Fundamentalists and Catholics Whose Bible is it, anyway?

No Christian group is growing faster than the fundamentalists. And many of their converts are coming from the Catholic Church-mainly, badly educated Catholics.

To halt this "soul drain" to answer the fundamentalist challenge and, most of all, to understand our faith better, we need to look at five major points of conflict:

(1) the Bible
(2) the nature and authority of the Church, especially the Pope
(3) how to get to heaven
(4) Mary and the saints
(5) the sacraments, especially the Eucharist.

We needn't be bitter in defending our beliefs. Even though many fundamentalists think the Catholic Church is under the control of Satan and all or most Catholics are headed for hell, not all think that - and we shouldn't think the same of them.

However narrow-minded their faith often is, it's also usually genuine, both in personal sincerity and in basic Christian orthodoxy. Fundamentalism is not some flaky non-Christian sect like New Agers or Moonies. The things on which Catholics and fundamentalists agree are more important than the things on which we disagree, even though the latter are very important, too.

Since the source for every fundamentalists faith is the Bible, we begin there. Fundamentalists will always settle an argument by appealing to the Scriptures. But what do they believe about the Bible? We can't understand them unless we first understand their deep devotion to Scripture as their absolute.

We all need a final, unimpeachable "court of last resort" beyond which no appeal can go. Most of the modern world is a spiritual shambles because it has no absolute. More, we need a concrete and not just an abstract absolute. A mere ideal, like "the good, the true and the beautiful" or "the idea of God," won't do. If God is to be our absolute, He must touch us where we are.

Fundamentalists and Catholics agree that this point of contact is Christ. We also agree that the Bible is a divinely inspired, infallible and authoritative means for us to know Christ. But we disagree about other means, especially the Church and its relation to the Bible. Fundamentalists take Scripture out of the context of the historical Church that wrote it, canonized it, preserved it and now teaches and interprets it. To Catholics, that's like taking a baby out of the context of its mother.

It is a fault, of course, to ignore Mother Church. But it is a virtue to love Baby Bible, a virtue we should respect and imitate. We can love other things too little, but we can't love the Bible too much. We can love it wrongly. But we are not wrong to love it.

Seven things fundamentalists believe about the Bible are that it is

(1) supernatural
(2) inspired
(3) infallible
(4) sufficient
(5) authoritative
(6) literal
(7) practical.

Catholics believe these things too - but differently.

(1) Fundamentalists stress Scripture's divine, supernatural origin: It is the Word of God, not just the words of men. The primary author of all its books is the same God; that's why it's one book, not just many. Orthodox Catholics agree, of course. But fundamentalists are usually reluctant to emphasize or even admit the human side of the Bible's authorship. Their view of Scripture, which is the Word of God in the words of men, is like the old Docetist heresy about Christ: to affirm the divine nature at the expense of the human.

When someone calls attention to human features like the great difference in style between Genesis 1-3 and Genesis 12-50, or between First and Second Isaiah, thereby concluding joint authorship, or St. Paul's personal psychological problems and hard edges (e.g., 1 Cor. 7:6-9, 25-26; Gal. 5:12), they automatically think "liberalism, Modernism!" They fail to see that it's an even greater miracle for God to have authored the Bible without effacing the human authors.

(2) This brings us to a second area. Fundamentalists believe the Bible was inspired ("in-breathed") by God, but they often think of this process the way a Moslem believes Allah dictated the Koran to Mohammed -word for word. Fundamentalists believe in "plenary (total) and verbal [word-for-word] inspiration."

However, we don't even have the original autographs of any of the books of the Bible, so we're not absolutely sure what the exact words were. There were some minor errors in copying, for the earliest texts we have don't totally agree with each other-though there's 99 percent verbal agreement among different manuscripts, far more than for any other ancient writings.

Sometimes you even find fundamentalists claiming divine inspiration for the King James version! The serious motive behind this foolish idea is to hold the line against Modernism even in translation. For many modem translations of the Bible are not translations at all but interpretations or paraphrases using the dubious principle of "dynamic equivalence"-i.e., the translator imagines what the writer would have written if he'd written modern English, rather than translating the actual words he did write. The fundamentalist's concern for word-for-word fidelity, though extreme, seems less mistaken than the revisionist's fast and-loose guesses.

(3)Fundamentalists resort to this to guard the infallibility of the Bible. Again they're fighting a battle against the Modernist, who "demythologizes" and thus dismisses ("dismyths") any passage that makes him uncomfortable (e.g., those that teach miracles or an absolute moral law).

Catholics agree that Scripture is infallible, or free from error, but not necessarily grammatical, mathematical, or scientific error, only error in its message.

For example, when a biblical poet speaks of "the four corners of the earth" he's reflecting the common ancient Hebrew belief that the earth is flat; yet his point is not the shape of the earth but the glory of God.

(4) The crucial difference between fundamentalists and Catholics concerns the sufficiency of Scripture, Luther's principle of "sola scripture" The fundamentalist insists he needs no Church to interpret Scripture, for he contends that (a) Scripture is clear, or that (b) it interprets itself, or that (c) the Holy Spirit interprets it directly to him.

All three substitutes for the Church are easily shown to be inadequate: (a) Scripture is not clear, as it itself admits (2 Pet. 3:15-16). After all, if it's so clear, why are there 500 different Protestant denominations, each claiming to be faithful to Scripture? (b) Nor does Scripture interpret itself, except on occasion, when a New Testament author quotes or refers to an Old Testament passage. (c) Finally, heretics all claim the Holy Spirit's guidance, too. To rely on a private, personal criterion has been perilous and divisive throughout history.

The strongest argument for the need for an infallible Church to guarantee an infallible Bible is the fact that the Church (the disciples] wrote the Bible and (their successors) defined it by listing the canon of books to be included in it. Common sense tell you that you can't get more from less: You can't get an infallible effect from a fallible cause. That's like getting blood out of a stone.

Catholics agree with fundamentalists that Scripture is sufficient in that it contains everything necessary to know for salvation. If this were not so, Protestants couldn't be saved! Catholics also agree with fundamentalists that Scripture provides the foundation for all subsequent dogmas and creeds. But fundamentalists insist that all dogmas must be present explicitly in Scripture, while Catholics see Scripture as a seed or young plant: The fullness of Catholic dogma is the flowering of the original revelation.

(5) As for the Bible's authority, orthodox Catholics agree with fundamentalists that its authority is absolute and unimpeachable. Where we disagree is whether the Bible is the only authority and whether it can maintain its proper authority without an authoritative Church to preserve and interpret it. Many Protestant denominations began in an authoritative fundamentalism and slid into. a most unauthoritative Modernism.

(6) The weakest plank in the fundamentalist's platform is surely his insistence on a literal interpretation of everything in the Bible-or almost everything. Even fundamentalists cannot take Jesus' parables or metaphors like "I am the door" literally. Fundamentalists specialize in literal interpretation of the beginning and end of the Bible, Genesis and Revelation, thus opening evolutionistic and eschatological cans of worms. Though Genesis itself suggests some sort of evolution (1:20a; 24a; 2:7a), it's a dirty word for fundamentalists. And though Jesus Himself does not know when the world will end (Matt. 24:36), fundamentalists love to make rash predictions-all of them wrong.

Here the fundamentalist makes the same mistake as the Modernist: confusing objective interpretation with personal belief, interpreting Scripture in light of his own beliefs rather than those of the author's. The literary style of Genesis I-3 and Revelation are clearly symbolic, just as the miracle stories are clearly literal. Fundamentalist and Modernist alike fail to remove their colored glasses when they read.

Fundamentalists also confuse literalness with authority, fearing that if you interpret a passage non literally, you remove its authority. But this isn't so; one can make an authoritative point in symbolic language, e.g., about the power ("the strong right hand") of God.

One passage no fundamentalist ever interprets literally, however, is "This is my Body." The fundamentalist suddenly turns as symbolic as a Modernist when it comes to the Eucharist.

(7) Finally, the greatest strength of fundamentalism comes not from theory but from practice. Fundamentalist biblical principles are weak, but fundamentalist practice of Bible reading, studying, believing and devotion is very strong. And this is the primary point of the Bible, after all: See Matt. 7:24-27.

Even here, though, there's some confusion. Interpreting it literally, they sometimes apply it literally where not appropriate (e.g., Mark 16:18 as backing "snake handling ') However, few apply Matthew 19:21 literally, Unlike St. Francis.

All in all, a tissue of strengths and weaknesses-that's how fundamentalist beliefs about the Bible appear. What's needed above all then, is discernment, so we both learn from the good and avoid the bad. We must neither mirror their closed-mindedness nor become so open-minded that our brains spill out.

No matter how sincerely and passionately fundamentalists believe, what they believe is less than the fullness of the ancient, orthodox deposit of faith delivered to the saints. If we had half their passion for our great creed that they have for their small one, we could win the world.

Peter Kreeft's series originally appeared in National Catholic Register, reprinted with permission. For information regarding subscriptions: e-mail: cmedia@pipeline.com or phone in the USA: (800) 421-3230

** However, we don't even have the original autographs of any of the books of the Bible, so we're not absolutely sure what the exact words were. There were some minor errors in copying, for the earliest texts we have don't totally agree with each other-though there's 99 percent verbal agreement among different manuscripts, far more than for any other ancient writings. ** - Kreeft

Have any Catholic really thought through what Textual Criticism implies? Let me try...

Frequently, Protestants are attacked with an argument such as the following: "You don't have infallible knowledge of what Scripture Is! Unless you accept the Church's infallible role in determining the Canon, and thereby accept the Church's infallible authority to interpret scripture, you have no solid basis for any of your arguments concerning Scripture!"

My questions are along the following lines:

1) Do YOU have _infallible_knowledge_ of what Scripture Is? Tell me, is John 8:1-11 Canon? You know, the part where the woman is caught in adultery and Jesus writes in the sand. Or how about the end of Mark, or the end of Romans? Or perhaps the other myriads of verses and words that textual criticism has determined were not within the original texts? How has the Catholic Church "Infallibly" ruled concerning these cases?

2) Copying Errors indicate something bad... real bad. Let's quote Kreeft:

"Fundamentalists take Scripture out of the context of the historical Church that wrote it, canonized it, preserved it and now teaches and interprets it."

Ummm... If the church did not preserve it infallibly, then how can it assert that it wrote, canonized, and interpreted it infallibly? Please note: The fact that there are errors clearly show by Kreeft's own admission that the Church erred in copying it.

3) If the Church did not "infallibly" transmit scripture, why does it think it infallibly transmitted tradition? At least with scripture, we have early texts that we can go to and verify the differences that have crept in over the years. How about oral tradition?

4) The Vulgate, canonized by the RC church contains translations of many of these passages that were not originally apart of the canon. How did the infallible church propagate these errors?

5) Please also note: Kreeft stated "Sometimes you even find fundamentalists claiming divine inspiration for the King James version!" How exactly is this different than the Catholic Church's view of the Latin Vulgate? (BTW, I do not view the KJV in the way described by Kreeft)

Just some thoughts. Please feel free to respond.

*And once they've found the truth behind these "Bible Christians", the Catholic door is already swinging shut behind them.* - me

** And what truth would that be? ** - NYer

For one, that we Protestants aren't the shallow "Fundamentalists" portrayed so ubiquitously by RC professors and apologists such as Kreeft.

When they rely on Strawman and Ad Hominem argumentation to attack the protestant church, all it takes is personal interaction to cripple their arguments.

We protestants REALLY appreciate that. Again, their misrepresentations actually make it easier for us to reach out and establish personal, meaningful relationships with those who are seeking the truth.

I would agree there's no sense in debating the point. Of course the church is founded upon Jesus.

Our interpretation of "the rock" recited in your verse varies. You believe that Christ was talking about Peter as the "rock". I believe He was referring to Himself and the prophecy in the verse that Paul quotes in Roman 9:33, "Behold, I lay in Zion a Stone of Stumbling and a Rock of Offense, and he who believes in Him will not be disappointed." Peter also quoted this verse about Christ in 1 Peter 2:8. I don't know where in the scriptures Peter was referred to as "the rock".

Personally, I believe if you confess with your lips and believe in your heart that Jesus is Lord you shall be saved regardless if your Catholic or fundamentalist.

** The question you have to ask yourself is this: ‘Where did we get the Bible?’ Until you can give a satisfactory answer, you aren’t in much of a position to rely on the authority of Scripture or to claim that you can be certain that you know how to accurately interpret it. ** - NYer

As a protestant, I'll tell you exactly where I got the Bible, or more distinctly, the determination of which books are scripture. I learned it as a youth from my church. They in turn had it passed down to them via a method I like to call "Tradition". You see, the Canonicity of these books was decided a long time ago in various councils. I'll skip the details, but will gladly relate them if asked.

Several thoughts though:

1) The Church never "determined" what was canon, rather it "recognized" what the Lord had already determined was Canon. Look into the specific words chosen by the Council of Carthage if you doubt.

2) Just because the Lord used the church's councils to establish the Canon, that in no way logically proves that the Roman Catholic Church is infallible, that "Sacred Tradition" is infallible, that any "Tradition" is infallible, that the Roman Church's interpretation of scripture is infallible, or that the Roman Church's authority is set above or beside scripture. Any of these supposed antecedents are neither necessary for canonization, nor consequences of the church's actions.

3) Concerning my inability to "rely on the authority scripture", please see my post #105. Can you by your own criteria rely on the authority of scripture?

4) Just in case anyone is wondering, I believe in a "Fallible collection of Infallible books". And, if you read my post #105, I believe the Catholic church must also believe this as well.

Actually the scriptures were built off several ancient copies made from the original manuscripts. Three principal ones include the Codex Sinaiticus, the Codex Alexandrinus and the Codex Vaticanus which is housed in the Vatican library at Rome. To keep this short until 1320 most of the Bible was in Latin.

Afterward scholars such as Wycliffe and Tyndale reviewed the various manuscripts and complied various versions in English. Some of the newer versions today are built directly from the original manuscripts by various Greek and Hebrew scholars. Although the Vatican has the most complete version there are some things which are revealed in other manuscripts not in the Vatican possession. Men of God reviewed these manuscripts and if there was any doubt it was left out.

If a person want to nick pick the Bible how do they know what is "right" and "wrong"? How are they going to judge? Or are they going to rely on the Pope or someone else to tell them what is correct and what is wrong. Perhaps the saying "on this rock I will build my church" is wrong but the Pope won't tell them that. It's either all or nothing.

The Bible, like a person's belief in Christ, relies upon faith. Amazingly many of the prophecies that a hundred years ago people were talking about being in errors in the Bible have now been fulfilled. (Look at Israel) The author may look at "the four corners of the world" as being ignorance Hebrew belief. I prefer to think of it as poetic license (which is used in many places of scripture).

ALL scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness. 2 Tim 3:16. Claiming to be wise we become fools. We think we are so clever but the scriptures have always been for the meek and lowly who can accept them for what they are-God’s inspired Word.

*This text has been debated ad nauseum. Not up to it at present. The disciples didn't eat "Jesus flesh" at the Last Supper. *

Must have missed that discussion.

Jesus was quite specific. He said: "As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me" (John 6:57). The Greek word used for "eats" (trogon) is very blunt and has the sense of "chewing" or "gnawing." This is not the language of metaphor.

*Don't cha find some of the weird relics embarrassing?*

I maintain 'relics' from my grandmother - her old sewing kit, button jars, nail clipper - these don't embarras me. I question your source on the specific 'relics' you listed. As a lifelong catholic, I have traveled the world and visited many catholic churches, cathedrals and the Vatican. Never heard of these arcane relics that you cite. Show me a reputable reference please. Foreskin ... ROFL!!

I'll tell you exactly where I got the Bible, or more distinctly, the determination of which books are scripture. I learned it as a youth from my church. They in turn had it passed down to them via a method I like to call "Tradition".

Precisely! The reason you accept the books you do is that they were in the Bible someone gave you when you first became a Christian. You accept them because they were handed on to you. This means you accept the canon of the New Testament that you do because of tradition, because tradition is simply what is handed on to us from those who were in the faith before us. So your knowledge of the exact books that belong in the Bible, rests on tradition rather than on Scripture itself!

Which brings us back to my original question: ‘Where did we get the Bible?"

The fact is, the only reason you and I have the New Testament canon is because of the trustworthy teaching authority of the Catholic Church. As Augustine put it, ‘I would not believe in the Gospels were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church’ (Against the Letter of Mani Called "The Foundation" 5:6). Any Christian accepting the authority of the New Testament does so, whether or not he admits it, because he has implicit trust that the Catholic Church made the right decision in determining the canon.

The fact is, the Holy Spirit guided the Catholic Church to recognize and determine the canon of the New and Old Testaments in the year 382 at the Council of Rome, under Pope Damasus I. This decision was ratified again at the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397 and 419). You, my friend, accept exactly the same books of the New Testament that Pope Damasus decreed were canonical, and no others.

Now, ask yourself this question: ‘If the Bible, which we received from the Catholic Church, is our sole rule of faith, who’s to do the interpreting?’ And ‘Why are there so many conflicting understandings among Evangelicals and Fundamentalists even on central doctrines that pertain to salvation?"

ALL scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness. 2 Tim 3:16.

The context of 2 Timothy 3:16–17 is Paul laying down a guideline for Timothy to make use of Scripture and tradition in his ministry as a bishop. Paul says, "But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; and that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God (Greek: theopneustos = "God-breathed"), and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works" (2 Tim. 3:14–17). In verse 14, Timothy is initially exhorted to hold to the oral teachings—the traditions—that he received from the apostle Paul. This echoes Paul’s reminder of the value of oral tradition in 1:13–14, "Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us" (RSV), and ". . . what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2:2). Here Paul refers exclusively to oral teaching and reminds Timothy to follow that as the "pattern" for his own teaching (1:13). Only after this is Scripture mentioned as "profitable" for Timothy’s ministry.

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.