The following post is by
Michael Goodwin, a former evangelical Christian who went to college at Cedarville, a fundamentalist Christian college. He later came into union with the Catholic Church during his training to be a chaplain for the US Army. Here's Michael's post I found on facebook.
"The authority of the Bible is the topic often brought by those not in full communion with the Catholic Church.
The position usually is expressed like this:
"Jesus
gave us the Bible, which is God's utlimate and final authority for our
beliefs. Scripture is the only authority we need and any other
authority is just man made. I just believe what the Bible says and that
is sufficient for salvation."
Slow down a moment and let's
walk through this line of thought. Let's reflect on the undergirding
premise and also the results of this conviction.
First,
what is the bible? All Christians believe it is a collection of
writings that were brought about through God's inspiration. But if you
pick up a copy of a bible today, you likely have taken for granted the
table of contents or list of books provided for you. How do you know
which books God wanted included as the totality of His written Word?
Have you noticed that there is not one mention in any biblical text stating which books are to be included?
I
rememember when I was attending protestant seminary we began to learn
about the history of biblical translation and the different approaches
used in translating the texts from their original language. There was
the discussion on the difference between a formal equivalent translation
and a dynamic equivalent translation. (word for word vs. a thought for
thought approach) As the class went along one of our professors brought
up the idea that some translations more accurately represent the itent
of the original language. But, he said, "We need to be sure that by
explaining the history of translation we don't take the bible away from
anyone in the Church." This refrain was repeated on a number of
occasions. This was well-meaning advice. The professor was expressing
that we don't want to undermine a person's reliance on the Bible's
authority by sharing about the real messyness of translating the text
and the uneven history of the biblical canon.
Interestingly, the
history of the canon was not discussed in our classes in much detail.
We also were never given opportunity to read any writings that other
Christians (such as the Eastern Orthodox and Catholics) include in their
canon. I did not pick up on this then, but something was very
bothersome about this. Here's why:
The main argument offered by
the first protestants for how they conclude which books are to be a part
of the canon of Scripture was the concept of scriptural perpescuity.
That's a fancy word that conveys that the Scriptures are
discernable. With the guidance of the Holy
Spirit, Christians can understand and distinguish between what is
Scripture and what is not Scripture by carefully reading the text. So,
the idea is this: I could pick up a bible, turn to the book of Job read
it and then put the bible down and then pick up the text for
Shakespeare's Hamlet and after reading both, I would inherently know
that Job was God's Word and Hamlet came just from Shakespeare.
There's
a grand canyon size hole in the example I have given. The comparison
does not represent what must be distinguished. Judging between Hamlet
and Job is easy. The real test is can a Christian pick up a copy of the
text of Tobit, Wisdom, Sirach, Judith, etc. and carefully read them
and know with firm certainty that : "These writings were not of God's
guided inspiration and they should not be included in the canon."
Now,
come back to the guidance of my seminary professor. He urged us not to
'take the bible from those in our Churches." But, if there is even a
possibility that protestants removed seven books that were part of an
established canon, is that not what every protestant Church has
essentially done? Have they not taken part of the bible away from
Christians?!?!?!
What I find so shocking is what little matter of
consequence this seems to be to many people I attempt to talk with about
this. What I find also quite alarming is the amount of misplaced faith
that must occur in order to sustain confidence in the protestant
canon. Here is an outline of where I consider faith is misplaced:
- First,
there is for most an absolute blind faith placed in the table of
contents in the copy of the bible held by each protestant. They too
quickly assume that the list of books stated at the beginning of their
bible is God's irrefutable Truth.
- Second, faith is in a
reliance on the conviction that their local pastor must have carefully
studied to make sure that each book is from God and not merely a
compilation offered by the latest bible publishers.
- Finally,
there is misplaced faith in 'respected' bible scholars who can give you a
convenient list of "four ways that determine the canon of scripture."
There's
all this faith being thrown around and a mountain of assumptions that
have been built up over the last four centuries. Instead of all these
assumptions and blind faith, there is another possibility that could be
considered much more plausible. It is rejected outright because the
consequence of the conclusion would mean a radical change, humble
admittance of wrong, and submission to an authority outside their own
private judgement. The possibility avoided is that Christ's authority
and the totality of revelation perseveres in the successors of Christ's
apostles. If the Church's authority comes from Christ, then the
communion of bishops, with the successor of Peter maintains an office of
authority initiated by Christ at pentecost.
But, let's not get ahead of ourselves.
What's at stake...
What
is really at stake here is the foundational claim regarding the
authority of Scripture and how it relates to the Church. If it can be
reasonably discerned that the scriptures that protestants maintain have
excluded a part of God's revelation it undermines their entire claim
regarding authority. And also we also come to face a matter of enormous
gravity. If we believe the totality of God's Word is eternal, with not
one word to be discarded, then if protestants have discarded or
dismissed a part of this Word, then this is a serious matter and a great
offense.
Jesus' word is very forceful on this matter:
Matthew
5:17-18 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the
Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For
truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest
letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from
the Law until everything is accomplished."
So, should
it not be alarming if someone begins to propose the removal of some
books from the canon? Now, some protestants offer an argument in
reply. They argue that the protestant reformers went back and followed
the Hebrew Canon that were recognized by the first century Jewish
community. They argue that Catholics 'added' books to the bible at the
Council of Trent when the canon began to be questioned by the
reformers. They argue that the Catholics didn't finalize their list of
canonical books until after the protestants questioned them.
This
is a version of history that finds very little correlation with
reality. It's a version though that protestants enthusiastically accept
without questioning it because the alternative would likely have a
major consequence.
There's been a lot written in response to this
fantastical proposition, so I will just give brief summary. If you have
an open mind and would like to really examine what your underlying
assumptions are concerning the canon and who has the authority to
discern it, you can easily reply to this writing and ask to examine this
more.
1. Protestants follow the Hebrew Old Testament canon.
Reply:
First, the Jewish population in the first century A.D. was not the
monolithic body that this assertion would have you believe. There were
different sub-communities within the Jewish people. Some Jewish
communities had integrated into the greek culture that was around them,
even speaking the greek language. Some Jewish communities believed that
God only communicated His Word through the Hebrew language. The seven
books recognized by the Catholic and Orthodox, which protestants
exclude, were thought to be written mostly in Greek close to the 3rd
and 2nd century B.C.
This
was one of Luther's rationale for his decision to place this in a
section of his bible called the Apocrypha. There's a couple major
problems with this. One is that the same Jewish communities that were
excluding any Greek language writings in the Old Testament were also
excluding the ENTIRE new testament for the same reason. Remember, all
the apostles and most of the first Christians were FROM the Jewish
community. We have substantial record that Christians were using the OT
books (including the 7 that the Catholic Church maintians) to point
their fellow Jews to the messianic prophecies that Christ fulfilled.
The Jewish leaders at the time were looking for a way to dismiss the
Jewish Christians who were growing and evangelizing all the surrounding
communities to Christ. So, they decided to narrrow their canon down in
order to illegitimize the Christian movement. And yet this is one of
the main supports of authority that the protestants use for their
canon.
The other major problem is the discovery of the Dead Sea
Scrolls in 1952. Protestants often look to this discovery to support
the historicity and validity of the Scriptural texts. The Scripture
found at this site were the oldest ever discovered, dating back to the
first few centuries of the Church.
What protestants do not talk about is that many of the books rejected
by protestants were also discovered at this site. Another major
discovery was that some of the OT writings originally thought to only
have a greek language source were instead discovered to have writings
in Hebrew. So one of Luther's primary arguments, that he borrowed from
the first century A.D. Jewish community, falls apart.
2. Was the Catholic Canon not authoritative until the Council of Trent after the protestant reformation?
This
assertion is truly absurd. And it is still brought up by most
respected protestant bible scholars when confronted on the canon. If
protestants want to argue that the canon was not recognized until the
council of Trent then protestants need to show us that there was a
consensus in the early Church that recognized the canon that protestants
hold to today. This in no way can be done. In fact, the canon of
Scripture remained pretty unsettled until 394 A.D. when the Council of
Carthage met and they provided a list of books that the Church had come
to recognize as God's revelation. This council includes the books
rejected by protestants. Some protestants try to point to other
councils where some of the books were not included. But there is a
problem with this, there is not one council in recorded history that
excluded all the books. There is typically one or two held in
question. But the other problem is that at this same time, NT books
accepted today by all were put on that very same list of questionable
books. Such as "Esther, Jude, 2 Peter, James, and Revelation. This is
why Luther intially pushed to have these removed from the canon in his
German translation (in his first German edition of the NT, he puts these
NT books in the back as a separate section.) The fact is there was up
to 3 separate councils, occuring in different countries, within the
first thousand years of Christianity that accepted the Canon that
Catholics still maintain today. The council of Trent reasserted this
canon only when it was challenged by the protestant insurrection. And
this is something I learned right in my seminary classes as a
protestant: Doctrine is not strongly or authoritatively declared until
it is challenged. This was true for the doctrine of Christ's being
eternally begotten from the Father. This was not authoritatively
declared by the Church until about four hundred years after Christ
ascended to heaven. It was then that certain priests and bishops in
the Church began to question and then reject this teaching. And in
response, the doctrine was strongly declared (see the Niceene Creed).
When
protestants lay out their reasons for why books are included in
the canon, one of the criteria often cited is that the writing was
widely accepted and used by the earliest Chrsitians. Sadly, the
protestant canon does not meet this criteria. The books they exclude
were widely accepted and read aloud in the Churches. (see links below
for support of this.) There is a mountain of evidence that shows this.
And they continue to be widely read and accepted by the majority of
Christians throughout the world (over a billion Catholics and
Orthodox).
So, what does this all mean?
It
means that if protestants are wrong on the canon of Scripture, which is
one of the most fundamental Christian beliefs, the question deserves to
be asked: What else were they wrong on? If they could not properly
discern what should be included as part of God's Word, then is it
possible that they are wrongly interpreting the Scripture they do have?
Could it be possible that the early reformers' rejection of Church
authority had an influence on which books they 'decided' to recognize?
Is it possible that their judgement was clouded by a zealous bias
against the Catholic Church?
If their authority rests utlimately
on the Bible and their bible is not the entire bible then does this not
collapse their entire presupposition?
For Christians who place
the Scripture in such high regard, I would hope the canon of Scripture
would not be a trifling matter. My impression during seminary was that
the canon that protestants had been widely accepted since the earliest
days of Christianity. But this premise was never supported historically
by any writings in the early Church. So I was left to just take for
granted that the professors were being academically honest with regard
to the research of early Christian history and the canon that was widely
used then.
Most Christians today use as their rationale for their
acceptance of the protestant canon something similar to what mormons
use to accept the 'book of mormon' promulgated by Joseph Smith. When
you ask a mormon how they know that Smith's book should be recognized as
part of God's word they say,
"the Holy Spirit revealed it to my heart and gives affirmation to me that it is true." In honesty, I've heard the very same thing from many protestant friends and family I have tried to talk with about the Canon.
The
reason I believe there is such a avoidance of this issue is that the
alternative option would be to accept that the teaching of the Catholic
Church on the canon of Scripture is not relative position, but
an authoritative doctrine. And if the Catholic Church was preserved
from error in the preservation of God's Word, then would not Christ keep
the Church from error on all matters of doctrine and morals? For did
not Christ promise to not leave us as sheep without a Shepherd? How
does Christ Shepherd his Church today? Is it through a succession of
Bishops that Christ has maintained since his ascension? Or is a
Christian shepherd based on whether he is accepted by a majority of
Christians in a local community? Is a Christian shepherd one who is
most enthusiatic in saying that "I only teach the bible." (watch out,
Joel Osteen says that at the same time John Piper does.)
These men all say they preach the Bible. Really? The whole Bible?
2 Timothy 4:3-4
For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine.
Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a
great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.
They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.
Become
Catholic; where the canon of Scripture and the Truth does not change
when popular opinion and zealous teachers change. It's a wonderful
journey that I began just over a year ago and it continues today!
To look further:
You can start with a video I made-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VePj_o0lnU8&feature=g-upl
And one made by another:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjvXbotd9Lw&list=PLC56561E28A25F576&index=44&feature=plpp_video
And a good start for reading:
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/browse/Bible
http://www.defendingthebride.com/bb/deuterocanonical.html
(this provides extensive quotes from the early Church. Especially from
Jerome, who protestants claim firmly rejected the deuterocanonical
books.)
Subscribe in a reader
