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 ... 261-280, 281-300, 301-320 ... 1,081-1,086 next last
To: NYer
It's more like
"Protecting Gods Word From Religions That Want to Usurp Its Authority". A few that come to mind are:
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons)
Seventh Day Adventists
Jehovah's Witnesses
Christian Scientists
The Unity School of Christianity
The Way International
The Church of Scientology
Unification Church
The Family (Children of God)
Christian Identity Movement
United Pentecostal Church
International Church of Christ
In reality, all those so-called Christian organizations have this one thing in common, they presume to be in authority over the sacred Scriptures rather than being in submission to God's word. Roman Catholicism is guilty of this same kind of behavior, though they hold to nearly all of the main tenets of the historical Christian faith and claim to be subject to Scripture. But, by asserting the Christian faith is like a three-legged stool with the Bible being equal in authority to "Tradition" (whatever they say it is) and the Magesterium (hierarchy of leadership) with the Bible saying what they say it does, they are no different than other false religions and cults that, in practice, do the same thing. It is ludicrous to assert Bible Christians are a danger to God's word seeing as they are truly the ones who recognize the Christian's responsibility to obey and submit to God and His sacred word and to test every doctrine BY Scripture. That IS what the early church did and they are our example of faithfulness.
281
posted on
10/04/2014 11:48:06 PM PDT
by
boatbums
(God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
To: SampleMan; ifinnegan
If you ask me to pray for you, is it my body that does it or my soul? If you ask me to pray for you, how does my soul get the message? Does it not go through my body?
Since when do humans have the ability to have direct soul to soul contact?
My communication with any other person on this planet is through the five senses of my body.
Not one person on this planet has the ability to communicate with another human being without going through that means.
We communicate with God, who is spirit, through our spirit, not because of our ability to communicate with another's soul or spirit but because of His.
282
posted on
10/05/2014 12:39:52 AM PDT
by
metmom
(...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
To: SampleMan; Rides_A_Red_Horse
rarh:
Some Pagans traditionally cut themselves as an act of mourning. Will you copy this as well?SM: Not forbidden, so nothing wrong with it, right?
Wrong.
Leviticus 19:28 You shall not make any cuts on your body for the dead or tattoo yourselves: I am the Lord.
Deuteronomy 14:1-2 You are the sons of the Lord your God. You shall not cut yourselves or make any baldness on your foreheads for the dead. For you are a people holy to the Lord your God, and the Lord has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.
283
posted on
10/05/2014 12:54:55 AM PDT
by
metmom
(...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
To: ronnietherocket3
The problem with purgatory is that it can’t contribute to the forgiveness of sins.
Suffering does not result in forgiveness because without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sin.
The shedding of blood is the ONLY means by which forgiveness is granted.
So at the very least, purgatory is useless, meaningless suffering.
284
posted on
10/05/2014 1:00:08 AM PDT
by
metmom
(...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
Comment #285 Removed by Moderator
To: boatbums
Yuk it up! At least you cannot pretend nobody has ever answered your questions.For the record hedging and bearing false witness technically are answers, they just are not legitimate answers.
286
posted on
10/05/2014 4:22:24 AM PDT
by
verga
(Conservative, leaning libertarian)
To: boatbums
It is polite to ping the person you are quoting, even if it is a secondary quote.
287
posted on
10/05/2014 4:25:20 AM PDT
by
verga
(Conservative, leaning libertarian)
To: boatbums; metmom
Exactly! We already know the question was asked dishonestly because if we said, yes, we would be called liars or poorly catechized. If we answered no, we would be told, See, we dont, case closed!. Some Catholics show a surprising lack of integrity and it comes out in how they speak to others.Incorrect. It was asked to see if ex-Catholics /anti-Catholics have integrity or are capable of telling the truth.
The answer is a resounding NO!
288
posted on
10/05/2014 4:28:43 AM PDT
by
verga
(Conservative, leaning libertarian)
To: metmom; SampleMan; Rides_A_Red_Horse
Wrong. Leviticus 19:28 You shall not make any cuts on your body for the dead or tattoo yourselves: I am the Lord.
Deuteronomy 14:1-2 You are the sons of the Lord your God. You shall not cut yourselves or make any baldness on your foreheads for the dead. For you are a people holy to the Lord your God, and the Lord has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.
aren't you one of the multitude of prots that constantly harangues about the law being fulfilled in Jesus? Don't you constantly bring up "It is finished... What is finished?" Blah, blah, blah, blather, blather, blather....
I almost feel bad having to throw your own error back at you, almost.
Please keep talking!
289
posted on
10/05/2014 4:51:27 AM PDT
by
verga
(Conservative, leaning libertarian)
To: metmom
The problem with purgatory is that it cant contribute to the forgiveness of sins. Suffering does not result in forgiveness because without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sin.
The shedding of blood is the ONLY means by which forgiveness is granted.
So at the very least, purgatory is useless, meaningless suffering.
I am pretty sure that David suffered: 2 Samuel 12:13 And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.
2 Samuel 12:14 Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die.
2 Samuel 12:15 And Nathan departed unto his house. And the LORD struck the child that Uriah's wife bare unto David, and it was very sick.
2 Samuel 12:16 David therefore besought God for the child; and David fasted, and went in, and lay all night upon the earth.
2 Samuel 12:17 And the elders of his house arose, and went to him, to raise him up from the earth: but he would not, neither did he eat bread with them.
2 Samuel 12:18 And it came to pass on the seventh day, that the child died. And the servants of David feared to tell him that the child was dead: for they said, Behold, while the child was yet alive, we spake unto him, and he would not hearken unto our voice: how will he then vex himself, if we tell him that the child is dead?
Please keep talking!
290
posted on
10/05/2014 4:56:26 AM PDT
by
verga
(Conservative, leaning libertarian)
To: Rides_A_Red_Horse; SampleMan; ifinnegan; metmom
What part of “unto the Lord thy God” do Catholics not understand?
291
posted on
10/05/2014 5:19:12 AM PDT
by
CynicalBear
(For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
To: editor-surveyor
You are twisting the word to meet your definitions. You said that our will has been replaced and can’t give scripture because it wasn’t. If you want to live by the Torah go ahead, but you can’t cherry pick which parts. To live by the Law of Moses is to live by works and that simply will lead to death. You also didn’t want to touch the command to sacrifice animals to stay in compliance with the Torah. So which is it are you cleansed by the blood of animals or by Christ? If you think you are sinless and obedient at all times then you are truly lost to darkness and I will dust off my feet and move on.
292
posted on
10/05/2014 5:39:30 AM PDT
by
mrobisr
To: verga
So what if David suffered?
It did not earn him forgiveness of sin.
Hebrews 9:22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.
293
posted on
10/05/2014 5:54:20 AM PDT
by
metmom
(...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
To: verga
>>No he referred to his writings as writings, that is what the Greek word scripture means.<<
Please show where the Greek word graphé is used in scripture to refer to anything other than the Holy Scriptures.
>>It was only after the Catholic Church ordered the canon that scripture came to mean the Bible.<<
And of course that was a word never before used and should fully be credited to the Catholic Church right?
Luke 4:17 and there was given over to him a roll (biblion) of Isaiah the prophet, and having unfolded the roll (biblion), he found the place where it hath been written:
Common mistake among Catholics and the illiterate.
294
posted on
10/05/2014 6:08:48 AM PDT
by
CynicalBear
(For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
To: SampleMan
Those posted online are the ones Catholics use and repeat.
295
posted on
10/05/2014 6:13:12 AM PDT
by
CynicalBear
(For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
To: SampleMan; ifinnegan
>>Interestingly, I dont believe in the vice versa.<<
So you deny when Catholics claim Mary talked to people on earth?
296
posted on
10/05/2014 6:16:57 AM PDT
by
CynicalBear
(For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
To: Elsie
>>They wanted to pray to him after death.<<
That had to be a vicious misinterpretation by the MSM.
297
posted on
10/05/2014 6:20:38 AM PDT
by
CynicalBear
(For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
To: BlueDragon
The Catholic Church came before the gospels. End of subject. Move on.
298
posted on
10/05/2014 6:22:25 AM PDT
by
NKP_Vet
To: vladimir998
>>I do - and thats why I am Catholic because the Catholic faith IS the Biblical position.<<
So would you please show the "Biblical" source for the assumption of Mary?
299
posted on
10/05/2014 6:45:10 AM PDT
by
CynicalBear
(For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
To: daniel1212
"Willy nilly" is not what we are dealing with, but why would you ever doubt that some Jews could modify a pagan practice in the light of Scripture and history?
I doubt Second Temple Jews were adopting Pagan practices, particularly after the Maccabean revolt. Your quote from Acts is a quote from Jeremiah. First Temple Jews did adopt Pagan practices frequently. Concerning Kabbalah, I know very little about it. Given my exposure to certain parts of Protestantism/Messianic [non]Judaism (and to a lesser extent certain parts of Catholicism), I am not going to base my view of it on the basis of a link on the internet.
Do you really want to follow Jewish tradition and some of the nonsense in the Babylonian Talmud, at least from some of what i read?
I strongly suggest you read Talmud commentaries prior to commenting on it. Perspicuity of Talmud is a very erroneous doctrine. However, if you are going to read it, start with Pirkei Avot (Wisdom of the Fathers). For example, Avot 1:10: "Smaayah and Avtalyon received from them. Shmaayah would say: Love work, Loath mastery over others, and avoid intimacy with the government." If only our dearly beloved president would follow that.
That is simply your problem not mine. That some Jews did what is not in Scripture after a surprisingly innovative period only testifies to spiritual declension, not orthodoxy. The problem that I mentioned as second was a claim of how do I know that purgatory dates back to the Apostles? Your quote establishes that it was in Jewish thought a century before the Apostles and not an innovation of the Catholic Church.
That is simply your problem not mine. That some Jews did what is not in Scripture after a surprisingly innovative period only testifies to spiritual declension, not orthodoxy.
Given Jesus' repeated interactions with the Pharisees and Pauls' statement that he had been a disciple of Gamaliel, I would expect to be able to find them giving an unqualified put down of all Pharisaic notions. The best anyone has been able to show to date is a put down of a specific tradition or two.
300
posted on
10/05/2014 6:57:27 AM PDT
by
ronnietherocket3
(Mary is understood by the heart, not study of scripture.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280, 281-300, 301-320 ... 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