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 ... 441-460, 461-480, 481-500 ... 1,081-1,086 next last
To: verga
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
“Pointing out” something with an opinion about other posters as if it is a fact is personal and considered mindreading as you can not know another poster’s thoughts.
Please consider carefully the above points as mods don’t wish to spend anymore time removing your posts.
To: verga
See post 164.
No.
You see John 3:16 and John 19:30.
462
posted on
10/05/2014 4:22:52 PM PDT
by
Rides_A_Red_Horse
(Why do you need a fire extinguisher when you can call the fire department?)
To: boatbums
LOL! Catholics get confused with all that's going on in this world. Priest diddle little boys but they say others do it too. Women marry women. Men marry men. And girls become boys and vise versa. Catholics can't get divorced then remarried but they can get annulments which make it OK. Catholics can't take the Eucharist if you promote abortion unless you're important enough. It all causes great confusion.
463
posted on
10/05/2014 4:23:15 PM PDT
by
CynicalBear
(For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
To: verga; metmom
Do tell then. Just what did Jesus mean by *It is finished* if not the work of salvation for mankind? What was finished?
P>Please feel free to repost the ridiculous claims you made previously. I wouldn’t want to give you the chance to whine about cross posting.
see John 3:16 and John 19:30.
Why do I have the impression that the Catholics on FR are not so much interested in His Word and Truth but more obsessed with winning an argument at any cost?
464
posted on
10/05/2014 4:25:05 PM PDT
by
Rides_A_Red_Horse
(Why do you need a fire extinguisher when you can call the fire department?)
To: editor-surveyor
agitprop is their stock in trade.
465
posted on
10/05/2014 4:25:56 PM PDT
by
CynicalBear
(For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
To: Rides_A_Red_Horse
>> “Now answer this, what was Satans sin; in other words, why was Satan cast from Heaven?” <<
Contrary to popular confusion, Satan has not yet been cast out of heaven. That happens at the mid point of Daniel’s 70th week.
That event is likely to come soon, and when it does, you will see “Antichrist” stand on the Holy Place of the mercy seat of the Ark, and declare himself to be God.
Until then, he remains in the throne room accusing the believers.
.
466
posted on
10/05/2014 4:27:18 PM PDT
by
editor-surveyor
(Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
To: vladimir998; CynicalBear
If you cant show the apostles taught Matthews gospel is inspired and thus all Christian groups are accursed for believing it according to your claim just say so. Dont keep dancing around. Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't Matthew an APOSTLE??!!
467
posted on
10/05/2014 4:27:22 PM PDT
by
boatbums
(God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
To: editor-surveyor; vladimir998; CynicalBear
>> Do you deny the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John? <<
.
Vlad is just shoving standard catholic agitprop at us.
How odd to ignore such a simple question.
If you deny Him before man, He will deny you before God the Father. Just something to think about.
468
posted on
10/05/2014 4:27:41 PM PDT
by
Rides_A_Red_Horse
(Why do you need a fire extinguisher when you can call the fire department?)
To: metmom; St_Thomas_Aquinas; narses; caww; CynicalBear; mlizzy; verga; sasportas
God cares about what we DO more than what we SAY.
Matthew 21:28-32
What do you think? There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first and said, Son, go and work today in the vineyard.
I will not, he answered, but later he changed his mind and went.
Then the father went to the other son and said the same thing. He answered, I will, sir, but he did not go.
Which of the two did what his father wanted?
The first, they answered.
Jesus said to them, Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him.
469
posted on
10/05/2014 4:32:48 PM PDT
by
Rides_A_Red_Horse
(Why do you need a fire extinguisher when you can call the fire department?)
To: Rides_A_Red_Horse; ConservingFreedom; Unam Sanctam; x_plus_one; Patton@Bastogne; Oldeconomybuyer; ..
So you cannot answer “yes” you just spew examples that you know - if you actually were Catholic and taught as a Catholic is taught - are NOT examples of Godhood. Right?
470
posted on
10/05/2014 4:33:26 PM PDT
by
narses
( For the Son of man shall come ... and then will he render to every man according to his works.)
To: verga
471
posted on
10/05/2014 4:34:16 PM PDT
by
editor-surveyor
(Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
To: Rides_A_Red_Horse
>>Its like someone has prepared the most incredible feast and you bring along a pizza because thats great but its not enough to get the job done.<<
Great analogy.
472
posted on
10/05/2014 4:34:19 PM PDT
by
CynicalBear
(For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
To: Rides_A_Red_Horse; Religion Moderator
In the Religion forum, on a thread titled Protecting Gods Word From Bible Christians, Rides_A_Red_Horse wrote:
You sound EXACTLY like a CERTAIN SERPENT in a garden.
Seems a bit over the line, no?
473
posted on
10/05/2014 4:34:22 PM PDT
by
narses
( For the Son of man shall come ... and then will he render to every man according to his works.)
To: editor-surveyor
Good point. The non-temporal nature of God can make things a bit confusing at times.
474
posted on
10/05/2014 4:42:08 PM PDT
by
Rides_A_Red_Horse
(Why do you need a fire extinguisher when you can call the fire department?)
To: metmom
The whole discussion about cutting yourself for the dead began because someone with precious little knowledge of Scripture claimed that the Bible did not prohibit cutting oneself for the dead. I know, and when you showed where in Scripture God specifically forbid the practice, you were met with snarky challenges that showed an even worse understanding of God's word - as if Jesus' sacrifice on the cross made it okay for God's children to ignore everything He ever told us.
475
posted on
10/05/2014 4:42:23 PM PDT
by
boatbums
(God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
To: narses; Religion Moderator
Seems a bit over the line, no?
There you go again, Narses.
Initially you asked “Were you ever taught that Mary was God or even god? Were you ever taught that she was divine? Were you ever taught that she was due worship or taught to worship her?”
I replied “I already answered yes to all of your questions by giving examples.” Those examples are on this thread.
You said “Really? You claim the Church taught you Mary is God?”
A reasonable person might say that sounds an awful lot like Did God really say, You must not eat from any tree in the garden? It’s got that “Gotcha” tone to it.
Again, I said you ought to go back and read your questions and my answers. You’re behavior appears to be an attempt to set up word-snares and legalistic traps rather than to debate the merits of the subject.
476
posted on
10/05/2014 4:44:53 PM PDT
by
Rides_A_Red_Horse
(Why do you need a fire extinguisher when you can call the fire department?)
To: narses; Rides_A_Red_Horse; Religion Moderator
>> “Seems a bit over the line, no?” <<
.
No, definitely not. If it is accurate, how can it be over any line?
.
477
posted on
10/05/2014 4:46:12 PM PDT
by
editor-surveyor
(Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
To: metmom; verga
My Bible already has red in it.
You too? Imagine that!
478
posted on
10/05/2014 4:46:49 PM PDT
by
Rides_A_Red_Horse
(Why do you need a fire extinguisher when you can call the fire department?)
To: verga
Earth to verga...there IS no "Prot posse". And, even of there were, I can certainly speak about what is part of the CHRISTIAN faith without the approval of others.
It is surprising that you would call "ridiculous" the truth that when Jesus said, "It is finished.", he was speaking of making complete propitiation for the sins of the world. I've got plenty of Scripture to back that up if you don't believe it.
479
posted on
10/05/2014 4:50:52 PM PDT
by
boatbums
(God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
To: verga; metmom
It's not presumption when you have the proof already thrown at you countless times. Since you're showing all this concern about integrity, can you go ahead and demonstrate what you would have replied if the answer was simply "yes" or "no"?
The fact that you chose to ask a question that you certainly SHOULD have known was not a simple yes or no one, shows who is the one speaking volumes here? Gotcha questions are tricks of those who have an agenda and who really have no interest in honest answers.
480
posted on
10/05/2014 4:57:58 PM PDT
by
boatbums
(God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 441-460, 461-480, 481-500 ... 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