21 Reasons to Reject Sola Scriptura

"We believe in the Bible alone and the Bible in its entirety as the sole rule of faith for the Christian!"

You may have heard these words or something very similar to them from a Fundamentalist or Evangelical Protestant. They are, in essence, the meaning of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, or "Scripture alone," which alleges that the Bible – as interpreted by the individual believer – is the only source of religious authority and is the Christian’s sole rule of faith or criterion regarding what is to be believed. By this doctrine, which is one of the foundational beliefs of Protestantism, a Protestant denies that there is any other source of religious authority or divine Revelation to humanity.

The Catholic, on the other hand, holds that the immediate or direct rule of faith is the teaching of the Church; the Church in turn takes her teaching from the divine Revelation – both the written Word, called Sacred Scripture, and the oral or unwritten Word, known as "Tradition." The teaching authority or "Magisterium" of the Catholic Church (headed by the Pope), although not itself a source of divine Revelation, nevertheless has a God-given mission to interpret and teach both Scripture and Tradition. Scripture and Tradition are the sources of Christian doctrine, the Christian’s remote or indirect rule of faith

Obviously these two views on what constitutes the Christian’s rule of faith are opposed to each other, and anyone who sincerely seeks to follow Christ must be sure that he follows the one that is true.

The doctrine of Sola Scriptura originated with Martin Luther, the 16th-century German monk who broke away from the Roman Catholic Church and started the Protestant "Reformation." (1) in response to some abuses that had been occurring within the Catholic Church, Luther became a vocal opponent of certain practices. As far as these abuses were concerned, they were real and Luther was justified in reacting. However, as a series of confrontations between him and the Church hierarchy developed, the issues became more centered on the question of Church authority and – from Luther’s perspective – whether or not the teaching of the Catholic Church was a legitimate rule of faith for Christians.

As the confrontations between Luther and the Church’s hierarchy ensued and tensions mounted, Luther accused the Catholic Church of having corrupted Christian doctrine and having distorted Biblical truths, and he more and more came to believe that the Bible, as interpreted by the individual believer, was the only true religious authority for a Christian. He eventually rejected Tradition as well as the teaching authority of the Catholic Church (with the Pope at its head) as having legitimate religious authority.

An honest inquirer must ask, then, whether Luther’s doctrine of "Scripture alone" was a genuine restoration of a Biblical truth or rather the promulgation of an individual’s personal views on Christian authority. Luther was clearly passionate about his beliefs, and he was successful in spreading them, but these facts in and of themselves do not guarantee that what he taught was correct. Since one’s spiritual well-being, and even one’s eternal destiny, is at stake, the Christian believer needs to be absolutely sure in this matter.

Following are twenty-one considerations which will help the reader scrutinize Luther’s doctrine of Sola Scriptura from Biblical, historical and logical bases and which show that it is not in fact a genuine Biblical truth, but rather a man-made doctrine.

Perhaps the most striking reason for rejecting this doctrine is that there is not one verse anywhere in the Bible in which it is taught, and it therefore becomes a self-refuting doctrine.

Protestants often point to verses such as 2 Timothy 3:16-17 or The Apocalypse (Revelation)22:18-19 in defense of Sola Scriptura, but close examination of these two passages easily demonstrates that they do not support the doctrine at all.

In 2 Timothy 3:16-17 we read, "All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work." There are five considerations which undermine the Sola Scriptura interpretation of this passage:

1) The Greek word ophelimos ("profitable") used in verse 16 means "useful" not "sufficient." An example of this difference would be to say that water is useful for our existence – even necessary – but it is not sufficient; that is, it is not the only thing we need to survive. We also need food, clothing, shelter, etc. Likewise, Scripture is useful in the life of the believer, but it was never meant to be the only source of Christian teaching, the only thing needed for believers.

2) The Greek word pasa, which is often rendered as "all," actually means "every," and it has the sense of referring to each and every one of the class denoted by the noun connected with it. (2) In other words, the Greek reads in a way which indicates that each and every "Scripture" is profitable. If the doctrine of Sola Scriptura were true, then based on Greek verse 16, each and every book of the Bible could stand on its own as the sole rule of faith, a position which is obviously absurd.

3) The "Scripture" that St. Paul is referring to here is the Old Testament, a fact which is made plain by his reference to the Scripture’s being known by Timothy from "infancy" (verse 15). The New Testament as we know it did not yet exist, or at best it was incomplete, so it simply could not have included in St. Paul’s understanding of what was meant by the term "scripture." If we take St. Paul’s words at face value, Sola Scriptura would therefore mean that the Old Testament is the Christian’s sole rule of faith. This is a premise that all Christians would reject.

Protestants may respond to this issue by arguing that St. Paul is not here discussing the canon of the Bible (the authoritative list of which books are included in the Bible), but rather the nature of Scripture. While there is some validity to this assertion, the issue of canon is also relevant here, for the following reason: Before we can talk about the nature of Scripture as being theopneustos or "inspired" (literally, "God-breathed"), it is imperative that we identify with certainty those books we mean when we say "Scripture"; otherwise, the wrong writings may be labeled as "inspired." St. Paul’s words here obviously took on a new dimension when the New Testament was completed, as Christians eventually considered it, too, to be "Scripture." It can be argued, then, that the Biblical canon is also the issue here, as St. Paul – writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit – emphasizes the fact that all (and not just some) Scripture is inspired. The question that begs to be asked, however, is this: "How can we be sure we have all the correct writings?" obviously, we can only know the answer if we know what the canon of the Bible is. Such a question poses a problem for the Protestant, but not for the Catholic, as the latter has an infallible authority to answer it.

4) The Greek word artios, here translated "perfect," may at first glance make it seem that the Scriptures are indeed all that is needed. "After all," one may ask, "if the Scriptures make the man of God perfect, what else could be needed? Doesn’t the very word ‘perfect’ imply that nothing is lacking?"

Well, the difficulty with such an interpretation is that the text here does not say that it is solely by means of the Scriptures that the man of God is made "perfect." The text – if anything – indicates precisely the opposite to be true, namely, that the Scriptures operate in conjunction with other things. Notice that it is not just anyone who is made perfect, but rather the "man of God" – which means a minister of Christ (cf. 1 Tim. 6:11), a clergyman. The fact that this individual is a minister of Christ presupposes that he has already had training and teaching which prepared him to assume his office. This being the case, the Scriptures would be merely one item in a series of items which make this man of God "perfect." The Scriptures may complete his list of necessary items or they may be one prominent item on the list, but surely they are not the only item on his list nor intended to be all that he needs.

By way of analogy, consider a medical doctor. In this context we might say something like, "The Physician’s Desk Reference [a standard medical reference book] makes our General Practitioner perfect, so that he may be ready to treat any medical situation." Obviously such a statement does not mean that all a doctor needs is his PDR. It is neither the last item on his list or just one prominent item. The doctor also needs his stethoscope, his blood pressure gauge, his training, etc. These other items are presupposed by the fact that we are talking about a doctor rather than a non-medical person. So it would be incorrect to assume that if the PDR makes the doctor "perfect," it is the only thing which makes him so.

Also, taking this word "perfect" as meaning "the only necessary item" results in a biblical contradiction, for in James 1:4 we read that patience – rather than the Scriptures – makes on perfect: "And patience hath a perfect work; that you may be perfect and entire, failing in nothing." Now it is true that a different Greek word (teleios) is used here for "perfect," but the fact remains that the basic meaning is the same. Now, if one rightly acknowledges that patience is clearly not the only thing a Christian needs in order to be perfect, then a consistent interpretive method would compel one to acknowledge likewise that the Scriptures are not the only think a "man of God" needs in order to be perfect.

5) The Greek word exartizo in verse 17, here translated "furnished" (other Bible versions read something like "fully equipped" or "thoroughly furnished") is referred to by Protestants as "proof" of Sola Scriptura, since this word – again – may be taken as implying that nothing else is needed for the "man of God." However, even though the man of God may be "furnished" or "thoroughly equipped," this fact in and of itself does not guarantee that he knows how to interpret correctly and apply any given Scripture passage. The clergyman must also be taught how to correctly use the Scriptures, even though he may already be "furnished" with them.

Consider again a medical analogy. Picture a medical student at the beginning of internship. He might have at his disposal all the equipment necessary to perform an operation (i.e., he is "thoroughly equipped" or "furnished" for a surgical procedure), but until he spends time with the doctors, who are the resident authorities, observing their techniques, learning their skills, and practicing some procedures of his own, the surgical instruments at his disposal are essentially useless. In fact, if he does not learn how to use these instruments properly, they can actually become dangerous in his hands.

So it is with the "man of God" and the Scriptures. The Scriptures, like the surgical instruments, are life-giving only when properly used. When improperly used, the exact opposite results can occur. In once case they could bring physical ruin or even death; in the other case they could bring spiritual ruin or even spiritual death. Since the Bible admonishes us to handle rightly or rightly divide the word of truth (cf. 2 Tim. 2:15), it is therefore possible to handle incorrectly or wrongly divide it – much like an untrained medical student who incorrectly wields his surgical instruments.

Regarding The Apocalypse (Revelation) 22:18-19, there are two considerations which undermine the Sola Scriptura interpretation of these verses. The passage – almost the very last in the Bible – reads: "For I testify to every one that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add to these things, God shall add unto him the plagues written in this book. And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from these things that are written in this book."

1) When these verses say that nothing is to be added to or taken from the "words of the prophecy of this book," they are not referring to Sacred Tradition being "added" to the Sacred Scripture. It is obvious from the context that the "book" being referred to here is Revelation or The Apocalypse and not the whole Bible. We know this because St. John says that anyone who is guilty of adding to "this book" will be cursed with the plagues" written in this book," namely the plagues he described earlier in his own book, Revelation. To assert otherwise is to do violence to the text and to distort its plain meaning, especially since the Bible as we know it did not exist when this passage was written and therefore could not be what was meant. (3)

In defense of their interpretation of these verses, Protestants will often contend that God knew in advance what the canon of Scripture would be, with Revelation being the last book of the Bible, and thus He "sealed" that canon with the words of verses 18-19. But this interpretation involves reading a meaning into the text. Furthermore, if such an assertion were true, how is it that the Christian knows unmistakably that Revelation 22:18-19 is "sealing" the canon unless an infallible teaching authority assures him that this is the correct interpretation of that verse? But if such an infallible authority exists, then the Sola Scriptura doctrine becomes ipso facto null and void.

2) The same admonition not to add or subtract words is used in Deuteronomy 4:2, which says, "You shall not add to the word that I speak to you, neither shall you take away from it: keep the commandment of the Lord your God which I command you." If we were to apply a parallel interpretation to this verse, then anything in the Bible beyond the decrees of the Old Testament law would be considered non-canonical or not authentic Scripture – including the New Testament! Once again, all Christians would reject this conclusion in no uncertain terms. The prohibition in Revelation 22:18-19 against "adding," therefore, cannot mean that Christians are forbidden to look to anything outside the Bible for guidance.

2. The Bible Indicates that In Addition to the Written Word, we are to accept Oral Tradition

St. Paul both commends and commands the keeping of oral tradition. In 1 Corinthians 11:2, for instance, we read, "Now I praise you, brethren, that in all things you are mindful of me: and keep my ordinances as I have delivered them to you." (4) St. Paul is obviously commending the keeping of oral tradition here, and it should be noted in particular that he extols the believers for having done so ("I praise you...."). Explicit in this passage is also the fact that the integrity of this Apostolic oral tradition has clearly been maintained, just as Our Lord promised it would be, through the safeguarding of the Holy Spirit (cf. John 16:3).

Perhaps the clearest Biblical support for oral tradition can be found in 2 Thessalonians 2:14(15), where Christians are actually commanded: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle." This passage is significant in that 1) it shows the existence of living traditions within the Apostolic teaching, b) it tells us unequivocally that believers are firmly grounded in the Faith by adhering to these traditions, and c) it clearly states that these traditions were both written and oral. Since the Bible distinctly states here that oral traditions – authentic and Apostolic in origin – are to be "held" as a valid component of the Deposit of Faith, by what reasoning or excuse do Protestants dismiss them? By what authority do they reject a clear-cut injunction of St. Paul?

Moreover, we must consider the text in this passage. The Greek word krateite, here translated "hold," means "to be strong, mighty, to prevail." (5) This language is rather emphatic, and it demonstrates the importance of maintaining these traditions. Of course one must differentiate between Tradition (upper-case "T") that is part of divine Revelation, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, Church traditions (lower-case "t") that, although good, have developed in the Church later and are not part of the Deposit of Faith. An example of something that is part of Tradition would be infant Baptism; an example of a Church tradition would be the Church’s calendar of feast days of Saints. Anything that is part of Tradition is of divine origin and hence unchangeable, while Church traditions are changeable by the Church. Sacred Tradition serves as a rule of faith by showing what the Church has believed consistently through the centuries and how it is always understood any given portion of the Bible. One of the main ways in which Tradition has been passed down to us is in the doctrine contained in the ancient texts of the liturgy, the Church’s public worship.

it should be noted that Protestants accuse Catholics of promoting "unbiblical" or "novel" doctrines based on Tradition, asserting that such Tradition contains doctrines which are foreign to the Bible. However, this assertion is wholly untrue. The Catholic Church teaches that Sacred Tradition contains nothing whatsoever that is contrary to the Bible. Some Catholic thinkers would even say that there is nothing in Sacred Tradition which is not also found in Scripture, at least implicitly or in seminal form. Certainly the two are at least in perfect harmony and always support each other. For some doctrines, the Church draws more from Tradition than from Scripture for its understanding, but even those doctrines are often implied or hinted at in the Sacred Scripture. For example, the following are largely based on Sacred Tradition: infant Baptism, the canon of Scripture, the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Sunday (rather than Saturday) as the Lord’s Day, and the Assumption of Our Lady.

Sacred Tradition complements our understanding of the Bible and is therefore not some extraneous source of Revelation which contains doctrines that are foreign to it. Quite the contrary: Sacred Tradition serves as the Church’s living memory, reminding her of what the faithful have constantly and consistently believed and who to properly understand and interpret the meaning of Biblical passages. (6) In a certain way, it is Sacred Tradition which says to the reader of the Bible "You have been reading a very important book which contains God’s revelation to man. Now let me explain to you how it has always been understood and practiced by believers from the very beginning."

3. The Bible Calls the Church and not the Bible the "Pillar and Ground of the Truth."

It is very interesting to note that in I Timothy 3:15 we see, not the Bible, but the Church – that is, the living community of believers founded upon St. Peter and the Apostles and headed by their successors – called "the pillar and ground of the truth." Of course, this passage is not meant in any way to diminish the importance of the Bible, but it is intending to show that Jesus Christ did establish an authoritative and teaching Church which was commissioned to teach "all nations." (Matt. 28:19). Elsewhere this same Church received Christ’s promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against it (Matt. 16:18), that He would always be with it (Matt. 28:20), and that He would give it the Holy Spirit to teach it all truth. (John 16:13). To the visible head of His Church, St. Peter, Our Lord said: "And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and, whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven." (Matt. 16:19). It is plainly evident from these passages that Our Lord emphasized the authority of His Church and the role it would have in safeguarding and defining the Deposit of Faith.

It is also evident from these passages that this same Church would be infallible, for if at any time in its history it would definitively teach error to the Church as a whole in matters of faith or morals – even temporarily – it would cease being this "pillar and ground of the truth." Since a "ground" or foundation by its very nature is meant to be a permanent support, and since the above-mentioned passages do not allow fro the possibility of the Church ever definitively teaching doctrinal or moral error, the only plausible conclusion is that Our Lord was very deliberate in establishing His Church and that He was referring to its infallibility when He called it the "pillar and ground of the truth."

The Protestant, however, has a dilemma here by asserting the Bible to be the sole rule of faith for believers. In what capacity, then, is the Church the "pillar and ground of the truth" if it is not to serve as an infallible authority established by Christ? How can the Church be this "pillar and ground" if it has no tangible, practical ability to serve as an authority in the life of a Christian? The Protestant would effectively deny that the Church is the "pillar and ground of the truth" by denying that the Church has the authority to teach.

Also, Protestants understand the term "church" to mean something different from what the Catholic Church understands it to mean. Protestants see "the church" as an invisible entity, and for them it refers collectively to all Christian believers around the world who are united by faith in Christ, despite major variations in doctrine and denominational allegiance. Catholics, on the other hand, understand it to mean not only those true believers who are united as Christ’s Mystical Body, but we simultaneously understand it to refer to a visible, historical entity as well, namely, that one – and only that one – organization which can trace its lineage in an unbroken line back to the Apostles themselves: the Catholic Church. It is this Church and this Church alone which was established by Christ and which has maintained an absolute consistency in doctrine throughout its existence, and it is therefore this Church alone which can claim to be that very "pillar and ground of the truth."

Protestantism, by comparison, has known a history of doctrinal vacillations and changes, and no two denominations completely agree – even on major doctrinal issues. Such shifting and changing could not possibly be considered a foundation or "ground of the truth." When the foundation of a structure shifts or is improperly set, that structure’s very support is unreliable (cf. Matt. 7:26-27). Since in practice the beliefs of Protestantism have undergone change both within denominations and through the continued appearance of new denominations, these beliefs are like a foundation which shifts and moves. Such beliefs therefore cease to provide the support necessary to maintain the structure they uphold, and the integrity of that structure becomes compromised, Our Lord clearly did not intend for His followers to build their spiritual houses on such an unreliable foundation.

In Matthew 18:15-18 we see Christ instructing His disciples on how to correct a fellow believer. It is extremely telling in this instance that Our Lord identifies the Church rather than Scripture as the final authority to be appealed to. He Himself says that if an offending brother "will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican" (Matt. 18:17) – that is, as an outsider who is lost. Moreover, Our Lord then solemnly re-emphasizes the Church’s infallible teaching authority in verse 18 by repeating His earlier statement about the power to bind and loose (Matt. 16:18-19), directing it this time to the Apostles as a group (7) rather than just to Peter: "Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven." (Matt. 18:18).

Of course there are instances in the Bible where Our Lord does appeal to Scripture, but in these cases He, as one having authority, was teaching the Scriptures; He was not allowing the Scriptures to teach themselves. For example, He would respond to the Scribes and the Pharisees by using Scripture precisely because they often tried to trip Him up by using Scripture. In these instances, Our Lord often demonstrates how the Scribes and Pharisees had wrong interpretations, and hence He corrects them by properly interpreting Scripture.

His actions do not argue that Scripture should be sola, or an authority in itself and, in fact, the only Christian authority. Quite the contrary; whenever Christ refers His hearers to the Scriptures, He also provides His infallible, authoritative interpretation of them, demonstrating that the Scriptures do not interpret themselves.

The Catholic Church readily acknowledges the inerrancy and authority of Scripture. But the Catholic doctrine is that the immediate rule of faith for the Christian is the teaching authority of the Church – an authority to teach and interpret both Scripture and Tradition, as Matt. 18:17-18 shows.

It should also be noted that implicit (perhaps even explicit) in this passage from Matthew is the fact that the "Church" must have been a visible, tangible entity established in a hierarchical fashion. Otherwise, how would anyone have known to whom the wrongdoer should be referred? If the Protestant definition of "church" were correct, then the wrongdoer would have to "hear" each and every believer who existed, hoping that there would be unanimity among them regarding the issue at hand. The inherent absurdity of this scenario is readily apparent. The only way we can make sense of Our Lord’s statement here is to acknowledge that here was a definite organization, to which an appeal could be made and from which a decisive judgment could be had.

5 Scripture itself states that it is insufficient of itself as a teacher, but rather needs an interpreter.

The Bible says in 2 Tim. 3:17 that the man of God is "perfect, furnished to every good work." As we noted above, this verse means only that the man of God is fully supplied with Scripture; it is not a guarantee that he automatically knows how to interpret it properly. This verse at most argues only for the material sufficiency of Scripture, a position which is held by some Catholic thinkers today.

"Material sufficiency" would mean that the Bible in some way contains all the truths that are necessary for the believer to know; in other words, the "materials" would thus be all present or at least implied. "Formal sufficiency," on the other hand, would mean that the Bible would not only contain all the truths that are necessary, but that it would also present those truths in a perfectly clear and complete and readily understandable fashion. In other words, these truths would be in a useable form," and consequently there would be no need for Sacred Tradition to clarify and complete them or for an infallible teaching authority to interpret them correctly or "rightly divide" God’s word.

Since the Catholic Church holds that the Bible is not sufficient in itself, it naturally teaches that the Bible needs an interpreter. The reason the Catholic Church so teaches is twofold: first, because Christ established a living Church to teach with His authority. He did not simply give His disciples a Bible, whole and entire, and tell them to go out and make copies of it for mass distribution and allow people to come to whatever interpretation they may. Second, the Bible itself states that it needs an interpreter.

Regarding the second point, we read in 2 Peter 3:16 that in St. Paul’s epistles there are "certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest [distort], as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction."

In this one verse we note three very important things about the Bible and its interpretation: a) the Bible contains passages which are not readily understandable or clear, a fact which demonstrates the need for an authoritative and infallible teacher to make the passages clear and understandable; (8) b) it is not only possible that people could "wrest" or distort the meaning of Scripture, but this was, in fact, being done from the very earliest days of the Church; and c) to distort the meaning of Scripture can result in one’s "destruction," a disastrous fate indeed. It is obvious from these considerations that St. Peter did not believe the Bible to be the sole rule of faith. But there is more.

In Acts 8:26-40 we read the account of the deacon St. Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch. In this scenario, the Holy Spirit leads Philip to approach the Ethiopian when Philip learns that the Ethiopian is reading from the prophet Isaias, he asks him a very telling question: "Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest?" Even more telling is the answer given by the Ethiopian: "And how can I, unless some man show me?"

Whereas this St. Philip (known as "the Evangelist") is not one of the twelve Apostles, he was nonetheless someone who was commissioned by the Apostles (cf. Acts 6:6) and who preached the Gospel with authority (cf. Acts 8:4-8). Consequently, his preaching would reflect legitimate Apostolic teaching. The point here is that the Ethiopian’s statement verifies the fact that the Bible is not sufficient in itself as a teacher of Christian doctrine, and people who hear the Word do need an authority to instruct them properly so that they may understand what the Bible says. If the Bible were indeed sufficient of itself, then the eunuch would not have been ignorant of the meaning of the passage from Isaias.

There is also 2 Peter 1:20, which states that "no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation." Here we see the Bible itself stating in no uncertain terms that its prophecies are not a matter for which the individual is to arrive at his own interpretation. It is also most telling that this verse is preceded by a section on the Apostolic witness (verses 12-18) and followed by a section on false teachers (chapter 2, verses 1-10). St. Peter is obviously contrasting genuine, Apostolic teaching with false prophets and false teachers, and he makes reference to private interpretation as the pivotal point between the two. The clear implication is that private interpretation is one pathway whereby an individual turns from authentic teaching and begins to follow erroneous teaching.

Biblical scholars tell us that the last book of the New Testament was not written until the end of the 1st century A.D., that is, until around the year 100 A.D. (9) This fact would leave roughly a 65-year gap between Our Lord’s Ascension into Heaven and the completion of the Bible as we know it. The question that begs to be asked, therefore, is this: "Who or what served as the final, infallible authority during that time?"

If the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura were true, then since the Church existed for a time without the entire written Word of God, there would have been situations and doctrinal issues which could not have been resolved with finality until all of the New Testament books were complete. The ship would have been left without a rudder, so to speak, at least for a time. But this goes contrary to the statements and promises that Our Lord made about His Church – particularly, "behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world" (Matt. 28:20) – not to mention that He told His disciples: "I will not leave you orphans." (John 14:18).

This issue is of particular importance, as the first several decades of the Church’s existence were tumultuous. Persecutions had already begun, believers were being martyred, the new Faith was struggling to grow, and some false teachings had already appeared (cf. Galatians 1:6-9). If the Bible were the Christian’s only rule of faith, and since the Bible was not fully written – much less settled in terms of its canon – until 65 years after Christ’s Ascension, how did the early Church possibly deal with doctrinal questions without an authority on how to proceed?

Now the Protestant may be tempted to offer two possible responses: 1) that the Apostles were temporarily the final authority while the New Testament was being written, and 2) that the Holy Spirit was given to the Church and that His direct guidance is what bridged the time gap between Our Lord’s Ascension and the completion of the New Testament.

Regarding the first response, it is true that Jesus Christ invested the Apostles with His authority; however, the Bible nowhere indicates that this authority’s active role within the Church would cease with the death of the last Apostle. Quite the contrary, the Bible record is quite clear in that a) it nowhere says that once the last Apostle dies, the written form of God’s Word will become the final authority; and b) the Apostles clearly chose successors who, in turn, possessed the same authority to "bind and loose." This is shown in the election of Matthias as a replacement for Judas Iscariot (Cf. Acts 1:15-26) and in St. Paul’s passing on his Apostolic Authority to Timothy and Titus (cf. 2 Timothy 1:6, and Titus 1:5). If anything, a Protestant only gives credence to the Catholic teaching by insisting on the authority of the Apostles.

Regarding the second response – that the Holy Spirit’s direct guidance bridged the time gap – the problem with such a position is that the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit Himself is an extra-Biblical (That is, "outside of the Bible") source of authority. Naturally the Bible speaks very clearly of the Holy Spirit’s presence among the believers and His role in teaching the disciples "all truth," but if the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit were, in fact, the ultimate authority during those 65 years, then the history of the Church would have known two successive ultimate authorities: first the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit, with this guidance then being replaced by the Scriptures, which would have become sola, or the "only" ultimate authority. And if this situation of an extra-Biblical ultimate authority is permissible from a Protestant perspective, does this not open the door to the Catholic position, which says that the teaching authority of the Church is the direct ultimate authority – deriving her authority from Christ and her teaching from Scripture and Tradition, guided by the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit was given to the Church by Jesus Christ, and it is exactly this same Spirit who protects the Church’s visible head, the Pope, and the teaching authority of the Church by never permitting him or it to lapse into error. The Catholic believes that Christ indeed did give the Holy Spirit to the Church and that the Holy Spirit has always been present in the Church, teaching it all truth (John 16:13) and continually safeguarding its doctrinal integrity, particularly through the office of the Pope. Thus the Gospel would still have been preached – authoritatively and infallibly – even if not a single verse of the New Testament had ever been written.

The doctrine of Sola Scriptura overlooks – or at least grossly underemphasizes – the fact that the Church came before the Bible, and not the other way around. It was the Church, in effect, which wrote the Bible under the inspiration of Almighty God: the Israelites as the Old Testament Church (or "pre-Catholics") and the early Catholics as the New Testament Church.

In the pages of the New Testament we note that Our Lord gives a certain primacy to the teaching authority of His Church and its proclamation in His name. For instance, in Matthew 28:20 we see Our Lord commissioning the Apostles to go and teach in His name, making disciples of all nations. In Mark 16:15 we note that the Apostles are commanded to go and preach to all the world. And in Luke 10:16 we see that whoever hears the seventy-two hears Our Lord. These facts are most telling, as nowhere do we see Our Lord commissioning His Apostles to evangelize the world by writing in His name. The emphasis is always on preaching the Gospel, not on printing and distributing it.

Thus it follows that the leadership and teaching authority of the Church are indispensable elements in the means whereby the Gospel message is to reach the ends of the earth. Since the Church produced the scriptures, it is quite biblical, logical and reasonable to say that the Church alone has the authority to interpret properly and apply them. And if this is so, then by reason of its origin and nature, the Bible cannot serve as the only rule of faith for Christian believers. In other words, by producing the Scriptures, the Church does not eliminate the need for itself as teacher and interpreter of those Scriptures.

Moreover, is it not unreasonable to say that simply by putting Apostolic teaching into writing, the Church somehow made that written teaching superior to her oral teaching? Like the teaching organization Our Lord established, His Word is authoritative, but because the word is one form rather than another does not mean one form is to be subjugated to the other. Since God’s one Revelation is twofold in form, to deny the authority of one form would be to deny the authority of the other form as well. The forms of God’s Word are complementary, not competitive. Thus, if there is a need for the Scriptures, there is also a need for the teaching authority which produced them.

8. The idea of the Scripture's Authority existing apart from the authority of the Teacher Church is utterly foreign to the Early Church.

If you look at the writings of the Early Church Fathers, you will see references to the Apostolic Succession, (10) to the bishops as guardians of the Deposit of Faith, (11) and to the primacy and the authority of Rome. (12) The collective weight of these references makes clear the fact that the early Church understood itself has having a hierarchy which was central to maintaining the integrity of the Faith. Nowhere do we see any indication that the early followers of Christ disregarded those positions of authority and considered them invalid as a rule of faith. Quite the contrary, we see in those passages that the Church, from its very inception, saw its power to teach grounded in an inseparable combination of Scripture and Apostolic Tradition – with both being authoritatively taught and interpreted by the teaching Magisterium of the Church, with the Bishop of Rome at its head.

To say that the early Church believed in the notion of "the Bible alone" would be analogous to saying that men and women today could entertain the thought that our civil laws could function without Congress to legislate them, without courts to interpret them and without police to enforce them. All we would need is a sufficient supply of legal volumes in every household so that each citizen could determine for himself how to understand and apply any given law. Such an assertion is absurd, of course, as no one could possibly expect civil laws to function in this manner. The consequence of such a state of affairs would undoubtedly be total anarchy.

How much more absurd, then, is it to contend that the Bible could function on its own and apart from the Church which wrote it? It is precisely that Church – and not just any Christian – who alone possesses the divinely given authority to interpret it correctly, as well as to legislate matters involving the conduct of its members. Were this not the case, the situation on any level – local, regional or global – would quickly devolve into spiritual anarchy, wherein each and every Christian could formulate a theological system and develop a moral code based simply upon his own private interpretation of Scripture.

Has not history actually seen precisely this result since the 16th century, when the so-called Reformation occurred? In fact, an examination of the state of affairs in Europe immediately following the genesis of the Reformation – particularly in Germany – will demonstrate that the direct result of Reformation teaching was both spiritual and social disorder. (13) Luther himself bemoaned the fact that, "Unfortunately, it is our daily experience that now under the Gospel [his] the people entertain greater and bitterer hatred and envy and are worse with their avarice and money-grabbing than before under the Papacy." (14)

9. Heresiarchs and heretical movements based their doctrines on Scripture interpreted apart from Tradition and the Magisterium.

If you look at the history of the early Church, you will see that it continually struggled against heresies and those who promoted them. We also see the Church responding to those threats again and again by convening Councils (15) and turning to Rome to settle disputes in matters of doctrine and discipline. For example, Pope Clement intervened in a controversy in the Church at Corinth at the end of the 1st century and put an end to a schism there. In the 2nd century, Pope Victor threatened to excommunicate a large portion of the Church in the East because of a dispute about when Easter should be celebrated. In the earlier part of the 3rd century, Pope Callistus pronounced the condemnation of the Sabellian heresy.

In the case of these heresies and/or conflicts in discipline that would arise, the people involved would defend their erroneous beliefs by their respective interpretations of Scripture, apart from the Sacred Tradition and the teaching Magisterium of the Church. A good illustration of this point is the case of Arius, the 4th-century priest who declared that the Son of God was a creature and was not co-equal with the Father.

Arius and those who followed him quoted verses from the Bible to "prove" their claims. (16) The disputes and controversies which arose over his teachings became so great that the first Ecumenical Council was convened in Nicaea in 325 A.D. to settle them. The Council, under the authority of the Pope, declared Arius’ teachings to be heretical and made some decisive declarations about the Person of Christ, and it did so based on what Sacred Tradition had to say regarding the Scripture verses in question.

Here we see the teaching authority of the Church being used as the final say in an extremely important doctrinal matter. If there had been no teaching authority to appeal to, then Arius’ error could have overtaken the Church. As it is, a majority of the bishops at the time fell for the Arian heresy. (17) Even though Arius had based his arguments on the Bible and probably "compared Scripture with Scripture," the fact is that he arrived at an heretical conclusion. It was the teaching authority of the Church – hierarchically constituted – which stepped in and declared he was wrong.

The application is obvious. If you ask a Protestant whether or not Arius was correct in his belief that the Son was created, he will, of course, respond in the negative. Emphasize, then, that even though Arius presumably "compared Scripture with Scripture," he nonetheless arrived at an erroneous conclusion. If this were true for Arius, what guarantee does the Protestant have that it is not also true for his interpretation of a given Bible passage? The very fact that the Protestant knows Arius’ interpretations were heretical implies that an objectively true or "right" interpretation exists for the Biblical passages he used. The issue, then, becomes a question of how we can know what that true interpretation is. The only possible answer is that there must be, out of necessity, an infallible authority to tell us. That infallible authority, the Catholic Church, declared Arius heretical. Had the Catholic Church not been both infallible and authoritative in its declaration, then believers would have had no reason whatsoever to reject Arius’ teachings, and the whole of Christianity today might have been comprised of modern-day Arians.

It is evident, then, that using the Bible alone is not a guarantee of arriving at doctrinal truth. The above-described result is what happens when the erroneous doctrine of Sola Scriptura is used as a guiding principle, and the history of the Church and the numerous heresies it has had to address are undeniable testimony to this fact.

One historical fact which proves extremely convenient for the Protestant is the fact that the canon of the Bible – the authoritative list of exactly which books are part of inspired Scripture – was not settled and fixed until the end of the 4th century. Until that time, there was much disagreement over which Biblical writings were considered inspired and Apostolic in origin. The Biblical canon varied from place to place: some lists contained books that were later defined as non-canonical, while other lists failed to include books which were later defined as canonical. For example, there were Early Christian writings which were considered by some to be inspired and Apostolic and which were actually read in Christian public worship, but which were later omitted from the New Testament canon. These include The Shepherd of Hermas, The Epistle of Barnabas, and The Didache, among others. (18)

It was not until the Synod of Rome (382) and the Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) that we find a definitive list of canonical books being drawn up, and each of these Councils acknowledged the very same list of books. (19) From this point on, there is in practice no dispute about the canon of the Bible, the only exception being the so-called Protestant Reformers, who entered upon the scene in 1517, an unbelievable 11 centuries later.

Once again, there are two fundamental questions for which one cannot provide answers that are consonant with Sola Scriptura: A) Who or what served as the final Christian authority up to the time that the New Testament’s canon was identified? B) And if there was a final authority that the Protestant recognizes before the establishment of the canon, on what basis did that authority cease being final once the Bible’s canon was established?

Since the Bible did not come with an inspired table of contents, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura creates yet another dilemma: How can one know with certainty which books belong in the Bible – specifically, in the New Testament? The unadulterated fact is that one cannot know unless there is an authority outside the Bible which can tell him. Moreover, this authority must, by necessity, be infallible, since the possibility of error in identifying the canon of the Bible (20) would mean that all believers run the risk of having the wrong books in their Bibles, a situation which would vitiate Sola Scriptura. But if there is such an infallible authority, then the doctrine of Sola Scriptura crumbles.

Another historical fact very difficult to reconcile with the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is that it was none other than the Catholic Church which eventually identified and ratified the canon of the Bible. The three councils mentioned above were all councils of this Church. The Catholic Church gave its final, definitive, infallible definition of the Biblical canon a the Council of Trent in 1546 – naming the very same list of 73 books that had been included in the 4th century. If the Catholic Church is able, then, to render an authoritative and infallible decision concerning such an important matter as which books belong in the Bible, then upon what basis would a person question its authority on other matters of faith and morals?

Protestants should at least concede a point which Martin Luther, their religion’s founder, also conceded, namely, that the Catholic Church safeguarded and identified the Bible: "We are obliged to yield many things to the Catholics – (for example), that they possess the Word of God, which we received from them; otherwise, we should have known nothing at all about it." (21)

12. The Belief that Scripture is "Self-Authenticating" Does Not Hold Up under Examination

Lacking a satisfactory answer to the question of how the canon of the Bible was determined, Protestants often resort to the notion that Scripture is "self-authenticating," that is, the books of the Bible witness to themselves that they are inspired of God. The major problem with such an assertion is simply that even a cursory examination of ecclesial history will demonstrate it to be utterly untrue.

For example, several books from the New Testament – James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, and Revelation – were disputed in terms of their canonical status for some time. In certain places they were accepted, while simultaneously in other s they were rejected. Even spiritual giants like St. Athanasius (297-373), St. Jerome (c. 342-420) and St. Augustine (354-430) had drawn up lists of New Testament books which witnessed to what was generally acknowledged as inspired in their times and places, but none of these lists corresponds exactly to the New Testament canon that was eventually identified by the Catholic Church at the end of the 4th century and which is identical to the canon that Catholics have today. (22)

If Scripture were actually "self-authenticating," why was there so much disagreement and uncertainty over these various books? Why was there any disagreement at all? Why was the canon of the Bible not identified much earlier if the books were allegedly so readily discernible? The answer that one is compelled to accept in this regard is simply that the Bible is not self-authenticating at all.

Even more interesting is the fact that some books in the Bible do not identify their authors. The idea of self-authentication – if it were true – might be more plausible if each and every Biblical author identified himself, as we could more easily examine that author’s credentials, so to speak, or at least determine who it was that claimed to be speaking for God. But in this regard the Bible leaves us ignorant in a few instances.

Take St. Matthew’s Gospel as one example; nowhere does the text indicate that it was Matthew, one of the twelve Apostles, who authored it. We are therefore left with only two possibilities for determining its authorship: 1) what Tradition has to say, 2) Biblical scholarship. In either case, the source of determination is an extra-Biblical source and would therefore fall under condemnation by the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

Now the Protestant may be saying at this point that it is unnecessary to know whether or not Matthew actually wrote this Gospel, as one’s salvation does not depend on knowing whether it was Matthew or someone else. But such a view presents quite a difficulty. What the Protestant is effectively saying is that while an authentic Gospel is God’s Word and is the means by which a person comes to a saving knowledge of Christ, the person has no way of knowing for certain in the case of Matthew’s Gospel whether it is Apostolic in origin and consequently has no way of knowing it if its genuine (i.e., God’s Word) or not. And if this Gospel’s authenticity is questionable, then why include it in the Bible? If its authenticity is certain, then how is this known in the absence of self-identification by Matthew? One can only conclude that the Bible is not self-authenticating.

The Protestant may wish to fall back on the Bible’s own assertion that it is inspired, citing a passage like 2 Timothy 3:16 – "All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable..." However, a claim to inspiration is not in and of itself a guarantee of inspiration. Consider the fact that the writings of Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of the Christian Science sect, claim to be inspired. The writings of Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon sect, claim to be inspired. These are but two of many possible examples which demonstrate the that any particular writing can claim just about anything. Obviously, in order for us to know with certainty whether or not a writing is genuinely inspired, we need more than a mere claim by that writing that it is inspired. The guarantee of inspiration must come from outside that writing. In the case of the Bible, the guarantee must come from a non-Biblical source. But outside authentication is excluded by the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

A sobering consideration – and one which is fatal to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura – is that we do not possess a single original manuscript of any book of the Bible. Now it is true that there are thousands of manuscripts extant which are copies of the originals – and more likely than not they are copies of copies – but this fact does not help the Sola Scriptura position for the simple reason that without original manuscripts, one cannot know with certainty if he actually possesses the real Bible, whole and entire. (23) The original autographs were inspired, while copies of them are not.

The Protestant may want to assert that not having original Biblical manuscripts is immaterial, as God preserved the Bible by safeguarding its duplication down through the centuries. (24) However, there are two problems with this line of reasoning. The first is that by maintaining God’s providence with regard to copying, a person claims something which is not written in Scripture, and therefore, by the very definition of Sola Scriptura, cannot serve as a rule of faith. In other words, if one cannot find passages in the Bible which patently state that God will protect the transmission of manuscripts, then the belief is not to be held. The fact of the matter is that the Bible makes no such claim.

The second problem is that if you can maintain that God safeguarded the written transmission of His Word, then you can also rightly maintain that He safeguarded its oral transmission as well (recall 2 Thessalonians 2:14 [15] and the twofold form of God’s one revelation). After all, the preaching of the Gospel began as an oral tradition (cf. Luke 1:1-4 and Rom. 10:17). It was not until later on that some of the oral tradition was committed to writing – becoming Sacred Scripture – and it was later still that these writings were declared to be inspired and authoritative. Once you can maintain that God safeguarded the oral transmission of His teaching, you have demonstrated the basis for Sacred Tradition and have already begun supporting the Catholic position.

It has just been noted that there are thousands of Biblical manuscripts in existence; these manuscripts contain thousands of variations in the text; one writer estimates that there are over 200,000 variations. (25) Whereas the majority of these deal with minor concerns – such as spelling, word order and the like – there are also variations of a more important nature: a) the manuscript evidence shows that scribes sometimes modified the Biblical texts to harmonize passages, to accommodate them to historical fact, and to establish a doctrinal correctness; (26) and b) there are portions of verses (i.e., more than just a single word in question) for which there are several different manuscript readings, such as John 7:39, Acts 6:8, Colossians 2:2 and 1 Thessalonians 3:2. (27) These facts leave the Protestant in the position of not knowing if he possesses what the Biblical authors originally wrote. And if this is the case, then how can a Protestant profess to base his beliefs solely on the Bible when he cannot determine with certainty the textual authenticity of the Bible? (28)

More importantly, there are several more major textual variations among New Testament manuscripts. The following two examples will illustrate the point:

First, according to the manuscripts that we have, there are four possible endings for Mark’s Gospel: the short ending, which includes verses 1-8 of chapter 16; the longer ending, which includes verses 1-8 plus verses 9-20; the intermediate ending, which includes 2 to 3 lines of text between verse 8 and the longer ending; and the longer ending in expanded form, which includes several verses after verse 14 of the longer ending. (29) The best that can be said about these different endings is that we simply do not know for certain, from the Bible itself, where St. Mark’s Gospel concluded, and, depending on which ending(s) is/are included in a Protestant’s Bible, the publisher runs the risk of either adding verses to or omitting verses from the original text – thus violating the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, which requires "the Bible alone and in its entirety" as the basis of faith. Even if a Protestant’s Bible includes all four endings with explanatory comments and/or footnotes, he still cannot be certain which of the four endings is genuine.

Second, there is manuscript evidence for alternate readings in some pivotal verses of the Bible, such as John 1:18, where there are two possible wordings. (30) Some (such as the King James Version) read along the lines of the Douay-Rheims: "No man hath seen God at any time: the only begotten Son Who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." Either wording is substantiated by manuscript evidence, and you will therefore find Biblical scholars relying on their best educated judgment as to which one is "correct." A similar situation occurs at Acts 20:28, where the manuscript evidence shows that Saint Paul could be referring to either the "church of the Lord" (Greek kuriou) or the "church of God" (Greek theou). (31)

Now this point may seem trivial at first, but suppose you are trying to evangelize a cult member who denies the divinity of Jesus Christ. While John 1:18 and Acts 20:28 are clearly not the only passages to use in defense of Our Lord’s divinity, you still may be unable to utilize these verses with that person, depending on which manuscript tradition your Bible follows. That would leave you marginally less able to defend a major Biblical doctrine, and the very nature of this fact become quite problematic from the perspective of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

As mentioned in Point 14 above, there are thousands and thousands of variations in the Biblical manuscripts. This problem is compounded by the fact that history has known hundreds of Bible versions, which vary in translation as well as textual sources. The question which begs to be asked is, "Which version is the correct one?" or "Which version is closest to the original manuscripts?" One possible answer will depend on which side of the Catholic/Protestant issue you situate yourself. Another possible answer will depend upon which Bible scholars you consider to be trustworthy and reputable.

The simple fact is that some versions are clearly inferior to others. Progress in the field of Biblical research made possible by archaeological discoveries (e.g., the Dead Sea Scrolls) has vastly improved our knowledge of the ancient Biblical languages and settings. We know more today about the variables impacting upon Biblical studies than our counterparts of 100, 200, or 1,000 years ago. From this point of view, modern Bible versions may have a certain superiority to older Bible versions. On the other hand, Bibles based on the Latin Vulgate of Saint Jerome (4th century) – in English, this is the Douay-Rheims – are based on original texts which have since perished, and thus these traditional versions bypass 16 centuries of possible textual corruption.

This fact causes a considerable problem for the Protestant, because it means that modern Protestants may have in some respects a "better" or more accurate Bible than their forbears, while in other respects they may have a "poorer" or less accurate Bible – which in turn means that modern Protestants have either a "more authoritative" final authority or a "less authoritative" final authority than their predecessors. But the existence of degrees of authoritativeness begins to undermine Sola Scirptura, because it would mean that one Bible is not as authentic a final authority as another one. And if it is not as authentic, then the possibility of transmitting erroneous doctrine increases, and the particular Bible version then fails to function as the final authority, since it is not actually final.

Another point to consider is that Bible translators, as human beings, are not completely objective and impartial. Some may be likely to render a given passage in a manner which corresponds more closely with one belief system rather than with another. An example of this tendency can be seen in Protestant Bibles where the Greek word paradoseis occurs. Since Protestants deny the existence of Sacred Tradition, some Protestant translations of the Bible render this word as "teachings" or "customs" rather than "tradition," as the latter would tend to give more weight to the Catholic position.

Yet another consideration is the reality that some versions of the Bible are outright perversions of the Biblical texts, as in the case of the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation. Here the "translators" render key passages in a manner which suits their erroneous doctrines. (32) Now unless there is an authority outside of the Bible to declare such translations unreliable and dangerous, by what authority could someone call them unsuited for use in teaching doctrine? If the Protestant responds by saying that this issue can be determined on the basis of Biblical scholarship, then he is ignorant of the fact that the Jehovah’s Witnesses also cite sources of Biblical scholarship in support of their translation of these passages! The issue then devolves into a game of pitting one source of scholarship against another – one human authority against another.

Ultimately, the problem can only be resolved through the intervention of an infallible teaching authority which speaks on behalf of Christ. The Catholic knows that that authority is the Roman Catholic Church and its Magisterium or teaching authority. In an exercise of this authority, Catholic Bishops grant an imprimatur (meaning "Let it be printed") to be included on the opening pages of certain Bible versions and other spiritual literature to alert the reader that the book contains nothing contrary to the teachings of Christ and the Apostles. (33)

Essential to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is the idea that the Holy Spirit will enlighten each believer as to the correct interpretation for a given Bible passage. This idea presupposes that each believer possesses a Bible or at least has access to a Bible. The difficulty with such a presumption is that the Bible was not able to be mass-produced and readily available to individual believers until the advent of the printing press in the 15th century. (34) Even then, it would have taken quite some time for large numbers of Bibles to be printed and disseminated to the general population.

The predicament caused by this state of affairs is that millions upon millions of Christians who lived prior to the 15th century would have been left without a final authority, left to flounder spiritually, unless by chance they had access to a hand-copied Bible. Even a mere human understanding of such circumstances would make God out to be quite cruel, as He would have revealed the fullness of His Word to humanity in Christ, knowing that the means by which such information could be made readily available would not exist for another 15 centuries.

On the other hand, we know that God is not cruel at all, but in fact has infinite love for us. It is for this reason that He did not leave us in darkness. He sent us His Son to teach us the way we should believe and act, and this Son established a Church to promote those teachings through preaching to both the learned and the illiterate. "Faith then cometh by hearing; and hearing by the Word of Christ." (Rom. 10:17). Christ also gave to His Church His guarantee that He would always be with it, never allowing it to fall into error. God, therefore, did not abandon His people and make them rely upon the invention of the printing press to be the means whereby they would come to a saving knowledge of His Son. Instead, He gave us a divinely established, infallible teacher, the Catholic Church, to provide us with the means to be informed of the Good News of the Gospel – and to be informed correctly.

As difficult a reality as it may be for some to face, this foundational doctrine of Protestantism did not originate until the 14th century and did not become widespread until the 16h century – a far, far cry time-wise from the teachings of Jesus Christ and His Apostles. This simple fact is conveniently overlooked or ignored by Protestants, but it can stand alone as sufficient reason to discard the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. The truth that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura did not exist before John Wycliffe (forerunner of Protestantism) in the 14th century and did not become widespread until Martin Luther came along in the 16th century and began setting up his own "traditions of men" in place of authentic Christian teaching. The doctrine, therefore, not only lacks the historical continuity which marks legitimate Apostolic teaching, but it actually represents an abrupt change, a radical break with the Christian past.

Protestants will assert that the Bible itself teaches Sola Scriptura and therefore that the doctrine had its roots back with Jesus Christ. However, as we have seen above, the Bible teaches no such things. The claim that the Bible teaches this doctrine is nothing more than a repeated effort to retroject this belief back into the pages of Scripture. The examination of historical continuity (or lack thereof) provides an indication whether or not a particular belief originated with Jesus Christ and the Apostles or whether it appeared somewhere much later in time. The fact is that the historical record is utterly silent on the doctrine of Sola Scriptura prior to the 14th century.

18. The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura Produces Bad Fruit, Namely, Division and Disunity.

If the doctrine of Sola Scriptura were true, then it should be expected that Protestants would all be in agreement in terms of doctrine, as the Bible could not simultaneously teach contradictory beliefs. And yet the reality is that there are literally thousands (35) of Protestant sects and denominations, each of which claims to have the Bible as its only guide, each of which claims to be preaching the truth, yet each of which teaches something different from the others. Protestants claim that they differ only in non-essential or peripheral matters, but the fact is that they cannot even agree on major doctrinal issues such as the Eucharist, salvation, and justification – to name a few.

For instance, most Protestant denominations teach that Jesus Christ is only symbolically present in the Eucharist, while others (such as Lutherans and Episcopalians) believe that He is literally present, at least to some extent. Some denominations teach that once you are "saved" you can never lose your salvation, while others believe it is possible for a true Christian to sin gravely and cease being "saved." And some denominations teach that justification involves the Christian’s being merely declared righteous, while others teach that the Christian must also grow in holiness and actually become righteous.

Our Lord categorically never intended for His followers to be as fragmented, disunited and chaotic as the history of Protestantism has been since its very inception. (36) Quite the contrary, He prayed for His followers: "That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us." (John 17:21). And St. Paul exhorts Christians to doctrinal unity with the words, "One body and one Spirit... One Lord, one faith, one baptism." (Eph. 4:4-5). How, then, can the thousands of Protestant denominations and sects all claim to be the "true Church" when their very existence refutes this claim? How can such heterodoxy and contradiction in doctrine be the unity for which Our Lord prayed?

In this regard, the reader should be reminded of Christ’s own words: "For by the fruit the tree is known." (Matt. 12:33). By this standard, the historical testimony afforded by Protestantism demonstrates that the tree of Sola Scriptura is producing bad fruit.

19. The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura Does Not Allow for a Final, Definitive Interpretation of any given Passage of Scripture.

As we have seen above, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura maintains that the individual believer needs only the Bible as a rule of faith and that he can obtain a true interpretation of a given Scripture passage simply by comparing it with what the rest of the Bible teaches. In practice, however, this approach creates more problems than it solves, and it ultimately prevents the believer from knowing definitively and with certainty how any given passage from the Bible should be interpreted.

The Protestant, in reality, interprets the Bible from a standpoint of subjective opinion rather than objective truth. For example, say Protestant person A studies a Scripture passage and concludes interpretation X. Protestant B studies the identical passage and concludes interpretation Y. Lastly, Protestant C studies the same passage and concludes interpretation Z. (37) Interpretations X and Y and Z are mutually contradictory. Yet each of these people, from the Protestant perspective, can consider his or her interpretation to be "correct" because each one has "compared Scripture with Scripture."

Now there are only two possible determinations for these three Protestants: a) each of them is incorrect in his interpretation, or b) only one of them is correct – since three contradictory interpretations cannot simultaneously be true. (38) The problem here is that, without the existence of an infallible authority to tell the three Protestants which of their respective interpretations is correct (i.e., objectively true), there is no way for each of them to know with certainty and definitively if his particular interpretation is the correct one. Each Protestant is ultimately left to an individual interpretation based on mere personal opinion – study and research into the matter notwithstanding. Each Protestant thus becomes his own final authority – or, if you will, his own "pope."

Protestantism in practice bears out this fact. Since the Bible alone is not sufficient as a rule of faith (if it were, our three Protestants would be in complete accord in their interpretations), every believer and denomination within Protestantism must necessarily arrive at his/her/its own interpretation of the Bible. Consequently, if there are many possible interpretations of Scripture, by definition there is no ultimate interpretation. And if there is no ultimate interpretation, then a person cannot know whether or not his own interpretation is objectively true.

A good comparison would be the moral law. If each person relied on his own opinion to determine what was right or wrong, we would have nothing more than moral relativism, and each person could rightly assert his own set of standards. However, since God has clearly defined moral absolutes for us (in addition to those we can know by reason from the natural law), we can assess any given action and determine how morally good or bad it is. This would be impossible without moral absolutes.

Of course any given denomination within Protestantism would probably maintain that its particular interpretations are the correct ones – at least in practice, if not formally. If it did not, its adherents would be changing denominations! However, if any given denomination claims that its interpretations are correct above those of the other denominations, it has effectively set itself up as a final authority. The problem here is that such an act violates Sola Scriptura, setting up an authority outside Scripture.

On the other hand, if any given denomination would grant that it’s interpretations are no more correct than those of other denominations, then we are back to the original dilemma of never knowing which interpretation is correct and thus never having the definitive truth. But Our Lord said, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life." (John 14:6). The predicament here is that each and every denomination within Protestantism makes the same claim – either effectively or formally – regarding its interpretations being "correct." What we are left with are thousands of different denominations, each claiming to have the Scriptural "truth," yet none of which is capable of providing an objective determination regarding that "truth." The result is an inability to obtain a definitive, authoritative and final interpretation of any given Scripture passage. In other words, the Protestant can never say that "the buck stops here" with regard to an y given interpretation for any given passage of the Bible.

Much to their chagrin, Protestants are actually guilty of violating their own doctrine. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura prohibits anyone from adding to or deleting from the Bible, but Protestants have, in fact, deleted seven entire books from the Old Testament, as well as portions of two others. The books in question, which are wrongly termed "the Apocrypha" ("not authentic") by Protestants, are called the "deuterocanonical" ("second canon") books by Catholics: they are Tobias (Tobit), Judith, 1 and 2 Machabees, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus (or Sirach), and Baruch. Portions of Daniel and Esther are also missing.

In defense of their deficient Old Testament canon, Protestants invariably present one or more of the following arguments: 1) the shorter, Pharisaic (or Palestinian) canon (39) of the Old Testament was accepted by Christ and His Apostles, as they never quoted from the deuterocanonical books; 2) the Old Testament was closed by the time of Christ, and it was the shorter canon; 3) the Jews themselves accepted the shorter, Pharisaic canon at the Council of Jamnia (or Javneh) in 90 A.D.; and 4) the deuterocanonical books contain unscriptural material.

1) Regarding the claim that Christ and His Apostles accepted the shorter, Pharisaic canon, an examination of the New Testament’s quotation of the Old Testament will demonstrate its fallacy. The New Testament quotes the Old Testament about 350 times, and in approximately 300 of those instances (86%), the quotation is taken from the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Old Testament in widespread use at the time of Christ. The Septuagint contained the dueterocanonical books. It is therefore unreasonable and presumptuous to say that Christ and His Apostles accepted the shorter Old Testament canon, as the clear majority of the time they used an Old Testament version which did contain the seven books in question.

Or, take the case of Saint Paul, whose missionary journeys and letters were directed to Hellenistic regions outside of Palestine. It has been noted, for example, that his sermon at Antioch in Pisidia "presupposed a thorough acquaintance among his hearers with the Septuagint" and that once a Christian community had been founded, the content of his letters to its members "breathed the Septuagint." (40) Obviously, Saint Paul was supporting the longer canon of the Old Testament by his routine appeal to the Septuagint.

Moreover, it is erroneous to say either that the deutero-canonical books were never quoted by Christ (41) and His apostles or that such citation is a prerequisite for a book’s inclusion in the Biblical canon. According to one list, the deutero-canonical books are cited or alluded to in the New Testament not less than 150 times! (42) In addition, there are Old Testament books, such as Ecclesiastes, Esther and Abdias (Obadiah), which are not quoted by Christ or the Apostles, but which are nonetheless included in the Old Testament canon (both Catholic and Protestant). Obviously, then, citation by Christ or the Apostles does not singlehandedly determine canonicity.

2) Regarding the claim that Christ and the Apostles worked with a closed Old Testament canon – which Protestants maintain was the shorter canon – the historical evidence undermines the allegation. First, there was no entity known as the Palestinian canon, for there were actually three cnaons in use in Palestine at that time, (43) in addition to the Septuagint canon. And second, the evidence demonstrates that "Judaism in the last two centuries B.C. and in the first century A.D. was by no means uniform in its understanding of which of its writings were considered sacred. There were many views both inside and outside of Israel in the first centuries B.C. and A.D. on which writings were deemed sacred." (44)

3) Using the Council of Jamnia in support of a shorter canon is manifestly problematic for the following reasons: a) The decisions of a Jewish council which was held more than 50 years after the Resurrection of Christ are in no way binding on the Christian community, just as the ritual laws of Judaism (e.g., the prohibition against eating pork) are not binding on Christians. b) It is questionable whether or not the council made final decisions about the Old Testament canon of Scripture, since "the list of books acknowledged to ‘defile the hands’ continued to vary within Judaism itself up through the 4th century A.D." (45) c) The council was, to some extent, a polemic directed specifically against the "sect" of Christianity, and its tone, therefore, was inherently opposed to Christianity. These Jews most likely accepted the shorter Pharisaic canon precisely because the early Christians accepted the longer Septuagint canon. d) The decisions of this council represented the judgment of just one branch of Pharisaic Judaism within Palestine and not of Judaism as a whole.

4) Lastly, for Protestants to aver that the duetero-canonical books contain unscriptural material is decidedly a case of unwarranted dogmatism. This conclusion was reached simply because the so-called Reformers, who were clearly antagonistic toward the Catholic Church, approached the Bible with an a priori notion that it teaches "Reformed" (Protestant) doctrine. They discarded the deutero-canonical books because in certain instances these books contain decidedly Catholic doctrine, as in the case of 2 Machabees 12:42-46, which clearly supports the doctrine of prayers for the dead and hence of Purgatory: "It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins." (2 Mach. 12:46). Luther, in fact, wanted to discard also the New Testament books of Revelation and James, the latter of which he termed an "epistle of straw" and which he felt had "nothing evangelical about it" (46) – no doubt because it clearly states that we are saved by faith and works (cf. James 2:14-26), in contrast to Luther’s erroneous "faith alone" doctrine. Luther was ultimately persuaded by his friends to retain these books.

In addition to the above is the fact of historical testimony and continuity regarding the canon of the Bible. While we have seen that there were disputes regarding the Biblical canon, two considerations are nonetheless true: 1) the deuterocanonical books were certainly used by Christians from the 1st century onward, beginning with Our Lord and His disciples, and 2) once the issue of the canon was settled in the 4th century, we see no change in Christian practice regarding the canon from that point onward. In practice, the only challenge to and disregard of these two realities occurs when the so-called Reformers arrive on the scene in the 16th century and decide that they can simply trash an 11-centuries-long continuity regarding the canon’s formal existence and a nearly 15-centuries-long continuity regarding its practical existence.

The fact that any individual would come along and single-handedly alter such a continuity regarding so central an issue as which books comprise the Bible should give the sincere follower of Christ serious pause. Such a follower is compelled to ask, "By whose authority does this individual make such a major change?" Both history and Luther’s own writings show that Luther’s actions were based on nothing but his own personal say-so. Surely such an "authority" falls grossly short of that which is needed for the canonical change he espoused, especially considering that he process of identifying the Bible’s canon was guided by the Holy Spirit, took centuries, and involved some of the greatest minds in Christianity as well as several Church Councils. More disturbing still is the fact that the other so-called Reformers – and Protestants ever since – have followed suit by accepting Luther’s changed canon, yet all the while they claim to honor the Bible and insist that nothing can be added to or deleted from it.

21. The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura Had its Source in Luther’s Own Emotional Problems.

If anything at all can be said with certainty about Martin Luther, it is that he was deeply and chronically troubled by a combination of doubts and despair about his salvation and a sense of utter impotence in the face of temptation and sin. Luther himself notes, "My spirit was completely broken and I was always in a state of melancholy; for, do what I would, my ‘righteousness’ and my ‘good works’ brought me no help or consolation." (47)

In light of this reality, one must assess Luther’s psychological and emotional frame of mind in terms of their impact on the origins of his Sola Scriptura doctrine. Even a cursory examination will demonstrate that this doctrine was born out of Luther’s need to be free from the guilt feelings, despair and temptation which "tortured" him.

Considering that Luther himself admits to an obsessive concern with his own sinfulness, as well as an inability to resist temptation, it seems reasonable to conclude that he suffered from scrupulosity, and even Lutheran scholars will admit to this. (48) Scrupulosity means that a person is overly anxious about having committed sins when there is no real basis for such anxiety, and a scrupulous person is one who often exaggerates the severity of his perceived sinfulness, with a corresponding lack of trust in God. It is also relevant to note that scrupulosity "often seems to be based on some psychological dysfunction in the person." (49)

In other words, Luther probably never had a moment of emotional or psychological peace, since the voice of "conscience" always pricked him about some matter, real or imagined. It would be quite natural for someone so plagued to seek refuge from that voice, and for Luther that refuge was found in the doctrine of Sola Fide, or salvation by "faith alone."

But since the avoidance of sin as well as the performance of good works are necessary components for our salvation, and since these facts were steadfastly taught and defended by the Catholic Church, Luther found himself diametrically opposed to the teaching authority of the Church. Because the Church asserted the necessity of doing exactly what he felt incapable of doing, Luther made a drastic decision – one which "solved" his scrupulosity problem: he rejected the teaching authority of the Church, embodied in the Magisterium with the Pope at its head, and claimed that such was contrary to the Bible. In other words, by claiming Sola Scriptura to be true Christian doctrine, Luther dismissed that authority which compelled him to recognize that his own spirituality was dysfunctional.

For all these reasons, then, it is evident that the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura is an utterly unbiblical, man-made, erroneous belief which must be wholly rejected. Those who are genuine Christian believers and who have a commitment to the truths that Jesus Christ taught – even if those contradict one’s current religious system – should be compelled by the evidence to see the inherent flaws in this doctrine, flaws which are clearly obvious from Scripture, logic and history.

The fullness of religious truth, unmixed with error, is found only in the Catholic Church, the very Church which Jesus Christ Himself established. According to the teaching of this Church, founded by Christ, Sola Scriptura is a distorted, truncated view of Christian authority. Rather, the true rule of faith for the followers of Christ is this:

The immediate or direct rule of faith is the teaching of the Church; the Church in turn takes her teaching from Divine Revelation – both the written Word, called Sacred Scripture, and the oral or unwritten Word, known as "Tradition," which together form the remote or indirect rule of faith.

Scripture and Tradition are the inspired sources of Christian doctrine, while the Church – a historical and visible entity dating back to St. Peter and the Apostles in an uninterrupted succession – is the infallible teacher and interpreter of Christian doctrine. It is only by accepting this complete Christian rule of faith that followers of Christ know they are adhering to all the things that He commanded His Apostles to teach (cf. Matt. 28:20). It is only by accepting this complete Christian rule of faith that the followers of Christ are assured of possessing the whole truth which Christ taught, and nothing but that truth.

Note: Among the references are a few Protestant authors; their works are not cited as "recommended reading," but they show that the points made in the present work are valid even by Protestant standards.

1. The Protestant Reformation was not a reform in the true sense of the word, but rather it was a revolution – an upheaval of the legitimate, established religious and civil order of the day.

2. W. E. Vine [Protestant Author], Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (McLean, VA: MacDonald Publishing House, n.d.), p. 387. Cf. St. Alphonsus Liguori, An Exposition and Defense of all the Points of Faith Discussed and Defined by the Sacred Council of Trent; along with a Refutation of the Errors of the Pretended Reformers, etc. (Dublin: James Duffy, 1846), p. 50.

3. While all the books of the New Testament are considered to have been written by the time St. John finished The Apocalypse (Revelation), they were not formally identified as "the Bible" until much later on.

4. The word translated as "ordinances" is also translated "teachings" or "traditions"; for example, the New International Version gives "teachings," with a footnote: "Or traditions."

6. One example of this interpretive memory involves Revelation 12. The Early Church Fathers understood the "woman clothed with the sun" to be a reference to the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. For someone to assert that this doctrine did not exist until 1950 (the year Pope Pius XII formally defined the doctrine) represents ignorance of ecclesial history. Essentially, the belief was held from the beginning, but it was not formally defined until the 20th century. Bear in mind that the Church often did not have a need to define a doctrine formally until it was formally challenged by someone (usually a heretic). Such occasions gave rise to the need officially to define the "parameters" of the doctrine in question.

7. Catholic teaching states that "the body of bishops," successors of the Apostles, also teach infallibly when they, in union with the Pope, "exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council." (Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, #891). Also, "binding and loosing" is Rabbinical terminology, and it refers to the power to pronounce authoritative interpretations and teachings. Christ clearly intended, then, for His Apostles, under the leadership of Saint Peter (for Saint Peter alone received the power of the keys), to possess the authority to render these authoritative interpretations and teachings.

8. The assertion by Protestants that the Bible is its own interpreter is nothing more than an exercise in futility. They claim that a person can correctly interpret any given Scripture by comparing it with what the rest of the Bible teaches. The problem with this line of reasoning can be readily demonstrated. Ask ten people to give their respective interpretations of a given Scripture passage, and you could get as many as ten different explanations. If the Bible were able to interpret itself, as Protestants claim, why do you not always obtain ten identical interpretations, even if you allow these people an ample amount of time to conduct study and research? And if this diversity of interpretation is true for a mere ten people, image the results, when you multiply that number by one hundred, or one thousand, or one million. History has already seen such a result, and its name is Protestantism.

9. There are some Biblical scholars who maintain that 2 Peter was actually the last New Testament book written, dating it sometime in the earlier part of the 2nd century. Since there is not a consensus among scholars that this date is accurate, it is sufficient for our purposes here to accept the generally held view that all of the New testament books were complete with the composition of Revelation.

10. See, for instance: Irenaeus’ Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 3; Tertullian’s Prescription against Heretics, Chapter 32; and Origen’s First Principles, Book 1, Preface.

11. See, for instance: Ignatius’ Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Chapters 8-9; Ignatius’ Letter to the Philadelphians, Introduction and Chapters 1-4; and Ignatius’ Letter to the Magnesians, Chapter 7.

12. See, for instance: 1 Clement, Chapters 2, 56, 58, 59; Ignatius’ Letter to the Romans, introduction and Chapter 3; Irenaeus’ Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 3, no. 2; Tertullian’s Prescriptions against Heretics, Chapter 22; and Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, Book 5, Chapter 24, no. 9.

13. See Msgr. Patrick F. O’Hare, LL.D., The Facts about Martin Luther (Cincinnati: Pustet, 1916; Rockrord, IL: TAN, 1987), pp. 215-255.

14. Walch, XIII, 2195, as quoted in The Facts About Luther (Cincinnati: Pustet, 1916; Rockford, IL: TAN, 1987), pp. 215-255.

15. Bear in mind that the decrees of an Ecumenical Council had no binding force unless they were ratified by the Pope.

16. Two favorite verses for Arians of all ages to cite in support of their beliefs are Proverbs 8:22 and John 14:28.

18. Henry G. Graham, Where We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church (St. Louis: B. Herder, 1911; Rockford, IL: TAN, 1977, 17th printing), pp. 34-35.

19. This list is the same as the list given in the Church’s final, definitive, explicit, infallible declaration as to which books are to be included in the Bible, which was made by the Council of Trent, Session IV, in 1546. Earlier lists of canonical books were the list in the "Decretal of Gelasius," which was issued by authority of Pope Damasus in 382, and the canon of Pope Saint Innocent I, which was sent to a Frankish bishop in 405. Neither document was intended to b an infallible statement binding the whole Church, but both documents include the same 73 books as the list of Trent some 11 centuries later. (The Catholic Encyclopedia [New York: The Encyclopedia Press, 1913], Vol. 3, p. 272).

20. The reader must note that the Catholic Church does not claim that by identifying the books of the Bible it rendered them canonical. God alone is the author of canonicity. The Catholic Church instead claims that it and it alone has the authority and responsibility of infallibly pointing out which books comprise the Biblical canon already authored by God.

21. Commentary on John, chapter 16, as cited in Paul Stenhouse’s Catholic Answers to "Bible" Christians (Kensington: Chevalier Press, 1993), p. 31.

23. The earliest copies of the Bible, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, both date from the 4th century A.D., and neither one contains the entire Bible, as parts of the manuscripts have been lost or destroyed. The vast majority of the manuscripts that exist are only portions of the Bible.

24. The irony here is that it was due to the tireless efforts of Catholic monks working laboriously in their monasteries that the written Word of God survived down through the centuries. The claim that the Catholic Church did everything in its power to suppress the Bible is a most pernicious falsehood, and it can readily be refuted by even the most cursory examination of and research into Church history. Quite the contrary, the Catholic Church, in its unique role as guardian of the Deposit of Faith, protected the Bible’s integrity from spurious and faulty translations, and it was these spurious and faulty copies of the Bible which it burned or destroyed to prevent false gospels from being circulated.

25. Raymond F. Collins, Introduction to the New Testament (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1983), p. 77.

27. Bruce M. Metzger (Protestant author), The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (Oxford University Press, 1992), pp. 221-225, 234-242.

28. It has been maintained by Protestants that in all the variations in Biblical manuscripts, not one touches upon a major doctrine. Even though this assertion is untrue, it does not alter the fact that the Protestant is here admitting, at least obliquely, that it is permissible to accept something which is less than or different from the "real" Bible. And if this is true, then the Protestant himself has begun to undermine Sola Scriptura.

32. Of the numerous examples which could be cited, space considerations confine us to just a few to illustrate the point. In John 1:1, the NWT reads, "... and the Word was a god" rather than "and the Word was God," because Witnesses deny the divinity of Jesus Christ. In Colossians 1:15-20, the NWT inserts the word "other" into the text four times because Witnesses believe that Jesus Christ Himself was created. In Matthew 26:26 the NWT reads "... this means my body..." instead of "This is my body," because Witnesses deny the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

33. Moreover, the old Latin Vulgate version of the Bible received a very particular approval by the Church at the Council of Trent among all the Latin editions of the Scriptures then in circulation. The Council of Trent declared: "Moreover, the same Holy Council [of Trent]... ordains and declares that the old Latin Vulgate Edition, which, in use for so many hundred years, has been approved by the Church, be in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions held as authentic, and that no one dare or presume under any pretext whatsoever to reject it." (Fourth Session, April 8, 1546). Hence, as Pope Pius XII stated in his 1943 encyclical letter Divino Afflante Spiritu ("On the Promotion of Biblical Studies"), the Vulgate, "when interpreted in the sense in which the Church has always understood it," is "free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals."

In 1907 Pope Saint Pius X (1903-1914) initiated a revision of the Vulgate to achieve even greater textual accuracy. After his death, this huge project was carried on by others. In 1979 Pope John Paul II promulgated a "New Vulgate" as "Editio typica" or "normative edition.

34. It should be noted that the inventor of the printing press – Johannes Gutenberg – was Catholic, and that the first book he printed was the Bible (circa 1455). It should also be noted that the first printed Bible contained 73 books, the exact same number as today’s Catholic Bible. Protestants deleted 7 books from the Old Testament after the Bible had already begun being printed.

35. By some estimates there are approximately 25,000 different Protestant denominations and sects. In the approximately 500 years since Protestantism’s origin with Martin Luther (usually dated at 1517), this number translates into an average of one new Protestant denomination or sect every week! Even if you take a conservative estimate of 10,000 denominations and sects, you still have a new one developing every 2 ½ weeks.

36. Even the original "Reformers" – Martin Luther, John Calvin and Ulrich Zwingli – did not agree on doctrinal matters and labeled each other’s teachings heretical.

37. The quantity of three is used here for illustrative purposes only. The actual historical quantities (i.e., the number of variant interpretations for various passages) are far larger.

38. It is not denied here that a given passage from Scripture can have different levels of interpretation or that it may have different levels of meaning in terms of its application in the life of a believer. It is, however, denied here that a given passage can have more than one theological or doctrinal meaning in the face of opposing interpretations. For example, if two people assert, respectively, "X" and "not-X" for a given interpretation, they cannot both be correct. Take the doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, for instance. If the first person says that the bread and wine at Mass actually become the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and the second person says that they do not, it is impossible for both views to be objectively true.

39. The Pharisaic canon, which was used by Jews in Palestine, did not contain the deuterocanonical books. The Septuagint or Alexandrian canon, which was used largely by Jews living in the Dispersion (i.e., Hellenistic regions outside of Palestine), did contain the deuterocanonical books.

40. W. H. C. Frend [Protestant author], The Rise of Christianity (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1984), pp. 99-100.

41. For some examples, compare the following passages: Matt. 6:14-15 with Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) 28:2; Matt. 6:7 with Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) 7:15(14); Matt. 7:12 with Tobit (Tobias) 4:16(15); Luke 12:18-20 with Sirach 11:19 (Ecclus. 11:19-20); Acts 10:34 with Ecclus. 35:15 (Sirach 35:12); Acts 10:26 with Wisdom 7:1; and Matt. 8:11 with Baruch 4:37.

42. Lee Martin McDonald [Protestant author], The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon, Appendix A (Nashville, TN: The Parthenon Press, 1988). (Listing entitled "New Testament Citations and Allusions to Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphal Writings," adapted from The Text of the New Testament, by Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, two well-known Biblical scholars.)

43. They include a) the Qumran canon, which we know of from the Dead Sea Scrolls, b) the Pharisaic canon, and c) the Sadducees/Samaritan canon, which included only the Torah (the first books of the Old Testament).

46. Hartmann Grisar, S.J., Martin Luther: His Life and Work (B. Herder, 1930; Westminster, MD: The Newman Press, 1961), p. 426.

48. Cf. Fr. William Most, "Are We Saved by Faith Alone?", cassette tape from Catholic Answers, P.O. Box 17490, San Diego, CA 92177.

49. Father Peter Stravinskas, ed., Catholic Encyclopedia (Huntington, Indiana: Our Sunday Visitor, Inc., 1991), p 873.

Hope of Israel Ministries (Ecclesia of YEHOVAH):

Did the Apostle Peter EVER Visit Rome?

The Roman Catholics claims Peter was the first pope of their church. The Protestants claim Peter NEVER set foot in Rome! Is either of these viewpoints correct; or is it just possible BOTH claims are wrong? Is there evidence to show Peter actually preached and died in the Imperial City? And what role did the infamous Simon Magus play in the stream of events? This article uncovers the truth about Peter’s purported residence in Rome and sets the record straight regarding his connection to the Roman Catholic Church!

John D. Keyser

Down through the years, numerous Protestant groups have gone to great lengths in trying to prove that the apostle Peter never set foot in the city of Rome. Flying in the face of historical, traditional and archaeological evidence to the contrary, they have even gone so far as to say he never set foot in Italy — let alone the Imperial City!

Is this true? Did Peter bypass the CAPITAL of the Roman Empire — a city of tremendous importance at that time, and one that had, incidentally, a LARGE JEWISH POPULATION? And WHY have these Protestant groups been so ADAMANT in their refusal to believe that Peter could have ever visited Rome?

The answer to this last question is quite easy to grasp. The Protestants, in their rejection of many Catholic traditions and doctrines, ALSO rejected the PRIMACY OF PETER and the papal succession that was based upon the Catholic insistence that the apostle was the first pope! In their ardent clamor to shoot down the theory of papal succession, they tried to place Peter as FAR AWAY from Rome and Italy as possible!

This is understandable — but was it really necessary? The mere FACT of Peter having been in Rome for a relatively short period of time in NO WAY INSINUATES that he was the first “pope” and founder of the Catholic Church!

One honest Protestant historian and theologian — Adolph Harnack — wrote that “to deny the Roman stay of Peter is an error which today is clear to every scholar who is NOT BLIND. The martyr death of peter at Rome was once contested by reason of Protestant prejudice.”

These groups have FAILED TO REALIZE that there were TWO “Peters” who evangelized Rome in the first century — one of whom was INDEED the founder of Roman Catholicism. In the historical references, as well as in the many legends that have reached us today, these two personalities are quite often confused, and the exploits of one applied to the other. But with discernment and an OPEN MIND the truth regarding the apostle Peter can be uncovered.

Total Unanimity

Peter had to die and be buried somewhere; and the OVERWHELMING CHRISTIAN TRADITION has been in agreement, from the EARLIEST TIMES, that it was actually in Rome that Peter died. F. J. Foakes-Jackson, in his book Peter: Prince of Apostles, states “that the tradition that the church [in Rome] had been founded by...Paul was well established by A.D. 178. From hence forth there is NO DOUBT whatever that, NOT ONLY AT ROME, but throughout the Christian church, Peter’s visit to the city was an ESTABLISHED FACT, as was his martyrdom together with that of Paul” (New York, 1927. P. 155.).

Historian Arthur Stapylton Barnes agrees:

The strong point in the evidence of the [church] fathers is their UNANIMITY. It is QUITE CLEAR that no other place was known to them as claiming to have been the scene of St. Peter’s death, and the repository of his relics. — St. Peter in Rome, London, 1900. P. 7.

The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge corroborates this by saying:

Tradition seems to maintain that Peter went to Rome toward the end of his life and there suffered martyrdom UNDER NERO. NO SOURCE describes the place of Peter’s martyrdom as other than Rome. It seems most probable, on the whole, that Peter died a martyr’s death IN ROME TOWARD THE CLOSE OF NERO’S REIGN, sometime AFTER the cessation of the general persecution. — Article, “Peter.”

John Ignatius Dollinger claims that the evidence “St. Peter worked in Rome is a FACT SO ABUNDANTLY PROVED and so deeply imbedded in the earliest Christian history, that whoever treats it as a legend ought in consistency to treat the whole of the earliest church history as LEGENDARY, or, at least, QUITE UNCERTAIN” (The 1st Age of Christianity and the Church, London. 1867. P. 296).

Strong words those!

As author James Hardy Ropes states:

The tradition, however, that Peter came to Rome, and suffered martyrdom under Nero (54-68 A.D.) either in the great persecution which followed the burning of the city or somewhat later, rests on a different and FIRMER basis....It is UNQUESTIONED that 150 years after Peter’s death it was the COMMON BELIEF at Rome that he had died there, as had Paul. The “trophies” of the two great apostles could be seen on the Vatican Hill and by the Ostian Way...a firm local tradition of the death at Rome of both apostles is attested for a time NOT TOO DISTANT FROM THE EVENT. — The Apostolic Age in the Light of Modern Criticism. New York. 1908. Pp. 215-216.

The belief that Peter was martyred in Rome was NOT due to the vanity or ambition of the LOCAL Christians, but was ADMITTED, at an early date, THROUGHOUT THE CHURCH. No testimony later than the middle of the 3rd century really needs to be considered; by this time the Roman church claimed to have the body of the apostle and NO ONE DISPUTED THE FACT.

It is more than interesting to realize that there IS NOT ONE SINGLE PASSAGE or utterance to the contrary in ANY of the literary works dealing with the foundations of Christianity — until AFTER the Reformation. Don’t you think that’s odd? Don’t you think SOMEONE would have seized upon this claim of Rome, and used it as a point of contention if there were ANY doubt at all regarding its validity? Don’t you think the eastern churches would have gotten UNLIMITED PROPAGANDA MILEAGE out of this claim if it were not true? For centuries the eastern churches were in almost CONSTANT conflict with Rome over Easter, the Sabbath, and many other doctrinal issues. If they could have seized upon Rome’s claim that Peter had worked and died there, they SURELY would have used this against the Roman church! But they didn’t. WHY? Because there was ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER about Rome being the site of Peter’s death!

Adds William McBirnie:

We certainly do not even have the slightest reference that points to any other place besides Rome which could be considered as the scene of his death. And in favor of Rome, there are important traditions that he did actually die in Rome. In the second and third centuries when certain churches were in rivalry with those in Rome it never occurred to a single one of them to contest the claim of Rome that it was the scene of the martyrdom of Peter. — The Search for the Twelve Apostles. Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. Wheaton, Illinois. 1973. P. 64.

Unger’s Bible Dictionary states unequivocally that “the evidence for his [Peter’s] martyrdom there [in Rome] is COMPLETE, while there is a TOTAL ABSENCE of any contrary statement in the writings of the early fathers” (3rd Edition, Chicago. 1960. P. 850).

George Edmundson, in his book The Church in Rome in the 1st Century, dogmatically repeats the same conclusion:

We do not have even the SLIGHTEST TRACE that points to any other place which could be considered as the scene of his [Peter’s] death....It is a further important point that in the second and third centuries, when certain churches were in rivalry with the one in Rome, IT NEVER OCCURRED TO A SINGLE ONE OF THEM to contest the claim of Rome that it was the scene of the martyrdom of Peter. Indeed, even MORE can be said; precisely in the east, as is clear from the pseudo-Clementine writings and the Petrine legends, above all those that deal with Peter’s conflict with Simon the magician [Magus] THE TRADITION OF THE ROMAN RESIDENCE OF PETER HAD A PARTICULARLY STRONG HOLD. — London. 1913. Pp. 114-115.

Ancient Evidence

From the 1st century an apocryphal work called the Ascension of Isaiah has come down to us; and this is probably the FIRST AND EARLIEST document that attests to the martyrdom of Peter IN ROME. In a passage (Chap. 4:2f) we read the following prediction:

...then will arise Beliar, the great prince, the king of this world, who has ruled it since its origin; and he shall descend from his firmament in HUMAN FORM, king of wickedness, MURDERER OF HIS MOTHER, who himself is king of this world; and he will persecute the PLANT which the 12 apostles of the Beloved shall have planted; ONE OF THE 12 WILL BE DELIVERED INTO HIS HANDS.

This is a clear reference to Emperor Nero who murdered his mother Agrippina in 59 A.D., and put Peter to death in February of 68 A.D. It cannot refer to Paul — he was beheaded in January of 67 A.D. by Helius, one the prefects who was left in charge of Rome while Nero was away in Greece entertaining the fawning citizens of this vassal province.

The NEXT REFERENCE, in order of time, is the Epistle of Clement to James. Although many historians have placed this letter in the last ten years of the 1st century, there are some objections to this. The largest objection, of course, is that James could not have possibly been alive at that late a date. All indications are that James was killed during the interfactional warfare that occurred in Jerusalem just prior to the Roman destruction of the city in 70 A.D. Also, there is an abundance of material to show that Peter ordained Clement TO REPLACE LINUS as overseer of the Roman Church after the latter’s martyrdom in 67 A.D. The list of bishops of Rome in the Ante-Nicene Fathers show that Clement was an overseer from 68-71 A.D.

Evidently, his first item of business as overseer was to inform James of Peter’s death:

Clement to James, who rules [oversees] Jerusalem, the holy church of the Hebrews, and the churches everywhere excellently founded by the providence of God, with the elders and deacons, and the rest of the brethren, peace be always....He himself [Peter], by reason of his immense love towards men, HAVING COME AS FAR AS ROME, clearly and publicly testifying, in opposition to the wicked one who withstood him, that there is to be a good King over all the world, while saving men by his God-inspired doctrine, HIMSELF, BY VIOLENCE, EXCHANGED THIS PRESENT EXISTENCE FOR LIFE. — Epistle of Clement to James, “Ante-Nicene Fathers.” Translated by Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson. Vol. VIII. New York. 1926. P. 218.

A cryptic reference to the death of Peter occurs in the Book of John in the Bible which, most authorities believe, was written in the last decade of the first century. Here, in verses 18 and 19 of chapter 21, we read:

“I tell you the truth, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old YOU WILL STRETCH OUT YOUR HANDS, and someone else will dress you and lead you WHERE YOU DO NOT WANT TO GO.” Jesus said this to indicate THE KIND OF DEATH by which Peter would glorify God.

The stretching out of the hands refers to Peter’s crucifixion in his old age; however, the passage does not indicate WHERE this crucifixion was to take place.

In the first few years of the 2nd century an Ebionite document, called The Preaching of Peter, was written. Its time-frame is indicated by the fact that the Gnostic Heracleon used it in his writings during the time of Emperor Hadrian (117-138 A.D.). According to John Ignatius Dollinger, The Preaching of Peter brings “St. Peter and St. Paul together AT ROME, and divides the discourses and utterances which took place there between the two...it is notoriously founded on the UNIVERSALLY ADMITTED FACT of St. Peter having laboured AT ROME.”

It is INCONCEIVABLE to think that such a document (claiming acceptance as a genuine product of the apostolic age) would have presented a groundless fable about the presence of Peter at Rome AT A TIME WHEN MANY WHO HAD SEEN THE APOSTLE MUST HAVE STILL BEEN ALIVE!

At this same time (circa 107 A.D.) Ignatius, one of the early church fathers, says in his epistle to the ROMAN CHURCH: “I do not, LIKE PETER AND PAUL, issue commandments unto you” — an oblique reference to Peter’s residence in Rome.

Thomas Lewin, in The Life and Epistle of St. Paul, mentions that a work entitled Praedicatio Pauli — ascribed to the second century — tells of PETER and Paul meeting AT ROME (Vol. 2. London. 1874).

The events which led up to the death of Peter are described at length in a work called the Acts of Peter, which was in circulation at Rome approximately 85 years after the apostle’s death. Once again, those who would have read this work would have been second-generation Christians, whose parents would remember the places and personalities concerned.

There is NO HISTORICAL RECORD that this narrative was ever challenged on the grounds of Peter’s death in Rome. Therefore, a thread of truth must be enshrined in this Acts of Peter that link together the events described. Even the SPIRIT of the apostle Peter breaks through the verbose and often sugary language of the author’s presentation.

Unger’s Bible Dictionary attests to the ANTIQUITY of the universal belief that Peter died in Rome:

In the 2nd century Dionysius of Corinth, in the epistle to Soter Bishop of Rome, states, as a FACT UNIVERSALLY KNOWN and accounting for the intimate relations between Corinth and Rome, that Peter and Paul BOTH TAUGHT IN ITALY, and suffered martyrdom ABOUT the same time. In short, the churches most nearly connected with Rome and THOSE LEAST AFFECTED BY ITS INFLUENCE, which was as yet but inconsiderable in the east, CONCUR in the statement that Peter was a joint founder of that church [Rome], and SUFFERED DEATH IN THAT CITY.

The writer and philosopher Origen (185-254) (known as the father of the Eastern Church’s science of Biblical criticism and exegesis in the early part of the 3rd century) writes that, after preaching in Pontus and other places to the Jews of the Dispersion, Peter “finally CAME TO ROME, and was crucified with his head downward.”

Likewise Irenaeus, who was bishop of Lyons in Gaul (circa 202) claims (Cont. Haeres, iii.1) that “PETER and Paul were preaching AT ROME, and laying the foundation of the church.” Further on, in Cont. Haeres, iii.2, he adds: “Indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, very ancient, and universally known church, founded and organized AT ROME by the two most glorious apostles, PETER and Paul.”

Tertullian, the eminent church father mentions, around the year 218, “those whom Peter baptized IN THE TIBER [RIVER] (On Baptism, 4). In his work Prescription Against Heretics (36), he says that the church of Rome “states that Clement was ORDAINED BY PETER.”

Clement of Alexandria (circa 220), as cited by Eusebius, adds another detail when he mentions PETER’S VISIT TO ROME to contend with SIMON MAGUS.

A little later, in the 4th century, Arnobius (307 A.D.) says: “IN ROME ITSELF...they have hastened to give up their ancestral customs, and to join themselves to Christian truth, FOR THEY HAD SEEN THE CHARIOT OF SIMON MAGUS, AND HIS FIERY CAR BLOWN INTO PIECES BY THE MOUTH OF PETER” (Adv. Gentes, ii. 12).

Lactantius of Africa — who flourished around 310 A.D. — tells how the apostles, including Paul, “during 25 years, and until the beginning of the reign of the emperor Nero...occupied themselves in laying the foundations of the church IN EVERY PROVINCE AND CITY. And while Nero reigned, THE APOSTLE PETER CAME TO ROME, and...built up a faithful and steadfast temple unto the Lord. When Nero heard of these things...he crucified Peter, and slew Paul (Handbook of Biblical Chronology, by Jack Finegan. Princeton, N.J. 1964).

Hegesippus, who also wrote in the 4th century, describes the contest between Peter and Simon Magus — IN ROME — over a kinsman of the Emperor Nero who was raised from the dead; and then how the deceiver (Simon Magus) reached a tragic end. Because of Magus’ death (67 A.D.) Nero (who treated him as a favorite) was so enraged that he had Peter cast into prison to await his return to Rome.

The eminent Eusebius (circa 324) remarks that Peter “appears to have preached through Pontus, Galatia, Bithynia, Cappadocia and Asia, who also FINALLY COMING TO ROME, was crucified head downwards, at his own request.” Elsewhere in his writings, Eusebius states that “Paul is said to have been beheaded AT ROME and Peter to have been crucified....”

The philosopher Macarius Magnes, who was probably bishop of Magnesia in Caria or Lydia around the year 400 A.D., tells in one of his dialogs how Peter escaped from prison under Herod, and then says, in reference to Peter’s commission from Christ to “feed my lambs,” that “it is recorded that Peter fed the lambs for SEVERAL MONTHS only before he was crucified.” This probably means “several months” of activity in Rome BEFORE being APPREHENDED and put to death. Magnes then refers to Paul along with Peter: “This fine fellow was overpowered AT ROME and beheaded...even as Peter...was fastened to the cross and crucified.”

The classic history of the ancient popes known as the Liber Pontificalis (which can be dated, in its most ancient form, to the 6th century) contains a biography of Peter. In this biography it is stated that the apostle was buried near the place where he had been crucified, i.e. “NEAR THE PALACE OF NERO, IN THE VATICAN, CLOSE TO THE TRIUMPHAL REGION.”

Even the venerable Bede (British historian of the 7th century) mentions this UNIVERSAL understanding in his book entitled A History of the English Church and People:

When Wilfred had received the king’s command to speak, he said: “Our Easter customs are those that we have seen universally observed IN ROME, WHERE THE BLESSED APOSTLES PETER AND PAUL LIVED, TAUGHT, SUFFERED, AND ARE BURIED.”

Also Simeon Metaphrastus, who lived 900 A.D., is quoted as saying, “that Peter stayed sometime in BRITAIN; where having preached the word, established churches, ordained bishops, priests, and deacons, in the 12th year of Nero [66 A.D.] HE RETURNED TO ROME.”

William Cave, in his scholarly book on the lives of the twelve apostles, echoes the historian Onuphrius:

Onuphrius, a man of great learning and industry in all matters of antiquity...goes away by himself...and...affirms, that he [Peter]...having spent almost the whole reign of Nero in several parts of Europe, RETURNED, in the last of Nero’s reign, TO ROME, AND THERE HE DIED....(The Lives of the Apostles, Oxford 1840).

The Eastern Texts

Even ancient Ethiopic texts translated by the late Egyptologist E. A. Wallis Budge mention Peter’s connection with Rome:

And it came to pass that, when the apostle divided the countries of the world amongst them, the CITY OF ROME became the portion of PETER....Now when the blessed PETER DIED IN THE CITY OF ROME, in the days of Nero the emperor, the apostles were scattered abroad....(The Contendings of the Apostles, London 1901. P. 137).

Further on, in the same volume, we find more confirmation: “And after all the apostles finished their work, and had gone forth from this world — now PETER HAD BEEN CRUCIFIED IN THE CITY OF ROME, and they had cut off the head of Paul in the SAME CITY, and Mark they had flayed alive in the city of Alexandria....” (Page 254).

An ancient Syriac (eastern part of the Roman Empire) document called The Teaching of Simon Magus in the City of Rome, asserts the following:

And, when there was great rejoicing at his [Peter’s] teaching, he built churches there, IN ROME AND THE CITIES ROUND ABOUT, AND IN ALL THE VILLAGES OF THE PEOPLE OF ITALY...And after these years Nero Caesar seized him and shut him up in prison. And he knew that he would crucify him; so he called Ansus the deacon, and made him bishop [overseer] in his stead IN ROME. — The Ante-Nicene Fathers, translated by Roberts & Donaldson. Vol. VIII, p. 675. New York. 1926.

Another Syriac document, which is an extract from a book concerning Abgar the king and the apostle Thaddeus, outlines the areas of responsibility given to each apostle: “To Simon [Peter] was allotted ROME, and to John Ephesus; to Thomas India and to [Th]Addaeus the country of the Assyrians. And, when they were sent each one of them to the district which had been allotted to him, they devoted themselves to bring the several countries to discipleship” (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, p. 656).

And finally, from the same part of the world, another ancient document entitled The Teaching of the Apostles, says: “And Nero Caesar dispatched with the sword* Simon Cephas IN THE CITY OF ROME.” *Footnote adds, “crucifying him on a cross.”

What I have quoted here is just a small sampling of the voluminous amount of material extant that CLEARLY shows Peter visited Rome and finished his long life there. And, as I mentioned earlier, NOT ONE IOTA of information refutes Rome’s claim to be the final resting place of Peter. That, in itself, IS REMARKABLE!

The Modern Evidence

Let us now cross the frontiers of time and see what MODERN SCHOLARSHIP has to say about the residence and death of Peter in Rome. Have the centuries diminished the validity of Rome’s claim? Has the UNANIMITY of the early centuries vanished and been trampled underfoot by modern criticism and scholarship?

Engelbert Kirschbaum — one of the four archaeologists who excavated the area under the altar of St. Peters in Rome — wrote, in 1959: “What we DO KNOW is that Peter suffered a martyrs death in the reign of Nero and that from the earliest time his grave was known to be ON THE VATICAN NEAR NERO’S GARDENS.” (The Tombs of St. Peter and St. Paul, New York).

According to George Armstrong (”Opinion” section of the Los Angeles Times):

After Nero’s great fire in 64 A.D., he built a suburban area known as Vatican Circus for chariot and horse racing. The weekend’s added attraction would be public executions of criminals or subversives. PETER, a troublesome — and foreign — religious fanatic, was a good candidate for a Circus crucifixion. ACCORDING TO ANCIENT TRADITION HE WAS BURIED NEARBY AFTER JUST SUCH AN EVENT (Article, Roman Mystery: The Case of the Two-Headed Saint. Mid-1980s).

“When the man named Simon Peter was brutally executed, some 1,915 years ago IN ROME, there passed away one of that small band of historical personalities who deserve to rank as monumental” (The Bones of St. Peter, by John Evangelist Walsh. New York, 1982. P. 1).

In 1953 authors Fulton Oursler and April Oursler Armstrong stated that “before he left Puteoli, Paul had heard the full story of PETER’S QUIET CONQUEST OF ROME, beginning with the poor, then extending Christ’s baptism EVEN TO MEN IN NERO’S OWN COURT. With Mark at his side, PETER HAD WALKED WIDE-EYED IN ROME, down to the Trastevere, center of Jewish life” (The Greatest Faith Ever Known. New York. P. 312).

Herman L. Hoeh of Ambassador College (now Ambassador University) admits the following: “Granted, Paul was brought to Rome about A.D. 67. He was beheaded, then buried on the Ostian Way. But are his remains still there? Granted, too, that UNIVERSAL TRADITION declared the apostle PETER WAS ALSO BROUGHT TO ROME in Nero’s reign and martyred about the same time” (Where Did the 12 Apostles Go?)

Bo Reicke, an authority on New Testament times, notes that the city of Rome WAS an important center during the growth of the gospel: “After the martyrdom of James at Jerusalem in 62, ROME, THE MOST IMPORTANT STOPPING PLACE OF THE APOSTLES PETER and Paul, came to the fore; and even after THEIR MARTYRDOM THERE...the capital of the Empire remained in the limelight for the church” (The New Testament Era. Fortress Press, Philadelphia. 1981. P. 211).

Since the Reformation and the ensuing establishment of the various Protestant churches, there has been a vocal and persistent chorus of voices proclaiming the fallacy of Rome’s claim to be the site of Peter’s residence and death. A serious examination of these counterclaims, however, almost always shows some lack of scholarship and a decided theological bias that is generally vindictive in nature. It has, over the years, turned into a literal vendetta!

An example of a recent voice is found in Babylon Mystery Religion, by Ralph Woodrow:

There is no proof, Biblically speaking, that Peter ever went near Rome! The New Testament tells us he went to Antioch, Samaria, Joppa, Caesarea, and other places, BUT NOT ROME! This is a strange omission, especially since Rome was considered the most important city in the world!

Strange indeed! Mr. Woodrow makes a blanket statement here that Peter never went near Rome, but offers no evidence to support that. There is no proof, Biblically speaking, that Peter DIDN’T go to Rome! Why can’t the phrase “other places” INCLUDE Rome? This is typical of the arguments put forth by a vocal minority which just can’t seem to understand that the presence of Peter in Rome DOES NOT have to mean he became the first pope!

Serious scholarship — and true discernment — show that the passage of time HAS NOT negated the overwhelming evidence that Peter did indeed visit Rome and die there.

Did Peter Visit Rome More Than Once?

Did you notice something unusual in several of the previous quotes about Peter? Did you discern what Simeon Metaphrastus said — and Dean Stanley? Notice! “...Peter stayed sometime in Britain, where having preached the word, established churches, ordained bishops, priests, and deacons, in the 12th year of Nero he RETURNED to Rome.” Can this possibly mean Peter was in Rome ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION? Note what Dean Stanley says: “...the vision that came to St. Peter...(2 Peter 1:14), appeared to St. Peter on this his last visit to Britain....Shortly afterwards Peter RETURNED to Rome, where he was later executed.”

Is this a coincidence? The word “RETURNED” certainly implies a previous visit!

In Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History we read: “Under the REIGN OF CLAUDIUS [41-54 A.D.] by the benign and gracious providence of God, Peter that great and powerful apostle, who by his courage took the lead of the rest, WAS CONDUCTED TO ROME.” Now, both the Latin (Hieronymian) and Syriac translations of Eusebius’ Chronicle make PETER TO HAVE GONE TO ROME IN THE SECOND YEAR OF CLAUDIUS and to Antioch TWO YEARS LATER. Here we have proof positive that Peter indeed visited Rome ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION. The two years mentioned here actually represent the time spent IN ROME at this time — according to tradition and conscientious scholarship. More of this later.

According to George Edmundson, in his work The Church in Rome in the 1st Century:

Jerome writes as follows: “Simon Peter, prince of the apostles, after an episcopate of the church at Antioch and preaching to the dispersion of those of the circumcision, who had believed in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, IN THE 2ND YEAR OF CLAUDIUS GOES TO ROME TO OPPOSE SIMON MAGUS and there for 25 years beheld the sacerdotal chair until the LAST YEAR OF NERO, that is the 14th.” Now here amidst a CERTAIN CONFUSION...a definite date is given for Peter’s FIRST ARRIVAL IN ROME, and, be it noted, it is the date of his escape from Herod Agrippa’s persecution and his disappearance from the narrative of the Acts. — London. 1913. Pp. 50-51.

Since Jerome claims the 14th year of Nero’s reign was his last, and history records Nero died in June of 68, then, using the reckoning of Jerome, the 2nd year of Claudius must have been 43 A.D. This AGREES, as Mr. Edmundson noted, with the date of Peter’s imprisonment and escape under Herod, and agrees with the historical dates for the reign of Claudius.

Chronologers agree that Herod died in 44 A.D.; and the Book of Acts shows that after Peter’s escape, Herod went to Caesarea where he spent some time in negotiations with envoys from Tyre and other Phoenician cities before his death. This, coupled with the UNIVERSAL GREEK TRADITION that the apostles did not leave the Syro-Palestinian region UNTIL THE END OF 12 YEARS MINISTRY, fits in well with the dating of Eusebius and Jerome.

Before continuing, it should be mentioned WHY Edmundson refers to “certain confusion” in Jerome’s statement. What we are seeing here is the difficulty early historians have had in separating the actions of the apostle Peter and those of Simon Magus. After all, the names are similar — Peter was called SIMON PETER.

Notes Ralph Woodrow:

Since the apostle Peter was known as Simon Peter, it is interesting to note that Rome not only had a “Peter,” an interpreter of the mysteries, but also a religious leader named Simon who went there in the first century! This Simon, known to Bible Students as Simon the sorcerer (Acts 8:9), is said to have later gone to Rome and founded a counterfeit Christian religion there! — Babylon Mystery Religion: Ancient and Modern. Ralph Woodrow Evangelistic Association, Inc. Riverside, CA. 1992. P. 73.

The word “Peter” also means “opener” — referring to one who opens or reveals the intricacies of the mystery religion that originated in Babylon. Since Simon Magus was a “peter” in this sense, we can see how all the confusion arises in some of the historical references. We have to be on guard against this.

After the death of Simon Magus his followers saw a golden opportunity to “Christianize” the pagan theology that Magus promulgated in Rome during his lifetime. By associating the “Peter” or Grand Interpreter (Opener) of Rome with Peter the apostle they were able to fool the members of God’s Church and have them think that the pope was the representative and successor of Peter the apostle. “And so,” writes Alexander Hislop in The Two Babylons, “to the blinded Christians of the apostasy, the Pope was the representative of Peter the apostle, while to the initiated pagans, he was only the representative of Peter, the interpreter of their well-known mysteries” (P. 210).

Thus Satan (through his tool Simon Magus) was able to build a huge, universal, counterfeit church that millions of people have come to believe is the true Church of God on the earth today!

The “episcopate” of Peter at Antioch, mentioned by Jerome, is nothing more than the time spent in Antioch BY SIMON MAGUS before he went to Rome in 42 A.D. Other references make this to be 7 years in length. Also, the 25 years Jerome assigns Peter to the “sacerdotal chair” at Rome is the time spent BY SIMON MAGUS IN ROME between his arrival in 42 A.D. and his death in 67 A.D.

The historian Jean Danielou corroborates the date of Peter’s departure from Jerusalem:

The Acts tells us that in 43, after the death of James, Peter left Jerusalem “for another place” (Acts 12:17). He is lost from sight until 49, when we find him at the council of Jerusalem. No CANONICAL TEXT has anything to say about his missionary activity during this time. But Eusebius writes that he CAME TO ROME, ABOUT 44, at the BEGINNING OF CLAUDIUS’ REIGN. — The Christian Centuries, p. 28.

In the book, The Drama of the Lost Disciples, author George F. Jowett states that “Peter FIRST went to Rome 12 YEARS AFTER THE DEATH OF JESUS...” (Page 113).

Author John Evangelist Walsh also corroborates this timeframe: “After escaping from prison IN THE YEAR 43, he [Peter] pays a hasty visit to MARK’S HOUSE, leaves certain instructions and, as Acts laconically finishes, ‘Then he departed and went to another place.’ “ (The Bones of St. Peter, p. 34).

The immediate events after Peter’s departure from Jerusalem are revealed in an ancient Ethiopic text called The Contendings of the Apostles:

...my master Peter embraced the brethren who were living in the city of Jerusalem...then we departed to the border of the city of Joppa, and we embarked on a ship and sailed over the sea until [we arrived] at the island of Cyprus, where we dwelt for 3 and 20 days, for thus had the Lord told me [Peter] to do....Whilst I was still in the island of Cyprus, the angel of God appeared unto me, and said...”Rise up, AND GO TO THE CITY OF ROME”; so I departed thereunto...I ARRIVED AT THE CITY OF ROME and entered therein. — Translated by E. A. Wallis Budge. London 1901. P. 505).

Hippolytus, bishop of Pontus, also confirms an early visit to Rome by Peter:

This Simon [Magus] deceiving many by his sorceries in Samaria was reproved by the apostles and was laid under a curse, as it has been written in the Acts. But he [Simon Magus] afterwards abjured the faith and attempted [these practices], and JOURNEYING AS FAR AS ROME HE FELL IN WITH THE APOSTLE [PETER], and to him, deceiving many by his sorceries, PETER offered repeated opposition. — Philos. vi. 15.

The historian Onuphrius, as recorded by William Cave, affirms that Peter “WENT FIRST TO ROME; whence returning to the council of Jerusalem, he thence went to ANTIOCH...and having spent almost the whole reign of Nero in SEVERAL PARTS OF EUROPE [INCLUDING BRITAIN], RETURNED, in the last of Nero’s reign, TO ROME, and there died...”

Here we see, once again, PLAIN EVIDENCE showing Peter was in Rome TWICE during his life. William Cave states (a few pages earlier in his book The Lives of the Apostles (p. 200)): “What became of Peter after his deliverance out of prison is not certainly known....After this [escape from prison] he resolved upon A JOURNEY TO ROME; where most agree he arrived ABOUT THE SECOND YEAR OF THE EMPEROR CLAUDIUS.”

Another clue showing Peter was in Rome on more than one occasion is furnished by George Edmundson: “Of St. Peter’s FIRST ROMAN VISIT AND PREACHING early tradition has handed down few details; a series, however, of witnesses affirm that MARK ACCOMPANIED THE APOSTLE TO ROME and there WROTE HIS GOSPEL.”

The Gospel of Mark

Early writers such as Clement, Eusebius and Jerome affirm that Mark’s gospel was FIRST made public in Rome — at an early date! In Eusebius’ second book of church history we are informed as to how Simon Magus escaped from Peter to Rome, and how Peter followed shortly after “carrying with him the proclamation of the glorious gospel. Being AT ROME, Peter approved the work of MARK’S GOSPEL.” Clement of Alexandria asserts that Peter preached at Rome, and that MARK WROTE HIS GOSPEL AT THE REQUEST OF PETER’S HEARERS. (Hipol. Lib. VI. Apud Euseb. H. E. ii. 14).

Papias (70-155 A.D.), as recorded by Eusebius, tells us that Mark wrote his gospel (based on Peter’s sermons) in the city of Rome.

William Steuart McBirnie, in his book The Search For the 12 Apostles, records:

While IN ROME Mark must have written his gospel at the request of St. Peter. The “Post-Nicene Fathers” records the tradition: “Mark the disciple and interpreter of Peter wrote a short gospel at the request of the brethren AT ROME, embodying what he had heard Peter tell. When Peter had heard this, he approved it and published it to the churches to be read by his authority, as Clemens, in the 6th book of his “Hypotyposes” and Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, record. — New York 1973. Pp. 253-254.

A careful study of the Book of Mark shows that it was indeed written for a Gentile audience. Mark’s quotation of Aramaic words (followed by a translation of them) and his many explanation of Jewish customs prove this.

But how can we be sure Mark wrote his gospel during AN EARLIER VISIT to Rome by Peter? Isn’t it conceivable he wrote it just before or after Peter’s death in 68 A.D.? There are a number of ways we can resolve this!

During 1947, when the Dead Sea Scrolls were being recovered from the hillside caves adjacent to the community of Quram, 19 tiny scraps of papyrus (identified as fragments of Mark’s gospel) were found. Subsequent dating by Professor Jose O’Callaghan at the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome, showed these fragments to be part of a scroll kept at a Palestinian library IN 50 A.D. This indicates that Mark’s gospel may have been in circulation WITHIN ABOUT A DOZEN YEARS OF CHRIST’S DEATH IN 30 A.D. This fits perfectly with the time-frame of an EARLY VISIT to Rome by Peter and Mark.

The Protestant historian Harnack agrees, saying “...there can...be no objection to accepting the VOICE OF TRADITION which makes the gospel [of Mark] to have been written for the use of St. Peter’s Roman converts ABOUT THE YEAR 45 A.D.” (The Church in Rome in the 1st Century, pp. 67-68).

In the old Chronicles of Matthew of Paris (an English monk and Chronicler — circa early 13th century), we find listed Peter as having arrived in Rome in 41 A.D. and the writing of Mark’s gospel in 42 A.D. If we correct the dates herein, we get 44 A.D. for Peter arriving in Rome and 45 A.D. for Mark’s gospel. (The Coming of the Saints, by John W. Taylor. London 1969. P. 138).

The appendices of The Church in Rome in the 1st Century (page 239), show a chronological table of events that reveals Mark’s gospel to have been written AT ROME IN 44-45 A.D. It continues by saying Peter and Mark left Rome in 45 A.D. and arrived at Jerusalem in the spring of 46.

The Other Three Gospels

Another way we can determine if Mark wrote his gospel during an earlier stay in Rome with Peter, or around the time of Peter’s death, is to ascertain when the gospel was written in relation to the other three gospels.

In the first of Origen’s (185-254 A.D.) commentaries on the gospel according to Matthew, he testifies that he knows only four gospels — written in the following order:

...as having learnt by tradition concerning the four gospels, which alone are unquestionable in the Church of God under heaven, that FIRST was written that according to Matthew...who published it for those who from Judaism came to believe, composed as it was in the Hebrew language. SECONDLY, that ACCORDING TO MARK, who wrote it in accordance with Peter’s instructions...and THIRDLY that according to Luke, who wrote, for those who from the Gentiles [came to believe], the gospel that was praised by Paul. AFTER THEM ALL, that according to John.

It appears that the present New Testament PRESERVES THE ORDER in which the four gospels were originally written.

Subscriptions appearing at the end of MATTHEW’S GOSPEL in numerous manuscripts (all being later than the 10th century), say that the account was written about the 8th year after Christ’s death. (Aid to Bible Understanding, p. 1971). This would place it in the year 38 A.D. Other sources claim it was written in 41 A.D. A number of experts consider the gospel of Matthew to represent a MORE PRIMITIVE text than Mark.

The introduction to the Synoptic Gospels in the New Testament of the Jerusalem Bible states: “According to a tradition dating from the second century, St. Matthew was THE FIRST to write a gospel and he wrote ‘in the Hebrew tongue.’ Our Greek ‘Gospel according to St. Matthew’ is not identified with this EARLY Aramaic book, which is lost, though there are times when it appears to represent a MORE PRIMITIVE TEXT THAN MARK.”

LUKE’S GOSPEL, according to the Aid to Bible Understanding, “may have been written at Caesarea sometime during Paul’s confinement there for about two years (c. 56-58 C.E.).” The New Testament of the Jerusalem Bible notes that “St. Luke’s gospel and The Acts of the Apostles are the two volumes of a SINGLE WORK that today we should call ‘a history of the rise of Christianity.’ The two books are INSEPARABLY LINKED by their Prologues and by their style.”

Since the Book of Acts finishes with the first imprisonment of Paul at Rome, the two volumes may be dated to around 59-61 A.D.

With this evidence we can conclude that the Book of Mark must have been written between 38 and 61 A.D., thus confirming the 45 A.D. compilation date and the PRESENCE OF PETER IN ROME AT THIS TIME.

Philo the Jew

There is yet another intriguing proof for an early visit to Rome by Peter.

In the summer of 38 A.D. Agrippa I visited Alexandria in Egypt, where he seized upon the opportunity to parade his “magnificence” before the Jews of the city. This incited the Greeks of Alexandria to riot and persecute the Jews. The interracial strife that followed became so bad that it spread to other parts of the Roman Empire.

Gaius Caligula — the mad emperor — exacerbated the problem by demanding that the Alexandrian Jews worship him as god. Bo Reicke, in The New Testament Era, says: “Agrippa complained to Gaius Caligula, as did a delegation of Alexandrian Jews LED BY THE PHILOSOPHER PHILO, whose books In Flaccum and De Legatione ad Gaium discuss this important struggle” (Fortress Press. Pennsylvania 1981). The delegation, led by Philo, traveled to Rome in 39 or 40 A.D., but was unsuccessful in getting any help from Caligula who was practically insane by this time.

When Claudius ascended the throne in 41, he tried to resolve this conflict — ordering representatives from both ethnic groups to appear before him at Rome. A SECOND DELEGATION, once again headed by Philo, made the trip to Rome. When they arrived, Eusebius states that Philo “is said to have read before the whole Senate of the Romans his description of the impiety of [Emperor] Caius, which he entitled, with fitting irony, Concerning Virtues, and his words were so much admired as to be granted a place in libraries.”

WHILE PHILO WAS IN ROME HE MET WITH PETER!

Notice what William Cave says:

Here [in Rome], we are told, he [Peter] met with Philo the Jew, lately come on his SECOND EMBASSY unto Rome, in the behalf of his countrymen at Alexandria, and to have contracted an INTIMATE FRIENDSHIP and acquaintance with him. — The Lives of the Apostles. Oxford 1840. Pp. 200-201.

Eusebius comments that “tradition says that he [Philo] came to Rome IN THE TIME OF CLAUDIUS TO SPEAK TO PETER WHO WAS AT THAT TIME PREACHING TO THOSE THERE. This would, indeed, be not improbable since the treatise to which we refer, composed by him [Philo] many years later, obviously contains the rules of the church which are still observed in our own time” (Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History. Harvard University Press, London. 1975. P. 145).

It seems highly likely that Mark was sent, by Peter, to evangelize Alexandria and surrounding areas AS A RESULT OF PETER’S ACQUAINTANCE WITH PHILO! Eastern tradition claims Mark went to Alexandria from Rome at an early date — and eventually was martyred there.

As a result of Philo’s SECOND TRIP TO ROME and the advice of Agrippa, Claudius ordered the Prefect of Egypt to see that the rights of the Jews were not encroached upon. At the same time, he cautioned the Jews of Alexandria to remain peaceful and forbade them to attract more compatriots into the city for political advantage. These directives paved the way for Mark’s work in the area and, as firm Coptic traditions in Egypt relate, “MARK TOOK HIS GOSPEL WITH HIM TO ALEXANDRIA.”

And when did Mark leave for Alexandria? The History of the Patriarchs mentions explicitly that the revelation to Peter and Mark (that Mark should go to Alexandria) came in the 15th YEAR AFTER CHRIST’S DEATH — 45 A.D.!! (The Search For the 12 Apostles, by William Steuart McBirnie. N.Y. 1973. P. 255).

Simon Magus and the Primacy of Peter

The Catholic Church anciently claimed Peter was the first pope, and that papal succession originated with him. It was claimed Peter had an “episcopacy” of 25 years in the imperial city — starting with his arrival in 42 A.D. and ending with his death in 67 A.D.

Jerome states:

Simon Peter...prince of the apostles, after an episcopacy of the Antiochean church, and after preaching to the dispersion of those of the circumcision, who had believed in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, in the 2ND YEAR OF CLAUDIUS journeys to Rome to combat Simon Magus, and THERE FOR 25 YEARS he occupied the sacerdotal chair until the last year of Nero, that is the 14th.

We have already mentioned briefly some of the problems with this statement, and have shown that Peter evangelized many different areas (Britain included) during the interval between his first and last visits to Rome.

To whom, then, does this 25-year episcopacy belong? None other than Simon Magus! The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge hits the nail right on the head when it says: “The 25 year episcopate of Peter at Rome is evidently due to the statement of Justin Martyr REGARDING THE LABORS OF SIMON MAGUS AT ROME” (Funk & Wagnall Co., N.Y. & London. 1910).

Let’s pick up the story in Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History:

The enemy of men’s salvation planned to capture the capital [Rome] IN ADVANCE, and sent there Simon...and by aiding the fellow’s tricky sorcery won over to error many of the inhabitants of Rome....There was a certain Simon, a Samaritan, from the village called Gittho, who in the TIME OF CLAUDIUS CAESAR worked miracles by magic through the art of demons possessing him; he was reckoned as a god in Rome, your capital city....(Page 137).

Further, on page 143, Eusebius gives us some more detail:

The aforesaid sorcerer [Simon Magus]...when he had been detected in his crimes in Judaea by the apostle Peter, at once undertook a great journey across the sea, and went off in flight from east to west....He came to the city of the Romans...[and] in short time he achieved such success that he was honoured as a god....CLOSE AFTER HIM, in the SAME reign of Claudius the provider of the universe...guided to Rome...Peter....

Since the apostle Peter arrived in Rome in 44 A.D. (AFTER Simon Magus’ flight to the imperial city) the date of 42 A.D. must refer to Magus’ arrival at Rome. This is verified by a number of sources. Ivor C. Fletcher states: “Eusebius relates that after visiting Antioch, AROUND A.D. 42, and being resisted by Peter (Galatians 2:11), Simon Magus WENT TO ROME” (The Incredible History of God’s True Church, p. 117).

This confusion in dating is broached by C. De Lisle Shortt who says: “The statement which asserts that St. Peter was at Rome so early as the year 42 suggests most perplexing difficulties; it entails the necessity of PUSHING BACK THE DATE of the imprisonment of St. Peter by Herod....” It is quite obvious, then, that the date 42 refers to Simon Magus’ arrival in Rome — with Peter arriving two years later in 44 A.D.

Simon Magus made an immediate impact on the city of Rome. It is recorded that shortly after his arrival an attempted revolt by Camillus Scribonianus (the governor of Dalmatia) was put down by the army which remained loyal to Emperor Claudius. The success in putting down this revolt was ascribed to SIMON MAGUS’ ARRIVAL IN ROME and the subsequent beguiling of the populace by his “magical” powers.

In her book Sacred and Legendary Art, author Anna Jameson states: “The magician [Simon Magus], vanquished by a superior power, flung his books into the Dead Sea, broke his wand, and fled to Rome, where he became a GREAT FAVORITE OF THE EMPEROR CLAUDIUS AND AFTERWARDS OF NERO. Peter, bent on counteracting the wicked sorceries of Simon, FOLLOWED HIM TO ROME” (Page 209).

Anna Jameson continues:

There can be no doubt that there existed in the first century a Simon, a Samaritan, a PRETENDER to divine authority and supernatural powers; who, for a time, had many followers; who stood in a CERTAIN RELATIONSHIP to Christianity; and who may have held some opinions more or less similar to those entertained by the most famous HERETICS of the early ages, the GNOSTICS. Irenaeus calls this Simon the FATHER OF ALL HERESIES. “All those,” he says, “who in any way CORRUPT THE TRUTH or mar the preaching of the [true] church, are disciples and successors of Simon, the Samaritan magician.”

Simon became so well known in Rome that he was eventually honored as a god. THIS is the man the Catholic Church is founded upon — NOT the apostle Peter!!

Notice what Hasting’s Dictionary of the Apostolic Church says: “The author or FIRST REPRESENTATIVE [POPE] of this baptized heathenism...is Simon Magus, who unquestionably ADULTERATED Christianity with PAGAN IDEAS AND PRACTICES, with the aid and with the sanction of Christianity (so called) to set up A RIVAL UNIVERSAL (OR CATHOLIC) RELIGION” (Vol. 2, pp. 514, 566).

Statue of Simon Magus in St. Peter’s at Rome

This amalgam of paganism and Christianity mentioned above, was a result of Simon Magus witnessing the preaching of Philip and Peter in Samaria. He soon saw the awesome potential of Christianity as a TOOL for his own advancement. When Peter returned to Rome (just prior to his death) he “found the minds of the people strangely bewitched and hardened AGAINST the embracing of the Christian religion by the subtleties and magic arts of Simon Magus....” (Cave). By the middle of the second century, when Justin Martyr wrote his Apology (152 A.D.) “the sect of the Simonians appears to have been FORMIDABLE, for he speaks four times of their founder, Simon....” (Dictionary of Christian Biography, vol. 4, p. 682).

As the end of the 2nd century approached, the true Church of God in Rome had all but disappeared; and a LARGE COUNTERFEIT, UNIVERSAL CHURCH was firmly in place with a successive line of bishops or “popes” tracing their office back to — NOT PETER — but Simon Magus! The Catholic Church was founded on the PRIMACY OF SIMON MAGUS! Any church (Worldwide Church of God, Philadelphia Church of God included) that believes in the primacy of Peter and apostolic succession is knowingly (or unknowingly) following the system planted in Rome by SIMON THE MAGICIAN!

The approximately 25 years between Peter’s first and last visit to Rome were spent in evangelizing all corners of the Roman Empire. The man who spent 25 years in the “sacerdotal chair” was the magician from Samaria — SIMON MAGUS!

Archaeological Evidence

A considerable amount of evidence has been uncovered by the archaeologist’s spade proving an ancient belief in Peter’s residence and death in Rome. A large number of early Christian sarcophagi uncovered (now in the Lateran Museum) show scenes of Peter’s imprisonment by Herod with his subsequent release by an angel. The French historian of the Persecutions of the First Two Centuries, Paul Allard, points out that the frequency with which this subject was chosen tends to prove a CLOSE CONNECTION between this event and the FIRST VISIT OF PETER TO ROME.

Again and again, the figures of Peter and Paul are found in paintings, artwork, beakers and bowls attributed to the fourth century (Peter: Prince of Apostles, p. 615).

About two miles from Rome, on the Via Appia, stands the ancient church of St. Sebastian. This church was originally called the Basilica of the Apostles because of the tradition that the bodies of Peter and Paul were concealed there (in a vault) during the Valerian persecution (253-260 A.D.). The first attempts to excavate under this church were made in 1892. The excavators discovered an old ROMAN HOUSE with a row of tombs in front — which dated from the 1st and 2nd centuries. An inscription showed this building to be the house of Hermes (Romans 16:14); and some 80 REFERENCES TO PETER were uncovered at this spot — dating back to at least the 3rd century. This is CLEAR PROOF that at an early date the name of Peter was associated with this location.

Close by, two fragments of sarcophagi were unearthed showing the figure of Peter.

In the catacombs of Rome the memory of Peter is widespread. Second only in importance to Christ as a subject of catacombal art, Peter is portrayed on the moldering walls of three eerie underground passageways MORE THAN THREE HUNDRED TIMES! There are almost 30 different scenes and incidents from Peter’s life — all from the gospels — depicted here beneath the Imperial City (See Catacombs, by Hertling & Kirschbaum. Pp. 242-244).

In an abbreviated form, the apostle’s name was found present, at least 20 times, on the “Graffiti Wall” next to Peter’s grave beneath the high altar of St. Peters in the Vatican. Most often, his initials were arranged as a monogram, which has been found all ALL OVER ROME “scratched in ancient monuments, inked onto old manuscripts, worked subtly into wall mosaics, incised on the margins of public signs, roughly stamped on medals, coins, rings, statuettes, pots and similar household wares, even painted on gaming boards” (The Bones of St. Peter, p. 97).

Nothing occurs in a vacuum — a memory of Peter’s stay and martyrdom in Rome is to be found in many different places, if one is willing to HONESTLY look.

The Daughter of Peter

In the Roman martyrologies for May 31, the notice for one PETRONILLA appears. The Latin historians have been very quiet about this entry because, it is claimed, Petronilla was THE DAUGHTER OF PETER! This presents the Catholic Church with a considerable problem — Peter, the first “pope,” was not supposed to be married! Catholic historians have tried to explain away her existence by saying she was Peter’s “spiritual daughter”! However, Petronilla’s name keeps popping up in the martyrology of the British historian Bede and in other records of early Christianity.

PETRONILLA’S TOMB IS ALSO FOUND IN ROME!

Tradition has it that Peter’s family accompanied him on his travels throughout the Roman Empire; and STRONG TRADITIONS OF PETRONILLA exist to this day IN ENGLAND AND FRANCE. William Steuart McBirnie notes: “The apostle Peter had a daughter born in lawful wedlock, who accompanied him on his journey from the east” (The Search For the 12 Apostles).

She became the SPECIAL PATRONESS OF THE FRENCH and, until recently, the French ambassador to the Vatican would visit Petronilla’s shrine in Rome immediately after presenting his credentials to the pope.

Near the town of BURY ST. EDMUNDS in England, her name (abbreviated to St. Parnel) was reverenced; and there still exists a church named after her in WHIPSTEAD. She is depicted on screens at LITCHAM and NORTH ELMHAM (both in Norfolk) and also at SOMERLEYTON. On these three screens she is shown holding a book and a KEY — the latter being a reference to her father Peter.

Osric, king of Northumbria and founder of the famous Abbey of Gloucester, was laid to rest (729 A.D.) in “Petronell’s Chapel” in this same Abbey.

She was martyred and buried in the catacombs on the estate of Flavia Domitilla, which is located on the road to Ardea — a mile and a half from Rome. Petronilla’s remains were moved from the estate at the request of the King of France (755-756 A.D.) and buried in a circular chapel on the south side of the old St. Peter’s in Rome. Later on, in 1612, her remains were once more removed to a chapel near the east end of the present St. Peter’s.

Here we have POWERFUL PROOF that Peter (along with his family) visited and died IN ROME!

Paul’s Foot-Dragging

Do you realize the apostle Paul kept dragging his feet about visiting God’s people in Rome? WHY? Because he didn’t like to build on another man’s foundation!

Notice what Roman 15:19-25, 28-29, and 32 say:

I have preached Christ’s good news to the utmost of my capacity. I have always, however, made it an unbroken rule NEVER TO PREACH WHERE CHRIST’S NAME HAS ALREADY BEEN HEARD. The reason for that was that I HAD NO WISH TO BUILD ON OTHER MEN’S FOUNDATIONS; on the contrary, my chief concern has been to fulfill the text: “Those who have never been told about Him, and those who have never heard about Him will understand.” THAT IS THE REASON WHY I HAVE BEEN KEPT FROM VISITING YOU SO LONG, though for MANY YEARS I have been longing to pay you a visit. Now, however, having no more work to do here, I hope to see you on my way to Spain and, after enjoying a little of your company, to complete the rest of the journey with your good wishes....So when I have done this and officially handed over what has been raised, I shall set out for Spain and VISIT YOU ON THE WAY....Then if God wills, I shall be feeling very happy when I come to enjoy a PERIOD OF REST among you. — The New Testament of the Jerusalem Bible.

That makes it exceedingly PLAIN — Rome had already been evangelized prior to the writing of the Book of Romans (57-58 A.D.)! And obviously, from what we have seen, the foundation Paul did not want to build on WAS THAT OF PETER’S!

The Overwhelming Conclusion!

The only conclusion we can come to (unless we are totally blind), based on OVERWHELMING evidence, is that Peter not only came to Rome just before his death there in February of 68 A.D., but also immediately after his release from prison under Herod in 43 A.D. He founded the Church of God in the Imperial City and, in the almost 25 years between his two visits, preached the gospel of Christ throughout Europe, Britain and Asia.

With the loving assistance of his wife and children, he trod the highways and byways of the Roman Empire bringing the message of the Kingdom of God to the descendants of Israel. On his last visit to Rome in the latter part of 66 A.D., he preached the Good News to the people of Rome before being imprisoned in the Mamertine for some nine months. Upon Nero’s return to Rome he was put to death — along with his wife and daughter Petronilla.

In 42 A.D. (just before Peter’s first visit) Simon Magus arrived in Rome and, during a 25 year “episcopate,” built up a RIVAL RELIGION that amalgamated some aspects of Christianity WITH ELEMENTS OF THE PAGAN BABYLONIAN MYSTERY RELIGION. THIS religion of Simon’s eventually became known as the UNIVERSAL OR CATHOLIC CHURCH!

The Catholic Encyclopedia itself admits that Simon Magus “afterwards went to Rome, worked miracles there by THE POWER OF DEMONS, and received Divine honors both in Rome and in his own country. Though much extravagant legend afterwards gathered around the name of this Simon...it seems nevertheless probable that there must be some foundation in fact for the account given by Justin and accepted by Eusebius. The historical Simon Magus no doubt founded some sort of religion AS A COUNTERFEIT OF CHRISTIANITY in which he was to play a part ANALOGOUS TO THAT OF CHRIST” (Vol. 7, p. 699 — article: “Impostors”).

YES, Peter the apostle WAS in Rome, but NO, he did NOT become the first pope — Simon Magus did!

Hope of Israel Ministries — Taking the Lead in the Search for Truth!

Hope of Israel Ministries
P.O. Box 2186
Temple City, CA 91780, U.S.A.
www.hope-of-israel.org

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.