Skip to comments.
Protecting God’s Word From “Bible Christians”
Crisis Magazine ^
| October 3, 2014
| RICHARD BECKER
Posted on 10/03/2014 2:33:43 PM PDT by NYer
“Stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught,
either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.”
~ St. Paul to the Thessalonians
A former student of mine is thinking of becoming a Catholic, and she had a question for me. I dont understand the deuterocanonical books, she ventured. If the Catholic faith is supposed to be a fulfillment of the Jewish faith, why do Catholics accept those books and the Jews dont? Shed done her homework, and was troubled that the seven books and other writings of the deuterocanon had been preserved only in Greek instead of Hebrew like the rest of the Jewish scriptureswhich is part of the reason why they were classified, even by Catholics, as a second (deutero) canon.
My student went on. Im just struggling because there are a lot of references to those books in Church doctrine, but they arent considered inspired Scripture. Why did Luther feel those books needed to be taken out? she asked. And why are Protestants so against them?
The short answer sounds petty and mean, but its true nonetheless: Luther jettisoned those extra Old Testament booksTobit, Sirach, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and the likebecause they were inconvenient. The Apocrypha (or, false writings), as they came to be known, supported pesky Catholic doctrines that Luther and other reformers wanted to suppresspraying for the dead, for instance, and the intercession of the saints. Heres John Calvin on the subject:
Add to this, that they provide themselves with new supports when they give full authority to the Apocryphal books. Out of the second of the Maccabees they will prove Purgatory and the worship of saints; out of Tobit satisfactions, exorcisms, and what not. From Ecclesiasticus they will borrow not a little. For from whence could they better draw their dregs?
However, the deuterocanonical literature was (and is) prominent in the liturgy and very familiar to that first generation of Protestant converts, so Luther and company couldnt very well ignore it altogether. Consequently, those seven apocryphal books, along with the Greek portions of Esther and Daniel, were relegated to an appendix in early Protestant translations of the Bible.
Eventually, in the nineteenth century sometime, many Protestant Bible publishers starting dropping the appendix altogether, and the modern translations used by most evangelicals today dont even reference the Apocrypha at all. Thus, the myth is perpetuated that nefarious popes and bishops have gotten away with brazenly foisting a bunch of bogus scripture on the ignorant Catholic masses.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
To begin with, it was Luther and Calvin and the other reformers who did all the foisting. The Old Testament that Christians had been using for 1,500 years had always included the so-called Apocrypha, and there was never a question as to its canonicity. Thus, by selectively editing and streamlining their own versions of the Bible according to their sectarian biases (including, in Luthers case, both Testaments, Old and New), the reformers engaged in a theological con game. To make matters worse, they covered their tracks by pointing fingers at the Catholic Church for adding phony texts to the closed canon of Hebrew Sacred Writ.
In this sense, the reformers were anticipating what I call the Twain-Jefferson approach to canonical revisionism. It involves two simple steps.
- Step one: Identify the parts of Scripture that you find especially onerous or troublesome. Generally, these will be straightforward biblical references that dont quite square with the doctrine one is championing or the practices one has already embraced. Mark Twain is the modern herald of this half of creative textual reconstruction: It aint those parts of the Bible that I cant understand that bother me, Twain wrote, it is the parts that I do understand.
- Step two: Yank the vexing parts out. Its what Thomas Jefferson literally did when he took his own Bible and cut out the passages he found offensivea kind of scripture by subtraction in the words of religion professor Stephen Prothero.
The reformers justified their Twain-Jefferson humbug by pointing to the canon of scriptures in use by European Jews during that time, and it did not include those extra Catholic bookscase closed! Still unconvinced? Todays defenders of the reformers biblical reshaping will then proceed to throw around historical precedent and references to the first-century Council of Jamnia, but its all really smoke and mirrors.
The fact is that the first-century Jewish canon was pretty mutable and there was no universal definitive list of sacred texts. On the other hand, it is indisputable that the version being used by Jesus and the Apostles during that time was the Septuagintthe Greek version of the Hebrew scriptures that included Luthers rejected apocryphal books. SCORE: Deuterocanon 1; Twain-Jefferson Revisionism 0.
But this is all beside the point. Its like an argument about creationism vs. evolution that gets funneled in the direction of whether dinosaurs couldve been on board Noahs Ark. Once youre arguing about that, youre no longer arguing about the bigger issue of the historicity of those early chapters in Genesis. The parallel red herring here is arguing over the content of the Christian Old Testament canon instead of considering the nature of authority itself and how its supposed to work in the Church, especially with regards to the Bible.
I mean, even if we can settle what the canon should include, we dont have the autographs (original documents) from any biblical books anyway. While we affirm the Churchs teaching that all Scripture is inspired and teaches solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (DV 11), there are no absolutes when it comes to the precise content of the Bible.
Can there be any doubt that this is by Gods design? Without the autographs, we are much less tempted to worship a static book instead of the One it reveals to us. Even so, its true that we are still encouraged to venerate the Scriptures, but we worship the incarnate Wordand we ought not confuse the two. John the Baptist said as much when he painstakingly distinguished between himself, the announcer, and the actual Christ he was announcing. The Catechism, quoting St. Bernard, offers a further helpful distinction:
The Christian faith is not a religion of the book. Christianity is the religion of the Word of God, a word which is not a written and mute word, but the Word is incarnate and living.
Anyway, with regards to authority and the canon of Scripture, Mark Shea couldnt have put it more succinctly than his recent response to a request for a summary of why the deuterocanon should be included in the Bible:
Because the Church in union with Peter, the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15) granted authority by Christ to loose and bind (Matthew 16:19), says they should be.
Right. The Church says so, and thats good enough.
For its the Church who gives us the Scriptures. Its the Church who preserves the Scriptures and tells us to turn to them. Its the Church who bathes us in the Scriptures with the liturgy, day in and day out, constantly watering our souls with Gods Word. Isnt it a bit bizarre to be challenging the Church with regards to which Scriptures shes feeding us with? No, mother, the infant cries, not breast milk! I want Ovaltine! Better yet, how about some Sprite!
Think of it this way. My daughter Margaret and I share an intense devotion to Betty Smiths remarkable novel, A Tree Grows in Brooklyn. Its a bittersweet family tale of impoverishment, tragedy, and perseverance, and we often remark how curious it is that Smiths epic story receives so little attention.
I was rooting around the sale shelf at the public library one day, and I happened upon a paperback with the name Betty Smith on the spine. I took a closer look: Joy in the Morning, a 1963 novel of romance and the struggles of newlyweds, and it was indeed by the same Smith of Tree fame. I snatched it up for Meg.
The other day, Meg thanked me for the book, and asked me to be on the lookout for others by Smith. It wasnt nearly as good as Tree, she said, and I dont expect any of her others to be as good. But I want to read everything she wrote because Tree was so wonderful.
See, she wants to get to know Betty Smith because of what she encountered in A Tree Grows in Brooklyn. And all we have are her books and other writings; Betty Smith herself is gone.
But Jesus isnt like that. We have the book, yes, but we have more. We still have the Word himself.
TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Evangelical Christian; Theology
KEYWORDS: apocrypha; bible; calvin; christians; herewegoagain; luther
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140, 141-160, 161-180 ... 1,081-1,086 next last
To: CynicalBear; boatbums; ifinnegan; metmom
Should we determine by their actions or by their words? Well we have two people that have made the claim that they were Catholic at one time, let's ask them. Metmom and Boatbums; Have either of you two eve worshiped Mary as God or even god, have you ever believed her to be divine? Simple yes or no will suffice.
141
posted on
10/04/2014 4:38:53 PM PDT
by
verga
(Conservative, leaning libertarian)
To: annalex; HarleyD
Hippo and Carthage were provincial councils. They did not have ecumenical authority. They contradict the Council of Trent on the Septuagint version of 1 Esdras, not to mention Jerome, Rufinus, Pope Gregory the Great, Cardinal Cajetan (Luther's opponent) and others, who wrote AFTER those councils. The Canon was not officially established for the Roman Church until the Council of Trent.
Cordially,
142
posted on
10/04/2014 4:44:01 PM PDT
by
Diamond
(He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people,)
To: verga; RegulatorCountry
And of course the ever popular: "Roma locuta est, causa finita est." -St Augustine Roughly translated: Rome has spoken, it is settled. No doubt St. Augustine would NOT recognize what calls itself the Roman Catholic church today.
143
posted on
10/04/2014 4:44:22 PM PDT
by
boatbums
(God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
To: boatbums
Learning to read and understand the written matter.
The short answer sounds petty and mean, but its true nonetheless: Luther jettisoned those extra Old Testament booksTobit, Sirach, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and the likebecause they were inconvenient.
So that is the short answer. Of course we all know that reformation was a rather slow process of decay. So here's the long answer:
However, the deuterocanonical literature was (and is) prominent in the liturgy and very familiar to that first generation of Protestant converts, so Luther and company couldnt very well ignore it altogether. Consequently, those seven apocryphal books, along with the Greek portions of Esther and Daniel, were relegated to an appendix in early Protestant translations of the Bible. Eventually, in the nineteenth century sometime, many Protestant Bible publishers starting dropping the appendix altogether, and the modern translations used by most evangelicals today dont even reference the Apocrypha at all.
The phrase "Luther jettisoned them" by itself might be misunderstood by some five-year-old as if Luther personally went and ripped pages out of Bibles. But literate people tend to read in complete paragraphs and tend to understand phrases in context.
144
posted on
10/04/2014 4:44:26 PM PDT
by
annalex
(fear them not)
Comment #145 Removed by Moderator
To: boatbums
Funny stuff, you need to get your own show.
146
posted on
10/04/2014 4:48:10 PM PDT
by
verga
(Conservative, leaning libertarian)
To: editor-surveyor
Outside of the fact that I will never set foot in the state of Californcation: In what sense are they using the prefix "Co"?
As a student of languages you do know that there are at least three meaning for it.
147
posted on
10/04/2014 4:50:58 PM PDT
by
verga
(Conservative, leaning libertarian)
To: annalex; HarleyD
“So it cannot be true that “the early Christian fathers declared them inspiration but not on the same level as scripture”.”
The question was if they should be acceptable for determining doctrine. If not, then they fall short of what the Apostle Paul called scripture. And even the Council of Trent refused to decide if the Apocrypha met that standard:
From Jedin:
This question was not only a matter of controversy between Catholics and Protestants: it was also the subject of a lively discussion even between Catholic theologians. St Jerome, that great authority in all scriptural questions, had accepted the Jewish canon of the Old Testament. Thc books of Judith, Esther, Tobias, Machabees, Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, which the majority of the Fathers, on the authority of the Septuagint, treated as canonical, Jerome described as apocryphal, that is, as not included in the canon though suitable for the edification of the faithful
The general of the Franciscans Observant, Calvus, dealt thoroughly with the problems raised by Cajetan in a tract drawn up for the purposes of the Counci1. He defended the wider canon, and in particular the canonicity of the book of Baruch, the story of Susanna, that of Bel and the dragon, and the canticle of the three children (Benedicite). On the other hand, he refused to accept the oft-quoted Apostolic Canons as authoritative for the canonicity of the third book of Machabees. The general of the Augustinians, Seripando, on the contrary, was in sympathy with Erasmus and Cajetan and sought to harmonise their views with the Florentine decree on the ground that the protocanonical books of the Old Testament, as “canonical and authentic”, belong the the canon fidei, while the deuterocanonical ones, as “canonical and ecclesiastical books”, belong to the canon morum. Seripando, accordingly, follows the tendency which had made itself felt elsewhere also in pre-Tridentine Catholic theology, which was not to withhold the epithet “canonical” from the deuterocanonical books, yet to use it with certain restrictions.
The tracts of the two generals of Orders show that opinions diverged widely even within the Council. The prestige of the Augustinian general and that of the Bishop of Fano who sided with him, may have prompted Cervini to discuss the whole complex question in his class. It became evident that no one supported the subtle distinction between a canon fidei and a canon morum, though it met with a somewhat more favourable reception in the general congregation of 12 February when several of the Fathers deemed it useful, though not necessary. The majority agreed with the opinion of the general of the Servites, that controverted theological questions, which had already been the subject of discussion between Augustine and Jerome, should not be decided by the Council but should be allowed to remain open questions. The result of the above-mentioned vote of the general congregation of 15 February committed the Council to the wider canon, but inasmuch as it abstained from a theological discussion, the question of differences between books within the canon was left as it had been. History of the Council of Trent, pgs 56-57
Found here:
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2008/02/semi-authoritative-catholic-canon.html
So you see, the Roman Catholic Church has never authoritatively said the Apocrypha is acceptable for determining doctrine.
To: boatbums
Recognize it, he would be doing backflips over how large it has grown and what a great job that it has done of keeping the Gospel safe. On the other hand he would be terribly saddened by the fact that so many that claim to be Christians are just posser heretics.
149
posted on
10/04/2014 4:56:30 PM PDT
by
verga
(Conservative, leaning libertarian)
To: narses
[6] Who will render to every man according to his deeds: Works, not faith is the key? Hmmmm..... No, because believers have the righteousness of Christ credited to their account so when God looks at them, being in Christ, He sees us as righteous as Christ. So the born again believer has no concern about doing works of the Law. They've been done for him and given him as a gift.
So we're judged not on our works but on Christ's perfect works credited to our account.
150
posted on
10/04/2014 4:57:19 PM PDT
by
metmom
(...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
To: verga; ifinnegan; boatbums
>>So now let me ask you do Catholics believe that Mary is God, or even god, do we worship her?<<
By their actions and prayers yes.
151
posted on
10/04/2014 4:58:22 PM PDT
by
CynicalBear
(For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
To: boatbums; BlueDragon
Prior to their rejection of Christ the Jews read the Septuagint, that is, the Deuterocanon as well as the Hebrew canon. For example, St. Paul writes:
because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by the faith which is in Christ Jesus. 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. (2 Timothy 3:15-17)
Observe: the Old Testament "can instruct thee to salvation" so long as it is seen through the eye of faith in Christ. How an adherent of Judaism reads the Holy Scripture and what part of it he likes or dislikes is useless information. Observe also: "all scripture" known to Timothy since his youth. Timothy was a native of Lystra and his father was Greek, a strong indication that his exposure to scripture was through Septuagint and therefore "all" in St. Paul's writing is a reference to the complete Catholic Canon, not to the Protestant redaction.
So that is the relevant part of the Jewish religion: one that lead to the conversion of Paul, Timothy and his parents, and very many others.
What the unconverted Jews did AFTER the rejection and murder of Christ is irrelevant completely; in fact if they did something after Christianity emerged as one true religion, we should probably do the opposite.
152
posted on
10/04/2014 5:00:43 PM PDT
by
annalex
(fear them not)
To: verga
You keep saying Catholics don’t give Mary worship due to God. Your statement leaves room to say Catholics due give worship to Mary. Just not what you give to God. In either case it is blasphemy.
To: St_Thomas_Aquinas; MayflowerMadam
>>So are you saying that God and the Holy Spirit dont dwell in The Church that Christ founded?<<
The ekklesia that Christ established is in no way shape or form the Catholic Church.
154
posted on
10/04/2014 5:02:23 PM PDT
by
CynicalBear
(For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
To: St_Thomas_Aquinas; MayflowerMadam; boatbums
So are you saying that God and the Holy Spirit dont dwell in The Church that Christ founded? The Holy Spirit indwells individual believers, not an organization.
If he wont listen to the church, treat him as a pagan or tax collector. Jesus
Taken totally out of context. It is not a statement giving blanket authority to the RCC. Or any church organization.
The church is the corporate body of Christ, existing where ever 2 or 3 are gathered in His name.
The point is that Jesus didnt hand out Bibles at Pentecost. The Bible has a history, beginning with the early Church, which wrote, preserved and canonized the Scriptures.
Baloney. Scripture originated with the Holy Spirit, not the Catholic church.
Ironically, Bible Alone Christians adhere to Luthers abridged version of the Scriptures. They trust the canon of Sacred Scripture to him.
Luther's canon was no different than the RCC canon until the Council of Trent, AFTER Luther translated the Bible, changed it.
And that has been posted time without count on this forum and apparently, there are those who are still to blind in their hatred of Luther to admit it.
155
posted on
10/04/2014 5:05:17 PM PDT
by
metmom
(...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
To: verga; boatbums
>>Do Catholics give her worship that is due to God alone?<<
Yes
156
posted on
10/04/2014 5:05:18 PM PDT
by
CynicalBear
(For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
To: editor-surveyor
157
posted on
10/04/2014 5:07:31 PM PDT
by
narses
( For the Son of man shall come ... and then will he render to every man according to his works.)
To: metmom
158
posted on
10/04/2014 5:07:47 PM PDT
by
narses
( For the Son of man shall come ... and then will he render to every man according to his works.)
To: CynicalBear
My soul magnifies the Lord,
And my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.
For He has regarded the low estate of His handmaiden,
For behold, henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
For He who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is His name. And His mercy is on those who fear Him from generation to generation.
He has shown strength with His arm:
He has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
He has put down the mighty from their thrones,
and exalted those of low degree.
He has filled the hungry with good things;
and the rich He has sent empty away.
He has helped His servant Israel, in remembrance of His mercy;
As He spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to His posterity forever.
Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit.
As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen
Magníficat ánima mea Dóminum,
et exsultávit spíritus meus
in Deo salvatóre meo,
quia respéxit humilitátem
ancíllæ suæ.
Ecce enim ex hoc beátam
me dicent omnes generatiónes,
quia fecit mihi magna,
qui potens est,
et sanctum nomen eius,
et misericórdia eius in progénies
et progénies timéntibus eum.
Fecit poténtiam in bráchio suo,
dispérsit supérbos mente cordis sui;
depósuit poténtes de sede
et exaltávit húmiles.
Esuriéntes implévit bonis
et dívites dimísit inánes.
Suscépit Ísrael púerum suum,
recordátus misericórdiæ,
sicut locútus est ad patres nostros,
Ábraham et sémini eius in sæcula.
Glória Patri et Fílio
et Spirítui Sancto.
Sicut erat in princípio,
et nunc et semper,
et in sæcula sæculórum.
Amen.
She became the Mother of God, in which work so many and such great good things are bestowed on her as pass man’s understanding. For on this there follows all honor, all blessedness, and her unique place in the whole of mankind, among which she has no equal, namely, that she had a child by the Father in heaven, and such a Child . . . Hence men have crowded all her glory into a single word, calling her the Mother of God . . . None can say of her nor announce to her greater things, even though he had as many tongues as the earth possesses flowers and blades of grass: the sky, stars; and the sea, grains of sand. It needs to be pondered in the heart what it means to be the Mother of God.
(Commentary on the Magnificat, 1521; in Luther’s Works, Pelikan et al, vol. 21, 326)
159
posted on
10/04/2014 5:08:11 PM PDT
by
narses
( For the Son of man shall come ... and then will he render to every man according to his works.)
To: CynicalBear; verga; boatbums
>>Do Catholics give her worship that is due to God alone?<<
Illiterates, idiots and liars claim that. They are wrong.
160
posted on
10/04/2014 5:08:53 PM PDT
by
narses
( For the Son of man shall come ... and then will he render to every man according to his works.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140, 141-160, 161-180 ... 1,081-1,086 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson