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 ... 581-600, 601-620, 621-640 ... 1,081-1,086 next last
To: metmom
Only an attempt to disrupt the thread and get it locked. The same tactic has been used by the same poster on previous threads.
601
posted on
10/06/2014 5:26:44 AM PDT
by
CynicalBear
(For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
To: CynicalBear
They always try to use that argument off their catholic“canned” script..... one old and worn out.
Now this is praying with, for, and to God... "In every situation, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests TO GOD." Philippians 4:6
This is 'something else' entirely
602
posted on
10/06/2014 5:29:19 AM PDT
by
caww
To: SampleMan
Well, just show us the teaching by the apostles or examples of them communicating with the departed.
603
posted on
10/06/2014 5:30:34 AM PDT
by
CynicalBear
(For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
To: SampleMan; CynicalBear
Certainly open to interpretation. One such would be that the Old Covenant was over, and the teachings of Moses and Elijah ignored, henceforth. That would be a more logical explanation than yours than yours, although I don't think either one totally defines the episode. I have to disagree with that. Jesus said that until heaven and earth pass away, not the least letter of the Law will pass away.
God's law defines who He is and points to Christ.
Sin is still sin. How it's dealt with has changed and since the perfect sacrifice of Jesus, who the law was foreshadowing, has come, there is no reason for the sacrifices that foreshadowed Him to continue because the blood of bulls and goats could not take away sin.
So we are no longer obligated to live under the old covenant in that regard, but the moral laws have not changed and are not optional. They cannot be ignored.
604
posted on
10/06/2014 5:35:43 AM PDT
by
metmom
(...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
To: caww
Is it any wonder why many unbelievers see no difference between pagans and those self proclaimed Christians?
605
posted on
10/06/2014 5:36:36 AM PDT
by
CynicalBear
(For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
Comment #606 Removed by Moderator
To: metmom
Because all of Mary’s virtue comes from a full embodiment of her humanity which is a gift from God.
Regardless of what translation of Luke 1:28 one chooses... whether one sees her as ‘highly favored’ or ‘made graceful’ her yes to God embraces her humanity and her creation in the image and likeness of God.
That is why she is venerated... Catholic’s love for Mary is rooted in the fact that she is the Mother of Jesus and she embraced her role to do the Father’s will.
In so doing... she embraced acting in the image and likeness of God in a greater way than anyone who is not part of the Trinity.
607
posted on
10/06/2014 6:53:26 AM PDT
by
rwilson99
(Please tell me how the words "shall not perish and have everlasting life" would NOT apply to Mary.)
Comment #608 Removed by Moderator
To: rwilson99
And yet Jesus says that among those born of women, there is none greater than John the Baptist.
Lots of people embrace their role to do God’s will. However, that specific one is taken, but that doesn’t mean that anyone else’s is less honorable.
It’s not the job we have to do that is important, but HOW we do it. Our obedience in doing what is our lot is what’s important to God, not the particular job God has for us to do.
It’s HIS determination who does what. It’s ours how we do it.
609
posted on
10/06/2014 7:27:55 AM PDT
by
metmom
(...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
To: metmom
I have to disagree with that. Jesus said that until heaven and earth pass away, not the least letter of the Law will pass away. As Jesus was not predisposed to stone sinners, and had shown a willingness to bend the law on the Sabbath, I would have to conclude that there were conflicts between Jewish law, and God's Law, and He was referrencing God's Law. Look at His answer concerning divorce, when He flat out stated that the law as laid down by Moses was wrong.
So we are no longer obligated to live under the old covenant in that regard, but the moral laws have not changed and are not optional. They cannot be ignored.
I fully agree. The trick is to devine the difference between God's Law and what I see as old Jewish tribal custom/law. Thus, when there is a conflict, I look to the New Testament first.
610
posted on
10/06/2014 7:32:57 AM PDT
by
SampleMan
(Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
To: metmom
I would love for you to consider John the Baptist.
For in Luke Chapter 7, there is no greater PROPHET than John the Baptist according to the KJV, and the context of Jesus’ statement indicates that his statement is reflecting on John the Baptist role as prophet.
John the Baptist’s prophecy starts very young, For in Luke 1:28 he leaps for joy in the presence of Mary because of the presence of Christ.
We Catholics are simply joining him in his leap of joy when we echo his actions and his mother’s words in veneration of the mother of our Lord.
611
posted on
10/06/2014 7:51:15 AM PDT
by
rwilson99
(Please tell me how the words "shall not perish and have everlasting life" would NOT apply to Mary.)
To: dsc; All
Are you saying that if one reads the minds of a group of FR posters that is acceptable?
Yes.
Are you saying that I may not say, FR Poster X is motivated by Satanic malice, but I may say, FR Posters L through P are motivated by Satanic malice?
Saying "FR Poster X is motivated by Satanic malice" is mind reading and attributing motive - it is "making it personal" and the post would be removed.
Saying "FR Posters L through P are motivated by Satanic malice" would also be "making it personal" because posters L and P are specifically identified.
Guidelines concerning Hatred on the Religion Forum:
Certain sources have been determined to monger hatred of persons and are forbidden. Sources that link to those sources are also forbidden. These include Jack Chick, Jesus-is-Lord.com, Jesus-is-Savior.com, BibleBelievers.com, Vdare, KKK, Aryan Nations, National Alliance, Christian Identity, the false Jesuit Oath, the false Oath of the Knights of Columbus, fatimamovement.com, anti-Semitic sources, The Masonic Plan For The Destruction Of The Catholic Church. For example, a post or article that merely mentions Chick will be pulled.
Also do not compare another Freeper to a Nazi or a Westboro member or an Islamic Fundamentalist. That's flame baiting and a personal attack and may affect your posting privileges.
It is within the bounds of open Religion Forum town square style debate for a Freeper to express his hatred of a belief. But such posts are never allowed on RF threads labeled prayer devotional caucus or ecumenical.
It is never within the bounds on the Religion Forum for a Freeper to express his hatred of people who hold a particular belief when any Freeper is part of the belief group.
For example:
It is ok to express hatred towards MormonISM on open Religion Forum threads. It is never ok to express hatred towards Mormons because some Freepers are Mormon.
It is ok to express hatred towards CatholicISM on open Religion Forum threads. It is never ok to express hatred towards Catholics because some Freepers are Catholic.
It is ok to express hatred towards ProtestantISM on open Religion Forum threads. It is never ok to express hatred towards Protestants because some Freepers are Protestant.
It is ok to express hatred towards SatanISM and Satanists both because no Freeper is Satanist.
To: RegulatorCountry
“No, I described the example provided by you as odious, dec. Do you see the distinction?”
That is a distinction without a difference, which makes a mockery of the very concept of rules.
What sort of person offers an “odious” example? What does it say about a person that the example he would choose would be “odious?”
This sort of “parsing” has allowed me to say things about some people that would have been quite insulting had they not been true, while your statement lacks even the saving grace of veracity.
Everybody knew what I was saying, and who I was saying it about, but it was still within the bounds of this nonsensical rule.
613
posted on
10/06/2014 7:59:39 AM PDT
by
dsc
(Any attempt to move a government to the left is a crime against humanity.)
To: Elsie
“Poor parsing on your part.”
Poor reading on your part.
“Haven’t encountered” is NOT the same as claiming ALL Catholics do such and such.”
I didn’t say “all Catholics.” When I said “Catholics disagree,” that implicitly excludes Catholics who do not disagree and Catholics whose status is unknown. Logic 101.
614
posted on
10/06/2014 8:03:01 AM PDT
by
dsc
(Any attempt to move a government to the left is a crime against humanity.)
To: Elsie
“Hold the snake by the HEAD; NOT the tail!”
You never saw anyone pop a snake’s head off by cracking it like a whip?
615
posted on
10/06/2014 8:04:22 AM PDT
by
dsc
(Any attempt to move a government to the left is a crime against humanity.)
To: dsc
Fine. Play Don Quixote with the RM all you want if you’re so inclined. I suspect it will well, but I also suspect there may be others on different forums encouraging you. If so, it won’t be the first instance of refusing to grasp forum rules in order to engender controversy.
To: RegulatorCountry
To: Elsie
“I read your stuff quite thoroughly...”
But your replies—not you, your replies—betray so little comprehension.
There. An insult whose only saving grace is that it is true, but which *should* pass muster, as it addresses your replies and not yourself.
618
posted on
10/06/2014 8:06:41 AM PDT
by
dsc
(Any attempt to move a government to the left is a crime against humanity.)
To: dsc; RegulatorCountry
RegulatorCountry's explanation of the Religion Forum guideline and it's purpose is correct.
One very important component of human discourse is discerning the intent, motivation, and even the character of those with whom one communicates.
Posters who focus on the messenger like this - rather than the message - should IGNORE "open" RF threads altogether. They are flame wars fixing to happen.
"Open" religious debate requires a higher, scholarly, arms length approach.
To: metmom
If the Catholics here did not say untrue, malicious, and downright despicable things about Protestantism and Protestants, these threads would not exist.
Your statement is false. Mine was true.
And actually, this thread in itself is an attack on Protestantism.
Even if that were true, which it isnt, it is within the rules because it addresses Protestantism and not any specific FR Protestant.
So maybe, as Ive said all along, it is FRs fang and claw protestant squad who have thin skin.
Well, truthfully, the maybe can be dropped without danger of wandering into error.
For all the claims of not *Prot bashing* that Catholics make, threads like this belie that claim.
Untrue, by forum rules. Untrue, on logical grounds. Just simply untrue. This article discusses history and theology, specifically the history of the abbreviation of the Holy Scripture by early Protestants several hundred years ago. It expresses disagreement with things that were done, but constitutes bashing in no way.
I believe that Luther and other early Protestants erred when they subtracted books from the Bible. If we apply the standard expressed your note, that would have to be seen as Prot bashing. But it is no such thing. It is a mild expression of a theological belief. And there we have it. The thin skins of the fang and claw squad will tolerate no expression of dissent, however civil, however mild.
If you think this article constitutes bashing, it is you who should be receiving the patronizing recommendations that you stay off open forums.
And if the word Prot is a slur, rather than just an abbreviation in this abbreviation-prone medium, why do you use it?
620
posted on
10/06/2014 8:48:50 AM PDT
by
dsc
(Any attempt to move a government to the left is a crime against humanity.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 581-600, 601-620, 621-640 ... 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