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

[Salvation]

**Christ left a visible Church with marks to identify it.**

BTTT!

One
Holy
Catholic
Apostolic

[SoliDeoGloria]

Wow. I mean... Wow.

If this is how the RC Professors are explaining "Fundamentalism" to Catholics, no wonder there is a mass exodus to Protestant churches. Perhaps Kreeft's lack of knowledge concerning what Protestants actually believe is partly at fault (I assume it is a lack of knowledge rather than an intentional disingenuous attack). Indubitably, the first time a Catholic talks to a real "Bible Christian", they will be brought far back into the realm of realism. And, realizing the lack of verity in the protestant caricatures they were taught, they decide to listen and determine for themselves whether these "Fundamentalists" are really as idiotic as portrayed.

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

[Salvation]

Church Is Still Attracting Converts

[Barnacle]

I don't know what those photos are (and don't really care). The credentials are from the link you provided.

[drstevej]

It was three pictures of three relics: [1] milk from Mary; [2] The Holy Precipuce; [3] a baby tooth from Jesus with the link to the site. Each picture noted the location of the relic shown in the photo.

Not sure why it was pulled. You asked for documentation and I thought photos would be a good start.

I can understand that relics cause offense. They do offend me.

[NYer]

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

And what truth would that be?

[NYer]

*The Holy Precipuce*

What is this?

[drstevej]

Sorry, I misspelled it: holy prepuce

[GirlShortstop]

...the Catholic door is already swinging shut behind them.

This door... is it swinging shut after they've run away from said Christians BACK INTO the Church?

[drstevej]

Dream on.

[karenbarinka]

If it's merely the Pope's erroneous personal opinions, why does it make it into the latest Catechism? Check out #2267 which quotes from JP II's Evangelium Vitae about " the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity 'are very rare, if practically non-existent.'" The Catechism ignores the injustice of allowing a murderer to live while his victim rots in the ground and instead dithers about the murderer being allowed to redeem himself and about the only worry is to lock the murderer away to protect society -- nothing about justice at all.

I'm sorry to be such a bitch about this, but I really think that this confusion is seeping into other areas of the Church's teaching. The equation of the death penalty with abortion is allowing lots of lefties who, when criticized about being pro-abortion, retort that conservatives are pro-death penalty.

I also think that all this reflects a growing inability in the Magisterium to distinguish right from wrong on the most basic level. The same thinking that gets the Catechism to worry more about "the dignity of the human person" who's a murderer rather than with the victim he murdered, leads to that stupid Cardinal feeling more sorry for Saddam Hussein than for all the millions he tortured and murdered.

[NYer]

Here is Dr. Steve's source: Nate Larson - "In my present photographic work, I address the world of the paranormal as it emerges through both religious and secular cultures and use this as a base to explore the line between belief and skepticism."

That's about as solid a source as you will ever find. (sarcasm off)

[drstevej]

Do you deny the RC church displays relics of the prepuce and Mary's milk? Seems like you are playing a diversion game.

[DouglasKC]

An Admonition Against Relics

You'll find Calvin mentions the prepuce in his work above. But what's the point?

[NYer]

holy prepuce

The "holy foreskin"??? ROFL!!!!

Leave it to you Steve, to change the topic! This thread is entitled Fundamentalists and Catholics Whose Bible is it, anyway? - no mention of baby teeth or foreskins.

Still waiting for your response to my post #9.

[SoliDeoGloria]

**This article is too shallow and biased to be helpful.** - drstevej

** Maybe shallow for your educational and experiential levels. But for many, just digging into this subject, the article brings forth some valid points. ** - Salvation

Truth is helpful. The junk posted above is laughable, and highly misleading. Skipping over the character attacks in the first part, I'll look to the beef of the article to point out some of his mistakes:

(1) "But fundamentalists are usually reluctant to emphasize or even admit the human side of the Bible's authorship." "They fail to see that it's an even greater miracle for God to have authored the Bible without effacing the human authors."

My Response: You will find loonies as so described in both protestant and Catholic churches, but the VAST majority in both never deny the human Biblical authors' distinctive qualities in their writings. This type of generalization of the few to the many is quite common in this article, and obviously meant to discredit the truth without having to actually address it.

(2) "Fundamentalists believe the Bible was inspired ..., 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."

Kreeft evidently does not understand plenary and verbal inspiration. One prominent Protestant work upholding these doctrines is "THE CHICAGO STATEMENT ON BIBLICAL INERRANCY" found at: http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/history/chicago.stm.txt

It clearly states the following:

**** Start of Quote
Article VII.

We affirm that inspiration was the work in which God by His Spirit, through human writers, gave us His Word. The origin of Scripture is divine. The mode of divine inspiration remains largely a mystery to us.

We deny that inspiration can be reduced to human insight, or to heightened states of consciousness of any kind.

Article VIII.

We affirm that God in His work of inspiration utilized the distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers whom He had chosen and prepared.

We deny that God, in causing these writers to use the very words that He chose, overrode their personalities.
**** End of Quote

Furthermore, Kreeft provides us with this Jewel:

"There were some minor errors in copying, for the earliest texts we have don't totally agree with each other"

I will address this separately as it deserves it's own discussion.

(3) "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."

Please. Most people should be readily aware that Protestants aren't jumping around yelling that the earth is flat, or that the sun circles the earth just because the Bible uses such descriptive language. Why would Kreeft be implying that "Fundamentalists" either haven't, can't, or don't deal with such trivial issues?

(4) ...

There is so much straw here, it's hard to know where to start. Let's try this way:

**The fundamentalist insists he needs no Church to interpret Scripture**

No, the fundamentalist insists that the Holy Spirit uses the Church to interpret and understand the Scriptures. The Church, however, is not the ultimate authority over scripture, but rather is judged by the very scripture it supports.

I will not go into any detail refuting his poor arguments, as my main point of this post is to show his misrepresentation of the Protestant beliefs.

(5) "Many Protestant denominations began in an authoritative fundamentalism and slid into. a most unauthoritative Modernism."

Yup. Modernism has had it's toll on many portions of the Roman Catholic church as well. It's an ugly beast that we both agree should be destroyed.

(6) "The weakest plank in the fundamentalist's platform is surely his insistence on a literal interpretation..."

The weakest plank in your article is your insistence that protestants believe this ridiculous stuff. It has already been shown that the hermeneutic employed by most Protestants is more complex than the simplistic form proposed by Kreeft, so I'll skip the explanation.

(7) "If we had half their passion for our great creed that they have for their small one, we could win the world."

I skipped over the rehash of the literal stuff and jumped straight to this whopper. I'm actually quite glad that Kreeft reduces Protestants to such imbecilic yet enthusiastic drones. It makes the conversion of Catholics to Protestantism such an easier task when they come in expecting simple-minded "Jesus-freaks", and actually find a deeply-rooted tradition of theology that focuses on exactly what we are supposed to: Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior.

Again, Thank you Kreeft for your help.

[NYer]

Do you deny the RC church displays relics of the prepuce and Mary's milk? Seems like you are playing a diversion game.

In all my years, I have NEVER heard of these relics and would question their authenticity. Diversion? Seems that's your game. Relics have NOTHING to do with this thread. Please answer my post #9. (I'm outta here for a while ... back later).

[karenbarinka]

What a strange, sarcastic answer. A cursory reading of the New Testament shows that it dismisses most of the Old Testament rules for daily living, including the archaic ones that you site.

I guess you didn't get my point. My problem is that the novelties of recent Catholic teaching about the death penalty are quite anti-Biblical, but sola scriptura pastors have no problem preaching sermons supporting capital punishment with the Bible.

[drstevej]

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

My earlier point was that the article caricatures fundamentalism (e.g. "literal view odf scripture"). It is a sloppy article at best or deliberately deceptive at worst.

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