Fundamentalists and Catholics Whose Bible is it, anyway?

http://www.christlife.org/library/articles/C_understand2.html ^ | Peter Kreeft

[NYer]

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

[SoliDeoGloria]

** 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. .... 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?’ **

Well let's see... The church at that time was made up of Christians, followers of Christ. Each of those Christians at each of those councils were "guided" by the Holy Spirit "to recognize and determine the canon of the New and Old Testaments". If those Christians can be trusted to determine the Canon of Scripture, then the Christians today who have the same Holy Spirit should also be entrusted with interpreting those scriptures. Therefore, since that same Most Holy Spirit works in me today, I can be trusted to interpret those scriptures!

Please note: In all of this, the church (the Christians who are in Christ) still remain in subject to scripture. No man is above it, rather Scripture is the Supreme Judge by which all others are to conform.

** Why are there so many conflicting understandings among Evangelicals and Fundamentalists even on central doctrines that pertain to salvation? **

Why are there so many conflicting understandings among Roman Catholics on central doctrines that pertain to salvation? Has the Roman Catholic Church really done such a great job in unifying itself under it's one set of beliefs?

Tell me, are you a Traditionalist? Are you one of the Catholics that despise what the current Pope has taught, and feel as though the church ought to revert back to a pre-Vatican II state? Are you a Catholic that believes the Roman Church needs reform?

I am asking this politely, so as not to offend. I hope you take it in such a light.


PS. Please don't ignore the 4 thoughts I had after I posted my honest statement confirming that I believe in the Canon due to the traditions passed down to me from my Church.

And, oh yea, here's a couple others:

5) The Church of the 4th and 5th centuries most closely resemble the current Reformed Churches in the areas of soteriology, theology proper, and the books of the canon. As such, the Reformed churches of today are the "true heir" to the Church in Rome during those centuries.

6) Any arguments to prove that the Current Roman Catholic Church is actually the true descendant of the early Church can be equally applied to the "True Catholic Church" found at the following Website: http://www.truecatholic.org/

Awed by the Glory of the Lord...

[NYer]

*Why are there so many conflicting understandings among Roman Catholics on central doctrines that pertain to salvation? *

Such as?

[SoliDeoGloria]

Wow... What a dodge! I read all that stuff, and absolutely no one has anything resembling an argument answering my post #105. Simply respond to this one critique:

****
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?
****

Was the Roman Catholic Church infallible when it preserved Scripture? Was it infallible when it preserved Tradition?

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

Please stop this crude silliness. In the vision of the Mystical Marriage of St. Catherine, she was given a wedding ring by the infant Jesus.

I am 37 years old, I've been Catholic all my life, and I have never heard of any milk/circumcision relics or the like. The sources you cite are questionable and even then, describe these relics as legends.

Please stop.

[NYer]

The word "catholic" means "universal".

Any arguments to prove that the Current Roman Catholic Church is actually the true descendant of the early Church can be equally applied to the "True Catholic Church" found at the following Website: http://www.truecatholic.org/

Wrong! This is a schismatic group that is not in communion with Rome.

"Schism (from the Greek schisma, rent, division) is, in the language of theology and canon law, the rupture of ecclesiastical union and unity, i. e. either the act by which one of the faithful severs as far as in him lies the ties which bind him to the social organization of the Church and make him a member of the mystical body of Christ, or the state of dissociation or separation which is the result of that act."

SCHISM

[NYer]

*Please stop this crude silliness. *

Obviously, his purpose in posting that nonsense was to create a distraction and avoid the topic.

[SoliDeoGloria]

You mean, after my entire post, the only thing you want to contest is my assertion that the Roman Catholic Church isn't entirely unanimous in it's belief system? Are you really asking me to go find some heretical Catholic guy's quotes, and post them? Do you think such a thing will help or hurt your cause?

Out of respect to arguing "Ad Hominem", I'll not do this unless you really want me to. Please note: All I need to prove is that there are wackos within the Catholic Church. ;) It's you who are implying that the Roman Church is unanimous in it's teachings.

[SoliDeoGloria]

Don't worry, I do know what "Catholic" and "Schism" mean. My point is as follows:

Each argument you just provided they can return with equal effectiveness against your Roman Catholic Church.

They believe they are "Universal" Church, and that you are the "Schism". They even have a picture of the Pope kissing the Koran. And they also have some doctrinal proof to back it up: Heresies of JP2

Please note: I am truly not trying to be a jerk. I'm merely trying to point out that any "Logical" statements you make are being made by the wackos at that site. I really like their Pope. I especially like the fence in the background... Looks rather regal to me.

BTW: You haven't answered my questions concerning your own personal beliefs towards whether or not JP2 or Vatican II are straying from the traditional teachings of the RC Church.

[Titanites]

Therefore, since that same Most Holy Spirit works in me today, I can be trusted to interpret those scriptures!

And those who don't interpret the scriptures the same way as you therefore do not have the Most Holy Spirit working in them?

[NYer]

They believe they are "Universal" Church, and that you are the "Schism".

"They" can believe whatever they choose, that doesn't make them right. You believe you can interpret scripture, as do millions of other christians, yet you can arrive at no consensus on your interpretations.

Jesus said his Church would be "the light of the world." He then noted that "a city set on a hill cannot be hid" (Matt. 5:14). This means his Church is a visible organization. It must have characteristics that clearly identify it and that distinguish it from other churches. Jesus promised, "I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18). This means that his Church will never be destroyed and will never fall away from him. His Church will survive until his return.

Among the Christian churches, only the Catholic Church has existed since the time of Jesus. Every other Christian church is an offshoot of the Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox churches broke away from unity with the pope in 1054. The Protestant churches were established during the Reformation, which began in 1517. (Most of today’s Protestant churches are actually offshoots of the original Protestant offshoots.)

Only the Catholic Church existed in the tenth century, in the fifth century, and in the first century, faithfully teaching the doctrines given by Christ to the apostles, omitting nothing. The line of popes can be traced back, in unbroken succession, to Peter himself. This is unequaled by any institution in history.

Even the oldest government is new compared to the papacy, and the churches that send out door-to-door missionaries are young compared to the Catholic Church. Many of these churches began as recently as the nineteenth or twentieth centuries. Some even began during your own lifetime. None of them can claim to be the Church Jesus established.

The Catholic Church has existed for nearly 2,000 years, despite constant opposition from the world. This is testimony to the Church’s divine origin. It must be more than a merely human organization, especially considering that its human members— even some of its leaders—have been unwise, corrupt, or prone to heresy.

Any merely human organization with such members would have collapsed early on. The Catholic Church is today the most vigorous church in the world (and the largest, with a billion members: one sixth of the human race), and that is testimony not to the cleverness of the Church’s leaders, but to the protection of the Holy Spirit.

[HarleyD]

I disagree with your interpretation. Who is the head of the church in which to get the oral instruction, Paul or Peter?

You are also forgetting Acts 17:10-11 and the church of Berea.

"The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so."

They did not rely upon what Paul and Silas were saying but verified their message with the scriptures. In fact Paul even says,

"But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!" Gal 1:6.

At the Mount of Transfiguration when Moses (who represented the Law) and Elijah (who represented the prophets-or representatives who God spoke through) appeared God the Father himself spoke and said, "This is my beloved son. Listen to Him."

You would say the way we listen to Him is through the Pope. I would say the way we listen to Him is through His Word.

[SoliDeoGloria]

** Therefore, since that same Most Holy Spirit works in me today, I can be trusted to interpret those scriptures! ** - me

** And those who don't interpret the scriptures the same way as you therefore do not have the Most Holy Spirit working in them? ** - Titanites

Such would be the logical conclusion if I thought I could interpret scripture infallibly. Protestants have never denied their sin and it's effect on their ability to interpret. We fully recognize our ability to not heed the Holy Spirit but to "go our own way". That is one of the reasons why we state that all are subject to the supreme judge of scripture. Only the scriptures are inerrant and infallible.

Please Note: We protestants do not reject the authority of the church, creeds and councils, our parents, our elders, etc. Rather, we acknowledge the supreme authority of scripture as given by God:

Westminster Confession, Ch 1. Paragraph X: "The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture."

[IGNATIUS]

Thousands of Christians were martyred in early centuries before we had a NT.Which books made the cut was based upon compatibility with Oral Tradition.Men (albeit inspired by the Holy Spirit) studied these books and decided---ie the Canon didn't hop off the floor onto a table all by itself.

So, how were those early martyrs converted? We're talking about men and women who'd not even pay perfunctory tribute to Caesar in order to avoid being sliced apart,burned alive, or eaten by beasts.Many couldn't read,no bible bookstores around the corner,no printing press for 1200 years,and the Canon not yet determined.

These Martyrs were converted to belief in God the Son via word of mouth-- ie Oral Tradition --which preceeded and guided the selection of our NT.

[SoliDeoGloria]

** They believe they are "Universal" Church, and that you are the "Schism". ** - me

** "They" can believe whatever they choose, that doesn't make them right. ** - NYer

My point still hasn't been taken. You just gave a post expounding the praises of the Catholic Church. Do you think they would say anything differently? You have not, however, established that your Roman Catholic Church is the true Church. They also trace their Papal lineage from Peter all the way to Pope Pius XIII. Can you prove that they are not the true Church you have so described? They have at least gone the extra step to prove that your church isn't the true Roman Catholic Church.

The closest You have come is to say they are not "Universal", but what do you mean by that? If you speak Geographically, neither they nor your Church exist on Mars, and thus neither can be said to be Universal. If you simply mean "all over the world", then they as well claim such a distinction. If by Universal you mean "including every true Christian", then I appreciate your protestant use of the term, but respectively point out that "truecatholic.org" also believes it is Universal in the notion described.

[Gamecock]

Please remove the snake-handling, poison drinking beam from your 'reformed' eye

Moosey, you are a snake handler?

[Gamecock]

Protestants have changed teachings

And the teachings of the RC church are the same as thet were 500 years ago?

Don't make me laugh!

[Gamecock]

The one founded by Christ and has a visible leader on earth..His vicar JP II

I guess that all depends on which sectlet of the Catholic church you are a member of...

[SoliDeoGloria]

* The Catholic Church has existed for nearly 2,000 years, despite constant opposition from the world. This is testimony to the Church’s divine origin. *

By your logic, I assume Hinduism, Judaism, Taoism, and other such ancient religions also have both divine origin and are currently divinely inspired?

BTW. You still haven't presented a logical argument detailing how your church is the one "that has existed for nearly 2,000 years". How does one go about proving historicity in a manner that can not be equally applicable to the "truecatholic.org" Church? I'm looking forward to your response...

[NYer]

Who is the head of the church in which to get the oral instruction, Paul or Peter?

Peter

There is ample evidence in the New Testament that Peter was first in authority among the apostles. Whenever they were named, Peter headed the list (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13); sometimes the apostles were referred to as "Peter and those who were with him" (Luke 9:32). Peter was the one who generally spoke for the apostles (Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69), and he figured in many of the most dramatic scenes (Matt. 14:28-32, Matt. 17:24-27, Mark 10:23-28). On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the crowds (Acts 2:14-40), and he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7). It is Peter’s faith that will strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32) and Peter is given Christ’s flock to shepherd (John 21:17). An angel was sent to announce the resurrection to Peter (Mark 16:7), and the risen Christ first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34). He headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26), and he received the first converts (Acts 2:41). He inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23). He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11). It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48).

You are also forgetting Acts 17:10-11 and the church of Berea.

I am forgetting nothing. It is you who have chosen to stubbornly ignore the scriptures you embrace.

When he first saw Simon, "Jesus looked at him, and said, ‘So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas (which means Peter)’" (John 1:42). The word Cephas is merely the transliteration of the Aramaic Kepha into Greek. Later, after Peter and the other disciples had been with Christ for some time, they went to Caesarea Philippi, where Peter made his profession of faith: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16:16). Jesus told him that this truth was specially revealed to him, and then he solemnly reiterated: "And I tell you, you are Peter" (Matt. 16:18). To this was added the promise that the Church would be founded, in some way, on Peter (Matt. 16:18).

Then two important things were told the apostle. "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 16:19). Here Peter was singled out for the authority that provides for the forgiveness of sins and the making of disciplinary rules. Later the apostles as a whole would be given similar power [Matt.18:18], but here Peter received it in a special sense.

Peter alone was promised something else also: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 16:19). In ancient times, keys were the hallmark of authority. A walled city might have one great gate; and that gate had one great lock, worked by one great key. To be given the key to the city—an honor that exists even today, though its import is lost—meant to be given free access to and authority over the city. The city to which Peter was given the keys was the heavenly city itself. This symbolism for authority is used elsewhere in the Bible (Is. 22:22, Rev. 1:18).

Finally, after the resurrection, Jesus appeared to his disciples and asked Peter three times, "Do you love me?" (John 21:15-17). In repentance for his threefold denial, Peter gave a threefold affirmation of love. Then Christ, the Good Shepherd (John 10:11, 14), gave Peter the authority he earlier had promised: "Feed my sheep" (John 21:17). This specifically included the other apostles, since Jesus asked Peter, "Do you love me more than these?" (John 21:15), the word "these" referring to the other apostles who were present (John 21:2). Thus was completed the prediction made just before Jesus and his followers went for the last time to the Mount of Olives.

Immediately before his denials were predicted, Peter was told, "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again [after the denials], strengthen your brethren" (Luke 22:31-32). It was Peter who Christ prayed would have faith that would not fail and that would be a guide for the others; and his prayer, being perfectly efficacious, was sure to be fulfilled.

Paul appeared on the scene after the death and resurrection of our Lord.