faith Alone”

What they conveniently ignore is the fact that the Thief, and everyone who died before initiation of the New Covenant was under the Old Covenant. The requirement for entering under that Covenant was “circumcision”, not Baptism. But the panoply of New Testament scriptures on the subject make it abundantly clear that we enter through Baptism. For instance, Saint Paul makes it clear in 1 Corinthians 15:1-11 that the gospel message which he preaches centers on the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. In Romans 6:3-4 he tells that it is through Baptism that we identify ourselves with that gospel message. Add to this the words of Saint Peter as well as the comments of the Lord Himself and it is abundantly clear to anyone not having to push a doctrinal agenda of Sole Fide that Baptism is indeed required and commanded.

I wish I could say that the Protestants were the only ones trotting the poor Thief out to support their teaching. Unfortunately, such is not the case. I have recently had this teaching thrown up (a good term for it) at me by a Catholic seeking to justify the idea that all people go to Heaven with or without the Lord or the Church He established. For more on that subject I’ll refer you to the article “No Other Name”. Suffice it to  say that it no more justifies the teaching for a Catholic than it does for a Protestant.

Another straw disappears under the waves of New Testament truth.

Immaculate Conception

Finally, one of the favorite straws that Protestants grasp at is directed at the fact that the Blessed Mother was born without Original Sin. They trot out Romans 3:10 “As it is written, ‘There is none righteous, no, not one:’” and Romans 3:23, “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;” They say, “See?? The Bible says that no one was born without sin! Therefore, Mary couldn’t have been born without sin or it would violate the Scripture.”

Well, an old saying among Apologetics folks is “When you take a verse out of its context you have a pretext to error.” and that is the case here. It’s best not to use the Bible as a cut and paste proof text source to support preconceived notions. Saint Paul is talking about the contrast between law and grace. In fact, in the middle of this chapter he says, “Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.” (Romans 3:20). He isn’t making a blanket statement about the spiritual condition of all humanity for all time… or else the New Testament believers would be included in the description of the people we find in the verses following 3:10.

That brings us to another point. Scripture makes it clear that the benefits of the Cross flow both ways in time. It provided propitiation for the sins of those who looked forward to it in faith just as it does to those looking back toward it in faith. That is how the Lord could say to the Thief that he would be with Him in Paradise. The thief was under the Old Covenant and fulfilled its requirements that looked forward to its fulfillment just as all those in Paradise did. Very few Evangelical Christians would argue with this belief. If such is the case, why could God not apply that same benefit to the Blessed Mother from the moment of her conception?

The final point is that God can do whatever He wants to do and is capable to making exceptions. For instance, Saint Paul says in Hebrews 9:27, “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:”. By their rule it would be required that no one has ever left this world without passing through death. If that’s the case how does one explain Enoch and Elijah? Both men never tasted death. In addition, that would also preclude their much beloved Pre-Tribulation Rapture since those who are alive when the Lord returns also never experience death.

None of this has even taken into consideration the Scriptural Typology of Mary as the fulfillment of the Ark of the Covenant which I touched upon in the article, “The Substance of God’s Plan Part 1” God is God and is not limited by the constraints of mortal men and especially not modern Protestantism.

The final straw passes through their grasp like all the others. It would be better to stop grasping at straws… stop fighting against the Lord and the Church He established to support the doctrines of rebellious men.

(Dis)Honorable Mention

A brief mention of one last desperate and, frankly, rather odd straw that concerned Mark 16:15-16. Oh, they have little trouble with verse 15, which commands us to “go” and “preach”. It’s verse 16 that sticks in their craws. The Lord very clearly states that Baptism is essential to salvation. But, they say, “He didn’t say ‘and aren’t baptized’ in the second half.” If ever there was a position that qualifies as “a straw” that one has to be the definition of the term. If anyone would say this to your face you’d look at them like they had two heads. But in the anonymity of the Internet people are willing to say such silly things. Why in the world would they expect the Lord to say such a thing? The idea of “unbelief” carries with it that one wouldn’t be obedient to the clear command of the Lord and the teaching of the panoply of New Testament verses on the subject.

Only on the Internet!