A Catechism of The Bible

A CATECHISM OF THE BIBLE
By Rev. John O'Brien, M.A.

New York 1924
Revised and enlarged by
Fr. Jaime Pazat De Lys, F.S.S.P.X
St. Mary's, Kansas 1997
Copyright 1997, 2003. Jaime Pazat De Lys
Foreword
There is only one true God. He took flesh and became man only once. When man, He founded only one religion and one Church, the Roman Catholic
Religion and the Roman Catholic Church.
That Church is the divinely appointed guardian of the writings divinely inspired by God, known as the Bible. This Holy Bible is like no other book, because
no other book has God for its principal author.
Nevertheless the Bible is not the foundation of the Church, but the Church is the foundation of the Bible. That is why Catholics need Mother Church as the
guardian and interpreter of the Bible.
Alas, Protestants have sown much confusion in the domain of Bible translations and Bible Studies, and in our own time their errors have been renewed by
the pseudo-Catholics known as modernists.
With the simplicity and clarity of a Catholic Catechism, this "Catechism of the Bible" re-establishes the mind of the Catholic Church on many a vexed point.
May it help many Catholics graze safely in the divine pastures of Holy Scripture.
by Richard Williamson, Bishop
Winona, MN August 16th, 1997
Contents
Lesson 1. Bible Definitions
Lesson 2. Inspiration of the Bible
Lesson 3. Dates and Division of the Bible
Lesson 4. The Old Testament
Lesson 5. The New Testament
Lesson 6. The Canon of Sacred Scripture
Lesson 7. The Bible and Tradition
Lesson 8. The Languages of the Bible
Lesson 9. The Septuagint Version
Lesson 10. The Vulgate
Lesson 11. The Douay Bible
Lesson 12. The Bible and Science
Lesson 13. The Bible and History
Lesson 14. Interpreting the Bible
Lesson 15. Reading the Bible
Lesson 16. Differences between Catholic and Protestant versions
Lesson 17. Materials used in composing the Bible
Lesson 1:
Bible Definitions
1. What does the word "Bible" mean?
The word "Bible" means "book."
2. From what language is the word derived?
(Etymological definition)
From the Latin "Biblia," which in turn comes from the Greek.
3. Is the Greek word for what we call the "Bible" in the singular or in the plural?
In the plural, which means that it should be translated "the books".
4. Why did the Greeks use the plural form?
They used the plural form because the Bible is not one book but a collection of books.
5. Is the Latin word for what we call the Bible in the singular or in the plural?
It is in the singular and, therefore, should be translated "the book".
1
6. Why does the Latin use the singular form?
Because the Bible is the most important book there is, since it is the Word of God.
7. What does the Bible contain?
The Bible contains chiefly a history of God's Revelation to mankind.
8. What does the Bible give us in addition to the history of God's dealings with mankind?
In addition, the Bible gives us instructions in faith and morals.
9. Does the Bible give other instructions?
Certain books give detailed instructions for the carrying out of religious worship in the Old Law.
10. Did the Bible, as some seem to think, fall from heaven?
No; the Bible was written by man.
11. If the Bible was written by man, why do we say it is the written word of God?
Though written by man, we can truly say it is the written word of God, because it was written under the inspiration of God.
Lesson 2:
Inspiration Of The Bible
1. Must we believe in the inspiration of the Bible?
Yes, the inspiration of the Bible is an article of Faith which cannot be denied without sin.
2. What is meant by inspiration of the Bible?
Inspiration of the Bible means, in the first place, that those who wrote the Bible were impelled to do so by God.
3. What else is meant by inspiration of the Bible?
Principally that those who wrote the Bible were protected from error while writing what God impelled them to write.
4. Is there a special name for that protection of the writer from error?
Yes, it is called "biblical inerrancy." It means that there are no errors in the Bible.
5. What proof have we that the Bible is inspired?
The Catholic Church, which is infallible, teaches us so.
6. Does not the Church itself rely on the Bible for proofs of its infallibility?
Besides those found in the Bible, the Church has many other proofs for its infallibility.
7. What general proof have we for the inspiration of the Bible?
Besides many others, we have Our Lord's constant references to the Old Testament as the word of God, while the early Christian Church testifies to the
inspiration of the New Testament.
8. Are all the parts of the Bible inspired?
"For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy
Ghost ..." (Leo the XIII in Providentissimus Deus, E.B. 124, 127)
9. Does the inspiration apply to the originals only, or to the translations also?
Both: It applies absolutely to the originals, and to the translations insofar as they are faithful to the originals.
Lesson 3:
Dates And Division Of The Bible
1. When was the Bible written?
The Bible was written during a period covering more than 1500 years.
2. When was the first book written?
The exact date is not known, but it must have been some fifteen hundred years before Christ, since its author was Moses.
3. When was the last book written?
The last book was written about the year 93 A.D.
4. What period of time does the Bible, as a book of history, cover?
As a history, the Bible covers a period of many thousands of years.
2
5. Name the event with which the Bible, as a book of history, begins.
The creation of the universe.
6. What events bring the Bible, as a book of history, to a close?
The life of Christ and early spread of Christianity.
7. How is the Bible divided?
The Bible is divided into the Old and New Testaments.
8. Is the division into Old and New Testaments suitable?
It is, since the Old Testament deals with the span of time before Christ's first coming with the expectation for the future Savior, while the New Testament
treats of His life and work in this world, or the realization of that hope.
Lesson 4:
The Old Testament
1. How many books does the Old Testament contain?
It contains from forty-five to forty-seven books, depending on how the books are divided.
2. Into how many classes may these books be divided?
Three.
3. Name these classes.
Didactic or Doctrinal, Historical, and Prophetic books.
4. Is there any reason for this classification?
Yes, the very matter contained in them suggests this classification.
5. What are the Didactic or Doctrinal books?
There are the books that contain the teachings of God to man.
6. How many Didactic books are there in the Old Testament?
Seven: Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus.
7. Why are others called "Prophetical Books"?
Because they treat of the Messiah and His life, passion, and death in a prophetical manner.
8. Are all the Prophetical books of equal importance?
No; four of these books are called the Greater Prophets because they are greater in length and deal with more important matters, generally, than the other
twelve which are called the Lesser Prophets.
9. Why are the remaining books classified as "Historical books"?
The remaining books are so classified because they narrate the history of the People of God and the history of our salvation.
Lesson 5:
The New Testament
1. How many books are there in the New Testament?
There are twenty-seven books in the New Testament.
2. When were these books written?
These books were written during a period extending from 35 A.D. to 93 A.D.
3. By whom were they written?
They were written mainly by the Apostles.
4. Why do we say "mainly"?
We say "mainly" because some books of the New Testament were written by men who were not the Apostles, i.e., St. Mark and St. Luke.
5. How may the books of the New Testament be classified?
Like those of the Old Testament, the books of the New may be grouped into three classes.
6. Name these three classes.
They are the same classes as with the Old Testament: Historical, Didactic, and Prophetical.
3
7. Name the Historical Books.
The Historical Books are the four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles.
8. Name the Didactic Books.
The Didactic Books are all the Epistles.
9. Name the Prophetical Books.
There is only one Prophetical Book in the New Testament, namely, the Apocalypse of St. John.
10. What do we learn from the New Testament?
From the New Testament we learn the principal events in the Life of Christ, many Christian beliefs and practices, as well as much history of the early
Catholic Church.
11. Was the New Testament written primarily to convert people?
No, conversion was done by preaching. The New Testament was written to strengthen the Faith of the people already converted.
12. Can we prove it?
Yes: "It seems good to me also, ... to write to thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mayest know the verity of those words in which thou hast
been instructed" (Lc. I, 3-4).
Lesson 6:
Canon Of Sacred Scripture
1. How many books does the entire Bible contain?
Seventy-two or seventy-four, depending on the way they are calculated
2. How do we know with certainty that the Bible contains only these books?
We know with certainty that the Bible contains only these books because the number is fixed by the "Canon of the Scriptures."
3. What is meant by the word "Canon"?
"Canon" is a Greek word that means a standard or rule.
4. What is meant by the "Canon of Scriptures"?
Originally, the Canon of Scriptures meant the qualifications required of a book before admittance into the number of recognized inspired writings; now it
means the very collection of these books recognized as inspired.
5. Who decides which books belong to the Bible and which do not?
The Catholic Church decides.
6. By what authority does the Catholic Church make this decision?
By that of Christ, Who has made her the infallible teacher of faith and morals by both the oral and the written word.
7. What special mark was required of a book before its admittance into the collection known as the Bible?
The special mark required was clear proof of its inspiration.
8. By whom was the first list of the books of the Bible drawn up?
Pope Damasus, at the Roman Council of 382 A.D.
9. By what name are those books, whose authenticity was never questioned, known?
They are known as the Proto-Canonical Books.
10. Why are they so called?
They are so called because from the beginning they were recognized as Scriptural; the Greek prefix "proto" has the signification "from the first" or
"originally," hence the use of the term "proto-canonical" to describe those books.
11. By what name are the disputed books known?
They are known as the Deutero-Canonical Books.
12. Why are they so called?
They are so called because their recognition as Scriptural came "afterwards"; the Greek word "Deutero" used as a prefix has the signification of "second"
or "later."
13. Name the Deutero-Canonical Books.
Tobias, Wisdom, Baruch, Ecclesiasticus, Machabees (I & II), Judith, Esther (Ch X. v. 4 to end), Daniel (Ch. III, vs. 52-93). The Protestants call them
"Apocryphal" Books.
4
14. Why did the Hebrews not admit these books as part of the Bible?
As a whole, the Hebrews stopped admitting these books after the second Century A.D., because they were written in languages other than Hebrew, or
were of uncertain authorship.
15. Did the Hebrews ever formally rejected these books?
On the contrary, even if they did not accept these books as part of the Bible, they were always held in the greatest reverence by the Hebrews.
16. Under what guidance does the Church declare which books are canonical and which are not?
Under the guidance of the Holy Ghost.
17. How do we know that she has this guidance?
We know that she has this guidance because Christ promised assistance to His Church until the end of times [Matthew 28:20].
18. Has the Church made use of human means in drawing up the Canon of Scriptures?
Yes; she investigated carefully whether the doctrine taught in the book was in harmony with Tradition and whether the book was of apostolic origin.
Lesson 7:
The Bible And Tradition
1. Do we not have in the Bible books written by authors, other than the Apostles?
We have, but these authors lived in apostolic times and merely recorded the words and deeds of the Apostles themselves.
2. Why does the Church not admit any books except those of Apostolic origin?
The Church does not accept any book not of Apostolic origin because the Deposit of Faith was completed with the death of the last Apostle (St. John).
3. Why does the Church require that a book should be in harmony with Tradition?
She requires that a book be in harmony with Tradition because the Gospel had already been preached before a word of the New Testament was ever
written.
4. Are there in the Bible any books whose inspiration was doubted by some for a time?
Yes, the Second Epistle of St Peter, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Apocalypse.
5. Are there any books not found in the Bible today which for a time were thought by some to be inspired?
Yes, namely the "Gospel of St. James," the "Gospel of St. Thomas," the "Acts of St. Paul," amongst many others.
6. What happened to these books once thought to be inspired?
They were rejected as spurious. It does not mean necessarily that these books are bad; it simply means that they are not part of the Bible because they
were not inspired by the Holy Ghost; they are what we Catholics call "Apocrypha" or "Apocryphal books." The Protestants erroneously give the name
"Apocrypha" to the Deutero-Canonical books.
7. What does this attitude of the Church prove?
This attitude proves, amongst other things, that the Church sifts everything carefully before approving or rejecting.
8. What do we mean by Tradition?
By Tradition we mean that body of doctrine which has been handed down to us, alongside the doctrine clearly taught in the Bible.
9. Who has handed down Tradition?
The Church, through her teaching office (Also called "Magisterium"), has handed down Tradition.
10. What guarantee have we that Tradition is not false?
We have the guarantee of Christ in His statement that the Church would not err in teaching.
11. Does the Bible then, not contain all Christian revelation?
No, and it was never intended that it should.
12. What proof do we have that the Bible does not contain the complete Deposit of Faith?
There is the fact that Christ commissioned His Apostles to "Preach and teach" (Mt. 28, 19), whereas no mention of "Writing" is found; furthermore, the
Gospel was widely spread before a single word of the New Testament was ever written.
13. What further Scriptural proof have we that the Bible does not contain the complete Deposit of Faith?
The words of St. John that conclude his Gospel, "But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which if they were written every one, the world
itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written" (Jn. 21, 25).
14. What view do Protestants hold about the Deposit of Faith?
Protestants hold that all things necessary for salvation are found in the Bible. To quote Luther: "The Bible and the Bible only."
5
15. Do Protestants ignore Tradition?
Totally, and in this they are illogical, for it is by Tradition that we know what the Bible contains.
16. What is the Catholic view of the Bible and Tradition?
That, while the Bible is the chief source, it is neither the only nor the original source of our knowledge of Revelation.
17. To what may we compare the relation between the Bible and Tradition?
We may compare it to a professor's textbooks and his lectures; as a professor's lectures in the classroom, and his textbooks clarify each other, so does
the Bible clarify Tradition and is clarified by it in turn.
18. Has Tradition aided the Bible in other ways?
Yes, it has preserved the Bible and has helped the Church to sift the true from the false, and has kept us from false interpretation.
Lesson 8:
The Languages Of The Bible
1. Were all the books of the Bible originally written in one language?
No, besides Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic were used.
2. What books were written in Hebrew?
Almost all the books of the Old Testament.
3. What books were written in Greek?
In the Old Testament, the Second Book of Machabees and the Book of Wisdom; in the New Testament, all books except the Gospel of St. Matthew.
4. What books were written in Aramaic?
The Gospel of St. Matthew.
5. When were the books of the Old Testament, that were originally written in Hebrew, translated into Greek?
About 220 years before Christ.
6. Why was the translation from Hebrew into Greek made?
Because the Jewish people was dispersed into countries where the Greek tongue predominated, and so it gradually forgot the mother tongue, speaking
only Greek. Hence the wish to have the Bible in the Greek tongue.
Lesson 9:
The Septuagint Version
1. Who were the translators of the Old Testament?
The translators of the Old Testament were Jewish scholars well acquainted with both the Hebrew and the Greek languages.
2. By what name is this translation known?
It is known as the Septuagint Version.
3. Why is it called by that name?
It is called by that name because it was commonly supposed that seventy scholars were employed in the work of translating.
4. Was it known by any other name besides that of the Septuagint?
It was known as the Alexandrian Version to distinguish it from the Hebrew or Palestinian Version.
5. Why was it known as the "Alexandrian Bible?"
Because this translation was made in Alexandria, Egypt, which had the biggest and most vibrant Jewish community outside of Israel.
6. Is there any other difference between the Septuagint and the Palestinian version, besides their language?
Several; The Septuagint contains more books than the Palestinian version and is about three hundred years older. The Palestinian Version originated
approximately around 106 A.D. and is different from the Hebrew texts that were the basis for the Septuagint translation.
7. Why does the Septuagint have more books than the Palestinian version?
The translators had a well-founded belief that these books were inspired.
8. Were these added books accepted by the Hebrews?
Yes, but only up until 106 A.D., when the Palestinian, known also as the pharisaic version, became the norm.
9. Was the Septuagint Version much in use in Our Lord's time?
It was used not only by the Greek-speaking Jews but also by the Palestinian Jews; Our Lord and the Apostles frequently quoted it.
6
10. Did this Greek translation of the Bible help to spread Christianity?
It helped very much, because Gentiles, particularly the Greek philosophers, had read it, and had knowledge of the prophecies referring to the Messiah,
with the result that when St. Paul preached to them, many converts were made.
Lesson 10:
The Vulgate
1. Name again the languages of the Old Testament before the time of Christ.
Hebrew and Greek.
2. In what languages did the Apostles write their Gospels and Epistles?
They wrote their Gospels and Epistles in Greek, except St. Matthew, who wrote his Gospel in Aramaic.
3. How did translations in languages other than Hebrew and Greek come into existence?
As Catholicism spread among peoples of different languages, the demand for the Bible in their various languages grew.
4. Name some of the earlier languages into which the Bible was translated.
Armenian, Syrian, Coptic, Arabic, and Ethiopian.
5. Was the Bible translated into Latin?
Many translations into Latin were made during the early Catholic centuries.
6. Were these Latin translations satisfactory?
No; many inaccuracies existed, due to errors of the copyists, or errors of translation caused by a poor understanding of the original language.
7. Which of the Latin translations was the best known?
The best known Latin translation was either the "Old African" or the "Old Italian" (Vetus Itala).
8. What was the result of the general dissatisfaction with these Latin translations?
Pope Damasus (Pope from 366 to 384) commissioned St. Jerome to make a new and accurate translation.
9. How did St Jerome go about this work?
He studied carefully the Hebrew and Greek versions, and from these made his new translation.
10. By what name is the Latin translation of St. Jerome known?
It is known as the Vulgate Version. Vulgate means common or vulgar in Latin and it was called so because Latin was the common tongue of the Western
Roman Empire.
11. Does the Vulgate have the Church's special approval?
The Council of Trent (Italy) in 1546 declared it to be the only authentic and official version for the Latin Rite: " The same Sacred and Holy Synod ... hereby
declares and enacts that the same well-known Old Latin Vulgate edition ... is to be held authentic in public readings, disputations,sermons, and
expositions, and that no one shall dare or presume to reject it under any pretense whatsoever." (DZ. 785). It is still the official Catholic Bible today.
Lesson 11:
The Douay Bible
1. Is there a Catholic translation of the Bible in English?
Yes, it is the translation known as the Douay-Rheims Version. It was translated from the Latin Vulgate.
2. Why is it called "Douay-Rheims"?
Because it was begun at Rheims and finished at Douay in 1582-1609 by a group of English priests exiled in France.
3. What happened in the sixteenth century to cause the publication of a reliable and accurate translation?
During the Protestant "Deformation" in England many false translations had been made, hence there was great necessity of placing in the hands of
Catholics a reliable and accurate translation.
4. Is it true that the Bible was never translated into vernacular languages before the Protestant Deformation?
It is not true; the first translation known in England was the translation into Anglo-Saxon made by Venerable Bede in the eighth century. There is a Gothic
translation, made by a certain bishop Ulfilas around 380. The first German translation predates Luther by a good fifty years.
5. Why do Protestants assert that the Bible was never translated before the Deformation?
Through a mixture of ignorance and bad faith.
7
6. What is the most well known of the false English Protestant translations?
It is the version called the "King James," named after the King who commissioned it in 1604. It was finished in 1611. It is still the most popular of the
Protestant Bibles in the English speaking world.
7. What is wrong with the "King James" version?
Like all the Protestant Bibles, it is incomplete and poorly translated. It is a "Pick and choose" version. Such is the real lack of respect of the "Reformers" for
the word of God!
Lesson 12:
The Bible And Science
1. Is the Bible a book of science?
The Bible is not a book of science, and was never intended to answer the purpose of a book of science.
2. Does the Bible teach anything that has to do with science?
Yes, the Bible mentions many things that have to do with science.
3. Name one biblical account that touches on science.
The account of the Creation in the Book of Genesis touches on many branches of science.
4. Does not the Bible contain many things that science has proved false?
Since God is the author of the Bible and also, the foundation of true science, the Bible cannot err when it touches on science.
5. How, then, are we to account for the apparent contradictions between the Bible and science?
In many ways, for example: some so-called scientific findings are false; others are mere unsubstantiated theories (Evolution); while still others, when
properly examined, do not contradict the biblical narrative.
6. Is not the Bible statement that the sun stood still in the heavens (Jos. 10, 13) an example of obvious error?
No, we must remember that the Bible was written in every-day language of the time, not in scientific terms. Even to this day, for example, we speak of
sunset even though the sun is not setting anywhere and we know that the Earth is turning around the Sun and not vice-versa.
7. Can one be a great scientist and still be a firm believer in the Bible?
Yes, there have been and are now many great Catholic scientists, believing firmly in the Bible.
8. Name some scientists who, at the same time, believed firmly in the Bible.
Copernicus (a priest), Pascal, Gauss, Ampere, Pasteur, Marconi, to name just a few.
9. Does the Catholic Church discourage the study of science as being opposed to the Bible?
Nonsense; on the contrary, the Catholic Church has always encouraged science; some of her most eminent children have also been leaders in science.
10. Can science be of any help to Bible study?
True science can help Bible study in interpreting some difficult passages.
11. Is the Bible helpful in the study of science?
As a lighthouse helps a ship at sea, so does the Bible help scientists.
Lesson 13:
The Bible And History
1. Is the Bible an historical book?
The Bible is not an historical book per se; it is primarily a religious book; but it does contain a certain amount of historical teaching, which benefits from
inerrancy, like all the rest of the Bible.
2. Why would historical teachings benefit from inerrancy?
A great number of historical facts are intimately united to our Faith in such a way that one cannot deny the historical facts in the Bible, without denying the
Faith.
3. Give an example of such a connection between our faith and history.
The historical fact of the Resurrection of Our Lord cannot be denied without denying our Faith at the same time, for: "... If Christ be not risen again, then is
our preaching vain, and your faith also is vain ..." (I Cor. XV, 14).
4. How are we to account for the apparent contradictions between the Bible and history?
There are several reasons which account for these apparent contradictions:
- Most of the time the apparent contradiction is due, either to a poor understanding of the text, or to a poor understanding of the context.
- When this is not the case and we have historical sources which contradict the Bible, it is the Bible which, time after time, is finally proven right.
8
5. Give an example of the Bible being proven right against historians.
Barely two hundred years ago, most of the non-Catholic historians denied the existence of the Assyrian and Babylonian empires, because the only known
historical references of the time came from the Bible. The archaeological excavations of the last century not only proved the existence of both empires, but
located their capital cities: Babylon and Ninive. No self-respecting historian will doubt the existence of these civilizations now.
6. So the Bible is always historically correct?
Yes, it is undoubtedly better to take God at His Word, than any self-proclaimed "Expert historian." Most of the historians who cling to an historical
interpretation which contradict the Bible, do so because of their religious prejudices, and not for any serious historical or scientific reasons.
7. Can history be of any help to the study of the Holy Scriptures?
Yes; a good historical background is very useful for a proper understanding of many parts of the Bible.
8. Is the Bible helpful in the study of history?
Yes: both as an historical source and as a guideline to avoid errors.
Lesson 14:
Interpreting The Bible
1. Is the meaning of the Bible so clear that anyone reading it, can readily understand it?
The Bible is by no means so easily understood: St. Peter himself tells us that it contains many things: "... hard to be understood ..." (II Pet. III,16).
2. Whom do we have to interpret the Bible for us?
The Catholic Church interprets the Bible for us.
3. Is it natural that we should have a guide in interpreting the Bible?
Quite natural, just as in America, we have the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution of the United States. The difference is that the Church is
infallible and the Supreme Court is not!
4. So the Church cannot make mistakes in interpreting the Bible?
No, for she is under the guidance of the Holy Ghost.
5. How does that guidance manifest itself?
Through Tradition, the teachings of the Fathers, the Doctors of the Church, and of learned men.
6. Do Protestants acknowledge the interpretation of the Church or of any other authority?
No; Protestants hold that anyone who reads the Bible in the proper spirit will be guided by the Holy Ghost in interpretation.
7. Is this belief of Protestants a sensible one?
No; it is against the Bible, against Tradition, against reason.
8. How is it against reason?
Because the result of this belief has been that, as many interpretations exist as there are individual thinkers, and many of these interpretations contradict
each other; since the Holy Ghost cannot contradict Himself, He cannot be the guide of these interpretations, and therefore, this belief of these Protestants
is false.
9. How is it against Tradition?
The constant Tradition of the Church since Apostolic times is that the proper interpretation of the Word of God belongs to the Church founded by Him, i.e.,
the Catholic Church; and as St Paul tells us, we have to: "... stand fast: and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.
..." (II Thes. II, 14).
10. How is it against the Bible?
St. Peter warns us that in the Bible, there are: "... things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and the unstable wrest, as they do also the other
scriptures, to their own destruction. ..." (II Pet. III,16). Now, if the Holy Ghost was inspiring personally, every individual reader of Scripture, what St Peter
tells us would be impossible, because obviously, no one can read the Bible for their own destruction, and be inspired by the Holy Ghost at the same time.
Since it is certain that St Peter was inspired by the Holy Ghost when he wrote that, it means that there is no personal inspiration from the Holy Ghost while
reading the Bible; and that this Protestant belief cannot be true, since it contradicts the Bible.
11. Is the accusation that Catholics have no freedom of interpretation in biblical matters true?
In a material or literal sense, it is true, exactly as in any well-regulated society, nobody has the "freedom" to kill, maim, and loot. In a spiritual sense, it is
quite the opposite, for St. John reminds us that: "... the truth shall make you free ..." (Jn. VIII, 32), and thanks to the vigilance of the Church, Catholics do
enjoy freedom from error, which cannot be the case with the Protestants.
9
Lesson 15:
Reading The Bible
1. Are we under any obligation to read the Bible?
We are under no obligation to read the Bible.
2. Are Catholics forbidden to read the Bible?
By no means; on the contrary, all Catholics are urged to read the Bible.
3. Besides ordinary benefits, what do those gain who read portions of the Bible every day?
"A partial indulgence is granted to the faithful, who with the veneration due to the divine word make a spiritual reading from Sacred Scripture. A plenary
indulgence is granted, if this reading is continued for at least one half an hour." (Enchiridion of Indulgences. Authorized English edition. 1969. Catholic
Book Publishers. New York. Page 68. # 50)
4. Is the Bible ever read for Catholics?
During every single Mass of every single day, portions of one of the Gospels and of some other book of the Bible, often the Epistles, are read. Many of the
prayers of the Missal come from the Bible.
5. Who is bound to read the Bible daily?
All those who have received Major Orders, and those belonging to certain orders of monks or nuns, are bound to read parts of the Bible daily.
6. What is such reading called?
It is called "saying the Holy Office" or "reciting the Breviary."
7. What portions of the Bible are read by those who are bound to it?
In the course of the week the complete Book of the Psalms is read, while in the course of the year a good part of the Bible, together with commentaries of
some parts, is read.
8. Is the reading of the Bible profitable?
The reading of the Bible is most profitable, for such readings elevate our thoughts and lift them nearer to God.
9. In what spirit should the Bible be read?
It should be read in the spirit in which it was written, i.e., not out of idle curiosity or for the sake of the language and literature, but humbly and devoutly, for
instruction and enlightenment.
10. May Catholics read any version of the Bible they choose?
No; Catholics are forbidden to read false versions, just as they are forbidden to read bad books. The same principle is to be applied by analogy to many
so-called "Modern Catholic" versions of the Bible because they depart considerably from the only official Bible of the Church, which is the Vulgate, and
they were written with a Modernist and Ecumenical motivation, more aimed at pacifying Protestants than for the edification of the Catholic faithful.
11. How is the Bible read most profitably?
Either under a professor's guidance or with the aid of a reliable commentary.
Lesson 16:
Differences Between Catholic And Protestant Versions
1. Does the Catholic version of the Bible differ from Protestant versions?
Yes, in many ways.
2. What is the most noticeable difference?
The most noticeable difference is the absence of seven whole books and parts of two others from the Protestant versions.
3. What books are not contained in the Protestant version?
The Deutero-Canonical Books (See lesson 6).
4. Why are the Deutero-Canonical Books Omitted by Protestants?
Because the Protestant versions of the Bible follow the late Palestinian version of the Bible, which also omits these books (See lesson 8).
5. Name another difference between the Catholic and Protestant versions.
Many important arbitrary changes are found in the texts of the Protestant Bible. According to some scholars, the most popular Protestant Bibles have
literally hundreds of mistranslations, additions and omissions.
6. To what do such changes of text lead?
They lead to an entirely different interpretation from the one intended by the Sacred Writer.
10
7. Give an example of this change of text.
St Paul says, "... Being therefore justified by Faith ..." (Rom. V, 1), and Luther inserted the word "alone" so that the text reads, "Being therefore justified by
faith alone."
8. Why were the Reformers so anxious to change texts?
They were anxious to change texts to give force to the particular doctrine of their choice.
9. Should that behavior of the Reformers raise some questions in our mind?
Yes, what did they believe exactly concerning the Bible? Either they did not believe it was the Word of God, and therefore felt free to change it any which
way; or if they did believe it was the Word of God, it took a lot of pride and presumption to correct God's word. In either case, they should be called
"Deformers" rather than Reformers.
10. Name other differences between the King James version and the Douay version.
The King James version has a preference for words of Anglo-Saxon origin whereas the Douay version freely uses words of Latin origin. The Douay
version latinizes the name of some books while the King James gives what they thought at the time to be the Hebrew name. Many Protestant versions
other than King James omit the Epistle of St. James.
Lesson 17:
Materials Used In Composing The Bible
1. What has become of the original copies of the Bible?
They have been either destroyed or lost.
2. What were the causes of destruction or loss?
Many, particularly persecution and the fragility of the materials used, which did not withstand the ravages of time.
3. How was persecution a cause for the loss or destruction of the originals?
Sometimes the Christians themselves destroyed the original to prevent profanation at the hands of the pagan persecutors; some other times they were
found and destroyed by the pagans. The persecution of Decius (Roman Emperor from 249 to 251) was particularly vicious in this regard.
4. If the originals have been lost, how do we know whether what we possess now are accurate copies?
We know from Tradition, History and the teaching authority of the Church, that we possess accurate copies of the originals.
5. What material was used in the writing of the Bible?
Before the invention of paper, papyrus, and vellum or parchment were used.
6. What is papyrus?
Papyrus is the substance made from reeds of bull-rushes; a plant particularly abundant in the valley of the Nile in Egypt. Two layers were placed at right
angles to each other and glued together. It was used mainly before the Christian era.
7. What is parchment or vellum?
The skin of animals, preferably goats and calves, especially prepared for writing.
8. What was used in lieu of a pen?
For writing on papyrus, reeds were used, and for vellum, a stylus or metal pen.
9. Were the books of the Bible bound as are our books?
No, they were rolled around a stick, hence we read of Our Lord rolling and unrolling the Scriptures in the Temple. When documents are in that form
(rolled), they are usually called scrolls.
10. What style of writing was used?
Up to around the third century A.D. only capital letters were used. There was no separation between words, no division between chapters, and no division
between verses. This style was call the Uncial style.
11. What style was used after the third century A.D.?
The style known as the Cursive style. There was still no spacing between words, but capitals were introduced at the beginning of sentences.
12. When were the books divided into chapters?
This was done by Stephen Langton (+ 1228). Chancellor of the University of Paris until 1213, when he became Archbishop of Canterbury (England).
13. When were the chapters divided into verses?
Even more recently; this was done by the French printer Robert Estienne (1503-1559).
11
14. What was the first book printed after the invention of the printing press?
The first book printed around 1455 by Gutenberg, the inventor of the printing press, was the Catholic Bible in Latin (Vulgate). It has been a best-seller ever
since.
WHO GAVE US THE BIBLE IN ENGLISH?

by David Goldstein LL.D
"Who Gave Us Our Bible?" is a timely topic. It is of vital import, as the knowledge of its origin would go a long way towards the unity in Christendom, which
is more needed today than ever before, as the enemy of the Word of God has been, and continues to be, extending his atheistic, liberty-denying
domination over country after country.
Protestants Claim that two violators of their solemn, God-given priestly vows, Wycliff and Tyndale, as "first translators of the entire Bible into the
English language." This is unquestionably contrary to historic fact. Surely the declaration of Blessed Thomas More, to the contrary of there
assertion, ought to convince protestants of the error of there judgment. There unhistoric assertion was positively denied by this Lord Chancellor
of England, whose sublime devotedness to the principles set forth in the Bible caused him to submit willingly to decapitation rather than accept
the declaration of the House of Commons, that "the King, (Henry VIII) is head of the Church immediately under God"; and for taking this Father
of this English Reformation to task for divorcing his wife, Catharine, and entering into Godless relations with Anne Boleyn. Blessed Thomas
More said, "The whole Bible long before Wyclifi's day (100 years before Tyndale lived) was translated into the English tongue, and by good and
godly people with devotion and soberness well and reverently read" (Dialogues, 3). There are many other historic declarations that prove the
error of there assumption that the world had to wait until the two Benedict Arnolds in the religious world translated the Bible, before the people
could read it in English. Sir Francis Palgrave said, in his History of England, that "From the Anglo-Saxon age down to Wycliffe, we in England
can show such a succession of Biblical versions in metre and prose, as are not equaled amongst any other nation in Europe."
The Coverdale Bible based, as protestants rightly say, on Tyndale's translation, was "the forerunner of the Authorized Version (1611)." But
protestants fail to realize that this "Authorized Version" contains evidence that positively refutes there assertion that the translation of the Bible
into English is of Wycliff-Tyndale origin. After enumerating the many converted nations that had the Scriptures in their own language, the world
was told in the preface of that Protestant Bible, that "much about the time (1360), even in King Richard the Second's days, John Trevisa
translated them into English, and many English Bibles in written hand are yet to be seen that divers translated..., so that to have the Scriptures
in the mother tongue is not a quaint conceit lately taken up and out in practice of old, even from the first times of the conversion of any nation."
For more examples of this point please see the appendix
The Protestant assumption that the Bible was circulated by The Catholic Church in Latin to keep it for an exclusive class, is a disregard of the
fact that Latin was the language of all educated people in Europe; that English was a new language at the end of the 14th century. Why the
very name, "the Vulgate," or "popular version, given St. Jerome's famous translation into Latin, in the 4th century, evidences the fact that the
Catholic Church made the Scriptures available for the populace.
Surely Protestants cannot logically say that the"church," always using a small c, kept the Bible from the common people; and then say, "In the
early church men and women were urged to read the Scriptures and children were trained from their earliest years toread them." Also that
"Great care was taken by the Fathers of the church to secure the speedy translation of the Scriptures into the different languages of the several
nations as they were converted to Christianity. Eusebius, the historian, says 'they were translated into all languages throughout the world,' and
Theodoret declares that 'Every nation under heaven hath the Scriptures in its own tongue'."
protestants inadvertently pay honor to the Catholic Church in the above statement, despite there loquacious anti-Catholicity. The "early church"
must have been the Catholic Church, the one and the only Christian Church that has the historic credentials to prove her to have existed during
"the earliest years." Surely NO Protestant church can claim to be "the early church," nor any part of it. these sects owes there existence to
MEN, who organized there first Congregations 15 centuries after the Catholic Church began to function in Jerusalem.
Still further, there declaration that the Scriptures were translated for "the several nations as were converted" must refer to the Catholic Church,
though protestants did not tell there congregation that historic truth. This declaration of mine is based upon the historic fact that every nation
converted to Christianity was converted by the Catholic Church. To say, as protestants did in the above quote, that "the early church," assuming
it not to be the Catholic Church, kept the Scriptures from the people, and then to name Eusebius and Theodoret as having declared the
Scriptures to have been translated into the language "of every nation under heaven" is a half truth. It kept there congregation from knowing the
Eusebius was the Catholic Church Bishop of Caesarea; and Theodoret was the Catholic Church Bishop of Cyprus.
protestants also inadvertently paid honor to the Catholic Church, though the members of there congregation did not realize it, when protestants
declared that Theophilus, Irenaeus, and Clement used "the Scripture writings that are in the Old and New Testaments during the Apostolic
age," while refraining from naming the religious status of those historic personages. Perhaps this was due to fear lest the knowledge that they
were members of the hierarchy of the Church protestants assume to have kept the Scriptures from the people, might obliterate the anti-Catholic
animus protestants instill into the hearts of the members of there congregation. protestants surely know that Theophilus was Bishop of the
Catholic Church in Antioch; Irenaeus was Bishop of the Catholic Church in Lyons; and that Clement was Bishop of Rome, occupant of the
Chair of Peter, the third Pope.
there question, "Who Gave Us Our Bible?" necessitated an explanation of the canon of sacred Scripture, which protestants did, though in
adequately. protestants declared that "the universal church called the Council of Carthage in the Year 397 under the influence of Augustine,"
whom protestants designated "the most Protestant bishop of pre-Reformation days; (which Council) settled the New Testament canon of 27
books." What, save there anti-Catholic mentality, prompted protestants to hide the identity of the Church that gave the Christian Bible to the
12
world, by forming its canon of Scripture? Surely no Church could rightly be called "the universal church," even without the capitals U and C,
during the days of the Council of Carthage, save the Church under the world jurisdiction of the occupant of the Chair of Peter. Remember, my
Dear Protestant , that a half-truth is not the truth. there oratorical legerdemain beats the pulling of a rabbit out of an empty hat. This was
evidenced in conjuring up in there cranium the declaration that Augustine, who was canonized by the Catholic Church for his sublime
Catholicity, was "the most Protestant bishop of pre-Reformation days." If the fathers of the so-called "Reformation" were as opposite to
Protestantism in principle and religious affiliation as was St. Augustine, rest assured there would never have been a German or an English
"Reformation," with the resultant echoing and re-echoing of false and contradictory Bible concepts.
St. Augustine was most competently and ardently Catholic in every sense of the term. Therefore he recognized the bishop of Rome, the Pope,
as supreme in Christian religious authority by virtue of the "keys" given to Peter and his successors, along with the authority to "bind and loose"
in matters of faith and morals (St. Mat. 16:17-20). Surely there was no Protestantism in the declaration of St. Augustine, that "For my part, I
would not have believed the Gospel if I had not been influenced by the authority of the Catholic Church" (Contra Epist. Fund.).
there acceptance of the New Testament Council of Carthage canon of 27 New Testament books, means the acceptance of the authority of the
Catholic Church, deny it as vigorously as protestants are able. That Council, called by Bishop Aurelius of the Catholic See of Carthage, made
up of 43 Catholic Church bishops, including St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, recognized the supreme authority of the occupant of the Chair of
Peter, Pope St. Siricius, in determining the authenticity of its canon of Scripture. Therefore the Council of Carthage voted to "let the Church
beyond the sea (Rome) be consulted before confirming the canon."
Misunderstanding or deliberate misrepresentation only can account for there failure to credit the origin of the Bible to the Catholic Church. Even
one of her most bitter enemies, the Father of Protestanism, acknowledged that historic fact. Martin Luther said condescendingly and offensively
in his Commentary on St. John chapter XIV, that "We are compelled to concede to the papists that they have the Word of God; that we received
it from them, and that without them we should have had no knowledge of it at all." A Christian Bible must be made up of the books in the Old
Testament, as well as the books in the New Testament. Hence the Council of Carthage included the Septuagint version of 46 Old Testament
books in its canon of sacred Scripture. protestants hold, as do all Protestant ministers, that 7 of these 46 books are "apocrypha" (spurious).
This was denied by St. Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, eleven centuries before Protestantism began to inflict the religious world with its counterfeit
editions of the Bible.
The Septuagint translation was made during the third century before the Christian era, at "a time when the Jews were no longer able to
understand Aramaic, nor, for that matter, read Hebrew. That is why the Hebrew Bible had to be translated into Greek, the well known
Septuagint version," as was declared in The Pictorial History of the Jewish People" (N.Y; 1953). Theological Seminary of America says, "one of
the most important translations ever made" (The Jews: Their History, Culture and Religion, vol.3, p.748).
The Septuagint version of Sacred Scripture, which the Jewish Encyclopedia declares to be "the most important of all versions made by the
Jews" (vol.3, p. 186), was made by 72 official translators, 'six learned, wise and saintly scribes from each of the twelve tribes of Israel," selected
by High Priest Eleazar of Jerusalem, the world's supreme religious authority of his time. Eleazar furnished the translators with his most
precious manuscripts of 46 books of sacred Jewish Scripture for translation. That translation included the 7 books Protestantism rejects, the
translation that Vallentine's Encyclopedia of Jewish knowledge says "was greeted with enthusiasm by the Jews everywhere upon its
appearance" (p.592)
there cocksure declarations regarding the Bible, that are not so, are simply amazing. For instance, protestants set forth the Protestant used
canon of 39 books, against the Catholic used Septuagint canon of 46 books, declaring that the Septuagint was rejected by the Palestine Jews,
without designating which Palestine Jews. Surely it was not rejected by the Jews who were religiously under the jurisdiction of the High Priests
during the years when Judaism functioned as the religion of Almighty God; when the Jews had a priesthood, and a Temple with the one Altar
divinely permitted for the offering of the Mosaic sacrifices. It was the Jews in Jabneh, the port city of Palestine, who rejected the Septuagint
during the days after the Veil in the Temple was rent; when the Mosaic regulations were divinely a thing of the historic past; after Judaism had
full-blossomed into Christianity. Vallentine's Encyclopedia of Jewish Knowledge says that the making of the 39 book canon "took place at the
synod of Jabneh, in 90 A.D. (note the date), soon after the destruction of the Temple, at the instigation of Rabbi Akiba" (p.94).
Evidently protestants know not Rabbi Akiba who instigated the 39 book canon, which protestants, and all other Protestant ministers, have
embraced. In the first place, Rabbi Akiba had no legitimate authority to form a canon of Scripture, such as the Jews had during the days of High
Priest Eleazar; and the Catholics in the Council of Carthage had during the days of Pope St. Siricius. Secondly, Rabbi Akiba was a deadly
enemy of our Messianic Lord. St. Justin (100-165 A.D.) said that Akiba "persecuted the Jewish Christians, and gave orders that if they would
not deny Jesus and execrate His name, they would be tortured" (1st Apology XXXL). Akiba proclaimed a bold, fighting individual, named
Simeon, the Messiah, giving him the name Bar Kochba, "Son of the Star." He led the futile revolt against the forces of Hadrian for the recapture
of Jerusalem, at the cost of the lives of over half a million misled Jews.
protestants fail to realize that it was the anti-Christianism in Jewry that prompted the rejection of the Septuagint; and the making of the Akiba-
instigated canon of Scripture which Protestantism embraced. Vallentine's Encyclopedia of Jewish Knowledge says, that "the appearance of the
Septuagint was greeted with enthusiasm by the Jews everywhere, but with the rise of the Christian sect and its adoption of this version of its
Bible, the Jews began to denounce it vehemently, accusing the Christians of falsifying the Greek text here and there" (London, 1938, p.592).
the rejection of the Septuagint" was partly due because it had become accepted as sacred by another faith."
Let's look at just one more before ending this lengthy factual indictment. Here it is: "Jesus was a Palestinian Jew (which He was, hence) He
acknowledged the authority of the Palestinian (Akiba) Scriptures." The facts are these: First, that spurious Protestant-accepted Old Testament
canon of Scripture was non-existent during the years of our Lord's sojourn in Palestine; Secondly, about 270 quotations in the New Testament
are from the Septuagint version of Old Testament Scripture, which. was used by Jesus and the Apostles: Third, Peloubet's (Protestant) Bible
Dictionary attests to the fact that the Septuagint "was the chief storehouse from which both Christ and the Apostles drew their proofs and
precepts" (p. 604).
13
who Gave Us Our Bible? meaning there Protestant Bible? The answer is given in this communication. The New Testament part of it came from
the Catholic Church; the Old Testament part of it came from Rabbi Akiba.
THE APPENDIX
"To refute once more the common fallacy that John Wycliff was the first to place an English translation of the Scriptures in the hands of the
English people in 1382. To anyone that has investigated the real facts of the case, this fondly-cherished notion must seem truly ridiculous...To
begin far back, we have a copy of the work of Caedmon, a monk of Whitby, in the end of the seventh century, consisting of great portions of the
Bible in the common tongue. In the next century we have the well-known translations of Venerable Bede, a monk of Jarrow, who died whilst
busy with the Gospel of St. John. In the same (eighth) century we have the copies of Eadhelm, Bishop of Sherborne; of Guthlac, a hermit near
Peterborough; and of Egbert, Bishop of Holy Island; these were all in Saxon, the language understood and spoken by the Christians of that
time. Coming down a little later, we have the free translations of King Alfred the Great who was working at the Psalms when he died, and of
Aelfric, Archbishop of Canterbury; as well as popular renderings of Holy Scripture like the Book of Durham, and the Rushworth Gloss and
others that have survived the wreck of ages. After the Norman conquest in 1066, Anglo-Norman or Middle-English became the language of
England, and consequently the next translations of the Bible we meet with are in that tongue. There are several specimens still known, such as
the paraphrase of Orm (About 1150) and the Salus Animae (1250), the translations of William Shoreham and Richard Rolle, hermit of Hampole
(died 1349). I say advisedly specimens' for those that have come down to us are merely indications of a much greater number that once
existed, but afterwards perished."(Where we got the Bible 1911, )
In the preface of The Coverdale Bible the world was told that "much about the time (1360), even in King Richard the Second's days, John
Trevisa translated them into English, and many English Bibles in written hand are yet to be seen that divers translated..., so that to have the
Scriptures in the mother tongue is not a quaint conceit lately taken up and out in practice of old, even from the first times of the conversion of
any nation."
Anglican dignitary, Dean Hook, tells us that "Long before Wycliffs time there had been translators of the Holy Writ."(Where we got the Bible
1911, )
The Protestant scholar Mr. Karl Pearson, says: "The Catholic Church has quite enough to answer for, but in the 15th century it certainly did not
hold back the Bible from the folk: and it gave them in the vernacular (i.e. their own tongue) a long series of devotional works which for language
and religious sentiment have never been surpassed. Indeed, we are inclined to think it made a mistake in allowing the masses such ready
access to the Bible. It ought to have recognized the Bible once for all as a work absolutely unintelligible without a long course of historical
study, and, so far as it was supposed to be inspired, very dangerous in the hands of the ignorant." (Academy, August, 1885)
The Encyclopedia Britannica declares that: "(In) Eadwine's Psalterium triplex,(A.D. 1180) which contained the Latin version accompanied by
Anglo-Norman and Anglo-Saxon renderings, appeared... By 1361 a translation of most of Scripture in this dialect (Anglo-Norman) had been
executed."( 1999-2000 Britannica) This was 20 years before Wycliffe "translated" his version "From August 1380 until the summer of 1381,
Wycliffe was in his rooms at Queen's College, busy with his plans for a translation of the Bible" ( 1999-2000 Britannica)
St. Thomas More, Lord Chancellor of England, said in his "Dialogue" (p.138), that:"the whole Bible was long before Wycliff's day (who lived
during the century before Tyndale) by virtuous and well learned men translated into the English tongue and by good and godly people with
devotion and soberness, well and reverendly read . . ."
Even Cranner, Henry Viii's Archbishop of Canterbury, said in the preface of the "Great Bible," that the. Holy Bible: "was translated and read in
the Saxon tongue, which at that time was the mother tongue, whereof there remaineth yet divers copies. ..; and when this language waxed old
and out of common use, it was translated into the (English) language, whereof yet also many copies remain and be daily found."
The very Preface of the 1611 Authorized Version says: "Bede by Cister- tiensis, to have turned a great part of them (the books of scripure) into
Saxon: Efnard by Trithemius, to have abridged the French Psalter, as Beded had done the Hebrew, about the year 800: King Alfred by the said
Cistertien- sis, to have turned the Psalter into Saxon: [Polydor. Virg. 5 histor.] ...even in our King Richard the second's days , John Trevisa
translated them into English, and many English Bibles in written hand are yet to be seen with divers, translated as it is very probable, in that
age".
Even Foxe, the martyologist, makes the same acknowledgment: "If history be well examined we shall find both before the conquest and after,
as well before John Wickliffe was born as since, the whole body of the scriptures was by Sundry men translated into our country tongue." (This
was in 1571, in the declaration to Queen Elizabeth, written by Foxe).
"In England there were current from early times(A.D. 800) vernacular versions of the Bible, especially of the Gospels, since the Gospel was
often read at Mass in the vernacular after its recitation in Latin" (The Columbia Encyclopedia, copyright 1958, p. 197)
Archbishop Ussher of Armagh quotes a fragment from the Worcester Cathedral library, "The Venerable Bede translated the Bible, at least the
greater part of it, into English, in many copies of his version are sill found in English monasteries." ( Historia Dogmatica, 1763, XII, page 356)
"The Latin Vulgate (q.v.), from which a considerable number of versions were made into that form of English commonly called Anglo-Saxon, the
most noted translators being Aldhelm, Bishop of Sherborn, Bede (8 th c.); Alfred (6th c.); and Aelfric (10th c.)." (The Imperial Encyclopedia and
Dictionary, volume 4, copyright 1902)
HOW THE NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION DELETES WHOLE VERSES!
14
Based on the New International Version, 1978 edition
WHOLE Bible verses deleted in the NIV
The following WHOLE verses have been removed in the NIV--many were moved from the text to a footnote...over 40 IN ALL!!! It is interesting
to note that most of these verses were also eliminated by the translators of the Jehovah's Witnesses Bible " New World Translation".
A TYPICAL EXAMPLE (Matthew 15):
27. "Yes, Lord," she said, "but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table."
29. Jesus left there and went along the Sea of Galilee. Then he went up on a mountainside and sat down.
(New International Version, 1978 edition)
Matthew 12:47 -- removed in the footnotes
Matthew 17:21 -- COMPLETELY removed. What are you NIV readers missing?
"Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting."
"For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost."
Matthew 21:44 -- removed in the footnotes
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall
receive the greater damnation."
Mark 7:16 -- COMPLETELY removed. What are you NIV readers missing?
"If any man have ears to hear, let him hear."
"Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."
"Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."
"But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses."
"And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors."
Mark 16:9-20 (all 12 verses) -- There is a line separating the last 12 verses of Mark from the main text. Right under the line it says: [The two
most reliable early manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9-20] (NIV, 1978 ed.).
Luke 17:36 -- COMPLETELY removed. What are you NIV readers missing?
"Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left."
Luke 22:44 -- removed in the footnotes
Luke 22:43 -- removed in the footnotes
Luke 23:17 -- COMPLETELY removed. What are you NIV readers missing?
"(For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast.)"
John 5:4 -- COMPLETELY removed. What are you NIV readers missing?
"For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped
in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had."
John 7:53-8:11 -- removed in the footnotes
Acts 8:37 -- COMPLETELY removed. What are you NIV readers missing?
"And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."
"Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still."
"But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands,"
"And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves."
Romans 16:24 -- COMPLETELY removed. What are you NIV readers missing?
"The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen."
I John 5:7 -- Vitally important phrase COMPLETELY removed. In the NIV it says,
15
"For there are three that testify:"
Compare the NIV reading with the following Jehovah's Witness reading--
"For there are three witness bearers,"
What are you NIV readers missing? What does the real Bible say?
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
This is one of the GREATEST verses testifying of the trinity. That is why the Jehovah's Witnesses leave it out. They do not believe in the trinity
and they do not believe that Jesus is God. Why does the NIV leave it out...? Whole books have been written on the manuscript evidence that
supports inclusion of this verse in the Bible. Reader, do you believe in the triunity of God? If so, then this deletion should offend you. These
protestants played around with the Bible and it isn't funny.
Problems with the King James Version

"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves" (Matt. 7:19)
All through the ages those who would reject Christ teaching and his church (The Roman Catholic Church). Have also had to reject the bible that Christ
churches wrote, assemble, and protected for almost 2000 years.The canon, or list of approved New Testament books, was not approved by the Catholic
Church until the 4th century a festal epistle of St. Athanasius of Alexandria (A.D. 367), as well as a contemporary decree of Pope St. Damasusin Rome
(A.D. 381).
They must either reject or pervert and change the scripture to fit their own agenda. They take their example from the devil ( the father of all lies). We read
in Matt. 4:1-11
"At that time, Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert, to be tempted by the devil . . . Then the devil took him up into the holy city, and set him upon the
pinnacle of the temple, and said to him: if thou be the Son of God, cast thy self down. For it is written: that he hath given his angels charge over thee."
This prophecy was taken 90th Psalm, but of the just man. Satan quotes this Psalm dishonestly to try to further his own goals.
When King James I call together his hand pick 54 scholars (stooges) their goal was to alter the Bible so that it fit their Protestant view point. In process
they made 30,000 changes to the word of "God." They took out seven books of sacred scripture. (Old Testament: Judith, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, Tobias,
Wisdom, and the two books of the Machabees).
There are many ways King James and his stooges deceitfully change sacred scripture. But, they fit in four general categories. First, is to reject the validity
of whole books of sacred scripture. I go into this better little further along in this article. Second, they reject the ancient teaching and writing of Fathers o f
the church, on sacred scripture and true meaning. These heretic try to negate their important by the theory of private interpretation of scripture. Which is
streaky against the teaching of the Bible and Christ Church. (Sec. Peter 1:20)
"Understanding that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation"
Third, these heretics perverted scripture by changing very texts. (The word of God) By adding or Subtracting to change or diminish the meaning here and
their for their purposes. Fourth, is to make corrupt and false translations for they maintenance of their corrupt believes.
The original 1611 King James venison had over 30,000 mistakes most of which have been corrected of these changes and bad translations. That many
errors show a design and plan. Because it hard for 54 scholars to miss up that many times by accident. Either it was on purpose or they were 54 of the
most incompetent scholars in history and they had no business even trying to translate the Bible. Here is a small listing of only few of them. They are
thousands more. This author has found over 4,823 examples, all through I humble admit I have not even begun to scratch the surfaces. Here is a small list
of a few:
Luke 1:28
( King James Version) Hail, "thou that art highly favored,"our Lord is with thee
(Should Be) Hail "full of grace," our Lord is with thee.
Genesis 3:15
(King James Version) "Its" shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt "bruise his heel."
(Should Be) "She" shall bruise thy head in pieces and "thou shalt lie in wait for her heel."
James 5:16
(King James Version)"Confess" your "faults,"
(Should Be) Confess," therefore, your "sins" one to another
Corinthians 9:5
(King James Version) Instead of "woman", they translate "wife" here also
(Should Be) Have not we power to lead about a "woman", a sister
Acts 20:28
16
(King James Version) Where in the Holy Ghost hath made you "overseers, to feed the church" of God
(should Be) Take need to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you "bishops to rule the church" of God
Matthew 11:10
(King James Version) Instead of "angel" they say "messenger"
(should Be) For this is he of whom it is written, Behold, I send mine "angle" before thy face.
1 Timothy 9:14
(King James Version)For the word "graces" they say "gift" and " presbytery" the Greek word rather than the English word, "priesthood
(should Be) Neglect not the "graces" that is in thee, which is given thee by prophesy, with imposition of the hands of "priesthood."
1 Timothy 3:8
(King James Version) Likewise must the "deacons" be "grave"
(should Be) "Deacons" in like manner "chaste," not double-tongued
James 5:14
(King James Version) Elders for "priests" here also
(should Be) Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the "priests" of the church, and let them pray over him
Acts 15:2
( King James Version) The "priest" they say her also "elders"
(should Be) They appointed that Paul and Barnabas should go up and certain other of the rest, to the apostles and "priests" unto Jerusalem.
Genesis 47:31
( King James Version) And "Israel bowed himself upon" the beds head
(should Be) "Israel adored God, turning to "the beds head.
Romans 11:4
(King James Version)I have left me seven thousand men that have not bowed their knees to "the image of" Baal
(should Be) I have left me seven thousand men that have not bowed their knees to Baal
Genesis 37:35
( King James Version) I will go down into the "grave"
(should Be) I will go down to my son into "hell" mourning
Genesis 42:38
(King James Version) For "hell" they also say "grave"
(should Be) You will bring down my grey hair with sorrow unto "hell"
3 King 2:6,9
(King James Version) "To the grave
(should Be) Unto "hell"
Hosea 6:14
( King James Version) O death, I will be thy "plagues;" O "grave", I will be thy destruction
(should Be) O death, I will be thy death; I will be thy sting, O "hell"
2 Timothy 4:8
(King James Version) For "justice" they translate to righteousness and for a "just Judge" they say a righteous judge
(should Be) Concerning the rest, there is laid up for me a crown of "just ice," which our Lord will render to me in that day, a just Judge
1 Timothy 5: 17
(King James Version) "Elders" also in this Bible
(should Be) The "priests" that rule will, let them be esteemed worthy of double honor
1 Timothy 5:19
(King James Version) Instead of "priest" they put "elder"
17
(should Be) Against a "priest" receive not accusation
Psalm 6:5
(King James Version) In the grave, who shall give thee thanks?
(should Be) But in "hell", who shall confess to thee?
James I, King or Queen of England
"His Majestys Royal Greatness... not only as to our king and sovereign but as to the principal mover and author of the work: humbly croving of your most
sacred majesty." (Preface to the Authorized Version)
"He (King James I) disdained women and fawned unconscionably on his favorite men" (Encyclopedia Americana 1995)
"If any one lie with a man as with a woman, both have committed an, abomination let them be put to death: their blood be upon them" (Leviticus 20:13)
Who was this dishonest king? Morally what kind of man was he? First of all we know he was queer. Not only do the historical reference prove this. Such
as testament of Sir. John Oglander in 1617, before the privy council England.
"The king is wondrous passionate, a lover of his favorites beyond the love of men to women. He is the chastise prince for women that ever was, for he
would often swear that he never kissed any other woman than his own queen. I never yet saw any fond husband make so much or so great dalliance over
his beautiful spouse as I have seen King James over his favorites, especially Buckingham." (Queen James and His Courtiers 1997)
We also have a large number of love letters from Queen James to one of his lovers thee Earl of Buckingham, who was later promoted to the post of post
of "gentleman of king bed chamber" (Encyclopedia American 1995)
James use to end these letters calling Buckingham his only sweet child, his sweet child and wife, thy dear dad and husband and dear dad. (King James VI
of Scotland I of England 1974) It is clear that their relationship parallels modern queer "father/son" associations. Most of these letters are so perverted and
sexual that I being good Catholic could not print them here. But, I did print one of the few safer ones for a example (see page )
There is also painting Queen James commissioned Daniel Mytens the elder to paint of him. It now hang in the national portrait gallery, London. For this
portrait (one of his favorite) James pose in Queen Elizabeths coronation gown. Making King James to the best this authors knowledge the first "Royal
Drag Queen" in English history.
If this was not nauseating enough King James in 1617 address the honorable privy council with a official affirmation of his love for men Buckingham. This
deplorable king try to justify his homosexuality with one the worst kinds of blastlefany. King James a official stated he believe Christ was queer.
"I, James am neither a God nor an angel, but a man like any other. Therefore I act like a man and confess to loving those dear to me more than other
men. You may be sure that I love the Earl of Buckingham more than anyone else, and more than you who are her assembled. I wish to speak in my own
behalf and not to have it thought to be a defeat, for Jesus Christ did the same and therefore I can not be blamed. Christ had his son John, and I have my
George." (King James VI of Scotland I of England, Antonia Fraser,1974)
This same man who was the principle able "mover" and "author" of this deceitful book, that some call "Bible." It is truly sin against God to call this wicked,
evil king "most sacred" as the official preface does. This is another example of the horrible dishonesties of the writer and printer of this book threw the
ages. They have been many attempt to changes or pervert sacred scripture and history to fit there lies. They have fooled many trusting and ignorant
people. Many people are just tolazies to search for truth and what is right.
Secondly, we know that King James also in his bid to consolidate his power over English people and church of England. ( This is reason of the making of
his "Bible." Repressed the Protestants when it fit his purposes. King James, "repress the Protestants a strongly as have the Catholics." (Funk and
Wagnalls New Encyclopedia) The use of torture was quite common under James rules. His political and economic blundering was so great it cause one
French state man to laughing characterize King James as the "wisest fool in Christendom." ( Comptons Interactive Encyclopedia 1994)
The First of Many Lies
King James Version "Translated out of the original tongues"
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor (Exodus 20:16)
The reason that I put such enfencence on this lie out of thousands, is because it is this falsehood that the heretics use to varidify there bible. Most
Protestants have never stopped and thought about this phase. What it really means it is cleverly deceptive way of saying that some of the papers in front
of them were written in Greek or Hebrew. It does not say original "text and does not mean that they used the actual writing of the apostle. It doesnt even
say the papers they used were even scripture (Only written in Greek and Hebrew) for all we know they may have used a take out menu for the Jewish
deicatestant down the street for there translation that would explain a lot of their mistakes. This statement is so cleverly vague it is deceptive as to its
meaning. Many trusting Protestants ignorantly read a lot more into "original tongues" than is really being said.
Now lets take a closer book at the accuracy of this statement. They list the original tongues as Hebrew and Greek lets look at the first one "Hebrew."
There are two very different ancient Hebrew languages Biblical "Hebrew" and "Mishnaic Hebrew." James stooges convently forgot to say which one they
used so let look at both. First we will look into the "Biblical Hebrew." It is the original language adopted by the IBLRI or Israelites from the 12 century to the
second century B.C. . About that time the Israelites were using Aramaic parts of the rabbinical literature were originally written in Aramaic. About the
second or third century B.C. seventy learned Jews assembly in Egypt to translate the biblical Hebrew and Aramaic scripture into Greek. In the third
century B.C. the Old Testament began to be translated from Hebrew and Aramaic into Greek. ( Encyclopedia International 1982) This bible became known
as the Septuagint from the Latin word Septuagint "seventy". They did this for several reason, biblical Hebrew have became out dated it is a more primitive
language then the Greek or Aramaic. Also it was no longer understood by most of Jews. Since King James scholars do not mention that some of the text
were written Aramaic and the fact that biblical Hebrew was nearly extinct (with the exception of some sacred documents) two hundred years before Christ
18
was born. 1800 years before the King James Version was written. It is safe to say that the Hebrew , James hand pick stooges used was Mishamaic
Hebrew or post biblical Hebrew. This is a later version of the original Hebrew strongly based on the Aramaic. With about Three hundred words borrowed
from the Greek or Latin. "Greek and Latin words penetrated into Hebrew" (Encyclopedia International 1982) the point in is that the "original language" of
the old Testament the original biblical Hebrew was an extinct and dead language time Christ was born. "The oldest existing Hebrew biblical texts date
back only to the 10th century"(The Pocket Bible Dictionary 1996) it is interesting to note that these writings are not written in biblical Hebrew but rather the
"Mishnaic Hebrew" which included Vowel-points. Clearly contrary to what the King James version claims its could not have been translated from the
original language biblical Hebrew.
Secondly, it is important to note that the Hebrew scriptures (whether "biblical" or "Mishnaic") was NOT the translation chosen by Christ to use, Christ and
his disciples used the Greek translation known as the Septuagint "Christ and his apostles used Septuagint frequently. In quoting from the Old Testament
sometimes they cited the Septuagint verbatim or with unimportant verbal changes: There are about 350 quotations from the Old Testament in the gospel.
The Acts, and the epistles, The Ethiopian eunuch whom Philip met was reading the Septuagint (Acts viii. 30-33)."( A Dictionary of the Bible, 1954 p.799)
which coincides with the fact that other than gospel Matthew the new Testament was exclusively written in Greek. Which brings up the next question why
would the 54 translators to the King James Version wish to use any translation of scriptures not used by Christ?
This brings us to the next question why did they choose to use 10 th century "Mishnaic Hebrew texts instead of the 5 th century Greek text ? This explains
why in many places of the original King James Version the New Testament quotes do not match up with the Old Testament quotes, leading to much
confusion and problems.
The Missing Books
"The New Testament quotes from the longer Septuagint Greek [which did contain the Deutero-Canonical books, Tb, Jdt, Wis, Sir, Bar, 1Mc, 2Mc, and parts
of Est and Dn. Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Bible 1963, 310] Canon no less than 350 times." (Background To The Bible, An introduction to Scripture
Study 1978.)
(The Books of The Bible 1997)"The original 1611 King James Version contained the Deutero Canonical books it was not until the 1629 revision that they
came in two dispute"
Protestants generally refer to these seven books as "Apocrypha" meaning "hidden" in the ancient Greek Catholics refer to these books as "Deutero-
Canonical" or "second Canon". The truth is these books for by no means "hidden" for even Protestant scholars are forced to admit that they were part of
the Septuagint Canon, except in Canon at the time of the Christ "At first the LXX [Septuagint] was highly regarded by all the Jews; it spread from Egypt to
the whole Jewish Diaspora and became the official Bible Greek-speaking Judaism. The New Testament writers, writing in Greek for Greek-speaking
people, usually quoted from the Old Testament. according to the LXX [Septuagint]. Naturally, therefore, the LXX also became the official Old Testament of
the early Church, and it is still the official Old Testament in of the Greek Church, of both the Unite and the Schismatic Christians. However, after the
destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., when Jewish opposition to Christianity became more pronounced and Judaism crystallized in its rabbinical form, the
LXX [Septuagint], though originally made by Jews for Jews, was frowned on by the Jews as a quasi-Christian book."(Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Bible
1963). Not only was the Septuagint the Bible of choice among the 1st century Jews but the chosen scriptures of the 12 apostles "The earliest New
Teastament documents are Paul's. He used Septuagint citations; therefore he knew of the Deutero Canonical. One supposes that Matthew, Mark, and
John also knew the whole Septuagint. Luke is so familiar with it, that he is able closely to imitate its style. It is from these writers that we have the words of
Jesus."(Catholic Information Network 1996). More than two thirds of the Old Testament quotations in the New are from the Septuagint. Yet the apostles
nowhere told their converts to avoid seven books (Baruch, Sirach, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, and the Wisdom of Solomon, plus portions of Esther
and Daniel) of it. Like the Jews all over the world who used the Septuagint, the early Christians accepted the books they found in it. They knew that the
apostles would not mislead them and endanger their souls by putting false scriptures in their hands -- especially without warning them against them. But
the apostles did not merely place the Deutero Canonical. in the hands of their converts as part of the Septuagint. They regularly referred to the Deutero
Canonical. in their writings. For example, Hebrews 11 encourages us to emulate the heroes of the Old Testament and in the Old Testament "Women
received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might rise again to a better life" (Heb. 11:35).
The Deutero Canonical books were part of every Christian Bible Canon up until the 16th century. Even if the 54 scholars translated the original 1611 King
James version of the Bible included these books in their cannon. It was not until 11 years later during the 1623 re-vision of this Bible that these books were
removed. "The Apocrypha consists of the books that are found in the Greek version of the Jewish Biblethe Septuagint, the earliest complete version of
the Bible was possessbut that were not included in the final, Canonical version of the 90 A.D. Hebrew Bible. For this reason, they were called
"Apocrypha," the hidden or secret book, and while they formed part of the original King James Version of 1611." (The Apocrypha, by Edgar J. Goodspeed,
copyrights: 1989,1959,1938). This forces us to make one of Three observations about the King James version of the Bible, either:
1) The original 54 scholars who translate the King James Version were highly and incompetent and clearly prove their ignorance of scripture by
adding seven books to the Bible which do not belong.
OR
2) The revisionists the reformed the King James Version in 1623 were highly and incompetent a clearly prove their ignorance of scriptures by
removing seven sacred books of the Bible.
OR
3) Neither the original 54 scholars or the revisionists had any idea of what they were during and never should have attempted to play with Holy
Scripture.
Whichever observation you wish to believe it forces us to doubt the authenticity and accuracy of this English translation. it also forces us to classify the
King James Version of the Bible has nothing more than a Miss-Translated.
19
Sola which Scriptura
The KJV vs. NKJV
The reason this is so intriguing should be obvious, one of the two pillars of Protestantism is "scripture alone" yet these two bibles do not agree.
If two bibles disagree, which one is wrong, are both wrong? Both claim that you cannot add to or take from the word of the Lord, yet they differ.
Why? Which one is right? How much do they differ? Does it affect doctrine? Who changed it? Some of the verses are total opposites, other
verses are simply not saying the same thing.
For example in the NKJV compared with the (old) KJV there are 66 omissions of the word "Lord", 51 omissions of "God", 44 omissions of
"repent", 50 omissions of "heaven", 23 omissions of "blood", and the terms "devils", "damnation", "Jehovah", and "new testament" are
completely omitted.
How about that "hell". The NKJV removes the word "hell" 23 times. By replacing "hell" with "Hades" and "Sheol"! The Jehovahs Witness "Bible"
does this as well and the New International Version is guilty of the same stratagem. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines Hades: "the
underground abode of the dead in Greek MYTHOLOGY". By making it "much clearer" - Do they turn Hell into MYTHOLOGY? But the should be
nothing new to the readers of the KJV with nine refeances to unicorns and over 30 to dragons mythology is standerd reading . It must be noted,
Hades is not always a place of torment or terror! The Assyrian Hades is an abode of blessedness with silver skies called "Happy Fields". In the
satanic New Age Movement, Hades is an intermediate state of purification!
Who in their right mind would think "Hades" or "Sheol" is "up-to-date" and "much clearer" than "hell"? The NKJV makes over 100,000 word
changes from the old 1611 KJV. There are 2,922 fewer words in the New Testament of the NKJV. Thus, the NKJV is shorter (In The New
Testament) than that of the King James Bible by about the total number of words contained in I and II Peter combined!
Matthew 16:18
KJV: "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
NKJV: "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it."
Luke 16:23
KJV: "And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom."
NKJV: "And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom."
Hell is removed in 2 Sam. 22:6, Job 11:8, 26:6, Psalm 16:10, 18:5, 86:13, 116:3, Isaiah 5:14, 14:15, 28:15,18, 57:9, Jonah 2:2, Matt. 11:23,
16:18, Luke 10:15, 16:23, Acts 2:27, 31, Rev. 1:18, 6:8, 20:13,14.
Then the NKJV decides that maybe "Hades" should be "grave"! So the NKJV makes 1 Corinthians 15:55
The NKJV also deals rather questionably with the Lord Jesus Christ. Following are some examples:
Matt. 8:19
KJV: And a certain scribe came, and said unto him, Master, I will follow thee whithersoever thou goest.
NKJV: Then a certain scribe came and said to Him, "Teacher, I will follow You wherever You go."
Matt. 19:16
KJV: And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
NKJV: Now behold, one came and said to Him, "Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?"
Matt. 20:20
KJV: Then came to him the mother of Zebedee's children with her sons, worshipping him, and desiring a certain thing of him.
NKJV: Then the mother of Zebedee's sons came to Him with her sons, kneeling down and asking something from Him.
Acts 3:13
KJV: The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and
denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go.
NKJV: The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified His Servant Jesus, whom you delivered up and denied in the
presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let Him go.
20
Acts 3:26
KJV: Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.
NKJV: To you first, God, having raised up His Servant Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from your iniquities."
Note: I wonder where they got the idea to change "Son" to "Servant"? How about the NIV, NASV, NRSV, et al.
Acts 4:27
KJV: For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people
NKJV: "For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of
Israel, were gathered together
Acts 4:30
KJV: By stretching forth thine hand to heal; and that signs and wonders may be done by the name of thy holy child Jesus.
NKJV: by stretching out Your hand to heal, and that signs and wonders may be done through the name of Your holy Servant Jesus."
Matt. 7:14
KJV: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
NKJV: Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.
I Cor. 1:18
KJV: For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
NKJV: For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
Note: In II Cor. 2:15 they change "in them that are saved" to "among those who are being saved".
Heb. 10:14
KJV: For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
NKJV: For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.
Acts 12:4
KJV: And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after
Easter to bring him forth to the people.
NKJV: So when he had arrested him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four squads of soldiers to keep him, intending to bring him
before the people after Passover.
Gal. 2:20
KJV: I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith
of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
NKJV: I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in
the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.
They omit the words in bold type --- "nevertheless I live".
II Tim. 2:15
KJV: Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
NKJV: Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
21
II Cor. 2:17
KJV: For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.
NKJV: For we are not, as so many, peddling the word of God; but as of sincerity, but as from God, we speak in the sight of God in Christ.
The Problems with " The New World Translation "
The following is a list of problems that we have found with the New world Translation (NWT). We do not claim this list to be complete, nor do we
claim that all of the problems are doctrinally critical, but some are. In many instances the meaning of the Bible has been changed by apparently
deliberate mistranslations, additions, or omissions. If anyone knows of any errors, mistranslations, loose paraphrases, etc. that we have missed
here, please let us know.
The Watchtower Society has said much about their version of the Bible. On page 7 of the 1984 Reference Edition of the New World Translation
we find:
"Paraphrases of the Scriptures are not offered."
"Uniformity of rendering has been maintained by assigning one meaning to each major word and by holding to that meaning as far as the
context permits."
"A uniform system of modern punctuation is followed throughout."
"Single brackets [ ] enclose words inserted to complete the sense in the English text."
As you read this list, please keep in mind what the Watchtower itself said:
"Appreciation of the reliability of the Bible is greatly enhanced when it is realized that, by comparison, there are only very few extant
manuscripts of the works of classical secular writers and none of these are original, autograph manuscripts. Though they are only
copies made centuries after the death of the authors, present-day scholars accept such late copies as sufficient evidence of the
authenticity of the text...Manuscripts and versions of the Greek Christian Scriptures bear UNASSAILABLE TESTIMONY TO THE
MARVELOUS PRESERVATION AND ACCURATE TRANSMISSION OF THAT PORTION OF GOD'S WORD." ("Insight on the
Scriptures", Vol. 2, pp. 317, 318)
"If someone deliberately changes or omits part of the contents of the Bible, he is tampering with the inspired Word. "("The DIVINE
NAME That Will Endure Forever", 1984 pg 5)
The Greek/English base text that we will be comparing to the JW translation to is the " The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek
Scriptures", this is the Jehovah's Witnesses own interlinear version of the New Testament. The Watchtower explains the purpose of this
interlinear as:
"In this year 1969 at the "Peace on Earth" International Assemblies of Jehovah's
Witnesses, there is released to the reading public The Kingdom Interlinear Translation
o f the Greek Scriptures. This is a clothbound book of 1,184 pages. The Greek text that
it uses is that prepared and published by Westcott and Hort in 1881. Underneath this is
printed a literal word for word translation. In the right-hand column alongside on each
page is presented the modern day translation as found in the New World Translation of
the Holy Scriptures in a revised edition. How ever, in the interlinear literal translation of
the Greek the English words are not taken bodily or directly from the New World
Translation and placed under the appropriate Greek word. No! But under each Greek
word is placed its basic meaning, according to its grammatical construction, whether
this agrees literally with the New World Translation or not. What we as Bible students
should want is what the original Greek text says. Only by getting this basic meaning
can we determine whether the New World Translation or any other Bible translation is
right or not." ["The Watchtower" Nov. 15, 1969, pg 692]
The opening pages of the 1985 "The Kingdom Interlinear" Has this to say about its own purpose:
"The purpose behind the publishing of The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures is to aid such seekers of truth
and life. Its literal interlinear English translation is specially designed to open up to the student of the Sacred Scriptures what the
original ko-i-ne' Greek basically or literally says...The word-for-word interlinear translation and the New World Translation are
arranged in parallel on the page, so that comparisons can be made between the two readings. Thus, the accuracy of ANY modern
translation can be determined....So in many cases the reading in the English word-for-word interlinear translation is not the same as
that found in the right-hand column. This helps one to determine what the Greek text actually, basically says. In using these
interlinear readings, one will find a greater demand for scrutiny than when reading the parallel flowing translation into English. " ["The
Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures", 1985, p. 5-6]
The Errors In The NWT Christian Greek Scriptures
22
Matthew 1:20; 2:13; 2:19; 21:9; 28:2; Mark 11:9; Luke 1:11; 1:38; 2:9 (twice); 2:23; 4:18; 4:19; 5:17; 13:35; 19:38; John 12:13; Acts 5:19; 7:31;
8:26; 8:39; 12:7; 13:11; Romans 11:34; 1 Thessalonians 4:15; 5:2; 2 Peter 3:10 - Greek word "Kuriou" ("of Lord," or "Lord's") mistranslated as
"Jehovah's". - See Kingdom Interlinear Translation, and Emphatic Diaglott
Matthew 1:22; 1:24; 2:15; 3:3; 21:42; Mark 1:3; 12:11; Luke 1:6; 1:9; 1:15; 1:45; 1:66; 1:76; 2:24; 2:26; 2:39; 3:4; John 1:23; 12:38; Acts 2:20;
2:21; 3:19; 4:26; 5:9; 8:22; 8:25; 9:31; 10:33; 11:21; 12:23; 12:24; 13:10; 13:12; 13:49; 15:35; 15:36; 15:40; 18:25; 19:20; Romans 10:13; 1
Corinthians 10:21; 10:26; 11:32; 16:10; 2 Corinthians 3:17 (twice); 3:18 (twice); 8:21; Ephesians 5:17; 6:4; 6:8; Colossians 1:10; 3:24; 1
Thessalonians 1:8; 2 Thessalonians 2:2; 2:13; 3:1; Hebrews 12:5; James 1:7; 4:10; 5:4; 5:10; 5:11 (twice); 5:14; 1 Peter 1:25; 3:12 - Greek
word "Kuriou" ("of Lord," or "Lord's") mistranslated as "Jehovah". - See Kingdom Interlinear Translation, and Emphatic Diaglott
Matthew 4:4; James 2:23 - Greek word "Theou" ("of God," or "God's") mistranslated as "Jehovah's". - See Kingdom Interlinear Translation, and
Emphatic Diaglott
Matthew 4:7; 4:10; 22:37; Luke 1:16; 1:46; 4:8; 4:12; 10:27; 20:37; Acts 2:25; 8:24; 15:17; Romans 15:11; 1 Corinthians 10:9; 10:22; 2
Corinthians 3:16; Colossians 3:22; Hebrews 8:11; James 3:9; - Greek word "Kurion" ("Lord") mistranslated as "Jehovah". - See Kingdom
Interlinear Translation, and Emphatic Diaglott
Matthew 5:33; Luke 1:17; 2:22; 2:23; Acts 13:2; 14:3; 14:23; 16:15; Romans 12:11; 14:4; 1 Corinthians 2:16; 2 Corinthians 10:17; Ephesians
2:21; 5:19; 6:7; Colossians 3:23; 2 Peter 2:11; 3:8; - Greek word "Kurio" ("Lord") mistranslated as "Jehovah". - See Kingdom Interlinear
Translation, and Emphatic Diaglott
Matthew 10:32 (twice); Luke 12:8 (twice); John 6:56; 10:38; 14:10 (three times); 14:11 (twice); 14:20 (three times); 15:4 (three times); 15:5
(twice); 15:6; 15:7; John 17:21 (three times); 17:23 (twice); 17:26; Romans 8:1; 8:2; 8:10; 12:5; 16:7; 1 Corinthians 1:2; 1:30; 15:18; 16:24; 2
Corinthians 5:17; 12:2; 13:5; Galations 1:22; 2:4; 2:20; 3:28; 5:10; Ephesians 1:1; 1:3; 1:4; 1:11; 2:6; 2:7; 2:10; 2:13; 2:15; 2:21; 2:22; 3:6; 6:1;
Philippians 1:1; 3:9; 4:21; Colossians 1:2; Colossians 1:27; 1:28; 2:6; 3:3; 1 Thessalonians 1:1; 2:14; 4:16; 5:18; 2 Thessalonians 1:1; 1:12; 2
Timothy 1:1; 2:10; Philemon :23; 1 Peter 5:10; 5:14; 1 John 1:5; 2:5; 2:6; 2:24; 2:27; 2:28; 3:6; 3:24 (three times); 1 John 4:4 (twice); 4:13
(twice); 4:15 (twice); 4:16 (twice); 5:20; Revelation 14:13 - Greek word "en" ("in") paraphrased as "in union with". - See Kingdom Interlinear
Matthew 22:44; 27:10; Mark 5:19; 12:29; 12:30; 12:36; 13:20; Luke 1:25; 1:28; 1:32; 1:58; 1:68; 2:15; 20:42; Acts 2:34; 2:39; 2:47; 3:22; 7:33;
7:49; 12:11; 12:17; 13:47; Romans 4:8; 9:28; 9:29; 12:19; 14:11; 1 Corinthians 1:31; 3:20; 4:4; 4:19; 7:17; 14:21; 16:7; 2 Corinthians 6:17; 6:18;
10:18; Colossians 3:13; 1 Thessalonians 4:6; 2 Timothy 1:18; 2:19 (twice); 4:14; Hebrews 7:21; 8:2; 8:8; 8:9; 8:10; 10:16; 10:30; 12:6; 13:6;
James 4:15; 5:15; 2 Peter 2:9; 3:9; Jude :5, 9, 14; Revelation 1:8; 4:11; 18:8; 19:6; 21:22; 22:5; 22:6 - Greek word "Kurios" ("Lord")
mistranslated as "Jehovah". - See Kingdom Interlinear Translation, and Emphatic Diaglott
Matthew 23:39 - Greek word "Kurios" ("Lord") mistranslated as "Jehovah's". - See Kingdom Interlinear Translation, and Emphatic Diaglott
Mark 5:36; John 3:18; 6:29; 12:36; 14:1 (twice); Romans 10:9; 2 Corinthians 4:13; 1 Peter 1:8 - The English word "exercise" is added with no
basis in the Greek text - See Kingdom Interlinear Translation, and Emphatic Diaglott
John 1:12; 3:16; 7:5; 16:9; Romans 10:4; Galations 3:22; 1 Peter 2:6 - The English word "exercising" is added with no basis in the Greek text -
See Kingdom Interlinear Translation, and Emphatic Diaglott
John 3:18; Romans 4:3; 2 Corinthians 4:13; 2 Thessalonians 1:10; Hebrews 4:3 - The English word "exercised" is added with no basis in the
Greek text - See Kingdom Interlinear Translation, and Emphatic Diaglott
John 3:18; 3:36; 6:35; 6:40; 11:25; 11:26; 14:12; Romans 10:10 - The English word "exercises" is added with no basis in the Greek text - See
Kingdom Interlinear Translation, and Emphatic Diaglott
John 6:45 - Greek word "Theou" ("of God," or "God's") mistranslated as "by Jehovah". - See Kingdom Interlinear Translation, and Emphatic
Diaglott
John 8:58 - Greek words "ego eimi" ("I am") mistranslated as "I have been" - See Kingdom Interlinear Translation, and Emphatic Diaglott
John 12:38; Acts 1:24; 4:29; 7:60; Romans 10:16; 11:3; 14:6 (three times); 14:8 (three times); Revelation 11:17; 15:3; Revelation 15:4; 16:7 -
Greek word "Kurie" ("to Lord") mistranslated as "Jehovah". - See Kingdom Interlinear Translation, and Emphatic Diaglott
John 14:14 - Word "me" is omitted - See Kingdom Interlinear Translation, and Emphatic Diaglott
John 17:3 - Greek verb "ginoskosin" ("to know, intimately) mistranslated as "taking in knowledge of". - See Kingdom Interlinear Translation, and
Emphatic Diaglott (Compare this with the same verb used at Matthew 1:25, which the New World Translation renders sexual "intercourse.")
Acts 2:42 - Greek words "klasei tou artou" ("breaking of the bread") mistranslated as "taking of meals". - See Kingdom Interlinear Translation,
and Emphatic Diaglott
The only reason apparent for this change is to mask the fact that the Apostles and the early church took communion or "The Lord's
Evening Meal" more often than once a year. By returning this and other texts to a literal translation of the Greek, we can notice that
communion was taken weekly, and sometimes even daily.
Acts 2:46 - Greek words "klontes arton" ("breaking bread") mistranslated as "took meals". - See Kingdom Interlinear Translation, and Emphatic
Diaglott
See explanation under Acts 2:42, above.
23
Acts 13:44; 13:48; 16:32; 18:21; 2 Peter 3:12 - Greek word "Theou" ("of God," or "God's") mistranslated as "Jehovah". - See Kingdom
Interlinear Translation, and Emphatic Diaglott
Acts 16:14 - Greek word "Theon" ("God") mistranslated as "Jehovah". - See Kingdom Interlinear Translation, and Emphatic Diaglott
Acts 20:7 - Greek words "klasei arton" ("break bread") mistranslated as "have a meal". - See Kingdom Interlinear Translation, and Emphatic
Diaglott
See explanation under Acts 2:42, above.
Acts 20:28 - The English word "Son" is added in brackets without any support in the Greek text. - See Kingdom Interlinear Translation, and
Emphatic Diaglott
NOTE: This is quoted without the brackets in Organized to Accomplish Our Ministry, 1983 and 1989 editions, p. 24
Romans 4:3; Galations 3:6; Colossians 3:16; James 2:23 - Greek word "Theo" ("God") mistranslated as "Jehovah". - See Kingdom Interlinear
1 Corinthians 10:4 - The Greek phrase, "he petra de en ho Kristos" ("and the rock was Christ") is mistranslated as "and that rock-mass meant
the Christ". - See Kingdom Interlinear Translation, and Emphatic Diaglott
2 Corinthians 1:5 - Greek word "tou" ("of the") mistranslated as "for the". - See Kingdom Interlinear Translation, and Emphatic Diaglott
Philippians 2:9 - The English word "other" is added in brackets with no basis in the Greek text in the 1984 edition of the New World Translation.
- See Kingdom Interlinear Translation, and Emphatic Diaglott
(NOTE: The 1950 through 1981 editions of the New World Translation had this word added without the brackets, making it seem as
though the Greek text included this thought.)
(NOTE: This is quoted without brackets in The Watchtower of February 1, 1992, p. 27)
Colossians 1:16 - The English word "other" is added twice in brackets with no basis in the Greek text in the 1961 through 1984 editions of the
New World Translation. - See Kingdom Interlinear Translation, and Emphatic Diaglott
(NOTE: The 1950 and 1951 editions of the New World Translation had this word added without the brackets, making it seem as though
the Greek text included this thought.)
(NOTE: This is quoted without brackets in The Watchtower of February 1, 1992, pp. 20 and 22)
Colossians 1:17 - The English word "other" is added twice in brackets with no basis in the Greek text in the 1961 through 1984 editions of the
New World Translation. - See Kingdom Interlinear Translation, and Emphatic Diaglott
Colossians 1:20 - The English word "other" is added in brackets with no basis in the Greek text in the 1961 through 1984 editions of the New
World Translation. - See Kingdom Interlinear Translation, and Emphatic Diaglott
Colossians 2:9 - Greek word "Theotetos" (Godship) is mistranslated "divine quality" - See Kingdom Interlinear Translation, and Emphatic
Diaglott
1 Timothy 4:10 - Greek words "panton anthropon" ("of all men") mistranslated as "of all sorts of men". - See Kingdom Interlinear Translation,
and Emphatic Diaglott
Titus 2:13 - Greek phrase "Theou kai soteros emon" ("God and Savior of us," or "our God and Savior") mistranslated as "god and of [the]
Savior of us". (Note the word "the" added in brackets without any support in the Greek text.) - See Kingdom Interlinear Translation, and
Emphatic Diaglott
Hebrews 2:13; Revelation 4:8 - Greek word "Theos" ("God") mistranslated as "Jehovah". - See Kingdom Interlinear Translation, and Emphatic
Diaglott
Hebrews 12:9 - Greek word "pneumaton" ("spirits") paraphrased as "spiritual life". - See Kingdom Interlinear Translation, and Emphatic Diaglott
Hebrews 12:23 - Greek word "pneumasi" ("to spirits") paraphrased as "spiritual lives". - See Kingdom Interlinear Translation, and Emphatic
Diaglott
James 1:12 - Greek word "epeggeilato" (he promised) mistranslated as "Jehovah promised" - See Kingdom Interlinear Translation, and
Emphatic Diaglott
James 3:9 - Greek word "kai" ("and") mistranslated as "even". - See Kingdom Interlinear Translation, and Emphatic Diaglott
Revelation 5:10 - Greek word "epi" ("on") mistranslated as "over" - See Kingdom Interlinear Translation, and Emphatic Diaglott
Revelation 19:10 - Greek phrase "he gar marturia Iesou estin to pneuma tes propheteias" ("for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy")
mistranslated as "for the bearing witness to Jesus is what inspires prophesying." - See Kingdom Interlinear Translation, and Emphatic Diaglott
24
Revelation 19:10 - Greek word "Iesou" ("of Jesus," or "Jesus'") mistranslated as "to Jesus." - See Kingdom Interlinear Translation, and
Emphatic Diaglott
Revelation 19:10 - Greek word "pneuma" ("spirit") mistranslated as "what inspires." - See Kingdom Interlinear Translation, and Emphatic
Diaglott
NOTES:
When considering the term " Jehovah " we must consider the following point:
The Watchtower society acknowledges that there is no early NT manuscript evidence that "YHWH" or "Jehovah" were ever intended to be used in
the New Testament:
"It seems most unusual to find that the extent manuscripts copies of the original text of the Christian Greek Scriptures do not contain
the Devine mane in its full form" ("Aid To Bible Understanding" 1971, p. 886)
Why, then, is the name [Jehovah, or YHWH] absent from the extant manuscripts of the Christian Greek Scriptures or the so called
'New Testament'? Evidently because by the time those extant copies were made (from the third century C.E. onward) the original
text of the writings of the apostles and disciples had been altered. The divine name in the Tetragrammaton form was undoubtedly
replaced with 'Kyrios' and 'Ho Theos' by later copyists." ("Aid To Bible Understanding" 1971, p. 887)
"no ancient Greek manuscript that we possess today of the books from Matthew to Revelation contains God's name in full. " ("The
Divine Name That Will Endure Forever"1984 p. 23)
So we see there is no evidence at all that "YHWH" or "Jehovah" were ever intended to be used in the New Testament - though the Society has
packed it with such references in its NWT version of the Bible
DEGREES OF SIN
"Our Lord said to Pilate (John 19:11): 'He that hath delivered me to thee, hath the greater sin,' and yet it is evident that Pilate was guilty of some sin.
Therefore one sin is greater than another.
Therefore it matters much to the gravity of a sin whether one departs more or less from the rectitude of reason: and accordingly we must say that sins are
not all equal.
To commit sin is unlawful on account of some inordinateness therein: wherefore those which contain a greater inordinateness are more unlawful, and
consequently graver sins." - St. Thomas Aquinas ("Summa Theologica" 13th century A.D.)
"If any man see his brother sin a sin [which is] not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto
death: I do not say that he shall pray for it. All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death." - 1 John 5:16-17
"Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the
greater sin." - John 19:11
"And the Lord said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous..." - Genesis 18:20
"Then Abimelech called Abraham, and said unto him, What hast thou done unto us? and what have I offended thee, that thou hast brought on me and on
my kingdom a great sin? thou hast done deeds unto me that ought not to be done." - Genesis 20:9
"He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death." - Exodus 21:12
"And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death. And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he
shall surely be put to death. And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death. And if men strive together, and one
smite another with a stone, or with his fist, and he die not, but keepeth his bed: If he rise again, and walk abroad upon his staff, then shall he
that smote him be quit: only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed." - Exodus 21:15-19
"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the
woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine." - Exodus 21:22
"If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it; he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep." - Exodus 22:1
25
"If the theft be certainly found in his hand alive, whether it be ox, or ass, or sheep; he shall restore double. If a man shall cause a field or vineyard to be
eaten, and shall put in his beast, and shall feed in another man's field; of the best of his own field, and of the best of his own vineyard, shall
he make restitution. If fire break out, and catch in thorns, so that the stacks of corn, or the standing corn, or the field, be consumed therewith;
he that kindled the fire shall surely make restitution." - Exodus 22:4-6
"And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him,
he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins." - Exodus 22:16-17
"Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death." - Exodus 22:19
WHAT THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH SAYS ON "DEGREES OF SIN:"
1854. "Sins are rightly evaluated according to their gravity. The distinction between mortal and venial sin, already evident in Scripture, [Cf. 1 Jn 5:16-17.]
became part of the tradition of the Church. It is corroborated by human experience."
1855. "Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God's law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his
beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him. Venial sin allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it. "
1856. "Mortal sin, by attacking the vital principle within us - that is, charity - necessitates a new initiative of God's mercy and a conversion of heart which is
normally accomplished within the setting of the sacrament of reconciliation: When the will sets itself upon something that is of its nature
incompatible with the charity that orients man toward his ultimate end, then the sin is mortal by its very object . . . whether it contradicts the
love of God, such as blasphemy or perjury, or the love of neighbor, such as homicide or adultery.... But when the sinner's will is set upon
something that of its nature involves a disorder, but is not opposed to the love of God and neighbor, such as thoughtless chatter or
immoderate laughter and the like, such sins are venial. [St. Thomas Aquinas, Su Th I-II, 88, 2, corp. art.] "
1862. "One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the
moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent."
1863. "Venial sin weakens charity; it manifests a disordered affection for created goods; it impedes the soul's progress in the exercise of the virtues and
the practice of the moral good; it merits temporal punishment. Deliberate and unrepented venial sin disposes us little by little to commit
mortal sin. However venial sin does not set us in direct opposition to the will and friendship of God; it does not break the covenant with God.
With God's grace it is humanly reparable. 'Venial sin does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity, and
consequently eternal happiness.' [John Paul II, RP 17 # 9.] While he is in the flesh, man cannot help but have at least some light sins. But do
not despise these sins which we call 'light': if you take them for light when you weigh them, tremble when you count them. A number of light
objects makes a great mass; a number of drops fills a river; a number of grains makes a heap. What then is our hope? Above all, confession.
[St. Augustine, In ep. Jo. 1, 6: PL 35, 1982.]"
"But what presses harder upon the present question [in the Lord's command of praying for enemies and persecutors] is that saying of the apostle John, 'If
any man know that his brother sinneth a sin not unto death, he shall ask, and the Lord will give life to that man who sinneth not unto death:
but there is a sin unto death: not for that do I say that he should ask.' For it manifestly shows that there are some 'brethren' whom we are not
commanded to pray for, whereas the Lord bids us pray even for our persecutors. Nor can this question be solved except we acknowledge,
that there are some sins in brethren that are worse than the sin of enemies in persecuting." - St. Augustine of Hippo ("Homily on 1 John 5:16"
4th century A.D.)
COMMENTS
I do not understand the Protestants' stance on "sin being sin" with no matter of "degree" of evil or wickedness. There is no "difference" if one steals a
nickel from his/her mother's purse or commits mass murder? That makes no sense to me. I believe God is a fair and just judge ( Deut. 32:4;
John 5:30). At the time of judgment, I find it hard to believe that He would treat the two sinners the same under those circumstances as that
would be anything, but "just."
Why in Exodus does God specifically differentiate "punishments" for different sins if all sins are "equal" in the eyes of God? Why is the punishment for ALL
sins in the above passages from Exodus, not death?
How can the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah be "very grievous" in Genesis 18:20 if all sins are the same? The words "very grievous" themselves distinguish
the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah.
26
What is a "great" sin as opposed to another sin in Genesis 20:9? Again, "great" is a word distinguishing a "lesser" sin from a "greater" one.
In John 19:11, Jesus Himself uses the words "greater sin." If all sins are the same, how can one be "greater" than the other?
"Adultery, fraud, and manslaughter are mortal sins." St. Cyprian of Carthage ("Treatise VII," c. 250 A.D.)
"The clergyman who is deposed for mortal sin, shall not be excommunicated." St. Basil the Great ("Canonical Letter" c. 374 A.D.)
"There are venial sins and there are mortal sins. It is one thing to owe ten thousand talents, another to owe but a farthing. We shall have to give an
accounting for an idle word no less than for adultery. But to be made to blush and to be tortured are not the same thing; not the same thing to
grow red in the face and to be in agony for a long time. . . . If we entreat for lesser sins we are granted pardon, but for greater sins, it is difficult
to obtain our request. There is a great difference between one sin and another." St. Jerome ("Against Jovinian" c. 393 A.D.)
PROTESTANT ERRORS ON SALVATION

How often is it that one hears Protestants crying out that "salvation is through faith alone, apart from works" and making such erroneous claims as "works
are not necessary for salvation"? Indeed, this is one of the two pillars of Protestantism - the other being "Sola Scriptura," Scipture alone - it is on these two
pillars that Protestantism is based. When one is knocked down, the other will follow swiftly.
As it is, the pillar of "salvation apart from works" is dependant upon the other - sola scriptura. For without sola scriptura, the other pillar would never have
been erected. Yet, we shall herein deal with the errors contained in the pillar of "salvation apart from works," and then move on to refute the protestant
error of "scripture alone."
To begin with, the Protestants are quite easily shown to be wrong when it comes to whether or not works are necessary for salvation, and whether or not
faith alone will suffice. As the Epistle of Saint James says, "Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only? For even as the body
without the spirit is dead; so also faith without works is dead."
As it is, we see Christ our Lord commanding us to do works in order to be saved throughout the Sacred Scriptures. For example, in John 3:5 Christ
commands us to be baptized in order to be saved. And in Matthew 19:16-17 Christ commands us to keep the commandments in order to be saved. While
in 1 Corinthians 13:2 the Scriptures tell us that faith without charity is useless.
The Scriptures also tell us that one of the standards by which we shall be judged on the last day, is our works. As Matthew 16:27 tells us, and I quote: "For
the Son of Man will come in the glory of his Father with his angels: And then will he render to every man according to his works." The Book of the
Apocalypse (otherwise called "Revelations" by protestants) says the same thing in chapter 20 verse 13, while in Chapter 22 verse 13 of the same book it
says the following "Behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to render to every man according to his works."
The Scriptures also command us to heed and put into practice the Sacred words of Christ, as the following verses bear witness, John 3:36; 5:24; 12:50;
13:17; 14:15; Luke 6:47; 10:37; 1 John 3:24; 2:5. And since it is necessary for us to put into practice the Sacred Words of Christ, and to heed them, the
following also become necessary for salvation:
1. Eating the Flesh and drinking the Blood of Christ (John 6:32)
2. We must be perfect (Matthew 5:48)
3. Hope is necessary for salvation (Romans 8:27; 2 Timothy 4:8 Hebrews 9:28)
4. Holiness is necessary for salvation (Matthew, 5:20)
5. Hearing Christs Church is necessary for salvation (Matthew 18:17)
6. Believing is necessary for salvation (Mark 16:16)
7. Being a member of Christs Church is necessary for salvation.
Hence we see that, in the light of Sacred Scripture, the protestant theory of salvation through faith alone crumbles into dust. Permit me to take a few
moments and to refute some common objections to the necessity of works for salvation. Among the Scripture verses which are frequently twisted by
protestants in a desperate attempt to support their position are Romans 11:6, Galatians 2:16, and Romans 4:1-8. These verses have been twisted by
protestants, who, primarily through misunderstanding and lack of knowledge on their part, are under the delusion that they refute the Catholic stance on
works and salvation. Let us start with Romans 11:6. Permit me to cite the verse in question:
Romans 11:6 [DR] And if by grace, it is not now by works: otherwise grace is no more grace.
If salvation were to come by works, done by nature, apart faith and grace, salvation would not be a grace or favor, but a debt; but such dead works are
indeed of no value in the sight of God towards salvation. It is not the same with regard to works done with and by God's grace; for to such works as these
he has promised eternal salvation (see the above-cited verses on this question).
Holy Mother Church does not say that grace is not necessary for salvation, nor does She say that Faith is not necessary for salvation. And She is most
certainly not saying that one can be saved by works alone. All three of the above are necessary for salvation. Faith without grace and works is dead, just
as works without faith and grace would be dead. It is through a misunderstanding of Catholic teaching that this verse is commonly used by Protestants
against Catholics, and against the necessity of works for salvation.
To continue on, permit me to cite Galatians 2:16, which says:
27
Galatians 2:16 [DR] But knowing that man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ; we also believe in
Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: because by the works of the law no
flesh shall be justified.
As the Haydock's Bible says concerning this verse:
"Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law.' S. Paul, to the end of the chapter, seems to continue his discourse to
S. Peter, but chiefly to the Jewish Galatians, to show that both the Gentiles, whom the Jews called and looked upon as sinners, and
also the Jews, when converted, could only hope to be justified and saved by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law.
For by the law I am dead to the law.' That is, says S. Jerome, by the evangelical law of Christ I am dead to the ancient law and its
ceremonies." (Vol. II p. 244)
And as St. Paul said in his Epistle to the Romans, Chapter 3 verse 20, "Because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified before him. For by the
law is the knowledge of sin." What is obviously being referred to here are the works of the Law of Moses. If it were otherwise, we would have a clear-cut
example of a contradiction in the Sacred Scriptures. For does not St. James tell us that Faith without works is dead? And do not the Scriptures elsewhere
state that Good works and deeds are necessary for salvation (Luke 10:28; 10:25; 18:18. Matthew 19:16)? Here we see that the protestants are pitting
Scripture against Scripture... instead of accepting Scripture in its entirety. The protestants claim to be inspired by the Holy Ghost... but one of the many
problems with this is the fact that the Holy Ghost would never accept the words of St. Paul over the words of St. James, and discard the words of the
latter. Nor would the Holy Ghost ask one to discard the Words of Christ, as listed in the books of Matthew and Luke, chapters and verses listed above.
The third, and, by far, the most frequently used attack on the necessity of works for salvation, is Romans 4:1-8, which says as follows:
"What shall we say then that Abraham hath found, who is our father according to the flesh. For if Abraham were justified by works,
he hath whereof to glory, but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him unto
justice. Now to him that worketh, the reward is not reckoned according to grace, but according to debt. But to him that worketh not,
yet believeth in him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is reputed to justice, according to the purpose of the grace of God. As David
also termeth the blessedness of a man, to whom God reputes justice without works: Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven,
and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord hath not imputed sin."
A simple, working knowledge of the entirety of the Sacred Scriptures would be more than enough to refute the interpretation given to the above verses,
and to put the one using them against the necessity of works for salvation to shame.
As St. James states, referring to the exact same verses to which you are referring above "Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac
his son upon the altar? Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled, saying:
Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God. Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by
faith only? "(St. James, 2:21-24) When St. Paul stated "For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory, but not before God" what were,
again, referred to were works done for the honor and glory of man, not those of God. As the verse very plainly points out. It is not rejecting works
altogether, as St. James pointed out above. In fact, St. James uses the verse following the above as proof for the fact that works are necessary for
justification! After all, not only was the offering up of Isaac upon the altar a work (which God required Abraham to do, in order to test Abraham's Faith...
which, in turn, shows, yet again, that Faith alone is not enough), but also Abraham's own belief, was a work.
It might be very well to point out here that taking Scripture verses out of context (in an attempt to prove an erroneous belief), is a thing which was used by
Satan himself against Christ when Satan tempted Christ in the desert.
Thus falls the theory of salvation through faith alone, not to mention the erroneous interpretations which are frequently given to several verses in the
Sacred Scriptures.
Q and A on the Bible
By David Goldstein,
Taken from his book "What Say You?" p. 244-289
Writer of the Bible "Who wrote the Bible?"
"Well, who made the Bible?"
Origin of Name "What is the origin and meaning of the word Bible?"
Inspiration "What is meant by the Bible being inspired? Does it mean that God wrote the words therein?"
Canon "What do you mean by the Canon of Scripture?"
Christian Canon "When was the Christian canon of Scripture determined?"
Catholic and Protestant Bibles "What is the difference between the Catholic and Protestant Bibles?"
Apocrypha "What do Protestants mean when they speak of apocryphal books?"
Truth of Canon "How do you know that the Catholic canon is true?"
Biblical Discrepancy "To what is due the discrepancy, 73 books in one Bible and 66 in the other?"
The Septuagint "If you were confronted, as I have been, with a demand for the reasons that warrant the use of the Septuagint version of the Old
Testament, what would you say?"
28
Unconvinced "What you say is interesting, yet I am not convinced. It is hard to believe that Protestants would not accept the Septuagint version of the
Bible if it is valid."
Forbid Laity to read the Bible "Is it not true that the Roman Catholic Church forbade the laity to read the Bible? Please answer Yes or No."
Rule of Faith "You will agree, will you not, that the difference between the Protestant and Catholic religions is their rule of faith?"
"The difference is this, we Protestants have the Bible as our rule of faith, whereas Catholics look to their Church to guide them. In other words, Protestants
use their brains, while Catholics depend upon the brains of their Church. Thats all I have to say."
Chained Bibles "Id like to ask you a question. Now dont dodge. Didnt your church chain the Bible during the Middle Ages, so as to keep the people
ignorant of its contents?"
Search the Scriptures "Did not our Lord say Search the Scriptures? What else could that mean but the Bible? It certainly does not refer to the
Church."
Private Interpretation "You will admit that the intellectual calibre of the people is more highly developed through individual interpretation of the Bible
than by depending upon authority? I do, therefore I stand by the Protestant principle of individual liberty, for private Bible judgment."
Catholics Mental Slaves "Whats the use of talking to Catholics about religion? They are mental slaves. As soon as you corner them, they fall back
upon their Church for knowledge of the Bible. Why dont they be Americans, free in religion, by doing their own thinking?"
Right to Believe Anything "Well, I have a right to believe whatever I want to believe. That is one of the reasons why I am not a Catholic. I do not need
priests to do my thinking."
Abomination of Desolation "Dont you think that the abomination of desolation we read of in the Bible is being witnessed in our 1940 World War?"
The Herd of Swine "Talking about the Bible, do you think it right, as Matthew 8 tells us, for Christ to drive the devils into a legion of swine, who were
drowned? What would you say if I destroyed a stock of swine?"
To Men of Good Will "Which is correct? The Protestant peace on earth, good will toward men, or the Catholic on earth peace to men of good will?"
The Sabbath Day "The Commandment in the Bible says Keep the Sabbath holy. Who changed it from Saturday to Sunday? And by what right?"
The Doxology "Why does not the Catholic Bible contain the doxology at the end of the Lords Prayer, as does the Protestant Bible? It is offering praise
to God For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever."
The Lords Prayer "Please explain the Lords Prayer. There are some parts that are puzzling to me."
Lots Wife "I think the Bible would be a more interesting book if the fables therein were cut out of it. The story of Lots wife turning into a pillar of salt is
one of a hundred of them."
Ten Commandments "To what is the difference in the Roman Catholic and Protestant versions of the Ten Commandments attributed? Whatever your
answer may be, dont you think the Commandments are out of date?"
N. Y. University Students "Your answer to my question is bright, but it is not in accord with modern youth. Did you read this mornings announcement
in the public press of the poll of 1,485 students in the N. Y. University School of Commerce and Finance? Here is a copy showing a great majority of them
to have voted the Ten Commandments out of date."
Catholics believe
That the Bible is Gods Word.
That the Bible is composed of 46 books that were written before the birth of Jesus Christ, and 27 books written since that time, as
defined by the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D. to form the canon of Scripture.
Catholics believe
That the New Testament came after the Church;
That the Church did not come after the New Testament.
That before a line of the New Testament was written:
Christ established his Church;
The Apostles preached Christ and Him crucified;
St. Peter converted 3,000 Jews;
The Council of Jerusalem assembled;
The Jewish law was abrogated.
Catholics believe
That before the last Book of the New Testament was written:
The Catholic Church had celebrated her golden jubilee;
The faith of Christ had been "proclaimed all over (the then known) world" (Rom. 1:8).
29
Eleven of the twelve Apostles had died.
Catholics believe
That as late as the end of the second century, many churches, composed of believers in the doctrines of the Apostles, did not know
of all the New Testament books.
That is why St. Irenaeus, martyr, Father of the Church, disciple of St. John the Divine, could say,
"If the Apostles had not left us any writings, would it not have been our duty to be guided by the rule of that tradition which they
delivered to those to whom they entrusted the churches? A rule asserted by many of the barbarous nations believing in Christ, who,
not possessing any written language, have the words of salvation written without paper and ink, in the hearts by the Spirit, and
carefully preserve the ancient doctrines delivered to them." (Adv. Heresies, lib. iii, c. 4.).
Catholics Believe
That the authority for the inspiration, and interpretation, of the books in the Bible rests upon the living testimony of the maker of the
Bible, Christs Church.
THE BIBLE
"Who wrote the Christian Bible?"
No one wrote the Christian Bible. The Bible is a library of books, and libraries are not written, they are made. The books and letters in the Christian Bible
were written by Moses, David, Isaiah, Matthew, John, Paul, Peter and numerous other inspired writers.
ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE
"Well, who made the Christian Bible?"
The Catholic Church. This she did by collecting the Jewish and Christian writings extant, and selecting from them the books and letters that form the
canon of Scripture, declaring them to be writings that were inspired by God.
ORIGIN OF NAME
"What is the origin and meaning of the word Bible?"
It came from the Greek word biblos which means the inner bark of the papyrus, paper-reed, from which paper was originally made, in Egypt. The Latin
form "Biblia" spelled with a capital letter, came to mean "the Book of Books," "The Book" by way of pre-eminence, the inspired Book, etc. The Holy
Scriptures were first called the Bible by St. Chrysostom, the Catholic Archbishop of Constantinople, in the 4 th century. St. Jerome designated it more
correctly the Divine Library.
INSPIRATION
"What is meant by the Bible being inspired? Does it mean that God wrote the words therein? "
No, the words were written by men, but the thought was under Divine guidance. Inspiration means that an extraordinary influence was exerted by the Holy
Spirit that purified, elevated the moral natures of certain men, illumined their understanding and caused them, mediately or immediately, to write the books
and letters that are in the Bible.
CANON
"What do you mean by the Canon of Scripture?"
The Canon of Scripture simply means the authentic collection of those writings declared to have been inspired by God. They are called canonical,
whereas those writings that were rejected as uncanonical were called apocryphal, which means not of Divine origin, not inspired.
CHRISTIAN CANON
"When was the Christian Canon of Scripture determined?"
The Canon recognized by the Catholic Church for the past fifteen centuries (73 books) was specified in the Council of Laodicea in 367 A.D., and was
definitely adopted in the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D., after being sent to the Pope for confirmation.
While some of the books ratified by the Council of Carthage had always been considered to be canonical, others had been disputed. Finally at this Council
a union of minds was reached as to the canonicity of the whole 73 books and epistles.
In the 16th century Martin Luther greatly stirred the religious world, by dubbing as apocrypha certain books that were unquestioned for twelve centuries. He
declared the Epistle of St. James to be an "Epistle of straw"; threw "Esther" into the Elbe; called "Judith" a mere poem; "Tobias" a farce; and expressed
regret that the "second Book of Machabees" was ever written. The Council of Trent (1546) therefore deemed it expedient to declare, ex-cathedra, that is
by the infallible authority of the Church, that the list of books adopted at the Council of Carthage is the authoritative, the finally determined, collection of
writings composed under Divine inspiration.
CATHOLIC AND PROTESTANT BIBLES
"What is the difference between the Catholic and Protestant Bibles? "
One of the differences, and there are many of them, is that the Catholic Bible contains 73 books, as canonical, whereas the Protestant Bibles contain only
66 of these writings. The Protestant canon does not contain the following seven books: Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 1 and 2
30
Machabees. It also omits chapters 10:4 and 16:24 of Esther; 3:24-90; 13 and 14 of Daniel. Here is a list of both the Catholic and Protestant Old Testament
Canons, the differences in some of the names being immaterial.
BOOKS IN THE BIBLE
CATHOLIC CANON
Old Testament
Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Joshua
Judges
Ruth
1 Kings
2 Kings
3 Kings
4 Kings
1 Paralipomenon
2 Paralipomenon
1 Esdras
2 Esdras (alias Nehemias)
Tobias (rejected by the protestants)
Judith (rejected by the protestants)
Esther (protestants reject 10:4; 14:24)
Job
Psalms
Proverbs
Ecclesiastes
Canticle of Canticles
Wisdom (rejected by the protestants)
Ecclesiasticus (rejected by the protestants)
Isaias
Jeremias
Lamentations
Baruch (rejected by the protestants)
Ezechiel
Daniel (protestants reject 3:24-90; 13:15)
Osee
Joel
Amos
Abdias
Jonas
Micheas
Nahum
Habacuc
Sophonias
Aggeus
Zacharias
Malachias
1 Machabees (rejected by the protestants)
2 Machabees (rejected by the protestants)
PROTESTANT CANON
Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Joshua
Judges
Ruth
1 Samuel
2 Samuel
31
1 Kings
2 Kings
1 Chronicles
2 Chronicles
Ezra
Nehemiah
Esther (excluding 10:4; 14:24)
Job
Psalms
Proverbs
Ecclesiastes
Song of Solomon
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Lamentations
Ezekiel
Daniel (excluding 3:24-90; 13:15)
Hosea
Joel
Amos
Abadiah
Jonah
Micah
Nahum
Habakkuk
Zaphiniah
Haggai
Zechariah
Malachi
The number and names of Catholic and Protestant books in the New Testament are alike.
The differences between Catholic and Protestant Bibles have been due largely to "Reformation" translations that were motivated by hostility towards
Catholic teachings and practices, which is not as intense among Protestants today as it used to be. One of the doctrinal instances, that has been
corrected in the Revised Version, bears evidence of having been prompted by a desire to refute the Catholic practice of serving Communion under one
kind, believing, as Catholics do, that Christ is present whole and entire, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, under the appearance of bread as well as under
the appearance of wine. This was done by inserting the word AND in the place of OR in verse 27, chapter XI of the First Corinthians. The original reads:
"Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink this wine unworthily, etc."
St. Matthew 6:7 is made to read in the Protestant text: "When ye pray, use not vain repetitions." This is aimed at the repeated prayers of Catholics while
saying the Rosary, as if repetition of the "Our Father" that Christ taught, and the "Hail Mary full of grace" salutation of the Angel Gabriel, were "vain." The
Catholic text, of pre-Protestant origin, reads "But in praying, do not multiply words, as the Gentiles do." It was not "repetitions" but "much speaking" that
was condemned, as Saint Augustine said fifteen centuries ago: "Christ does not forbid much praying, but much speaking."
Luke 1:28 is made in the Protestant Bible to read: "Hail, you art highly favored," when the Angel Gabriel said "Hail, full of grace," as it appears in the
Catholic Bible. The authority of the Latin Fathers, and the codices of Alexandrinus in the British Museum, the Epraenus rescriptus in Paris, and the Bezae
in Cambridge University, stand as present-day evidence to sustain the Catholic translation.
There are many differences that are not of vital import, such as the Psalms in the Protestant Bible being numbered according to modern Jewish instead of
early Christian and ancient Jewish practice, beginning by dividing Ps. X.; also by calling the last book in the Bible The Book of Revelation instead of the
Apocalypse, which "signifies a revelation, a making known, (and) also means the revealing of ones self, a coming."
APOCRYPHA
"What do Protestants mean when they speak of apocryphal books?"
They mean the seven books found in the Catholic Bible which Protestants declare to be uncanonical.
Catholics apply the term to those spurious books, most of them written during the two centuries before Christ, that are not genuinely scriptural in the view
of Jews and Protestants as well as Catholics.
Up to twenty-five years ago nearly all Protestant Bibles contained the seven books that Protestants list as apocrypha. Some years ago Rev. Dr. Milo
Gates, vicar of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the Intercession, in New York City, told why he deplored the "mutilation" of the Bible by the elimination
of those books called "Apocrypha." Let me read you part of what he said:
"Up to the time when a small but very noisy block of Scottish Presbyterians began their agitation in the British and Foreign Bible
Society for the omission of these books every Bible had them. In fact every Bible had them until about 1826. In that year a Bible
publishing society the British and Foreign voted to drop them. Immediately the English Bible Society threw out these books the
Continental Bible societies ceased to work with them. Today the Apocrypha are in the Bibles of all the great churches the
Orthodox, Roman, Lutheran, Anglican and the Episcopal. We appeal for an unmutilated Bible in the interest of Christian unity."
32
"In the second place, no one can really understand the New Testament without knowledge of these books. There are more than 111
quotations and allusions to the Apocrypha in the New Testament.
"In the third place, some of the most blessed doctrines of the Church come from these books, and others we find developing in
these books" (New York Times, Dec. 10, 1928).
To list as "apocrypha," not genuine, seven Septuagint Old Testament Books, of which "more than 111 quotations and allusions" are recorded in the
Protestant New Testament as having been used by Christ and the Apostles is an offense, though not so intended by the Protestants of our day and
generation.
One of the reasons given by Protestant churches for rejecting the seven books, is that doubts as to their authenticity were expressed in the early Church.
But so were doubts expressed regarding the Epistles of St. Jude, St. James, 2 nd and 3rd St. John, St. Pauls Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Book of
Revelation, until the Catholic Church made her canon of Scripture in the Council of Carthage (397 A.D.). It is interesting to note that Protestant churches
do not include any books in their New Testament that the Catholic Church rejected, even though some of them were in use during the first years of the
Church.
Here is a list of sixteen spurious books among the many extant today:
The Gospel of St. Thomas
The Gospel According to the Hebrews
St. Pauls Epistle to the Laodiceans
The Epistle of St. Barnabas
The Epistle of St. Bartholomew
The Epistle of the Shepherd of Hermas
The Acts of Thecla
The Apostolic Constitutions
The Gospel of St. James
The Apocalypse of St. Peter
The Epistle of St. Clement
The Epistle of St. Polycarp
The Epistle of St. Phillip
The Acts of Pilate
The Acts of Paul
The Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles
TRUTH OF CANON
"How do you know the Catholic canon is true?"
By the only way the truth of it can be known with certitude; that is through such a statement as appears in II Peter 1:21 "the holy men of God spoke,
inspired by the Holy Spirit" and Divine tradition, both vouched for by an infallible authority. Books cannot vouch for themselves. The writings themselves
can never be proof of their being Divinely inspired; neither can reliance with certainty be placed upon our individual judgment, save God sends an angel to
inform us, as He did "to His servant John." Considering that such an infallible power does not abide, and is not claimed to abide in those churches that
have rejected the Catholic canon of Scripture, they were devoid of the Divine power that is necessary to guarantee the canon with any degree of certitude.
Some years ago a Protestant professor, Dr. Marcus Dods, who came to our country from Scotland, said in his lectures, since published:
"If you ask a Romanist why he accepts certain books as canonical, he has a perfectly intelligible answer ready. He accepts these
books because the Church bids him do so. The Church has determined what books are canonical and he accepts the decision of
the Church. If you ask a Protestant why he believes that just these books bound up together in the Bible are canonical, and neither
more nor fewer, I fear that ninety-nine Protestants out of a hundred could give you no answer that would satisfy a reasonable man.
Protestants scorn the Romanist because he relies on the authority of the Church, but he can not tell you on what authority he
himself relies. The Protestant watchword is: The Bible, the whole Bible and nothing but the Bible, but how many Protestants are
there who could make it quite clear that within the boards of their Bible they have the whole Bible and nothing but the Bible?" (pp.
31-32, "The Bible, Its Origin and Nature.")
BIBLICAL DISCREPANCY
"To what is due the biblical discrepancy, 73 books in one Bible and 66 in another? "
Mainly to the declaration of the Catholic Church that the Septuagint, the Alexandrian version of the Old Testament, of 46 books, is the authentic, complete
scriptural text, while Protestant Churches adopted the Palestinian version of only 39 of those 46 books.
THE SEPTUAGINT
"If you were confronted, as I have been, with a demand for some reasons that warrant the use of the Septuagint version of the Old
Testament, what would you say?"
I would explain the meaning of the term Septuagint, the origin of that biblical text, the reason for its adoption by the Catholic Church, the authority that
warrants Catholics believing with absolute certainty that the Septuagint text contains all of the Divinely inspired books of the Old Testament, and therefore
the inadequacy and unauthenticity of the Protestant Canon.
33
The Septuagint means seventy. It is the name given the version of the Old Testament translation, into Greek, that was made by 70 Jerusalem Jews, under
two leaders who did not participate in the work of translation. They were translators, learned in the Hebrew language, who were sent to Alexandria by the
Jewish High Priest Eleazer of Jerusalem, at the behest of Ptolemy Philadelphus (285-247 B.C.), to translate the Greek the Jewish Divine books then
extant.
Greek was a world language when the Septuagint translation was made; Hebrew as a language was on the decline among the Jews long before those
days. That is no doubt the reason why all but one of the books in the New Testament were written in Greek. During the days of the second temple Aramaic
was the language spoken by the Jews of Palestine. "Some of the outstanding philosophic Jewish religious and literary creations were written in Greek and
Aramaic" during those times, says the "Zionist Record" (July, 1940). Hebrew was hardly known by the Jews outside of Palestine, where this holy language
of the Jews was so little known that "a translator stood beside the reader in the Synagogue to translate the Hebrew into Aramaic."
The Septuagint translation was made in the third century before the coming of Christ. It was used by the Jews of Alexandria, Asia Minor, Greece, Italy and
other Greek speaking countries, also by the Rabbis of Palestine at the time of the coming of Christ. Its authenticity was not questioned by the Jews until
after the Messiah came into His own, after He was rejected by most of them, and the Christian Church had taken the place of the Synagogue. The latest
Jewish evidence of this appears in Vallentines "Jewish Encyclopedia" (London, 1938, p. 562). To quote:
"The appearance of the Septuagint was greeted with enthusiasm by the Jews everywhere, but with the rise of the Christian sect and
its adoption of this version of its Bible, the Jews began to denounce it vehemently, accusing the Christians of falsifying the Greek
text here and there" (Emphasis mine).
The Septuagint, which was quoted favorably by Philo and Josephus, is said to have been made by each of the 70 translators working independently of the
others. Their work is so identical that it was said to be "as though some invisible prompter had whispered into the ears of each." Rabbi Abraham Meyer
Heller says, "although the work of translation was done by each (of the 70) without consulting the others, they were all found to be exactly alike" ("The
Vocabulary of Jewish Life," N. Y. 1942, p. 214). Be that so or not, one may reasonably believe that the Septuagint was providential. It enabled the
knowledge of the Old Law, its Divine prophesies, and their culmination in the coming of the Messiah, to be spread among the Gentiles who did not know
the Hebrew language. The general expectation of the coming of "the great king who was to arise among the Jews," such as caused the Magi to journey to
Bethlehem, was due to this Greek version of the Old Testament.
The integrity of the Septuagint was not questioned by the Jews during the days when they spoke with authority on matters relating to the interpretation of
the law that God had placed within their keeping. This, as we have seen, is substantiated by the English "Jewish Encyclopedia," quoted a moment ago.
Besides, in those days the integrity of the sacred books was so faithfully safeguarded from corruption by a body of Jewish Scribes that "the appearance of
the Septuagint" would not have been "greeted with enthusiasm everywhere" if it were not an exact translation of the 46 books of inspired Hebrew text.
The canon of only 39 Old Testament books in Protestant Bibles is of unsound historic standing, for it is definitively of Jewish non-Palestinian origin, having
been agreed upon as the canon of the Jews during their dispersion, after "the glory had departed" from Jewry, a "glory" which was theirs when they had
an Aaronic priesthood, a Temple, a Sanhedrin, sacrifices, and a reasonable hope of the coming of the Messiah, as He had not yet come. This is vouched
for by Dr. Joseph Reider, Professor of Biblical Philology, Dropsie College, Philadelphia, in Vallentines Jewish Encyclopedia. He says:
"The definitive act of canonization of the complete Scriptures is known to have taken place at the synod of Jabneh (ca. 90 A.D.),
soon after the destruction of the Second Temple, at the instigation of Rabbi Akiba" (p. 94).
Then, again, and this is most important, there are 270 quotations from the Old Testament that were used by Christ and the Apostles, a vast number of
which show traces of having come from the Septuagint. A number of them are listed in "The Catholic Students Aids to the Bible," by Rev. Hugh Pope, O.P.
(Vol I, p. 140, London 1926). "Peloubets Bible Dictionary" (Protestant) says "the Septuagint was manifestly the chief storehouse from which both Christ
and the Apostles drew their proofs and precepts" (pp. 604-5).
While the Catholic Church depends upon the use of the Septuagint by Christ and the Apostles, as well as tradition, to sustain her declaration that the 46
books therein are writings inspired by God, she has her infallible power, exercised during the Council of Trent, to eliminate all doubts on the part of
Catholics as to their Divine authenticity.
Under the Old Dispensation there were 80 high priests (pontiffs), occupants of the Chair of Moses, who spoke with authority regarding Holy Writ, though
they did not speak with infallible authority. Under the New Dispensation there have thus far been 262 pontiffs, who, as occupants of the Chair of Peter,
were endowed with infallible authority in determining the Divine validity of Holy Writ, either individually or in union with other bishops in ecumenical council
assembled, such as the Councils of Jerusalem, Nicea, Trent and the Vatican, to name a few of them.
The Protestant churches have not, nor do they assume to have such infallible power. Hence the Protestant question of the authenticity and canonicity of
the books in the Bible is dependant upon mere human judgment, which is faulty, hence questionable. On the other hand, if the Catholic Church has not the
infallible power she claims to have, then is there no certainty whatsoever as to whether the 46 or 39 books of the Old Testament are of Divine Origin (see
Infallibility).
UNCONVINCED
"What you say is interesting, yet I am not convinced. It is hard to believe that Protestants would not accept the Septuagint version of the
Bible if it is valid."
It is not difficult for persons who know the non-Catholic mind to understand why Catholic facts and arguments convince only a small percentage of
Protestants. They have an inherited protesting mentality against things Catholic. The psychological pro-Protestant atmosphere in which they live; the
instruction they receive from persons who are unfavorable to Catholic teachings, practices and history; the religious books and papers they read; the
knowledge they imbibe from Sunday School teachers who know not the Catholic attitude toward the Bible, build into their very being a resistance to the
acceptance of Catholic claims that only the grace of God can overcome. It is very difficult to unlearn false concepts that one has sincerely cherished. This
is due at times to the consciousness that supplanting such concepts with Catholic belief means a break with family, friends and interests that are
34
Protestant. I recall an occasion when an Episcopalian Minister, being told by one of his church members that he was going into the Catholic Church, said
"the next step is into an insane asylum." Protestants often admire the beauty of the exterior things in the Catholic Church, but it is difficult for them to
believe that an intelligent persons can become a Catholic through intellectual conviction. When G. K. Chesterton entered the Catholic Church, Rev. Orvis
E Jordan said:
"He is esthetic not rational. The artist ever loves the religion of the ritual. One cannot visit the great churches of Europe without
deciding to embrace Roman Catholicism, provided his interests are primarily artistic. Whatever else this great communion may lack,
one must cheerfully concede its primacy in architecture, statuary, and painting. Other churches may imitate, but scarcely hope to
equal, the beautiful appointments of the Catholics of Europe" (Zions Herald, Oct. 4, 1922).
One thing we cannot escape when confronted with facts that are new and likely to entail sacrifice, is our conscience. It is the guide we are morally
obligated to follow. Resistance to truth, which God has given us the grace to know, is resistance to God, Who speaks to us through our conscience.
Whether or not you accept the "interesting" facts, there they stand never to be dislodged by refusal to accept them because the makers of the Protestant
Bible rejected them. More recently Professor Betts (Methodist) of the Northwestern University said, that forty-three per cent of the 700 ministers he
canvassed do not believe the Bible to be of God. Here are the interesting facts: Fact one is that the Old Testament canon of Scripture used by Protestants
was not definitively determined by the Jews until they were no longer the keepers and interpreters of Gods law. Fact two is that the motive that prompted
the Jews to reject the seven Septuagint was quoted, and so accepted as authentic, by Christ and the Apostles. Fact four is that the Septuagint canon was
accepted and used by almost the whole Christian world from the days of the Council of Carthage until the days of the "Reformers."
If the Septuagint version is invalid, then it is up to Protestants to explain why they give Greek Septuagint names instead of Hebrew names, or their English
equivalent names to the books of Moses. Why call those books the Pentateuch instead of the Torah or its English designation, Instruction? Why Genesis,
Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers (translation of the Greek Arithmoi), and Deuteronomy? Instead of the Palestinian Hebrew names, Bereshith, Shemoth,
Vayikra, Bemidbar, and Debarim? Or their English equivalents, The Beginning, Names, And He Called, In the Wilderness, and Words? Why call the Book
"The Bible," which is the Greek (Anglicized) name the Catholic Church gave the Septuagint in union with the New Testament?
It is interesting to note that Chanukah, the Feast of Lights, which the Jews celebrate for eight successive days each year, centers on the story of the
Maccabees that appears in the last two books of the Septuagint version, which the Catholic Church preserved and declared to have been written under
the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. This feast was instituted by Judas Maccabeus as a memorial of the rededication of the sanctuary which was defiled by
Antiochus Epiphanes. The thrilling story of the Maccabees, glorious martyrs for their religion, is read and exalted every year by the Jews, as is the Book of
Esther during the Feast of Purim. Surely the books of the Maccabees are higher in religious quality, represent a more honorable service and sacrifice for
the honor and glory of God, then does the Book of Esther, which the Jews of 1938 in Jerusalem tried to have excluded from their canon of Holy Scripture.
Considering that Chanukah, the Feast of Lights, ranks higher than does the Feast of Purim, no reason save hostility towards Christianity during the
Talmud-writing days can account for rejecting the two Books of the Maccabees as uncanonical and placing the section of the Book of Esther that has not
God in it into the Jewish canon. Rabbi Leon Bernstein declared that if it were not "for these two apocryphal books," this glorious story of the Maccabees
might have been unknown to the world ("Flavius Josephus His Times and Critics," 1938).
Your query embodies a consciousness of the value of the facts you found "interesting," but refused to accept. Surely you are morally obligated to make a
further investigation of them. You have passed the stage of "invincible ignorance" that excuses many persons who do not know the sound arguments that
sustain the belief that the Catholic Bible is the one and only complete Library of inspired writings.
FORBID LAITY THE BIBLE
"Is it not true that the Roman Catholic Church forbade the laity to read the Bible? Please answer Yes or No. "
There are some questions that cannot be answered Yes or No.
"Ask me one."
I will. What time is it? Now come, answer it Yes or No.
"I give up."
Thanks for your frankness. I believe you will also "give up" after you learn why the answer to your question is Yes from one angle, and No from another.
A proper understanding of this Yes and No answer is dependent upon an appreciation of the fact that the Catholic Church made the Christian Bible and
preserved the integrity of the writings in it from the infancy of Christianity, because she cherished the Bible as the Word of God.
The Catholic Church is Christocentric, being of and for Christ; being the "Mystical Body of Christ." She holds with St. Jerome that "ignorance of the
Scriptures is ignorance of Christ"; she knows, to quote Cardinal Newman, that "Scripture may be said to be the medium in which the mind of the Church is
energized and developed." Therefore, her first concern is that Catholics should know the truths about Christ that are in the Bible.
In the days when there were no printing presses, paper, libraries, and other means of enlightenment that we have today; when the percentage of persons
who could read and write was very low, the Catholic Church taught Bible truths through sermons that were invariably biblical; through mystery, Passion
and Easter plays; religious music of the highest order; paintings, stained glass windows, cathedrals adorned with carvings that were biblical, and in other
practical ways. St. Benedict Bishop, Benedictine Abbot of Wearmouth in Northumbria, who introduced the art of making class windows and building stone
churches into England during the 7th century, decided upon a then novel method of bringing home outstanding incidents in the Bible to those who could not
read. He procured a large number of paintings from Italy, portraying great biblical events, and hung them in his churches. The result was, as Venerable
Bede, his biographer, said: "The most illterate peasant could not enter the Church without receiving profitable instruction."
What the Catholic Church positively forbade her children to do, was read false, perverted, counterfeit translations of the Bible. It is love of the Bible as the
Word of God, as well as her high regard for the religious and moral welfare of her children, that caused the Catholic Church to be as strenuously opposed
to counterfeit Bibles as the State is opposed to counterfeit money. The Catholic Church stands for
35
"... Scripture writ by Gods own hand;
Scripture authentic! Uncorrupted by man."
Counterfeit money robs people of their goods and thus causes them a temporary loss; whereas counterfeit Bibles rob the people of religious truth, proper
moral guidance, and their faith, thus threatening the loss of their eternal happiness.
The fight of the Catholic Church to safeguard her children from the loss of their faith through counterfeit Bibles has caused her to be charged for the past
four hundred years with being hostile to the Bible. If it were not for the false notions in the minds of Protestants, they would clearly see the wisdom of the
Catholic Church reflected in the rejection by Protestants of nine-tenths of those counterfeit Bibles the Catholic Church forbade her children to read. Why
condemn the Catholic Church for condemning Bibles centuries ago that Protestants themselves reject today? They were no more the Word of God than
are counterfeit dollars and sovereigns the currency of the United States and the British Empire. Just to call some to your attention. Luthers Bible, in its
early editions, omitted five Epistles and the Apocalypse, as well as the seven books in the Old Testament which all Protestant Churches reject. Its
corruption is seen in the denial of the necessity of good works, as well as faith, for the attainment of salvation, by inserting the word "alone" in the text of
the Epistle of St. James, so that it read "man is justified by faith alone." When Catholics objection to this corruption was called to the attention of Luther, he
said:
"Your Papist makes a great fuss about this addition of the word alone. Tell him that Dr. Martin Luther wills that it should be translated
that way. We do not wish to be disciples of Papists, who look on altering the Scriptures a sin."
As for Tyndales much talked of "Bible," his translation of the New Testament, it suffices to quote what Canon Dixon, an Anglican historian, said:
"Every one of the little volumes containing portions of the Sacred Text that was issued by Tyndale, contained also a prologue and
notes written with such hot fury against the prelates and clergy, the monks and the friars, the rites and ceremonies of the Church as
were hardly likely to commend it to the favor of those who were attacked. Tyndale rejected some of the ecclesiastical terms,
substituted others, in the interest of his anti-Catholic propaganda, Church became congregation, priest became elder, grace
became favor and gift: on the contrary, for idols he gave image; John (XVI, 2) became they shall excommunicate you for cast
you out."
You very likely know of the grotesque editions of the Protestant Bibles which, on account of their misprints, were designated the "Breeches Bible," the
"Murderers Bible," the "Vinegar Bible," He," "She," "Bug," "Whig," and "Treacle" and "Wicked" Bibles. During our Prohibition days, some Yale University
Professors, a department editor of Scribners Magazine, and some scribes in the Y.M.C.A. and Y.W.C.A. issued a "Shorter Bible," nicknamed the "Raisen
Cake Bible." Hosea 3:1 which reads "who look to other gods, and love flagons of wine" was changed to read "though they turn to other gods and love to
eat raisin cakes at festivals." II Samuel 6:19 which reads: "And he dealt among the people" "to every one a cake of bread, and a good piece of flesh,
and a flagon of wine," was changed to read: "And distributed a roll of bread, a portion of meat, and a cake of raisins." To further bolster up their
prohibition belief at the expense of the Word of God, the authors of this "Raisin Cake Bible" omitted the story of the marriage feast of Cana, where Christ
honored the occasion by performing the first of His many miracles, turning water into wine, at the solicitation of His Mother Mary, in order to continue the
merriment of the hosts and their guests.
Instead of finding fault with the Catholic Church for her stand against corrupt Bibles, you ought to love her for maintaining the integrity of the pure and
unadulterated Word of God, if you love the Bible.
RULE OF FAITH
"You will agree, will you not, that the difference between the Protestant and Catholic religions is their rule of faith? "
Go ahead, just finish what you have to say. Your answer will follow.
"The difference is this, we Protestants have the Bible as our rule of faith, whereas Catholics look to their church to guide them. In other
words, Protestants use their own brains, while Catholics depend upon the brains of their Church. Thats all I have to say ."
You have said enough to show that your understanding of the Catholic rule of faith is inadequate, and that your estimation of Catholics, who accept the
authority of their Church in matters of faith and morals, is lacking in proper judgment.
You would not say that a sick man wisely used his "brains" if he went to a Materia Medica to make out his own prescription instead of depending upon the
"brains" of a physician to cure him? Certainly not! Christ is our Divine Physician. He operates through His living teaching body, the Church, the spiritual
corporation with which He promised to remain until the consummation of the world, and with which He has thus far been for more than 1900 years. Christ
commissioned that Living Body to prescribe for, take care of, and cure sin-sick souls. Is it, therefore, wise to go to the Materia Christiana to make out your
own moral prescription instead of depending upon the "Brains" that made the Book, the Church? It would be all right to go to the Book, if we allow the
"brains" of the Church to guide us. Then and then only can we be certain to get out of it the prescription that will strengthen our understanding, that will
restore us to moral health. The doctrinal unity of belief on the part of Catholics in contrast of the wisdom of dependence upon the "brains" of the Church for
guidance.
It is not correct to place the Bible in contrast to the Church as the rule of faith. The Bible is a rule of faith of Catholics, but not their sole rule of faith, as it is
of Protestants. The Bible is to Catholics the inspired source book for the elucidation of faith, but first things come first in the religion of Catholics. The
Church is historically first, the Bible second. Therefore, Catholics avoid the tail-wagging-the-dog attitude, by holding the Church and the Bible to be the
true Christian rule of faith, the Bible as traditionally interpreted by the Church that selected the Divinely inspired writings within its covers.
The Bible as the sole rule of faith in the Christian world is of 16 th century, Martin Luther origin, and not of first century Christian origin. Luther had no more
right to make the Bible the sole rule of faith than he had to change St. James Epistle to read that "justification comes by faith alone."
The Protestant rule of faith is a denial of the faith of the early Christians, who accepted no such Protestant standard of religious judgment. The Church of
Christ was in existence for about 15 years before the first Book in the New Testament was written, and the last book was not written until 45 years after
that. Think of the thousands of devout persons who lived a Christian life, of the many persons who suffered martyrdom for Christ during the first century
36
without reading a Bible, which was non-existent at that time. They received their crown of glory by depending upon the Apostles of Christ for their
guidance. Christ said to his followers, as He says to you and to me, "hear the Church" (St. Matt. 18":17), not to take a non-existing, or a to-come-into-
existence Bible, as their rule of faith. Christ commanded His apostles to "go and preach the Gospel," not to write, though it was within their power and
privilege to do so. Christ said "He that heareth you, heareth Me." That is why St. Paul told the Romans (10:17), and says to us alike, that "faith comes by
hearing, and hearing by the Word of Christ."
Was Tertullian, the father of Christian Latin literature, lacking in "brains" when (before there was a formally codified Christian Bible) he called Tradition, the
tradition of the Church, "the only rule of faith." (De Vel. Virg., C. 1)? "the rule which the Church received from the Apostles, the Apostles from Christ,
Christ from God" (Prescript, C.XXXVII)? It was the Church that made the Bible a rule of faith in the days after Tertullian, when a final agreement was
reached regarding the Canon of Holy Scripture. But it was the Bible explained by and subject to the traditional teachings of the Church, for the written
word must be defined by the authoritative and living voice of the infallible teaching Church.
The poor benighted Catholics, whether they use the "brains" of their Church or the little they are supposed to have in their brainpan, are not so dumb as to
fail to realize the unsoundness of the Bible only as a rule of faith. It does not take much intellectual acumen to realize that from the days of Luther and
Elizabeth, to the days of Mrs. Eddy and Judge Rutherford, every one of the hundreds of Protestant churches came into existence on the assumption that
all the other existing churches calling themselves Christian had departed from primitive Christianity, and it the new Sect was going to return thereto.
Each of them claimed the Bible as its sole rule of faith. Catholics, using their own brains as well as the brains of their church, appreciate the historic fact
that primitive Christianity, the Christianity of the first century, the Christianity which each of the Protestant churches claimed or claim to represent, could
not have possibly had such a rule of faith. Catholics cannot help but believe that the Twelve Apostles had "brains," but of what use were they from the
point of view of the standard upheld by Protestantism? They could not feed their "brains" out of a Christian Bible. "Why?" Because the books of the
Christian Bible had not been formally assembled during the lifetime of the Apostles. They know that St. John is the only one of the Twelve who could
possibly have seen all the books that are in the New Testament. "Why?" Because eleven of the Twelve died before St. John wrote his Gospel, and that
Gospel did not formally become part of the Canon of Holy Scripture until centuries after St. John died when the Canon was formally fixed. The Christ-
made, Apostle-used authority, guide, "rule of faith," was the Church, for such a thing as a New Testament, Protestant "rule of faith" did not and could not
exist.
It does not take much exercising of brains to realize that without a living, Divinely instituted authority there is no way of knowing, with certitude, whether
the writings in the Bible were inspired by God, or what those writings really mean. Therefore, the most manifest sign of true wisdom, in matters religious
and moral, is the brain action of Catholics listening to the Voice of Christ expressed through the Divine guaranteed "brains" of the Church of Christ.
CHAINED BIBLES
"Id like to ask you a question. Now dont dodge. Didnt you Church chain the Bible during the Middle Ages so as to keep the people
ignorant of its contents?"
If dodging were my practice, which it is not, there wouldnt be any need of "ducking" your easily answered, offensively-put query.
Your are correct in one thing. The Catholic Church did chain the Bible in the Middle Ages. But your conclusion therefrom is false. The Catholic Church
chained the Bible in order to instruct her children and not to keep them ignorant of its contents.
Bibles during the Middle Ages were written by hand, as the printing press was not invented until the year 1438. Paper was not used during the Middle
Ages, as the first paper mill was not built until the 15 th century (in England). Every monastery had a scriptorium, a writing room, in those ages, where
priests and monks diligently and lovingly transcribed Bibles. In that way the texts we have today were preserved. It is calculated to have taken 427 skins
or parchments, at a cost of a thousand dollars, for material upon which to write a single Bible. Hence Bibles could not be distributed then as they are
distributed today.
Those chained Bibles were Open Bibles. The people who could not afford to own a Bible stood at a desk, lectern or stall in the aisles and corridors of the
Catholic Churches during those Middle Ages, for there were no Protestant Churches in those days, and read those valuable open chained Bibles, to their
hearts content.
Thus you see, or ought to see, that chained Bibles were Bibles used for educational purposes. Your misconception, gleaned no doubt from anti-Catholic
sources, is as unreasonable as to conclude that telephone books, city directories and dictionaries are fastened to telephone booths, druggist counters and
library tables in order to keep people ignorant of the numbers, addresses, and definitions in them.
Pray, dear sir, set aside your prejudicial concept for a moment and calmly ask yourself this question; what is there in the Bible that the Catholic Church did
not want its laity to know? The Bible sustains Catholic belief. If that were not so, the Catholic Church would not have worked as ardently as she did to
preserve and maintain its integrity. Bear this fact in mind, if the Bible did not sustain Catholic Christian belief, the Catholic Church could very possibly have
destroyed every manuscript of the New Testament, and books her learned children wrote about them, 1500 years before such a thing as the Protestant
Bible was conceived.
The Bible teaches that Christ is God, the second Person of the Divine Trinity. This basic Christian truth every Catholic is taught and believes, whereas it is
denied by a growing number of so-called Bible Christians. The Bible proves that Christ established a living, visible, organic, indestructible Church with
Peter as its visible head; and Christ constituted a priesthood as a continuation of Himself in the world; that to this priesthood He delegated the authority to
administer the Sacraments He instituted; that to this priesthood, and this priesthood alone, was delegated the power to do what Christ did at the Last
supper, change the bread and wine into His Body and Blood for a sacrament and to offer them to God the Father as a Sacrifice. The Bible proves
conclusively that the Apostles and their successors are the Christ-authorized teachers of the Word of God who have the power to forgive sins in the name
of Christ. All these fundamental Christian beliefs of the Apostles and their successors throughout the Christian ages are denied by non-Catholic Bible
opponents of the Catholic Church.
In concluding this lengthy reply to your charge, I desire to say that the people of the Middle Ages had a more organic and truly Christian understanding of
Bible truths than have the opponents of the Catholic Church today, when Bibles can be purchased of the price of admission to a "movie."
37
SEARCH THE SCRIPTURES
"Did not our Lord say Search the Scriptures? What else could that mean but the Bible? It certainly does not refer to the Church. "
It is not proper to quote those three words out of a Bible text, when they do not correctly tell what was in the mind of our Lord when He said "search the
Scriptures."
Our Lord did say, "search the Scriptures," but not in the sense of favoring private interpretation of Old Testament scripture. First of all, because our Lord
stood for obedience to the authoritative teachings of the Scribes and Pharisees, as they occupied the "seat of Moses," the seat of authority in interpreting
and voicing the Law:
"All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do... " (St. Matt. 23:2-3).
Secondly, because the Jewish Law stood for authoritative, traditional interpretation of scripture.
The only way to get a correct understanding of the words of our Lord is to look at them in their setting. Here they are:
"You search the Scriptures, because in them you think to find that you have life everlasting. And it is they that bear witness of Me,
yet you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life" (St. John 5:39-40).
Our Lord was rebuking the Pharisees for their malice and obstinacy, while stressing the fact, found in the scriptures, that He was the Messiah therein
foretold to come.
The original Greek word "search" does not here mean a command, to take up a task which had been neglected. The word used in the text, is like saying
"Ye search" or "you Pharisees are accustomed to search the scriptures." Any other interpretation would be unintelligible. Our Lord knew the Pharisees,
therefore He did not take them to task for failing to read the Scriptures, for He knew that they studied every word of them, and wrote commentaries on the
Law, though with a "veil upon their heart," as St. Paul said (II Cor. 3:14). The same thing is taking place among Orthodox Jews today. They study every
word of the Old Testament and do not see that it gives testimony of the personage who is Jesus, their Messiah. As a matter of fact, what the Lord is
bringing out is that mere reading and studying of the Scriptures offers no guarantee that Gods truth will be perceived. The Pharisees were specialists in
Bible reading, yet missed the truth.
By paraphrasing the words of our Lord, what He said to the Pharisees may be seen to apply to the Bible Christians of our day who, holding the Bible
privately interpreted to be the only rule of faith, and divided into hundreds of churches:
"You search the Bible, because in it you think to find Truth. And it is the Bible that bears witness of My Church, yet you are not willing
to come into it, that you may be guided and nourished to eternal life."
The words Search the Bible do not mean that Bible Christians should read the Bible, which they do, though the "veil upon their hearts" keeps them from
properly understanding it, any more than "Search the Scriptures" means that the Pharisees should read the Scriptures, or that you or I should read them.
The Church stands before Bible Christians as Christ stood before the Pharisees, but they see her not. There she stands with the sacramental means
Christ gave her to administer; yet they turn to man-made churches, with their emasculated Bibles, in defiance of the command of Christ to give ear to His
universal Church against which error has raged for 1900 years.
It is a good thing to "search the scriptures," but under the guidance of the living traditional teachings of the Church that gave the Christian Bible to the
world. Thus is man led to certitude and doctrinal unity in religion and morals. Otherwise there is grave danger that the Scriptures will be wrested to mans
own destruction, something II Peter 3:15 warns man to avoid: "In which are certain things hard to understand, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as
they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction."
PRIVATE INTERPRETATION
"You will admit that the intellectual caliber of the people is more highly developed through individual interpretation of the Bible than by
depending upon authority? I do. Therefore I stand by the Protestant principle of individual liberty, for private Bible judgment ."
No, I do not admit your conclusion, nor your premise. To claim an unconditional right to interpret the Bible according to your personal understanding is
carrying the principle of individualism into license, which does not elevate ones intellectual caliber.
Individual liberty is a natural rig with which God has endowed us. We should insist upon maintaining it. We have an unalienable right to exercise that gift,
provided that in so doing we do not conflict with the law of God and the legitimate law of the State. The individual is the primary unit in religion and
morality, according to the teaching of the Catholic Church. It is based upon the belief that the human soul is an individual soul; that it was created directly
be God for an eternity of happiness with God. While the family, the Church and the State may help, and should help the individual soul to attain its ultimate
objective, it is only the individual soul itself that can gain salvation for itself.
The same God who made the individual soul, and endowed it with individual rights, laid down the law that must be obeyed if the soul is to attain its eternal
end, and that law automatically excludes the unfettered principle of private judgment. The Bible says that God alone shall be worshiped. That is a
restriction upon individual liberty, it prohibits the bestowing of Divine worship upon images. The Bible says "thou shalt not commit adultery." That is another
restriction upon the liberty of the individual, for it prohibits an association which the lust of man and woman may crave. With all your positiveness, no one
here believes you would carry your principle of private judgment so far as to tear down those Bible-recorded barriers which keep the soul subject to the
will of God, and therefore checks it from assuming the right of private judgment.
The Bible itself contradicts the principle of "private Bible judgment." Therein we see the Ethiopian riding in a chariot, reading the Book of Isaiah, Philip, the
Deacon, an inspired teacher, said "thinkest thou that thou understandst what thou readest?" Who, recognizing the necessary of authority, instead of
relying on his private judgment, said: "How can I, unless some man show me?" Upon which Philip took a seat beside him and explained the puzzling
passage (Acts 8:26-40).
38
We need a Divine interpreter as much today as did the Ethiopian twenty centuries ago, if exactness in our understanding of the Bible is to obtain.
Something more than the Bible is necessary to an understanding of the Bible, and that is the divine tradition of the Church that made the Bible. To cite one
instance only. How can we understand the change of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday without the tradition of the Catholic church?
St. Paul, recognizing the chaos of private judgment, told of the necessity of making the mind "captive" to a higher, an infinite intelligence, by voluntarily
submitting to guidance, as did the Ethiopian, if we would not "overthrow reasonings." In indicating his Apostleship, St. Paul said: "We bring every mind into
captivity to the obedience of Christ..." (2 Cor. 10:5-6)
If the principle of private interpretation is sound, why limit it to the Bible? Why not extend it to our American Constitution? No doubt you will answer, "it
would dis-unite our United States, it would lead to anarchy." That is just what would result in the U.S.A., and that is exactly what private interpretation of
the Bible did to Protestantism. It created doctrinal anarchy that leads farther and farther away from belief in such vital Christian principles as the Divinity of
Christ and the authenticity of the Bible.
The principle of private judgment, that Luther introduced into the Christian world, came from a sect in Jewry known as the Karaites (Mikrah or Maraim,
"Readers of the Scriptures") that originated in Babylonia during the eighth century. It rejected all rabbinical and Talmudic authority, basing its teachings on
the Bible individually interpreted. The doctrinal effect of this Karaite principle led the Lutherans to deny the Sacrifice instituted by Christ at the Last Supper,
and to permit teachings within its twenty-two divisions of Lutheranism that range all the way from Orthodoxy to Rationalism: The Anglican-Protestant
Episcopal Churches are called "comprehensive," as all kinds of religious beliefs are tolerated within them, even the denial of the Divinity of Christ: The
Presbyterians stand for Calvins predestination, somewhat modified, that denies freedom of the will, holding man to be an absolute slave of God, as a
result of Adams fall: The Methodists reject five of the seven Sacraments, giving the other two an interpretation that denies pre-sixteenth century Christian
belief: the Baptists deny infant baptism and the rightful existence of bishops and priests: The Quakers deny the Trinity, failing to find it in the Bible: The
Seventh Day Adventists reject Sunday and adopt the Saturday of the Jews as their Sabbath: The Mormons find warrant in the Bible for their belief in
polygamy: the Christian Scientists for rejecting the use of physicians in times of illness: the Holy Rollers for belief that their preachers have the gift of
tongues: the Mennonites for refusing to take up arms, even in defense of their country: the Witnesses of Jehovah for designating flag saluting as a sin:
while the "True Church of God" interprets St. Mark 16:18 to warrant the use of copperhead snakes in their services, and to be bitten by them as a test of
their faith. These are relatively but a few of the anarchic results of private interpretation of the Bible, which has split Protestant Christianity into hundreds of
different sects. It began in the early days of Protestantism. Englands greatest poet noted it in the Merchant of Venice:
In religion
"What damned error, but some sober brow
Will bless it, and approve it with a text."
If a principle is known by its fruits, as it should be, then has license in interpretation of the Bible proved to be the cause of intellectual chaos and disunity in
Protestantism. The extreme individualism of Protestantism in Bible judgment leads doctrinally and organizationally away from the teachings of Christ. After
a thorough survey of the varying beliefs of ministers, Prof. George Herbert Betts (Methodist) said that "No (Protestant) denomination, except perhaps the
Lutherans, has any right to demand that fixed creeds be taught to their young. For the clergy of an denomination themselves do not subscribe to a
common creed beyond belief in the existence of God." ("The Belief of 700 Ministers," Abingdon Press, N. Y. Chicago, 1929). His book evidence that only
87 per cent of ministers believe in the omnipotence of God; only 68 per cent that God performed miracles; only 55 per cent in the inspiration of the Bible,
the Protestant rule of faith; only 47 per cent in the story of creation as recorded in Genesis; only 56 per cent in the revelations recorded in the Old
Testament; only 58 per cent that Jesus is equal to the father; only 70 per cent that Jesus died for the remission of sin; only 84 per cent in the resurrection
of Jesus Christ, without which St. Paul said "our faith is in vain"; only 57 per cent in heaven and 53 per cent in hell as places of eternal happiness and
suffering; and only 44 per cent that baptism is essential to becoming a Christian, without which Christ said man cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.
Contrast the conditions in the Catholic Church, whose children are assumed to be of lower intellectual caliber than Bible Christians in matters related to
Holy Writ. Therein you find the principle of "bringing the mind into captivity to the obedience of Christ" in His Church, a principle to which every saint in the
calendar of Christs holy and learned saints held fast. The result is plainly evident to every unbiased investigator. There she stands! One in doctrine; one in
worship; one in discipline; and one in obedience to authority a oneness that is the primary characteristic of a Church that rightly calls itself the Church of
Jesus Christ.
CATHOLICS MENTAL SLAVES
"Whats the use of talking to Catholics about religion? They are mental slaves. As soon as you corner them, they fall back upon their
church for knowledge of the Bible. Why dont they be Americans, free men in religion, by doing their own thinking? "
That charge is as unsound as would be a charge that you are un-American because you fall back, as I assume you do, upon authority when discussing
civil and criminal laws. Test yourself by asking yourself "Why do I fall back upon the courts and other legal authorities for my understanding of American
statues, decisions and traditions effecting civil and criminal law? I can read and write, why then should I be a mental slave and submit to the judgment of
authorities instead of following my own judgment?"
Your answer will no doubt be, "I dont do that." And why? Ill answer for you. "Because I am sensible; because I am a loyal and law-abiding American;
because I know that obedience to the law as interpreted by legitimate authority is the beginning of civic wisdom; because I know that men in jails are not
free men."
RIGHT TO BELIEVE ANYTHING
"Well, I have a right to believe whatever I want to believe. That is one of the reasons why I am not a Catholic. I do not need the priests to
do my thinking."
Such freedom as you boast of is not rational. You have no moral right to believe whatever you want to believe. You have only the right to believe what is
right, what you know to be true, pure, charitable and just. You have no right whatsoever to hold as true what you know to be wrong. Of course, you have
39
the power to do s, for you have free will. You can hold that the moon is made of green cheese; that two plus two is five; that there is no God; that the
commandments have no binding force with you; that you may interpret the Bible according to your individual concept without any regard for any
authoritative, traditional interpretation, but you have no legitimate right to do so. If ever you enter the Catholic Church, the priest will not try to do your
thinking, but he will help you to think straight about things of a religious and moral nature.
To get back, dear Sir, to your charge. Catholics do their own thinking to the degree that is properly within the bounds of right reason. If that were not so the
St. Augustines, John Henry Newmans, Brownsons, Chestertons, Arnold Lunns and Sigrid Undsets would never have entered the Catholic Church in their
mature years. Catholics think straight, and the priests, who are highly educated Christian gentlemen, help them to do so. Therefore no need exists for
singing to them the ditty that should be sung to the juvenile-minded men and women outside the Catholic Church, who, disregarding priestly guidance, set
up their own individual judgments on questions of biblical interpretation:
"Shall they blow east, shall they blow west
Shall they blow under the cuckoos nest?"
Catholics know that right thinking and right reasoning is only possible within the law of the subjects they deal with, as defined, in the last analysis, by those
who speak with divinely guaranteed authority.
Catholics know that Bible knowledge is profound knowledge, which the average educated person is only acquainted with in part. They realize that Bible
principles are universal principles of the profoundest nature, applicable to all people of all ages, which, in many instances, cannot be properly understood
without a knowledge of the customs, language and idioms peculiar to oriental peoples who lived from twenty to more than forty centuries ago with which
few persons are acquainted. They realize that the Bible contains mysteries of the highest spiritual order, that may be unraveled only by the aid of mental
illumination that God alone can give man. Therefore, instead of falling into mental anarchy, that results from the un-Christian assumption that individual
interpretation of Gods written word is preferable to Divine instituted authoritative interpretation, Catholics prefer to stand with the humble, learned Bishop
of hippo, who said, fifteen centuries ago "I would not believe the Bible, were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church."
ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION
"Dont you think the abomination of desolation we read of in the Bible is being witnessed in our 1940 World War? "
While the present war is an abomination, it is not any one of the few abominations referred to in the Bible. That phrase came from Daniel 9:27; 11:31;
12:11, who spoke three times of the "abomination of desolation" that "shall continue even to the consummation and the end," "when the continual sacrifice
(of the Jews) shall be taken away," as it was "taken away" in the time (483 years) Daniel set for the "end."
An Abomination of desolation foretold, noted in I Maccabees 1:57, took place in the profanation of the Temple under Antiochus Ephiphanes.
When our Savior referred to the prophecy of Daniel, He set it forth as a warning of the coming destruction of Jerusalem, which took place in the year 70
A.D. when, as Daniel predicted, the city and the sanctuary were destroyed.
When the particular abomination of desolation will occur, that is to precede the end of the world, we do not know. Nearly all the positive declarations of the
exact date have come from freaks, frauds, and conceited interpreters of the Bible, in spite of the definite statement contained in the Bible that no man
could know the date.
THE HERD OF SWINE
"Talking about the Bible, do you think it right, as Matthew 8 tells us, for Christ to drive the devils into a legion of swine, who were
drowned? What would you say if I destroyed a stock of swine?"
If you did it, I would say you deserved punishment, as you had no right to destroy another mans property. But your right, and the swine owners right to
property, was secondary to Christs right to do it.
Christ being God, being Lord of the world, having dominion over all things, all property is subject to His will. Creatures such as you and I have no right to
question God, who is the source of rights.
If the swine belonged to the Jews, which is likely, they deserved punishment for violating the Mosaic Law, then in force, of which they were no doubt
conscious, as are Jews today. There is a story abroad that a demonstration of consciousness of wrongdoing that took place recently on Boston Common.
A Jew, seated on a bench, was eating a ham sandwich. A sudden thunderstorm broke out. Lightning struck a nearby tree, a large branch crashed down at
his feet. Conscience-stricken, the Jew looked up excitedly, with part of the sandwich still in his hand, and irritatingly cried out, "What a lot of fuss about a
little bacon."
If the swine belonged to Gentiles, they may have offended Gods law by raising the then forbidden meats in the land of the Jews.
A greater good was done by driving the swine out of the demoniac, and permitting them to enter the swine, then the death of the swine as a result of their
rushing headlong into the sea.
"What became of devils that went into the swine?"
My guess, if you want that, is that they became deviled ham.
"TO MEN OF GOOD WILL"
"Which is correct? The Protestant peace on earth, good will toward men? Or the Catholic on earth peace to men of good will? "
This much discussed difference seems to center on a single letter, s. The Greek word "eukodias" means "of good will," whereas "eukodia" means "good
will." The difference between the Protestant and Catholic translations is not so great as may appear at first glance, for the phrase "men of good will" may
40
mean, as "The Register" of Denver, Colorado said, "either a subjective disposition in men, or it may indicate that men have been the recipients or objects
of Gods good will."
The King James version, newly edited by the Revision Committee, reads "And on earth peace among men in whom He is well pleased:" The Century
New Testament reads "in whom He finds pleasure"; Goodspeeds translation reads, "Peace to men He favors."
The Sinaitic Alexandrian, Vatican, Bezan, Latin, and some other ancient manuscripts of the New Testament extant uphold the reading eukodias, "of good
will." Therefore, the tendency is more and more favorable to the Catholic translation:
"Glory to God in the highest
On earth peace to men of good will."
THE SABBATH DAY
"The Commandment in the Bible says Keep the Sabbath Holy. Who changed it from Saturday to Sunday? And by what right? "
Considerable confusion exists in the minds of a multitude of persons regarding the change of the sabbath-day. It is often due to failure to realize that when
God said: REMEMBER THE SABBATH-DAY, TO KEEP IT HOLY" (Ex. 20), He did not say keep Saturday holy. Sabbath, Shabbath in Hebrew, means rest,
while Yom ha-Shabbath means day of rest, and not Saturday, hence Sabbath is not a specific day be it the seventh or the first.
In both Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5, God says: "SIX DAYS SHALL THOU LABOR, and DO ALL THY WORK: BUT THE SEVENTH DAY IS THE
SABBATH OF THE LORD THY GOD." The phraseology does not fix the six days that shall be days of labor, and the definite article (THE seventh day)
merely implies that any day following six successive days that the Jews select as their 6th day was satisfactory to God.
The Jewish days were numbered, the only one named as well as numbered was sabbath-day. The names Sun-day, Moon-day and Saturn-day
(Saturday), unknown for a thousand years after the Jews began to keep the Sabbath holy, were of Egyptian astrologic origin, which rose from the practice
of naming each day by the planet that was supposed to rule the first hour of the 24 hour day. There is no universal cosmic 7 th day, hence the selection of a
7th day, a sabbath day, is an arbitrary act on the part of man. Some Greeks selected Monday, Persians Tuesday, Assyrians Wednesday, Egyptians
Thursday, Moslems Friday, Jews Friday at sunset to Saturday sunset, and Christians Sunday, though only the Jews and Christians had Divine sanction for
their selection.
That the term sabbath does not relate exclusively to the 7 th day of a week, Saturday, is evident in the Pentateuch, in which many other sabbaths are joined
besides the one that was selected by the Jews to follow after six days of labor. There is the Sabbatical Year, the 7 th year, which ordains the restitution of
property pledged or money borrowed (Deut. 15:2); also a Sabbatical year when the land is allowed to lie fallow, instead of being cultivated, so that it may
have a year of rest (Lev. 25:1-25). There is a Jubilee Year, the crowning sabbatical year (every 50 years) that follows seven sabbatical years, when
inordinate accumulations of land revert back to the original owners. Then there are the Shabbath Shubah, the Penitential Sabbath, that occurs between
the Jewish New Year and the Day of Atonement; the Shabbath Hagodol, "the Great Sabbath," which is celebrated before the Passover; the Shabbath
Nachamus, "the Sabbath day of Comfort," that the Jews celebrate (though not enjoined to do so in the Old Testament), which takes place immediately
after the Ninth of Ab, in commemoration of the destruction of the first and second temples and the fall of Bettir, which ended the rebellion of Bar Kokba,
who claimed to be the Messiah.
To properly understand the question of the sabbath day one must realize, first of all, that Sunday is no less a 7 th day, in the religious sense, than is
Saturday, though the calendar we use, which originated many centuries after the Jews selected their 7 th day, lists it as the first day of the week. Any day
that follows six days of work may be observed as a sabbath, a rest day, though the particular 7 th day of the Jews had to be selected by Jewish religious
authority, as Christian religious authority was necessary to supercede it with another 7 th day, the Lords Day. The seventh day of rest is not of Sinaitic
origin. Ages before there were any Jews; before there as such a thing as a calendar; "God blessed the seventh day," His rest day (Gen. 2:3). The
Hebrews worshiped the One True God on a sabbath day from the days of Abraham until Moses brought them the Commandments on tablets of stone, a
period of four hundred years, without having a prescribed sabbath day. This is suggested in the first word of the third commandment, " Remember to keep
holy the sabbath day." This word, "Remember," is recognized by the Jews as signifying a pre-Jewish sabbath day. The Jewish Encyclopedia, giving Rashi,
Maimonides and the Talmud as its authorities, says: "Tradition assumes that the sabbath law had been proclaimed at Morah, before the Sinaitic revelation"
(Vol. X. p. 591).
Secondly, the Commandment, "Remember, to keep the sabbath day holy," was not changed or abrogated, and never rightly can be, for it is one of Gods
eternal, and therefore unchangeable commandments. What Christians did was to change the reckoning of the seventh day; to select a day to supercede
the particular CEREMONIAL 7th day of the Jews, which was an exclusively Jewish sabbath day; "a sign between Me (God) and you (Moses) throughout
your generations" (Ex. 31:13).
The Jews had a Divine authoritative right to interpret Gods Commandments and to designate the time and character of their ceremonies called for in the
Pentateuch, when they were not specifically outlined therein. In a word, they spoke with authority, but that was in the days when they had an Aaronic
priesthood, a sacrifice, a temple, and a Sanhedrin (high court); those were the days when the Messiah was to come and thus to fulfill their Divine mission.
That day came, when Jesus the Messiah was born; when He instituted a Church to take the place of the Synagogue; when He instituted a new priesthood
and a new sacrifice such as were foretold in the Old Testament. It was then, after the Church began to function in the Cenacle, that the ceremonial law of
the Jews, including their 7th day, ceased to be binding, the final authoritative end to Jewish ceremonials being proclaimed in the Council of Jerusalem. The
end of the Jewish Sabbath was foretold by Osee, the prophet of the Kingdom of Israel, who said: "And I (God) will cause all her (Israels) mirth to ceased,
her solemnities, her new moons, her sabbaths, and all her festival times" (Chap. 2:2). That is why Justin Martyr could say, in the second century, that the
Jewish Sabbath "was not in force before Moses, so it is no longer needed after the coming of Christ" (Dialogue cum Tryph. 23).
With the end of the mission of Judaism came a change, not in the Commandment, "Remember, to keep the sabbath-day holy," but in the ceremonial day,
by the selection of Sunday to supercede the Saturday sabbath of the Jews, which was selected by the Jews for the Jews only. What the sabbath was to
the Jews, while they were "a kingdom of priests, a holy nation" (Ex. 19:6), the sabbath of the New Dispensation is to the Christians, since they became the
"chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation" (I Peter 2:9).
41
The Christian sabbath superceded the Jewish sabbath; it was not a continuation thereof. While both sabbaths paid honor to the same God, they were
prompted by different motives. The Jewish sabbath was in remembrance of God having rested on the 7 th day after His completion of the material universe;
also in memory of the deliverance of the Jews from Egyptian bondage. The Christian sabbath was instituted in remembrance of the resurrection of Jesus,
the Messiah, from the dead, the descent of the Holy Ghost upon the Apostles, which marked the beginning of Christs Kingdom on earth, His Church. Also
as a memorial of mans freedom from the bondage of original sin, through the reparation made by Christ for the sin of Adam.
The naturalism of the Jewish Sabbath in contrast to the supernaturalism of the Lords Day of Christians is seen in the celebrations that usher them in. The
Jewish Sabbath is proclaimed with the Kiddush (sanctification). Wine and bread are blessed, one the symbol of joy, the other the symbol of plenty. After
sipping the wine, the head of the house passes the wine to the participants of the meal that follows. The Lords Day is celebrated in the Catholic Church,
"from the rising of the sun unto the going down thereof," as it was celebrated by the Apostles and the Christians in the catacombs, by the "Breaking of
Bread," later called the Mass. Therein bread and wine, instead of being used as mere symbols of joy and plenty, are transubstantiated, changed into the
Body and Blood of the Lord, Jesus Christ. It is offered to God as a sacrifice, and partaken of by the laity as the Sacrament of Christs love. The Kiddush is
a sabbatical service for the spiritual man, to further his temporal existence; the Mass is a sacrificial service primarily to gain for man the eternal life
promised by Christ to those who partake of His Body and Blood.
First and foremost among Protestants who oppose Sunday as the Christian Sabbath are the Seventh Day Adventists. This vehement group resorts to
insulting and prejudicial language in its propaganda among Protestants for the Saturday Sabbath. It shouts from its pulpits, and circulates through its
press, the declaration that "the Pope, who bears the mark of the beast in Revelation, changed the Sabbath;" "it was the Council of Laddicea... that
transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday;" that it came into vogue through Constantine. Protestants as well as "Romanists" are warned that by
keeping Sunday they have the "mark of the beast" upon them, and are therefore lost. An intense anti-Romanist, Rev. L. D. Bass, D.D., Baptist minister of
Milmarnock, Va., though equally an intense anti-Seventh Day Adventist, said: "they know that to brand a thing Roman Catholic in origin is to make it stink
in the nostrils of many earnest seekers after truth" (p. 14. "Seventh Day Adventism Unmasked").
The Bible and the Bible only being the Protestant rule of faith, the Seventh Day Adventists challenge their fellow-Protestants to prove from the Bible that
Christ, or the action of the Apostles, any change of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. They know that the term Sunday is no more to be found in the
Bible than is the term Saturday; not to speak of trinity, incarnation, purgatory, and some other terms that are traditionally Christian.
While the New Testament does not contain the word Sunday, it has in it the equivalent, "The Lords Day." While there is no positive announcement of a
change of sabbath-day therein, it does not lack evidence that the Christians assembled on the first day of the week for their religious solemnities.
Acts 20:7 tells of the disciples coming together to break bread, their most solemn ceremony on the first day of the week.
I Cor. 16:1-2 tells specifically of the collection of alms on the first day of the week.
John 20:1, 14 and Luke 24:15 tell of Jesus appearing to Mary Magdalen and Peter on the first day of the week.
John 20:19-23 tells of the first day of the week, when Jesus appeared to the ten, Thomas being absent.
John 20:26-29 tells of Jesus appearing again on the first day of the week, when Thomas was present.
Acts 2:4 tells of the first day of the week, Pentecost day, when by the power of the Holy Ghost, Who descended upon the Apostles,
3,000 Jews were brought to the Messiah and His Church.
An Adventist misquotation declares that the Council of Laodicia (A.D. 381) "transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday," whereas it merely
decreed that Christians must refrain from work as much as possible on The Lords Day. And as for Emperor Constantine, he merely recognized the custom
of celebrating the Lords Day, by decreeing abstention from labor on "the venerable day of the Sun."
All through the Christian years, before the days of Constantine, back to Apostolic times, the utterances of famous men, not all Christians, show that
Sunday had superceded Saturday as the Sabbath day.
In 300 A.D., the Council of Elvira decreed "if anyone in the city neglects to come to Church three Sundays, let him be
excommunicated for a short time so that he may be converted."
In 300 A.D., St. Peter of Alexandria said: "We keep the Lords Day as a day of joy."
In 253 A.D., St. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, mentioned the celebration of the "Lords Day" in a synodal letter, which is at once "the
eight and the first day."
In 200 A.D., Tertullian of Carthage wrote "Sunday we give to joy. We observe the day of the Lords resurrection, free from every
hindrance of anxiety and duty, laying aside all our worldly business."
In 170 A.D., St. Melito, Bishop of Sardis, wrote a treatise respecting observance of the Lords Day.
In 140 A.D., Justin, Martyr said, "on the day called Sunday all Christians come together in one place..."
In 112 A.D., Pliny the Younger, governor of Pontus and Bithynia, informed Emperor Tajan, of the Christians who are "accustomed to
meet together on a stated day (known to be Sunday), before it was light, and to sing hymns to Christ as to a God, and to bind
themselves by a sacramentum...."
In 110 A.D., St. Ignatius of Antioch, a contemporary of St. John, spoke of Christians as "not sabbathizing, but living in the spirit of the
Lords Day."
In the Didache (XV), Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles, written between the years 65-80 A.D., we read, "On the Lords Day come
together and break bread. And give thanks (offering The Eucharist), after confessing your sins that your sacrifice may be pure."
42
The Apostles, to whom our Lord Jesus Christ gave the power to "bind" and to "loose," met on the "first day of the week," the "Lords Day," to fulfill the
requirements of the third Commandment. They, who were the teaching body of the universal Church Christ established, the Catholic Church, exercised
their infallible power of changing the seventh day sabbatical reckoning.
Sunday observances supplemented rather than supplanted Saturday observance of the Sabbath during the first days of the Church. This was due to
nearly all the Christians being converts from Judaism. Their inherited high regard for the ceremonies of the Old Law, caused them to go so far as to hold,
for a time, that the Gentile converts should be circumcised, insisting that they had to become Jews before they could become Christians. It was the
Council of Jerusalem (A.D. 50), followed by the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D., which ended the priestly sacrificial services of the Jews, that caused
the line of demarcation between the Jewish and Christian 7th day Sabbath, which was blurred for a time, to be so clearly defined, and universally accepted,
that it has hardly been questioned during the Christian ages. Therefore every full-fledged Chrsitian will sing today:
"Of all the days thats in the week,
I dearly love but one day,
And thats the day that comes betwixt
A Saturday and Monday."
While Christians are obligated to keep the Lords Day, as the Jews were obligated to keep the Saturday Sabbath, a study of the International Date Line
shows that the specific 7th day selected by the Jews or the Christians must naturally be of secondary import to what the Commandment definitely calls for,
the giving of one day in seven to God. The date line, which corresponds to the meridian 180E from Greenwich, is the place where each day of the
calendar begins. When it is Sunday from the date line westward to the midnight date line, it is Saturday from the date line eastward to the midnight line.
Therefore, when the ship crosses the line westward on Saturday, the day moves forward from Saturday to Sunday. But when the ship crosses eastward
that same Sunday becomes Saturday. Hence a Seventh Day Adventist crossing the date line is left with two Saturdays or forced to live through two Lords
Days in a week, according to the direction in which he sails or flies.
This lengthy answer to the Sabbath question continually propounded may conclude by noting that there is a text in the Bible that the anti-Romanist
Sabbatarians dodge, it is Colossians 2:16. In it St. Paul warned the Colossians, as he warns us today, to beware of the impostures who would withdraw
from Christ through a return to Jewish observances:
"Let no man judge you in meat and drink, or in respect of a festival day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbaths."
THE DOXOLOGY
"Why does not the Catholic Bible contain the doxology at the end of our Lords Prayer, as does the Protestant Bible? It is offering praise to
God for thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever."
because they are not words that were uttered by our Lord. That doxology is made up of laudable sentiments that were expressed centuries before our
Lord appeared on earth. They are found in 1 Paralipomenon 29:11-12 (called1 Chronicles in the Protestant Bible):
"Thine, O Lord, is magnificence and power, and glory, and victory: and to Thee is praise: for all that is in heaven, and in earth, is
Thine: Thine is the kingdom, O Lord, and Thou art above all princes.
"Thine are riches, and Thine is glory...."
It was the practice of the fathers in the early days of the Church to end their sermons and prayers with a doxology, words of praise to God, to the Blessed
Trinity, to our Lord. St. John Chrysostom always did so. Such words of praise are found in St. Pauls Epistles. But the doxology used by Protestants is not
a part of our Lords prayer, hence the non-appearance of it in the Catholic Bible is not an omission of any part of the prayer our Lord taught His disciples.
Some devout Monk is believed to have interpolated those words, which were part of the Greek liturgy, on the margin of the text he was copying. This took
place more than a thousand years before there was a Protestant Bible. St. Jerome, who translated the Bible from the original Hebrew and Greek texts into
the Latin Vulgate, rejected it in the fourth century as unauthentic.
An examination of non-Catholic translations of the New Testament shows that the doxology Protestants use is not in Wickliffs Bible (1379), Tyndales
Testament (1526), or Thorps edition of the Anglo-Saxon Gospels. It is in Coverdales Bible and was popularized in the Protestant world through the
"Authorized Version," which was forced upon the people of England by King James I in 1611. And even in this King James Bible it appears in Matthew
6:13 and not in Luke 11:4. The Protestant Revised Version of the Bible (1881) omits it entirely, for the best informed Protestant biblical scholars realize that
the doxology is not a part of the Lords Prayer.
THE LORDS PRAYER
"Please explain the Lords Prayer? There are some parts that are puzzling to me. "
The Lords Prayer is so called because it came from Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, in response to the request of His disciples,
"Lord, teach us to pray" (St. Luke 11:1).
The Lords Prayer embodies all that is essential to man, all that will satisfy a praying heart. It combines and expresses in Divine order, every Divine
promise, every sorrow that is in the human heart, every want that man desires and needs, every holy aspiration for the good of ones fellowman. It is said
to even embody the Trinity. The first petition and some other parts referring to God as the Creator and Preserver; God the Redeemer being in the second
part; whereas God the Holy Spirit is the third division. In a word, it is the most powerful, simple and comprehensive Christian prayer. It is composed of a
preface, three petitions that embody our duty to God, four petitions for the granting of our needs, and a conclusion.
PREFACE
"Our Father Who art in heaven"
43
This is an appeal to our Father, not my Father. Reason: To bring us to a realization that there is but one God, the Father of all who make up the human
family, no matter what their race, color, nationality, or creed may be; that all of us are children of His one family, who, like brothers and sisters, should help,
love and pray for one another. The second part of this preface detaches our minds and hearts from this world to our ultimate objective, the throne of Gods
glory, heaven.
FIRST PETITION
"Hallowed be Thy Name."
This is a recognition of the holiness of the name of God, an appeal for it to be hallowed by all the people of the earth. We cannot make Gods Name holier,
because it is the name of the Divine Personage who is the embodiment and source of all holiness. But we can recognize Gods holiness and act
accordingly. When President Lincoln called the battlefield of Gettysburg "hallow," he did not make it such, for it had already been hallowed by the blood the
dead who died in battle that the Union of States be maintained. When we say " Hallowed be Thy Name," we give honor, praise, thanksgiving, glory, to God
and, inferentially, resolve not to dishonor Gods name by perjury, cursing or blasphemy.
SECOND PETITION
"Thy Kingdom Come"
This is an appeal for the triumph of the temporal kingdom of God in the battle against the "gates of hell," the evil forces against which the battle has raged
since the days of Nero. It is a plea for the spiritual kingdom that is external in the Church, and internal, abiding in souls in varying degrees of perfection. It
is also a plea for the merit that assures us an eternity of happiness in Gods heavenly kingdom.
THIRD PETITION
"Thy Will Be Done On Earth As It Is In heaven."
This is a call for faithfulness to Divine commands, that heavenly peace may abide in the world. It is a recognition of man as a free agent who can obey or
disobey the will of God. It is an appeal for the strength of character that enables man, by the grace of God, to do the will of God.
"Grant," said St. Augustine, "that we many never seek to bend the straight to the crooked, that is Thy will to ours; but that we may
bend the crooked to the straight, that is, our will to Thine."
FOURTH PETITION
"Give Us This Day Our Daily Bread"
This much misunderstood petition is not merely for the necessities that sustain the physical body (Food, clothing and shelter). God provides that in
abundance, though the wickedness of man (the failure to practice the brotherhood of man in the Fatherhood of God) often checks its equitable distribution.
The Fathers of the Church almost unanimously taught that by "daily bread," which St. Matthew calls the "supersubstantial bread" (6:11), is meant not so
much material bread, needed to support the body, but the daily reception of the Eucharistic Bread that feeds the spiritual nature of man, the Bread that
Christ referred to when He said,
"I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever; and the bread that I will give
is My Flesh, for the life of the world" (St. John 6:51-52). "For My Flesh is meat indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed. He that eateth
My Flesh, and drinketh My Blood, abideth in Me, and I in him" (St. John 6:56-57).
It also refers to the Word of God, to instructions and sermons that nourish the mind and heart of man, for
"Not by bread alone doth man live, but in every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God" (St. Matt, 4:4).
FIFTH PETITION
"Forgive Us Our Trespasses As We Forgive Those Who Trespass Against Us."
Herein we ask God to forgive us for our sins; to reconcile us with Him through true contrition, penance, making reparation, and a determination to try and
sin no more. To persons who are vindictive, hateful, jealous, envious, dishonest, or unforgiving of others, this petition is self-condemnatory. Such persons
virtually say "God, pardon me, be merciful to me, forgive me my trespasses to the degree only that I pardon, am merciful, and forgive those who
trespass against me."
SIXTH PETITION
"Lead Us Not Into Temptation"
This is a cry from the inner soul of man for God to safeguard us from submission to temptation. God does not tempt us, it is the devil, our passions, the
world that tempts us, and then only to the degree that our strength of will can resist. St. Paul says so:
".... God will not suffer you to be tempted above that which you are able: but will make also with temptation issue, that you may be
able to bear it" (1 Cor. 10:13)
God permits the temptation as it tests our virtue, gives us an opportunity to merit, and thus to strengthen our moral being. "Lord, lead me not into
temptation" is like David crying out "O God, make haste to help me"( Ps. 70:12); like the Apostles crying out when about to sink "Lord, save us, we
perish" (St. Matt. 8:25). Going deliberately into places or with associates that are an occasion of sins; submission to temptation, and not being subject to
temptation, is a sin. Everybody is tempted, even Christ our Lord was tempted. But Christ rebuked the tempter and his seductive temptations, with the
result that the angels ministered unto Him. So will they minister unto us, if we be not led into temptation.
SEVENTH PETITION
44
"But Deliver Us From Evil"
This means primarily to be delivered from the evil of sin which is the source and foundation of all other evils in the world. Sin, the violation of Gods law, is
the greatest of all evils, it is the only evil that outrages God. Other evils, including those of a physical nature, are included in the seventh petition.
CONCLUSION
"Amen"
This is a Hebrew word, that literally means firm, true. It is used to signify: so be it, verily. It comes from the Hebrew word aman, to prop, to support. It is
considered to be the most universal word, being used by Jews, Christians and Moslems as a confirmatory response. St. John uses it in the Apocalypse
(3:14) as the name of Jesus: "These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, who is the beginning of the creation of God," that is Truth itself.
Three rules were followed by the Jews in pronouncing the word, Amen: It must be pronounced not too hastily, but with a grace and distinct voice. It must
not be louder in tone than that used by him who blesses. It must be expressed with faith in God, with a certain persuasion that God will hear the prayer
and grant the petition.
LOTS WIFE
"I think the Bible would be a more interesting book if the fables were cut out of it. The story of Lots wife turning into a pillar of salt is one
of a hundred of them."
Evidently the world thinks the Bible quite interesting as it is, that is why it is, and has been for centuries, the worlds best seller, best in the best sense of
the word. There are stories, some of them strange stories, of wickedness and virtue; religious allegories, and parables, but no fables in the Bible, all of
them of historic and moral value. Instead of the instance you cite being a fable, it is a serious and truthful story of punishment that resulted from
disobedience. Lots wife "looked back (Gen. 19:26) after she was warned to "look not behind thee," to take herself away from Sodom which was being
destroyed by brimstone and fire that was falling from the sky. The result was that she turned into a pillar of salt.
the story relates to us as well. "Remember Lots wife," was the warning of Christ of what may be expected from worldliness, sin, and the coming
destruction of Jerusalem (St. Luke 17:31-32). It was referred to as a warning for man to take himself away, to detach himself from worldly possessions,
and to beware not to turn back when the heavens gave signs of His coming for the second time, as Christ promised to come, and will come.
The possibility of Gods power to turn the body of Lots wife to salt cannot be reasonably questioned, anymore than we can question the natural fact that
human bodies by chemical action have been known to be petrified.
TEN COMMANDMENTS
"To what is the difference between the Roman Catholic and Protestant versions of the Ten Commandments attributed? Whatever the
answer may be, dont you think the Commandments are out of date? "
The Ten Commandments can not be amended or abrogated. They are ten God-expressed, eternal words. Therefore they will never be out of date, though
the conditions to which they apply change from generation to generation. They are basic religious and moral obligations, the seed from which every virtue
emanates. Every sin committed by man is either explicitly or implicitly embodied in them.
While the Commandments in the Decalogue came to man from Mt. Sinai in definitely expressed orderly written form, they did not originate there. They
were written by God into the very nature of man, being in their hearts and consciences from the beginning of human creation.
While this covenant of God with man was given through Moses to the Jews, it was intended for all the people, of all the world, during all time. That is why,
as the Jews say, they were given to man in the wilderness, which belongs to the whole world, instead of Palestine, the land of Israel.
The difference between the "Catholic and Protestant version of the Commandments" is only in their numerical divisions. The Protestant (Lutherans
excepted) divide the first commandment into two, and unite the 9 th and 10th Commandments into one. Thus the Catholic 2 nd Commandment becomes the
Protestant 3rd, and so on until the Catholic 8th becomes the Protestant 9th, and the Catholics 9th and 10th, united, becomes the Protestant 10th.
The object of this change was to emphasize the Protestant groundless charge that Catholics are image worshipers. The first Commandment, based upon
the enumeration of the Hebrew text by St. Augustine in the 5 th century, contains a positive and negative declaration which form one whole. It enjoins the
worship of the one true God and Him alone, and therefore prohibits the making of images to be adored as idols. The Protestant "version" divides this first
Commandment to read, in abbreviated form:
1st Commandment Thou shalt have no other God before me.
2nd Commandment Thou shalt not make to thee any graven image.
The Catholic 9th and 10th Commandments are united into the Protestant 10th my making "thou shalt not covet (Deuteronomy says desire) thy neighbors
wife" equal to the sin of coveting thy neighbors goods. Our Lord Jesus Christ did not declare the unlawful desire for a mans wife to be equal to the sin of
coveting thy neighbors goods. Our Lord Jesus Christ declared the unlawful desire for a mans wife, adultery, to be a distinct sin:
"... But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart"
(St. Matt. V. 28).
If the species of the sin of covetousness is not determined by the object coveted; if there be no difference between coveting, desiring a mans wife and
stealing his goods, then the Protestant 7th Commandment "Thou shalt not commit adultery" and its 8th Commandment "Thou shalt not steal" ought
to be united into one Commandment.
The modern Jews "follow the division in the Talmud," written between "the 3 rd and 6th centuries" of the Christian era, says Valentines Jewish Encyclopedia
(1938). The Jewish authorities generally named by Protestants are Philo and Josephus, Greek writers of the first century of the Christian era. Against them
45
stands "The whole weight of Rabbinical tradition," says the Catholic Dictionary (Addis and Arnolds p. 196) on the side of the Catholic enumeration: "It is
the only one consistent with the Hebrew text, as usually found in MMS and printed editions. The text is divided into ten sections, which correspond
precisely with our Catholic division. These sections are admitted to be very ancient, older even than the Masoretic text, and the Protestant scholar
Kennicott found them to be marked in 470 out of 694 MMS which he collated." It is ignorance of the Ten Commandments, their profundity and immutability,
that even suggests the thought that they are "out of date." They are eternal principles that may be outvoted and disobeyed, but they will never be
obliterated.
"In vain we call old notions fudge
And bend our conscience to our dealing.
The Ten Commandments will not budge
And stealing will continue stealing."
It is amazing, yet true, that many persons called "up-to-date" have never learned them. No wonder, when a clergyman, hearing one of those extremely
modern women rattle off some of the jungle music, called "Jazz," on a piano said, "My dear young lady, have you ever heard of the Ten Commandments?"
replied "whistle a few bars, and I think I can follow you."
N. Y. UNIVERSITY STUDENTS
"Your answer to my question is bright, but it is not in accord with modern youth. Did you read this mornings announcement in the public
press, of the poll of 1485 students in the New York University School of Commerce and Finance? Here is a copy showing a great majority
of them have voted the Ten Commandments to be out of date."
That report is interesting insofar as it shows the evil effect of our secular non-God system of education. It shows that those hope-to-be Morgans lack an
understanding of those ten principles that are as eternal as the ten numbers in the multiplication table, something millions of men know whose moral
sense were not dulled by godless teachers. It reminds me of the story of a country pastor, who, seeing an old man by the wayside day after day breaking
stones for the building of a new road, said, "Jim, that pile does not seem to get less." "Youre right, Father," came the response, "them stones is like the
Ten Commandments. You can go on breakin em, but you cant get rid of em."
Twenty One Reasons to Reject Sola Scriptura
By Joel Peters
What is Sola Scriptura?

"We believe in the Bible alone and the Bible in its entirety as the sole rule of faith for the Christian!"
You may have heard these words or something very similar to them from a Fundamentalist or Evangelical Protestant. They are, in essence, the meaning
of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, or "Scripture alone," which alleges that the Bible as interpreted by the individual believer is the only source of
religious authority and is the Christians sole rule of faith or criterion regarding what is to be believed. By this doctrine, which is one of the foundational
beliefs of Protestantism, a Protestant denies that there is any other source of religious authority or divine Revelation to humanity.
The Catholic, on the other hand, holds that the immediate or direct rule of faith is the teaching of the Church; the Church in turn takes her teaching from
the divine Revelation both the written Word, called Sacred Scripture, and the oral or unwritten Word, known as "Tradition." The teaching authority or
"Magisterium" of the Catholic Church (headed by the Pope), although not itself a source of divine Revelation, nevertheless has a God-given mission to
interpret and teach both Scripture and Tradition. Scripture and Tradition are the sources of Christian doctrine, the Christians remote or indirect rule of faith
Obviously these two views on what constitutes the Christians rule of faith are opposed to each other, and anyone who sincerely seeks to follow Christ
must be sure that he follows the one that is true.
The doctrine of Sola Scriptura originated with Martin Luther, the 16 th-century German monk who broke away from the Roman Catholic Church and started
the Protestant "Reformation." (1) in response to some abuses that had been occurring within the Catholic Church, Luther became a vocal opponent of
certain practices. As far as these abuses were concerned, they were real and Luther was justified in reacting. However, as a series of confrontations
between him and the Church hierarchy developed, the issues became more centered on the question of Church authority and from Luthers perspective
whether or not the teaching of the Catholic Church was a legitimate rule of faith for Christians.
As the confrontations between Luther and the Churchs hierarchy ensued and tensions mounted, Luther accused the Catholic Church of having corrupted
Christian doctrine and having distorted Biblical truths, and he more and more came to believe that the Bible, as interpreted by the individual believer, was
the only true religious authority for a Christian. He eventually rejected Tradition as well as the teaching authority of the Catholic Church (with the Pope at
its head) as having legitimate religious authority.
An honest inquirer must ask, then, whether Luthers doctrine of "Scripture alone" was a genuine restoration of a Biblical truth or rather the promulgation of
an individuals personal views on Christian authority. Luther was clearly passionate about his beliefs, and he was successful in spreading them, but these
facts in and of themselves do not guarantee that what he taught was correct. Since ones spiritual well-being, and even ones eternal destiny, is at stake,
the Christian believer needs to be absolutely sure in this matter.
Following are twenty-one considerations which will help the reader scrutinize Luthers doctrine of Sola Scriptura from Biblical, historical and logical bases
and which show that it is not in fact a genuine Biblical truth, but rather a man-made doctrine.
1. The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not taught anywhere in the Bible
Perhaps the most striking reason for rejecting this doctrine is that there is not one verse anywhere in the Bible in which it is taught, and it therefore
becomes a self-refuting doctrine.
46
Protestants often point to verses such as 2 Timothy 3:16-17 or The Apocalypse (Revelation)22:18-19 in defense of Sola Scriptura, but close examination
of these two passages easily demonstrates that they do not support the doctrine at all.
In 2 Timothy 3:16-17 we read, "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." There are five considerations which undermine the Sola Scriptura interpretation of this passage:
1) The Greek word ophelimos ("profitable") used in verse 16 means "useful" not "sufficient." An example of this difference would be to say that water is
useful for our existence even necessary but it is not sufficient; that is, it is not the only thing we need to survive. We also need food, clothing, shelter,
etc. Likewise, Scripture is useful in the life of the believer, but it was never meant to be the only source of Christian teaching, the only thing needed for
believers.
2) The Greek word pasa, which is often rendered as "all," actually means "every," and it has the sense of referring to each and every one of the class
denoted by the noun connected with it. (2) In other words, the Greek reads in a way which indicates that each and every "Scripture" is profitable. If the
doctrine of Sola Scriptura were true, then based on Greek verse 16, each and every book of the Bible could stand on its own as the sole rule of faith, a
position which is obviously absurd.
3) The "Scripture" that St. Paul is referring to here is the Old Testament, a fact which is made plain by his reference to the Scriptures being known by
Timothy from "infancy" (verse 15). The New Testament as we know it did not yet exist, or at best it was incomplete, so it simply could not have included in
St. Pauls understanding of what was meant by the term "scripture." If we take St. Pauls words at face value, Sola Scriptura would therefore mean that the
Old Testament is the Christians sole rule of faith. This is a premise that all Christians would reject.
Protestants may respond to this issue by arguing that St. Paul is not here discussing the canon of the Bible (the authoritative list of which books are
included in the Bible), but rather the nature of Scripture. While there is some validity to this assertion, the issue of canon is also relevant here, for the
following reason: Before we can talk about the nature of Scripture as being theopneustos or "inspired" (literally, "God-breathed"), it is imperative that we
identify with certainty those books we mean when we say "Scripture"; otherwise, the wrong writings may be labeled as "inspired." St. Pauls words here
obviously took on a new dimension when the New Testament was completed, as Christians eventually considered it, too, to be "Scripture." It can be
argued, then, that the Biblical canon is also the issue here, as St. Paul writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit emphasizes the fact that all (and
not just some) Scripture is inspired. The question that begs to be asked, however, is this: "How can we be sure we have all the correct writings?"
obviously, we can only know the answer if we know what the canon of the Bible is. Such a question poses a problem for the Protestant, but not for the
Catholic, as the latter has an infallible authority to answer it.
4) The Greek word artios, here translated "perfect," may at first glance make it seem that the Scriptures are indeed all that is needed. "After all," one may
ask, "if the Scriptures make the man of God perfect, what else could be needed? Doesnt the very word perfect imply that nothing is lacking?"
Well, the difficulty with such an interpretation is that the text here does not say that it is solely by means of the Scriptures that the man of God is made
"perfect." The text if anything indicates precisely the opposite to be true, namely, that the Scriptures operate in conjunction with other things. Notice
that it is not just anyone who is made perfect, but rather the "man of God" which means a minister of Christ (cf. 1 Tim. 6:11), a clergyman. The fact that
this individual is a minister of Christ presupposes that he has already had training and teaching which prepared him to assume his office. This being the
case, the Scriptures would be merely one item in a series of items which make this man of God "perfect." The Scriptures may complete his list of
necessary items or they may be one prominent item on the list, but surely they are not the only item on his list nor intended to be all that he needs.
By way of analogy, consider a medical doctor. In this context we might say something like, "The Physicians Desk Reference [a standard medical
reference book] makes our General Practitioner perfect, so that he may be ready to treat any medical situation." Obviously such a statement does not
mean that all a doctor needs is his PDR. It is neither the last item on his list or just one prominent item. The doctor also needs his stethoscope, his blood
pressure gauge, his training, etc. These other items are presupposed by the fact that we are talking about a doctor rather than a non-medical person. So it
would be incorrect to assume that if the PDR makes the doctor "perfect," it is the only thing which makes him so.
Also, taking this word "perfect" as meaning "the only necessary item" results in a biblical contradiction, for in James 1:4 we read that patience rather
than the Scriptures makes on perfect: "And patience hath a perfect work; that you may be perfect and entire, failing in nothing." Now it is true that a
different Greek word (teleios) is used here for "perfect," but the fact remains that the basic meaning is the same. Now, if one rightly acknowledges that
patience is clearly not the only thing a Christian needs in order to be perfect, then a consistent interpretive method would compel one to acknowledge
likewise that the Scriptures are not the only think a "man of God" needs in order to be perfect.
5) The Greek word exartizo in verse 17, here translated "furnished" (other Bible versions read something like "fully equipped" or "thoroughly furnished") is
referred to by Protestants as "proof" of Sola Scriptura, since this word again may be taken as implying that nothing else is needed for the "man of
God." However, even though the man of God may be "furnished" or "thoroughly equipped," this fact in and of itself does not guarantee that he knows how
to interpret correctly and apply any given Scripture passage. The clergyman must also be taught how to correctly use the Scriptures, even though he may
already be "furnished" with them.
Consider again a medical analogy. Picture a medical student at the beginning of internship. He might have at his disposal all the equipment necessary to
perform an operation (i.e., he is "thoroughly equipped" or "furnished" for a surgical procedure), but until he spends time with the doctors, who are the
resident authorities, observing their techniques, learning their skills, and practicing some procedures of his own, the surgical instruments at his disposal
are essentially useless. In fact, if he does not learn how to use these instruments properly, they can actually become dangerous in his hands.
So it is with the "man of God" and the Scriptures. The Scriptures, like the surgical instruments, are life-giving only when properly used. When improperly
used, the exact opposite results can occur. In once case they could bring physical ruin or even death; in the other case they could bring spiritual ruin or
even spiritual death. Since the Bible admonishes us to handle rightly or rightly divide the word of truth (cf. 2 Tim. 2:15), it is therefore possible to handle
incorrectly or wrongly divide it much like an untrained medical student who incorrectly wields his surgical instruments.
Regarding The Apocalypse (Revelation) 22:18-19, there are two considerations which undermine the Sola Scriptura interpretation of these verses. The
passage almost the very last in the Bible reads: "For I testify to every one that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add to
47
these things, God shall add unto him the plagues written in this book. And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God
shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from these things that are written in this book."
1) When these verses say that nothing is to be added to or taken from the "words of the prophecy of this book," they are not referring to Sacred Tradition
being "added" to the Sacred Scripture. It is obvious from the context that the "book" being referred to here is Revelation or The Apocalypse and not the
whole Bible. We know this because St. John says that anyone who is guilty of adding to "this book" will be cursed with the plagues" written in this book,"
namely the plagues he described earlier in his own book, Revelation. To assert otherwise is to do violence to the text and to distort its plain meaning,
especially since the Bible as we know it did not exist when this passage was written and therefore could not be what was meant. (3)
In defense of their interpretation of these verses, Protestants will often contend that God knew in advance what the canon of Scripture would be, with
Revelation being the last book of the Bible, and thus He "sealed" that canon with the words of verses 18-19. But this interpretation involves reading a
meaning into the text. Furthermore, if such an assertion were true, how is it that the Christian knows unmistakably that Revelation 22:18-19 is "sealing" the
canon unless an infallible teaching authority assures him that this is the correct interpretation of that verse? But if such an infallible authority exists, then
the Sola Scriptura doctrine becomes ipso facto null and void.
2) The same admonition not to add or subtract words is used in Deuteronomy 4:2, which says, "You shall not add to the word that I speak to you, neither
shall you take away from it: keep the commandment of the Lord your God which I command you." If we were to apply a parallel interpretation to this verse,
then anything in the Bible beyond the decrees of the Old Testament law would be considered non-canonical or not authentic Scripture including the New
Testament! Once again, all Christians would reject this conclusion in no uncertain terms. The prohibition in Revelation 22:18-19 against "adding,"
therefore, cannot mean that Christians are forbidden to look to anything outside the Bible for guidance.
2. The Bible Indicates that In Addition to the Written Word, we are to accept Oral Tradition
St. Paul both commends and commands the keeping of oral tradition. In 1 Corinthians 11:2, for instance, we read, "Now I praise you, brethren, that in all
things you are mindful of me: and keep my ordinances as I have delivered them to you." (4) St. Paul is obviously commending the keeping of oral tradition
here, and it should be noted in particular that he extols the believers for having done so ("I praise you...."). Explicit in this passage is also the fact that the
integrity of this Apostolic oral tradition has clearly been maintained, just as Our Lord promised it would be, through the safeguarding of the Holy Spirit (cf.
John 16:3).
Perhaps the clearest Biblical support for oral tradition can be found in 2 Thessalonians 2:14(15), where Christians are actually commanded: "Therefore,
brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle." This passage is significant in that 1) it shows the
existence of living traditions within the Apostolic teaching, b) it tells us unequivocally that believers are firmly grounded in the Faith by adhering to these
traditions, and c) it clearly states that these traditions were both written and oral. Since the Bible distinctly states here that oral traditions authentic and
Apostolic in origin are to be "held" as a valid component of the Deposit of Faith, by what reasoning or excuse do Protestants dismiss them? By what
authority do they reject a clear-cut injunction of St. Paul?
Moreover, we must consider the text in this passage. The Greek word krateite, here translated "hold," means "to be strong, mighty, to prevail." (5) This
language is rather emphatic, and it demonstrates the importance of maintaining these traditions. Of course one must differentiate between Tradition
(upper-case "T") that is part of divine Revelation, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, Church traditions (lower-case "t") that, although good, have
developed in the Church later and are not part of the Deposit of Faith. An example of something that is part of Tradition would be infant Baptism; an
example of a Church tradition would be the Churchs calendar of feast days of Saints. Anything that is part of Tradition is of divine origin and hence
unchangeable, while Church traditions are changeable by the Church. Sacred Tradition serves as a rule of faith by showing what the Church has believed
consistently through the centuries and how it is always understood any given portion of the Bible. One of the main ways in which Tradition has been
passed down to us is in the doctrine contained in the ancient texts of the liturgy, the Churchs public worship.
it should be noted that Protestants accuse Catholics of promoting "unbiblical" or "novel" doctrines based on Tradition, asserting that such Tradition
contains doctrines which are foreign to the Bible. However, this assertion is wholly untrue. The Catholic Church teaches that Sacred Tradition contains
nothing whatsoever that is contrary to the Bible. Some Catholic thinkers would even say that there is nothing in Sacred Tradition which is not also found in
Scripture, at least implicitly or in seminal form. Certainly the two are at least in perfect harmony and always support each other. For some doctrines, the
Church draws more from Tradition than from Scripture for its understanding, but even those doctrines are often implied or hinted at in the Sacred
Scripture. For example, the following are largely based on Sacred Tradition: infant Baptism, the canon of Scripture, the perpetual virginity of the Blessed
Virgin Mary, Sunday (rather than Saturday) as the Lords Day, and the Assumption of Our Lady.
Sacred Tradition complements our understanding of the Bible and is therefore not some extraneous source of Revelation which contains doctrines that are
foreign to it. Quite the contrary: Sacred Tradition serves as the Churchs living memory, reminding her of what the faithful have constantly and consistently
believed and who to properly understand and interpret the meaning of Biblical passages. (6) In a certain way, it is Sacred Tradition which says to the
reader of the Bible "You have been reading a very important book which contains Gods revelation to man. Now let me explain to you how it has always
been understood and practiced by believers from the very beginning."
3. The Bible Calls the Church and not the Bible the "Pillar and Ground of the Truth."
It is very interesting to note that in I Timothy 3:15 we see, not the Bible, but the Church that is, the living community of believers founded upon St. Peter
and the Apostles and headed by their successors called "the pillar and ground of the truth." Of course, this passage is not meant in any way to diminish
the importance of the Bible, but it is intending to show that Jesus Christ did establish an authoritative and teaching Church which was commissioned to
teach "all nations." (Matt. 28:19). Elsewhere this same Church received Christs promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against it ( Matt. 16:18),
that He would always be with it (Matt. 28:20), and that He would give it the Holy Spirit to teach it all truth. ( John 16:13). To the visible head of His Church,
St. Peter, Our Lord said: "And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in
heaven: and, whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven." ( Matt. 16:19). It is plainly evident from these passages that Our Lord
emphasized the authority of His Church and the role it would have in safeguarding and defining the Deposit of Faith.
48
It is also evident from these passages that this same Church would be infallible, for if at any time in its history it would definitively teach error to the Church
as a whole in matters of faith or morals even temporarily it would cease being this "pillar and ground of the truth." Since a "ground" or foundation by its
very nature is meant to be a permanent support, and since the above-mentioned passages do not allow fro the possibility of the Church ever definitively
teaching doctrinal or moral error, the only plausible conclusion is that Our Lord was very deliberate in establishing His Church and that He was referring to
its infallibility when He called it the "pillar and ground of the truth."
The Protestant, however, has a dilemma here by asserting the Bible to be the sole rule of faith for believers. In what capacity, then, is the Church the
"pillar and ground of the truth" if it is not to serve as an infallible authority established by Christ? How can the Church be this "pillar and ground" if it has no
tangible, practical ability to serve as an authority in the life of a Christian? The Protestant would effectively deny that the Church is the "pillar and ground of
the truth" by denying that the Church has the authority to teach.
Also, Protestants understand the term "church" to mean something different from what the Catholic Church understands it to mean. Protestants see "the
church" as an invisible entity, and for them it refers collectively to all Christian believers around the world who are united by faith in Christ, despite major
variations in doctrine and denominational allegiance. Catholics, on the other hand, understand it to mean not only those true believers who are united as
Christs Mystical Body, but we simultaneously understand it to refer to a visible, historical entity as well, namely, that one and only that one
organization which can trace its lineage in an unbroken line back to the Apostles themselves: the Catholic Church. It is this Church and this Church alone
which was established by Christ and which has maintained an absolute consistency in doctrine throughout its existence, and it is therefore this Church
alone which can claim to be that very "pillar and ground of the truth."
Protestantism, by comparison, has known a history of doctrinal vacillations and changes, and no two denominations completely agree even on major
doctrinal issues. Such shifting and changing could not possibly be considered a foundation or "ground of the truth." When the foundation of a structure
shifts or is improperly set, that structures very support is unreliable (cf. Matt. 7:26-27). Since in practice the beliefs of Protestantism have undergone
change both within denominations and through the continued appearance of new denominations, these beliefs are like a foundation which shifts and
moves. Such beliefs therefore cease to provide the support necessary to maintain the structure they uphold, and the integrity of that structure becomes
compromised, Our Lord clearly did not intend for His followers to build their spiritual houses on such an unreliable foundation.
4. Christ tells us to submit to the Authority of the Church
In Matthew 18:15-18 we see Christ instructing His disciples on how to correct a fellow believer. It is extremely telling in this instance that Our Lord
identifies the Church rather than Scripture as the final authority to be appealed to. He Himself says that if an offending brother "will not hear the Church, let
him be to thee as the heathen and publican" (Matt. 18:17) that is, as an outsider who is lost. Moreover, Our Lord then solemnly re-emphasizes the
Churchs infallible teaching authority in verse 18 by repeating His earlier statement about the power to bind and loose ( Matt. 16:18-19), directing it this time
to the Apostles as a group (7) rather than just to Peter: "Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and
whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven." (Matt. 18:18).
Of course there are instances in the Bible where Our Lord does appeal to Scripture, but in these cases He, as one having authority, was teaching the
Scriptures; He was not allowing the Scriptures to teach themselves. For example, He would respond to the Scribes and the Pharisees by using Scripture
precisely because they often tried to trip Him up by using Scripture. In these instances, Our Lord often demonstrates how the Scribes and Pharisees had
wrong interpretations, and hence He corrects them by properly interpreting Scripture.
His actions do not argue that Scripture should be sola, or an authority in itself and, in fact, the only Christian authority. Quite the contrary; whenever Christ
refers His hearers to the Scriptures, He also provides His infallible, authoritative interpretation of them, demonstrating that the Scriptures do not interpret
themselves.
The Catholic Church readily acknowledges the inerrancy and authority of Scripture. But the Catholic doctrine is that the immediate rule of faith for the
Christian is the teaching authority of the Church an authority to teach and interpret both Scripture and Tradition, as Matt. 18:17-18 shows.
It should also be noted that implicit (perhaps even explicit) in this passage from Matthew is the fact that the "Church" must have been a visible, tangible
entity established in a hierarchical fashion. Otherwise, how would anyone have known to whom the wrongdoer should be referred? If the Protestant
definition of "church" were correct, then the wrongdoer would have to "hear" each and every believer who existed, hoping that there would be unanimity
among them regarding the issue at hand. The inherent absurdity of this scenario is readily apparent. The only way we can make sense of Our Lords
statement here is to acknowledge that here was a definite organization, to which an appeal could be made and from which a decisive judgment could be
had.
5 Scripture itself states that it is insufficient of itself as a teacher, but rather needs an interpreter.
The Bible says in 2 Tim. 3:17 that the man of God is "perfect, furnished to every good work." As we noted above, this verse means only that the man of
God is fully supplied with Scripture; it is not a guarantee that he automatically knows how to interpret it properly. This verse at most argues only for the
material sufficiency of Scripture, a position which is held by some Catholic thinkers today.
"Material sufficiency" would mean that the Bible in some way contains all the truths that are necessary for the believer to know; in other words, the
"materials" would thus be all present or at least implied. "Formal sufficiency," on the other hand, would mean that the Bible would not only contain all the
truths that are necessary, but that it would also present those truths in a perfectly clear and complete and readily understandable fashion. In other words,
these truths would be in a useable form," and consequently there would be no need for Sacred Tradition to clarify and complete them or for an infallible
teaching authority to interpret them correctly or "rightly divide" Gods word.
Since the Catholic Church holds that the Bible is not sufficient in itself, it naturally teaches that the Bible needs an interpreter. The reason the Catholic
Church so teaches is twofold: first, because Christ established a living Church to teach with His authority. He did not simply give His disciples a Bible,
whole and entire, and tell them to go out and make copies of it for mass distribution and allow people to come to whatever interpretation they may.
Second, the Bible itself states that it needs an interpreter.
49
Regarding the second point, we read in 2 Peter 3:16 that in St. Pauls epistles there are "certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and
unstable wrest [distort], as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction."
In this one verse we note three very important things about the Bible and its interpretation: a) the Bible contains passages which are not readily
understandable or clear, a fact which demonstrates the need for an authoritative and infallible teacher to make the passages clear and understandable; (8)
b) it is not only possible that people could "wrest" or distort the meaning of Scripture, but this was, in fact, being done from the very earliest days of the
Church; and c) to distort the meaning of Scripture can result in ones "destruction," a disastrous fate indeed. It is obvious from these considerations that St.
Peter did not believe the Bible to be the sole rule of faith. But there is more.
In Acts 8:26-40 we read the account of the deacon St. Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch. In this scenario, the Holy Spirit leads Philip to approach the
Ethiopian when Philip learns that the Ethiopian is reading from the prophet Isaias, he asks him a very telling question: "Thinkest thou that thou
understandest what thou readest?" Even more telling is the answer given by the Ethiopian: "And how can I, unless some man show me?"
Whereas this St. Philip (known as "the Evangelist") is not one of the twelve Apostles, he was nonetheless someone who was commissioned by the
Apostles (cf. Acts 6:6) and who preached the Gospel with authority (cf. Acts 8:4-8). Consequently, his preaching would reflect legitimate Apostolic
teaching. The point here is that the Ethiopians statement verifies the fact that the Bible is not sufficient in itself as a teacher of Christian doctrine, and
people who hear the Word do need an authority to instruct them properly so that they may understand what the Bible says. If the Bible were indeed
sufficient of itself, then the eunuch would not have been ignorant of the meaning of the passage from Isaias.
There is also 2 Peter 1:20, which states that "no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation." Here we see the Bible itself stating in no
uncertain terms that its prophecies are not a matter for which the individual is to arrive at his own interpretation. It is also most telling that this verse is
preceded by a section on the Apostolic witness (verses 12-18) and followed by a section on false teachers (chapter 2, verses 1-10). St. Peter is obviously
contrasting genuine, Apostolic teaching with false prophets and false teachers, and he makes reference to private interpretation as the pivotal point
between the two. The clear implication is that private interpretation is one pathway whereby an individual turns from authentic teaching and begins to
follow erroneous teaching.
6. The first Christians did not have a Bible
Biblical scholars tell us that the last book of the New Testament was not written until the end of the 1 st century A.D., that is, until around the year 100 A.D.
(9) This fact would leave roughly a 65-year gap between Our Lords Ascension into Heaven and the completion of the Bible as we know it. The question
that begs to be asked, therefore, is this: "Who or what served as the final, infallible authority during that time?"
If the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura were true, then since the Church existed for a time without the entire written Word of God, there would have
been situations and doctrinal issues which could not have been resolved with finality until all of the New Testament books were complete. The ship would
have been left without a rudder, so to speak, at least for a time. But this goes contrary to the statements and promises that Our Lord made about His
Church particularly, "behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world" ( Matt. 28:20) not to mention that He told His disciples: "I
will not leave you orphans." (John 14:18).
This issue is of particular importance, as the first several decades of the Churchs existence were tumultuous. Persecutions had already begun, believers
were being martyred, the new Faith was struggling to grow, and some false teachings had already appeared (cf. Galatians 1:6-9). If the Bible were the
Christians only rule of faith, and since the Bible was not fully written much less settled in terms of its canon until 65 years after Christs Ascension, how
did the early Church possibly deal with doctrinal questions without an authority on how to proceed?
Now the Protestant may be tempted to offer two possible responses: 1) that the Apostles were temporarily the final authority while the New Testament was
being written, and 2) that the Holy Spirit was given to the Church and that His direct guidance is what bridged the time gap between Our Lords Ascension
and the completion of the New Testament.
Regarding the first response, it is true that Jesus Christ invested the Apostles with His authority; however, the Bible nowhere indicates that this authoritys
active role within the Church would cease with the death of the last Apostle. Quite the contrary, the Bible record is quite clear in that a) it nowhere says
that once the last Apostle dies, the written form of Gods Word will become the final authority; and b) the Apostles clearly chose successors who, in turn,
possessed the same authority to "bind and loose." This is shown in the election of Matthias as a replacement for Judas Iscariot (Cf. Acts 1:15-26) and in
St. Pauls passing on his Apostolic Authority to Timothy and Titus (cf. 2 Timothy 1:6, and Titus 1:5). If anything, a Protestant only gives credence to the
Catholic teaching by insisting on the authority of the Apostles.
Regarding the second response that the Holy Spirits direct guidance bridged the time gap the problem with such a position is that the direct guidance
of the Holy Spirit Himself is an extra-Biblical (That is, "outside of the Bible") source of authority. Naturally the Bible speaks very clearly of the Holy Spirits
presence among the believers and His role in teaching the disciples "all truth," but if the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit were, in fact, the ultimate
authority during those 65 years, then the history of the Church would have known two successive ultimate authorities: first the direct guidance of the Holy
Spirit, with this guidance then being replaced by the Scriptures, which would have become sola, or the "only" ultimate authority. And if this situation of an
extra-Biblical ultimate authority is permissible from a Protestant perspective, does this not open the door to the Catholic position, which says that the
teaching authority of the Church is the direct ultimate authority deriving her authority from Christ and her teaching from Scripture and Tradition, guided
by the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit was given to the Church by Jesus Christ, and it is exactly this same Spirit who protects the Churchs visible head, the Pope, and the
teaching authority of the Church by never permitting him or it to lapse into error. The Catholic believes that Christ indeed did give the Holy Spirit to the
Church and that the Holy Spirit has always been present in the Church, teaching it all truth ( John 16:13) and continually safeguarding its doctrinal integrity,
particularly through the office of the Pope. Thus the Gospel would still have been preached authoritatively and infallibly even if not a single verse of the
New Testament had ever been written.
7. The Church produced the Bible not vice-versa
50
The doctrine of Sola Scriptura overlooks or at least grossly underemphasizes the fact that the Church came before the Bible, and not the other way
around. It was the Church, in effect, which wrote the Bible under the inspiration of Almighty God: the Israelites as the Old Testament Church (or "pre-
Catholics") and the early Catholics as the New Testament Church.
In the pages of the New Testament we note that Our Lord gives a certain primacy to the teaching authority of His Church and its proclamation in His name.
For instance, in Matthew 28:20 we see Our Lord commissioning the Apostles to go and teach in His name, making disciples of all nations. In Mark 16:15
we note that the Apostles are commanded to go and preach to all the world. And in Luke 10:16 we see that whoever hears the seventy-two hears Our
Lord. These facts are most telling, as nowhere do we see Our Lord commissioning His Apostles to evangelize the world by writing in His name. The
emphasis is always on preaching the Gospel, not on printing and distributing it.
Thus it follows that the leadership and teaching authority of the Church are indispensable elements in the means whereby the Gospel message is to reach
the ends of the earth. Since the Church produced the scriptures, it is quite biblical, logical and reasonable to say that the Church alone has the authority to
interpret properly and apply them. And if this is so, then by reason of its origin and nature, the Bible cannot serve as the only rule of faith for Christian
believers. In other words, by producing the Scriptures, the Church does not eliminate the need for itself as teacher and interpreter of those Scriptures.
Moreover, is it not unreasonable to say that simply by putting Apostolic teaching into writing, the Church somehow made that written teaching superior to
her oral teaching? Like the teaching organization Our Lord established, His Word is authoritative, but because the word is one form rather than another
does not mean one form is to be subjugated to the other. Since Gods one Revelation is twofold in form, to deny the authority of one form would be to
deny the authority of the other form as well. The forms of Gods Word are complementary, not competitive. Thus, if there is a need for the Scriptures, there
is also a need for the teaching authority which produced them.
8. The idea of the Scripture's Authority existing apart from the authority of the Teacher Church is
utterly foreign to the Early Church.
If you look at the writings of the Early Church Fathers, you will see references to the Apostolic Succession, (10) to the bishops as guardians of the Deposit
of Faith, (11) and to the primacy and the authority of Rome. (12) The collective weight of these references makes clear the fact that the early Church
understood itself has having a hierarchy which was central to maintaining the integrity of the Faith. Nowhere do we see any indication that the early
followers of Christ disregarded those positions of authority and considered them invalid as a rule of faith. Quite the contrary, we see in those passages that
the Church, from its very inception, saw its power to teach grounded in an inseparable combination of Scripture and Apostolic Tradition with both being
authoritatively taught and interpreted by the teaching Magisterium of the Church, with the Bishop of Rome at its head.
To say that the early Church believed in the notion of "the Bible alone" would be analogous to saying that men and women today could entertain the
thought that our civil laws could function without Congress to legislate them, without courts to interpret them and without police to enforce them. All we
would need is a sufficient supply of legal volumes in every household so that each citizen could determine for himself how to understand and apply any
given law. Such an assertion is absurd, of course, as no one could possibly expect civil laws to function in this manner. The consequence of such a state
of affairs would undoubtedly be total anarchy.
How much more absurd, then, is it to contend that the Bible could function on its own and apart from the Church which wrote it? It is precisely that Church
and not just any Christian who alone possesses the divinely given authority to interpret it correctly, as well as to legislate matters involving the conduct
of its members. Were this not the case, the situation on any level local, regional or global would quickly devolve into spiritual anarchy, wherein each
and every Christian could formulate a theological system and develop a moral code based simply upon his own private interpretation of Scripture.
Has not history actually seen precisely this result since the 16 th century, when the so-called Reformation occurred? In fact, an examination of the state of
affairs in Europe immediately following the genesis of the Reformation particularly in Germany will demonstrate that the direct result of Reformation
teaching was both spiritual and social disorder. (13) Luther himself bemoaned the fact that, "Unfortunately, it is our daily experience that now under the
Gospel [his] the people entertain greater and bitterer hatred and envy and are worse with their avarice and money-grabbing than before under the
Papacy." (14)
9. Heresiarchs and heretical movements based their doctrines on Scripture interpreted apart from
Tradition and the Magisterium.
If you look at the history of the early Church, you will see that it continually struggled against heresies and those who promoted them. We also see the
Church responding to those threats again and again by convening Councils (15) and turning to Rome to settle disputes in matters of doctrine and
discipline. For example, Pope Clement intervened in a controversy in the Church at Corinth at the end of the 1 st century and put an end to a schism there.
In the 2nd century, Pope Victor threatened to excommunicate a large portion of the Church in the East because of a dispute about when Easter should be
celebrated. In the earlier part of the 3rd century, Pope Callistus pronounced the condemnation of the Sabellian heresy.
In the case of these heresies and/or conflicts in discipline that would arise, the people involved would defend their erroneous beliefs by their respective
interpretations of Scripture, apart from the Sacred Tradition and the teaching Magisterium of the Church. A good illustration of this point is the case of
Arius, the 4th-century priest who declared that the Son of God was a creature and was not co-equal with the Father.
Arius and those who followed him quoted verses from the Bible to "prove" their claims. (16) The disputes and controversies which arose over his
teachings became so great that the first Ecumenical Council was convened in Nicaea in 325 A.D. to settle them. The Council, under the authority of the
Pope, declared Arius teachings to be heretical and made some decisive declarations about the Person of Christ, and it did so based on what Sacred
Tradition had to say regarding the Scripture verses in question.
Here we see the teaching authority of the Church being used as the final say in an extremely important doctrinal matter. If there had been no teaching
authority to appeal to, then Arius error could have overtaken the Church. As it is, a majority of the bishops at the time fell for the Arian heresy. (17) Even
though Arius had based his arguments on the Bible and probably "compared Scripture with Scripture," the fact is that he arrived at an heretical conclusion.
It was the teaching authority of the Church hierarchically constituted which stepped in and declared he was wrong.
51
The application is obvious. If you ask a Protestant whether or not Arius was correct in his belief that the Son was created, he will, of course, respond in the
negative. Emphasize, then, that even though Arius presumably "compared Scripture with Scripture," he nonetheless arrived at an erroneous conclusion. If
this were true for Arius, what guarantee does the Protestant have that it is not also true for his interpretation of a given Bible passage? The very fact that
the Protestant knows Arius interpretations were heretical implies that an objectively true or "right" interpretation exists for the Biblical passages he used.
The issue, then, becomes a question of how we can know what that true interpretation is. The only possible answer is that there must be, out of necessity,
an infallible authority to tell us. That infallible authority, the Catholic Church, declared Arius heretical. Had the Catholic Church not been both infallible and
authoritative in its declaration, then believers would have had no reason whatsoever to reject Arius teachings, and the whole of Christianity today might
have been comprised of modern-day Arians.
It is evident, then, that using the Bible alone is not a guarantee of arriving at doctrinal truth. The above-described result is what happens when the
erroneous doctrine of Sola Scriptura is used as a guiding principle, and the history of the Church and the numerous heresies it has had to address are
undeniable testimony to this fact.
10. The Canon of the Bible was not settled until the 4 th Century.
One historical fact which proves extremely convenient for the Protestant is the fact that the canon of the Bible the authoritative list of exactly which
books are part of inspired Scripture was not settled and fixed until the end of the 4 th century. Until that time, there was much disagreement over which
Biblical writings were considered inspired and Apostolic in origin. The Biblical canon varied from place to place: some lists contained books that were later
defined as non-canonical, while other lists failed to include books which were later defined as canonical. For example, there were Early Christian writings
which were considered by some to be inspired and Apostolic and which were actually read in Christian public worship, but which were later omitted from
the New Testament canon. These include The Shepherd of Hermas, The Epistle of Barnabas, and The Didache, among others. (18)
It was not until the Synod of Rome (382) and the Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) that we find a definitive list of canonical books being drawn
up, and each of these Councils acknowledged the very same list of books. (19) From this point on, there is in practice no dispute about the canon of the
Bible, the only exception being the so-called Protestant Reformers, who entered upon the scene in 1517, an unbelievable 11 centuries later.
Once again, there are two fundamental questions for which one cannot provide answers that are consonant with Sola Scriptura: A) Who or what served as
the final Christian authority up to the time that the New Testaments canon was identified? B) And if there was a final authority that the Protestant
recognizes before the establishment of the canon, on what basis did that authority cease being final once the Bibles canon was established?
11. An "Extra-Biblical" Authority Identified the Canon of the Bible.
Since the Bible did not come with an inspired table of contents, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura creates yet another dilemma: How can one know with
certainty which books belong in the Bible specifically, in the New Testament? The unadulterated fact is that one cannot know unless there is an authority
outside the Bible which can tell him. Moreover, this authority must, by necessity, be infallible, since the possibility of error in identifying the canon of the
Bible (20) would mean that all believers run the risk of having the wrong books in their Bibles, a situation which would vitiate Sola Scriptura. But if there is
such an infallible authority, then the doctrine of Sola Scriptura crumbles.
Another historical fact very difficult to reconcile with the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is that it was none other than the Catholic Church which eventually
identified and ratified the canon of the Bible. The three councils mentioned above were all councils of this Church. The Catholic Church gave its final,
definitive, infallible definition of the Biblical canon a the Council of Trent in 1546 naming the very same list of 73 books that had been included in the 4 th
century. If the Catholic Church is able, then, to render an authoritative and infallible decision concerning such an important matter as which books belong
in the Bible, then upon what basis would a person question its authority on other matters of faith and morals?
Protestants should at least concede a point which Martin Luther, their religions founder, also conceded, namely, that the Catholic Church safeguarded and
identified the Bible: "We are obliged to yield many things to the Catholics (for example), that they possess the Word of God, which we received from
them; otherwise, we should have known nothing at all about it." (21)
12. The Belief that Scripture is "Self-Authenticating" Does Not Hold Up under Examination
Lacking a satisfactory answer to the question of how the canon of the Bible was determined, Protestants often resort to the notion that Scripture is "self-
authenticating," that is, the books of the Bible witness to themselves that they are inspired of God. The major problem with such an assertion is simply that
even a cursory examination of ecclesial history will demonstrate it to be utterly untrue.
For example, several books from the New Testament James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, and Revelation were disputed in terms of their canonical
status for some time. In certain places they were accepted, while simultaneously in other s they were rejected. Even spiritual giants like St. Athanasius
(297-373), St. Jerome (c. 342-420) and St. Augustine (354-430) had drawn up lists of New Testament books which witnessed to what was generally
acknowledged as inspired in their times and places, but none of these lists corresponds exactly to the New Testament canon that was eventually identified
by the Catholic Church at the end of the 4th century and which is identical to the canon that Catholics have today. (22)
If Scripture were actually "self-authenticating," why was there so much disagreement and uncertainty over these various books? Why was there any
disagreement at all? Why was the canon of the Bible not identified much earlier if the books were allegedly so readily discernible? The answer that one is
compelled to accept in this regard is simply that the Bible is not self-authenticating at all.
Even more interesting is the fact that some books in the Bible do not identify their authors. The idea of self-authentication if it were true might be more
plausible if each and every Biblical author identified himself, as we could more easily examine that authors credentials, so to speak, or at least determine
who it was that claimed to be speaking for God. But in this regard the Bible leaves us ignorant in a few instances.
Take St. Matthews Gospel as one example; nowhere does the text indicate that it was Matthew, one of the twelve Apostles, who authored it. We are
therefore left with only two possibilities for determining its authorship: 1) what Tradition has to say, 2) Biblical scholarship. In either case, the source of
determination is an extra-Biblical source and would therefore fall under condemnation by the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
52
Now the Protestant may be saying at this point that it is unnecessary to know whether or not Matthew actually wrote this Gospel, as ones salvation does
not depend on knowing whether it was Matthew or someone else. But such a view presents quite a difficulty. What the Protestant is effectively saying is
that while an authentic Gospel is Gods Word and is the means by which a person comes to a saving knowledge of Christ, the person has no way of
knowing for certain in the case of Matthews Gospel whether it is Apostolic in origin and consequently has no way of knowing it if its genuine (i.e., Gods
Word) or not. And if this Gospels authenticity is questionable, then why include it in the Bible? If its authenticity is certain, then how is this known in the
absence of self-identification by Matthew? One can only conclude that the Bible is not self-authenticating.
The Protestant may wish to fall back on the Bibles own assertion that it is inspired, citing a passage like 2 Timothy 3:16 "All scripture, inspired of God, is
profitable..." However, a claim to inspiration is not in and of itself a guarantee of inspiration. Consider the fact that the writings of Mary Baker Eddy, the
founder of the Christian Science sect, claim to be inspired. The writings of Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon sect, claim to be inspired. These are
but two of many possible examples which demonstrate the that any particular writing can claim just about anything. Obviously, in order for us to know with
certainty whether or not a writing is genuinely inspired, we need more than a mere claim by that writing that it is inspired. The guarantee of inspiration
must come from outside that writing. In the case of the Bible, the guarantee must come from a non-Biblical source. But outside authentication is excluded
by the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
13. None of the Original Biblical Manuscripts is Extant.
A sobering consideration and one which is fatal to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is that we do not possess a single original manuscript of any book of
the Bible. Now it is true that there are thousands of manuscripts extant which are copies of the originals and more likely than not they are copies of
copies but this fact does not help the Sola Scriptura position for the simple reason that without original manuscripts, one cannot know with certainty if he
actually possesses the real Bible, whole and entire. (23) The original autographs were inspired, while copies of them are not.
The Protestant may want to assert that not having original Biblical manuscripts is immaterial, as God preserved the Bible by safeguarding its duplication
down through the centuries. (24) However, there are two problems with this line of reasoning. The first is that by maintaining Gods providence with regard
to copying, a person claims something which is not written in Scripture, and therefore, by the very definition of Sola Scriptura, cannot serve as a rule of
faith. In other words, if one cannot find passages in the Bible which patently state that God will protect the transmission of manuscripts, then the belief is
not to be held. The fact of the matter is that the Bible makes no such claim.
The second problem is that if you can maintain that God safeguarded the written transmission of His Word, then you can also rightly maintain that He
safeguarded its oral transmission as well (recall 2 Thessalonians 2:14 [15] and the twofold form of Gods one revelation). After all, the preaching of the
Gospel began as an oral tradition (cf. Luke 1:1-4 and Rom. 10:17). It was not until later on that some of the oral tradition was committed to writing
becoming Sacred Scripture and it was later still that these writings were declared to be inspired and authoritative. Once you can maintain that God
safeguarded the oral transmission of His teaching, you have demonstrated the basis for Sacred Tradition and have already begun supporting the Catholic
position.
14. The Biblical Manuscripts Contain Thousands of Variations
It has just been noted that there are thousands of Biblical manuscripts in existence; these manuscripts contain thousands of variations in the text; one
writer estimates that there are over 200,000 variations. (25) Whereas the majority of these deal with minor concerns such as spelling, word order and
the like there are also variations of a more important nature: a) the manuscript evidence shows that scribes sometimes modified the Biblical texts to
harmonize passages, to accommodate them to historical fact, and to establish a doctrinal correctness; (26) and b) there are portions of verses (i.e., more
than just a single word in question) for which there are several different manuscript readings, such as John 7:39, Acts 6:8, Colossians 2:2 and 1
Thessalonians 3:2. (27) These facts leave the Protestant in the position of not knowing if he possesses what the Biblical authors originally wrote. And if
this is the case, then how can a Protestant profess to base his beliefs solely on the Bible when he cannot determine with certainty the textual authenticity
of the Bible? (28)
More importantly, there are several more major textual variations among New Testament manuscripts. The following two examples will illustrate the point:
First, according to the manuscripts that we have, there are four possible endings for Marks Gospel: the short ending, which includes verses 1-8 of chapter
16; the longer ending, which includes verses 1-8 plus verses 9-20; the intermediate ending, which includes 2 to 3 lines of text between verse 8 and the
longer ending; and the longer ending in expanded form, which includes several verses after verse 14 of the longer ending. (29) The best that can be said
about these different endings is that we simply do not know for certain, from the Bible itself, where St. Marks Gospel concluded, and, depending on which
ending(s) is/are included in a Protestants Bible, the publisher runs the risk of either adding verses to or omitting verses from the original text thus
violating the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, which requires "the Bible alone and in its entirety" as the basis of faith. Even if a Protestants Bible includes all four
endings with explanatory comments and/or footnotes, he still cannot be certain which of the four endings is genuine.
Second, there is manuscript evidence for alternate readings in some pivotal verses of the Bible, such as John 1:18, where there are two possible
wordings. (30) Some (such as the King James Version) read along the lines of the Douay-Rheims: "No man hath seen God at any time: the only begotten
Son Who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." Either wording is substantiated by manuscript evidence, and you will therefore find Biblical
scholars relying on their best educated judgment as to which one is "correct." A similar situation occurs at Acts 20:28, where the manuscript evidence
shows that Saint Paul could be referring to either the "church of the Lord" (Greek kuriou) or the "church of God" (Greek theou). (31)
Now this point may seem trivial at first, but suppose you are trying to evangelize a cult member who denies the divinity of Jesus Christ. While John 1:18
and Acts 20:28 are clearly not the only passages to use in defense of Our Lords divinity, you still may be unable to utilize these verses with that person,
depending on which manuscript tradition your Bible follows. That would leave you marginally less able to defend a major Biblical doctrine, and the very
nature of this fact become quite problematic from the perspective of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
15. There Are Hundreds of Bible Versions.
As mentioned in Point 14 above, there are thousands and thousands of variations in the Biblical manuscripts. This problem is compounded by the fact that
history has known hundreds of Bible versions, which vary in translation as well as textual sources. The question which begs to be asked is, "Which version
53
is the correct one?" or "Which version is closest to the original manuscripts?" One possible answer will depend on which side of the Catholic/Protestant
issue you situate yourself. Another possible answer will depend upon which Bible scholars you consider to be trustworthy and reputable.
The simple fact is that some versions are clearly inferior to others. Progress in the field of Biblical research made possible by archaeological discoveries
(e.g., the Dead Sea Scrolls) has vastly improved our knowledge of the ancient Biblical languages and settings. We know more today about the variables
impacting upon Biblical studies than our counterparts of 100, 200, or 1,000 years ago. From this point of view, modern Bible versions may have a certain
superiority to older Bible versions. On the other hand, Bibles based on the Latin Vulgate of Saint Jerome (4 th century) in English, this is the Douay-
Rheims are based on original texts which have since perished, and thus these traditional versions bypass 16 centuries of possible textual corruption.
This fact causes a considerable problem for the Protestant, because it means that modern Protestants may have in some respects a "better" or more
accurate Bible than their forbears, while in other respects they may have a "poorer" or less accurate Bible which in turn means that modern Protestants
have either a "more authoritative" final authority or a "less authoritative" final authority than their predecessors. But the existence of degrees of
authoritativeness begins to undermine Sola Scirptura, because it would mean that one Bible is not as authentic a final authority as another one. And if it is
not as authentic, then the possibility of transmitting erroneous doctrine increases, and the particular Bible version then fails to function as the final
authority, since it is not actually final.
Another point to consider is that Bible translators, as human beings, are not completely objective and impartial. Some may be likely to render a given
passage in a manner which corresponds more closely with one belief system rather than with another. An example of this tendency can be seen in
Protestant Bibles where the Greek word paradoseis occurs. Since Protestants deny the existence of Sacred Tradition, some Protestant translations of the
Bible render this word as "teachings" or "customs" rather than "tradition," as the latter would tend to give more weight to the Catholic position.
Yet another consideration is the reality that some versions of the Bible are outright perversions of the Biblical texts, as in the case of the Jehovahs
Witnesses New World Translation. Here the "translators" render key passages in a manner which suits their erroneous doctrines. (32) Now unless there is
an authority outside of the Bible to declare such translations unreliable and dangerous, by what authority could someone call them unsuited for use in
teaching doctrine? If the Protestant responds by saying that this issue can be determined on the basis of Biblical scholarship, then he is ignorant of the
fact that the Jehovahs Witnesses also cite sources of Biblical scholarship in support of their translation of these passages! The issue then devolves into a
game of pitting one source of scholarship against another one human authority against another.
Ultimately, the problem can only be resolved through the intervention of an infallible teaching authority which speaks on behalf of Christ. The Catholic
knows that that authority is the Roman Catholic Church and its Magisterium or teaching authority. In an exercise of this authority, Catholic Bishops grant
an imprimatur (meaning "Let it be printed") to be included on the opening pages of certain Bible versions and other spiritual literature to alert the reader
that the book contains nothing contrary to the teachings of Christ and the Apostles. (33)
16. The Bible Was Not Available to Individual Believers until the 15 th Century.
Essential to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is the idea that the Holy Spirit will enlighten each believer as to the correct interpretation for a given Bible
passage. This idea presupposes that each believer possesses a Bible or at least has access to a Bible. The difficulty with such a presumption is that the
Bible was not able to be mass-produced and readily available to individual believers until the advent of the printing press in the 15 th century. (34) Even
then, it would have taken quite some time for large numbers of Bibles to be printed and disseminated to the general population.
The predicament caused by this state of affairs is that millions upon millions of Christians who lived prior to the 15 th century would have been left without a
final authority, left to flounder spiritually, unless by chance they had access to a hand-copied Bible. Even a mere human understanding of such
circumstances would make God out to be quite cruel, as He would have revealed the fullness of His Word to humanity in Christ, knowing that the means
by which such information could be made readily available would not exist for another 15 centuries.
On the other hand, we know that God is not cruel at all, but in fact has infinite love for us. It is for this reason that He did not leave us in darkness. He sent
us His Son to teach us the way we should believe and act, and this Son established a Church to promote those teachings through preaching to both the
learned and the illiterate. "Faith then cometh by hearing; and hearing by the Word of Christ." ( Rom. 10:17). Christ also gave to His Church His guarantee
that He would always be with it, never allowing it to fall into error. God, therefore, did not abandon His people and make them rely upon the invention of
the printing press to be the means whereby they would come to a saving knowledge of His Son. Instead, He gave us a divinely established, infallible
teacher, the Catholic Church, to provide us with the means to be informed of the Good News of the Gospel and to be informed correctly.
17. The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura Did Not Exist Prior to the 14 th Century.
As difficult a reality as it may be for some to face, this foundational doctrine of Protestantism did not originate until the 14 th century and did not become
widespread until the 16h century a far, far cry time-wise from the teachings of Jesus Christ and His Apostles. This simple fact is conveniently overlooked
or ignored by Protestants, but it can stand alone as sufficient reason to discard the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. The truth that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura
did not exist before John Wycliffe (forerunner of Protestantism) in the 14 th century and did not become widespread until Martin Luther came along in the
16th century and began setting up his own "traditions of men" in place of authentic Christian teaching. The doctrine, therefore, not only lacks the historical
continuity which marks legitimate Apostolic teaching, but it actually represents an abrupt change, a radical break with the Christian past.
Protestants will assert that the Bible itself teaches Sola Scriptura and therefore that the doctrine had its roots back with Jesus Christ. However, as we have
seen above, the Bible teaches no such things. The claim that the Bible teaches this doctrine is nothing more than a repeated effort to retroject this belief
back into the pages of Scripture. The examination of historical continuity (or lack thereof) provides an indication whether or not a particular belief
originated with Jesus Christ and the Apostles or whether it appeared somewhere much later in time. The fact is that the historical record is utterly silent on
the doctrine of Sola Scriptura prior to the 14th century.
18. The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura Produces Bad Fruit, Namely, Division and Disunity.
If the doctrine of Sola Scriptura were true, then it should be expected that Protestants would all be in agreement in terms of doctrine, as the Bible could
not simultaneously teach contradictory beliefs. And yet the reality is that there are literally thousands (35) of Protestant sects and denominations, each of
54
which claims to have the Bible as its only guide, each of which claims to be preaching the truth, yet each of which teaches something different from the
others. Protestants claim that they differ only in non-essential or peripheral matters, but the fact is that they cannot even agree on major doctrinal issues
such as the Eucharist, salvation, and justification to name a few.
For instance, most Protestant denominations teach that Jesus Christ is only symbolically present in the Eucharist, while others (such as Lutherans and
Episcopalians) believe that He is literally present, at least to some extent. Some denominations teach that once you are "saved" you can never lose your
salvation, while others believe it is possible for a true Christian to sin gravely and cease being "saved." And some denominations teach that justification
involves the Christians being merely declared righteous, while others teach that the Christian must also grow in holiness and actually become righteous.
Our Lord categorically never intended for His followers to be as fragmented, disunited and chaotic as the history of Protestantism has been since its very
inception. (36) Quite the contrary, He prayed for His followers: "That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one
in us." (John 17:21). And St. Paul exhorts Christians to doctrinal unity with the words, "One body and one Spirit... One Lord, one faith, one baptism." ( Eph.
4:4-5). How, then, can the thousands of Protestant denominations and sects all claim to be the "true Church" when their very existence refutes this claim?
How can such heterodoxy and contradiction in doctrine be the unity for which Our Lord prayed?
In this regard, the reader should be reminded of Christs own words: "For by the fruit the tree is known." (Matt. 12:33). By this standard, the historical
testimony afforded by Protestantism demonstrates that the tree of Sola Scriptura is producing bad fruit.
19. The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura Does Not Allow for a Final, Definitive Interpretation of any given
Passage of Scripture.
As we have seen above, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura maintains that the individual believer needs only the Bible as a rule of faith and that he can obtain a
true interpretation of a given Scripture passage simply by comparing it with what the rest of the Bible teaches. In practice, however, this approach creates
more problems than it solves, and it ultimately prevents the believer from knowing definitively and with certainty how any given passage from the Bible
should be interpreted.
The Protestant, in reality, interprets the Bible from a standpoint of subjective opinion rather than objective truth. For example, say Protestant person A
studies a Scripture passage and concludes interpretation X. Protestant B studies the identical passage and concludes interpretation Y. Lastly, Protestant C
studies the same passage and concludes interpretation Z. (37) Interpretations X and Y and Z are mutually contradictory. Yet each of these people, from
the Protestant perspective, can consider his or her interpretation to be "correct" because each one has "compared Scripture with Scripture."
Now there are only two possible determinations for these three Protestants: a) each of them is incorrect in his interpretation, or b) only one of them is
correct since three contradictory interpretations cannot simultaneously be true. (38) The problem here is that, without the existence of an infallible
authority to tell the three Protestants which of their respective interpretations is correct (i.e., objectively true), there is no way for each of them to know with
certainty and definitively if his particular interpretation is the correct one. Each Protestant is ultimately left to an individual interpretation based on mere
personal opinion study and research into the matter notwithstanding. Each Protestant thus becomes his own final authority or, if you will, his own
"pope."
Protestantism in practice bears out this fact. Since the Bible alone is not sufficient as a rule of faith (if it were, our three Protestants would be in complete
accord in their interpretations), every believer and denomination within Protestantism must necessarily arrive at his/her/its own interpretation of the Bible.
Consequently, if there are many possible interpretations of Scripture, by definition there is no ultimate interpretation. And if there is no ultimate
interpretation, then a person cannot know whether or not his own interpretation is objectively true.
A good comparison would be the moral law. If each person relied on his own opinion to determine what was right or wrong, we would have nothing more
than moral relativism, and each person could rightly assert his own set of standards. However, since God has clearly defined moral absolutes for us (in
addition to those we can know by reason from the natural law), we can assess any given action and determine how morally good or bad it is. This would
be impossible without moral absolutes.
Of course any given denomination within Protestantism would probably maintain that its particular interpretations are the correct ones at least in
practice, if not formally. If it did not, its adherents would be changing denominations! However, if any given denomination claims that its interpretations are
correct above those of the other denominations, it has effectively set itself up as a final authority. The problem here is that such an act violates Sola
Scriptura, setting up an authority outside Scripture.
On the other hand, if any given denomination would grant that its interpretations are no more correct than those of other denominations, then we are back
to the original dilemma of never knowing which interpretation is correct and thus never having the definitive truth. But Our Lord said, "I am the way, and
the truth, and the life." (John 14:6). The predicament here is that each and every denomination within Protestantism makes the same claim either
effectively or formally regarding its interpretations being "correct." What we are left with are thousands of different denominations, each claiming to have
the Scriptural "truth," yet none of which is capable of providing an objective determination regarding that "truth." The result is an inability to obtain a
definitive, authoritative and final interpretation of any given Scripture passage. In other words, the Protestant can never say that "the buck stops here" with
regard to an y given interpretation for any given passage of the Bible.
20. The Protestant Bible Is Missing 7 Entire Books
Much to their chagrin, Protestants are actually guilty of violating their own doctrine. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura prohibits anyone from adding to or
deleting from the Bible, but Protestants have, in fact, deleted seven entire books from the Old Testament, as well as portions of two others. The books in
question, which are wrongly termed "the Apocrypha" ("not authentic") by Protestants, are called the "deuterocanonical" ("second canon") books by
Catholics: they are Tobias (Tobit), Judith, 1 and 2 Machabees, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus (or Sirach), and Baruch. Portions of Daniel and Esther are also
missing.
In defense of their deficient Old Testament canon, Protestants invariably present one or more of the following arguments: 1) the shorter, Pharisaic (or
Palestinian) canon (39) of the Old Testament was accepted by Christ and His Apostles, as they never quoted from the deuterocanonical books; 2) the Old
55
Testament was closed by the time of Christ, and it was the shorter canon; 3) the Jews themselves accepted the shorter, Pharisaic canon at the Council of
Jamnia (or Javneh) in 90 A.D.; and 4) the deuterocanonical books contain unscriptural material.
Each of these arguments is wholly flawed.
1) Regarding the claim that Christ and His Apostles accepted the shorter, Pharisaic canon, an examination of the New Testaments quotation of the Old
Testament will demonstrate its fallacy. The New Testament quotes the Old Testament about 350 times, and in approximately 300 of those instances (86%),
the quotation is taken from the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Old Testament in widespread use at the time of Christ. The Septuagint contained the
dueterocanonical books. It is therefore unreasonable and presumptuous to say that Christ and His Apostles accepted the shorter Old Testament canon, as
the clear majority of the time they used an Old Testament version which did contain the seven books in question.
Or, take the case of Saint Paul, whose missionary journeys and letters were directed to Hellenistic regions outside of Palestine. It has been noted, for
example, that his sermon at Antioch in Pisidia "presupposed a thorough acquaintance among his hearers with the Septuagint" and that once a Christian
community had been founded, the content of his letters to its members "breathed the Septuagint." (40) Obviously, Saint Paul was supporting the longer
canon of the Old Testament by his routine appeal to the Septuagint.
Moreover, it is erroneous to say either that the deutero-canonical books were never quoted by Christ (41) and His apostles or that such citation is a
prerequisite for a books inclusion in the Biblical canon. According to one list, the deutero-canonical books are cited or alluded to in the New Testament not
less than 150 times! (42) In addition, there are Old Testament books, such as Ecclesiastes, Esther and Abdias (Obadiah), which are not quoted by Christ
or the Apostles, but which are nonetheless included in the Old Testament canon (both Catholic and Protestant). Obviously, then, citation by Christ or the
Apostles does not singlehandedly determine canonicity.
2) Regarding the claim that Christ and the Apostles worked with a closed Old Testament canon which Protestants maintain was the shorter canon the
historical evidence undermines the allegation. First, there was no entity known as the Palestinian canon, for there were actually three cnaons in use in
Palestine at that time, (43) in addition to the Septuagint canon. And second, the evidence demonstrates that "Judaism in the last two centuries B.C. and in
the first century A.D. was by no means uniform in its understanding of which of its writings were considered sacred. There were many views both inside
and outside of Israel in the first centuries B.C. and A.D. on which writings were deemed sacred." (44)
3) Using the Council of Jamnia in support of a shorter canon is manifestly problematic for the following reasons: a) The decisions of a Jewish council
which was held more than 50 years after the Resurrection of Christ are in no way binding on the Christian community, just as the ritual laws of Judaism
(e.g., the prohibition against eating pork) are not binding on Christians. b) It is questionable whether or not the council made final decisions about the Old
Testament canon of Scripture, since "the list of books acknowledged to defile the hands continued to vary within Judaism itself up through the 4 th century
A.D." (45) c) The council was, to some extent, a polemic directed specifically against the "sect" of Christianity, and its tone, therefore, was inherently
opposed to Christianity. These Jews most likely accepted the shorter Pharisaic canon precisely because the early Christians accepted the longer
Septuagint canon. d) The decisions of this council represented the judgment of just one branch of Pharisaic Judaism within Palestine and not of Judaism
as a whole.
4) Lastly, for Protestants to aver that the duetero-canonical books contain unscriptural material is decidedly a case of unwarranted dogmatism. This
conclusion was reached simply because the so-called Reformers, who were clearly antagonistic toward the Catholic Church, approached the Bible with an
a priori notion that it teaches "Reformed" (Protestant) doctrine. They discarded the deutero-canonical books because in certain instances these books
contain decidedly Catholic doctrine, as in the case of 2 Machabees 12:42-46, which clearly supports the doctrine of prayers for the dead and hence of
Purgatory: "It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins." (2 Mach. 12:46). Luther, in fact, wanted
to discard also the New Testament books of Revelation and James, the latter of which he termed an "epistle of straw" and which he felt had "nothing
evangelical about it" (46) no doubt because it clearly states that we are saved by faith and works (cf. James 2:14-26), in contrast to Luthers erroneous
"faith alone" doctrine. Luther was ultimately persuaded by his friends to retain these books.
In addition to the above is the fact of historical testimony and continuity regarding the canon of the Bible. While we have seen that there were disputes
regarding the Biblical canon, two considerations are nonetheless true: 1) the deuterocanonical books were certainly used by Christians from the 1 st
century onward, beginning with Our Lord and His disciples, and 2) once the issue of the canon was settled in the 4 th century, we see no change in
Christian practice regarding the canon from that point onward. In practice, the only challenge to and disregard of these two realities occurs when the so-
called Reformers arrive on the scene in the 16th century and decide that they can simply trash an 11-centuries-long continuity regarding the canons formal
existence and a nearly 15-centuries-long continuity regarding its practical existence.
The fact that any individual would come along and single-handedly alter such a continuity regarding so central an issue as which books comprise the Bible
should give the sincere follower of Christ serious pause. Such a follower is compelled to ask, "By whose authority does this individual make such a major
change?" Both history and Luthers own writings show that Luthers actions were based on nothing but his own personal say-so. Surely such an "authority"
falls grossly short of that which is needed for the canonical change he espoused, especially considering that he process of identifying the Bibles canon
was guided by the Holy Spirit, took centuries, and involved some of the greatest minds in Christianity as well as several Church Councils. More disturbing
still is the fact that the other so-called Reformers and Protestants ever since have followed suit by accepting Luthers changed canon, yet all the while
they claim to honor the Bible and insist that nothing can be added to or deleted from it.
21. The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura Had its Source in Luthers Own Emotional Problems.
If anything at all can be said with certainty about Martin Luther, it is that he was deeply and chronically troubled by a combination of doubts and despair
about his salvation and a sense of utter impotence in the face of temptation and sin. Luther himself notes, "My spirit was completely broken and I was
always in a state of melancholy; for, do what I would, my righteousness and my good works brought me no help or consolation." (47)
In light of this reality, one must assess Luthers psychological and emotional frame of mind in terms of their impact on the origins of his Sola Scriptura
doctrine. Even a cursory examination will demonstrate that this doctrine was born out of Luthers need to be free from the guilt feelings, despair and
temptation which "tortured" him.
56
Considering that Luther himself admits to an obsessive concern with his own sinfulness, as well as an inability to resist temptation, it seems reasonable to
conclude that he suffered from scrupulosity, and even Lutheran scholars will admit to this. (48) Scrupulosity means that a person is overly anxious about
having committed sins when there is no real basis for such anxiety, and a scrupulous person is one who often exaggerates the severity of his perceived
sinfulness, with a corresponding lack of trust in God. It is also relevant to note that scrupulosity "often seems to be based on some psychological
dysfunction in the person." (49)
In other words, Luther probably never had a moment of emotional or psychological peace, since the voice of "conscience" always pricked him about some
matter, real or imagined. It would be quite natural for someone so plagued to seek refuge from that voice, and for Luther that refuge was found in the
doctrine of Sola Fide, or salvation by "faith alone."
But since the avoidance of sin as well as the performance of good works are necessary components for our salvation, and since these facts were
steadfastly taught and defended by the Catholic Church, Luther found himself diametrically opposed to the teaching authority of the Church. Because the
Church asserted the necessity of doing exactly what he felt incapable of doing, Luther made a drastic decision one which "solved" his scrupulosity
problem: he rejected the teaching authority of the Church, embodied in the Magisterium with the Pope at its head, and claimed that such was contrary to
the Bible. In other words, by claiming Sola Scriptura to be true Christian doctrine, Luther dismissed that authority which compelled him to recognize that
his own spirituality was dysfunctional.
Summary
For all these reasons, then, it is evident that the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura is an utterly unbiblical, man-made, erroneous belief which must be
wholly rejected. Those who are genuine Christian believers and who have a commitment to the truths that Jesus Christ taught even if those contradict
ones current religious system should be compelled by the evidence to see the inherent flaws in this doctrine, flaws which are clearly obvious from
Scripture, logic and history.
The fullness of religious truth, unmixed with error, is found only in the Catholic Church, the very Church which Jesus Christ Himself established. According
to the teaching of this Church, founded by Christ, Sola Scriptura is a distorted, truncated view of Christian authority. Rather, the true rule of faith for the
followers of Christ is this:
The immediate or direct rule of faith is the teaching of the Church; the Church in turn takes her teaching from Divine Revelation both the written Word,
called Sacred Scripture, and the oral or unwritten Word, known as "Tradition," which together form the remote or indirect rule of faith.
Scripture and Tradition are the inspired sources of Christian doctrine, while the Church a historical and visible entity dating back to St. Peter and the
Apostles in an uninterrupted succession is the infallible teacher and interpreter of Christian doctrine. It is only by accepting this complete Christian rule of
faith that followers of Christ know they are adhering to all the things that He commanded His Apostles to teach (cf. Matt. 28:20). It is only by accepting this
complete Christian rule of faith that the followers of Christ are assured of possessing the whole truth which Christ taught, and nothing but that truth.
Footnotes
Note: Among the references are a few Protestant authors; their works are not cited as "recommended reading," but they show that the points
made in the present work are valid even by Protestant standards.
1. The Protestant Reformation was not a reform in the true sense of the word, but rather it was a revolution an upheaval of the legitimate, established
religious and civil order of the day.
2. W. E. Vine [Protestant Author], Vines Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (McLean, VA: MacDonald Publishing House, n.d.), p. 387. Cf. St.
Alphonsus Liguori, An Exposition and Defense of all the Points of Faith Discussed and Defined by the Sacred Council of Trent; along with a Refutation of
the Errors of the Pretended Reformers, etc. (Dublin: James Duffy, 1846), p. 50.
3. While all the books of the New Testament are considered to have been written by the time St. John finished The Apocalypse (Revelation), they were not
formally identified as "the Bible" until much later on.
4. The word translated as "ordinances" is also translated "teachings" or "traditions"; for example, the New International Version gives "teachings," with a
footnote: "Or traditions."
5. Vine, op. Cit., p. 564.
6. One example of this interpretive memory involves Revelation 12. The Early Church Fathers understood the "woman clothed with the sun" to be a
reference to the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. For someone to assert that this doctrine did not exist until 1950 (the year Pope Pius XII formally
defined the doctrine) represents ignorance of ecclesial history. Essentially, the belief was held from the beginning, but it was not formally defined until the
20th century. Bear in mind that the Church often did not have a need to define a doctrine formally until it was formally challenged by someone (usually a
heretic). Such occasions gave rise to the need officially to define the "parameters" of the doctrine in question.
7. Catholic teaching states that "the body of bishops," successors of the Apostles, also teach infallibly when they, in union with the Pope, "exercise the
supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council." (Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, #891). Also, "binding and loosing" is Rabbinical
terminology, and it refers to the power to pronounce authoritative interpretations and teachings. Christ clearly intended, then, for His Apostles, under the
leadership of Saint Peter (for Saint Peter alone received the power of the keys), to possess the authority to render these authoritative interpretations and
teachings.
8. The assertion by Protestants that the Bible is its own interpreter is nothing more than an exercise in futility. They claim that a person can correctly
interpret any given Scripture by comparing it with what the rest of the Bible teaches. The problem with this line of reasoning can be readily demonstrated.
Ask ten people to give their respective interpretations of a given Scripture passage, and you could get as many as ten different explanations. If the Bible
were able to interpret itself, as Protestants claim, why do you not always obtain ten identical interpretations, even if you allow these people an ample
57
amount of time to conduct study and research? And if this diversity of interpretation is true for a mere ten people, image the results, when you multiply that
number by one hundred, or one thousand, or one million. History has already seen such a result, and its name is Protestantism.
9. There are some Biblical scholars who maintain that 2 Peter was actually the last New Testament book written, dating it sometime in the earlier part of
the 2nd century. Since there is not a consensus among scholars that this date is accurate, it is sufficient for our purposes here to accept the generally held
view that all of the New testament books were complete with the composition of Revelation.
10. See, for instance: Irenaeus Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 3; Tertullians Prescription against Heretics, Chapter 32; and Origens First Principles,
Book 1, Preface.
11. See, for instance: Ignatius Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Chapters 8-9; Ignatius Letter to the Philadelphians , Introduction and Chapters 1-4; and Ignatius
Letter to the Magnesians, Chapter 7.
12. See, for instance: 1 Clement, Chapters 2, 56, 58, 59; Ignatius Letter to the Romans, introduction and Chapter 3; Irenaeus Against Heresies, Book 3,
Chapter 3, no. 2; Tertullians Prescriptions against Heretics, Chapter 22; and Eusebius Ecclesiastical History, Book 5, Chapter 24, no. 9.
13. See Msgr. Patrick F. OHare, LL.D., The Facts about Martin Luther (Cincinnati: Pustet, 1916; Rockrord, IL: TAN, 1987), pp. 215-255.
14. Walch, XIII, 2195, as quoted in The Facts About Luther (Cincinnati: Pustet, 1916; Rockford, IL: TAN, 1987), pp. 215-255.
15. Bear in mind that the decrees of an Ecumenical Council had no binding force unless they were ratified by the Pope.
16. Two favorite verses for Arians of all ages to cite in support of their beliefs are Proverbs 8:22 and John 14:28.
17. See John Henry Newman, The Arians of the Fourth Century.
18. Henry G. Graham, Where We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church (St. Louis: B. Herder, 1911; Rockford, IL: TAN, 1977, 17 th printing), pp.
34-35.
19. This list is the same as the list given in the Churchs final, definitive, explicit, infallible declaration as to which books are to be included in the Bible,
which was made by the Council of Trent, Session IV, in 1546. Earlier lists of canonical books were the list in the "Decretal of Gelasius," which was issued
by authority of Pope Damasus in 382, and the canon of Pope Saint Innocent I, which was sent to a Frankish bishop in 405. Neither document was
intended to b an infallible statement binding the whole Church, but both documents include the same 73 books as the list of Trent some 11 centuries later.
(The Catholic Encyclopedia [New York: The Encyclopedia Press, 1913], Vol. 3, p. 272).
20. The reader must note that the Catholic Church does not claim that by identifying the books of the Bible it rendered them canonical. God alone is the
author of canonicity. The Catholic Church instead claims that it and it alone has the authority and responsibility of infallibly pointing out which books
comprise the Biblical canon already authored by God.
21. Commentary on John, chapter 16, as cited in Paul Stenhouses Catholic Answers to "Bible" Christians (Kensington: Chevalier Press, 1993), p. 31.
22. Graham, op. cit., p. 31.
23. The earliest copies of the Bible, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, both date from the 4 th century A.D., and neither one contains the entire Bible,
as parts of the manuscripts have been lost or destroyed. The vast majority of the manuscripts that exist are only portions of the Bible.
24. The irony here is that it was due to the tireless efforts of Catholic monks working laboriously in their monasteries that the written Word of God survived
down through the centuries. The claim that the Catholic Church did everything in its power to suppress the Bible is a most pernicious falsehood, and it can
readily be refuted by even the most cursory examination of and research into Church history. Quite the contrary, the Catholic Church, in its unique role as
guardian of the Deposit of Faith, protected the Bibles integrity from spurious and faulty translations, and it was these spurious and faulty copies of the
Bible which it burned or destroyed to prevent false gospels from being circulated.
25. Raymond F. Collins, Introduction to the New Testament (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1983), p. 77.
26. Ibid., pp. 100-102.
27. Bruce M. Metzger (Protestant author), The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (Oxford University Press, 1992),
pp. 221-225, 234-242.
28. It has been maintained by Protestants that in all the variations in Biblical manuscripts, not one touches upon a major doctrine. Even though this
assertion is untrue, it does not alter the fact that the Protestant is here admitting, at least obliquely, that it is permissible to accept something which is less
than or different from the "real" Bible. And if this is true, then the Protestant himself has begun to undermine Sola Scriptura.
29. Metzger, op. cit., pp. 226-228.
30. Collins, op. cit., p. 102.
31. Metzger, op. cit., p. 234.
32. Of the numerous examples which could be cited, space considerations confine us to just a few to illustrate the point. In John 1:1, the NWT reads, "...
and the Word was a god" rather than "and the Word was God," because Witnesses deny the divinity of Jesus Christ. In Colossians 1:15-20, the NWT
inserts the word "other" into the text four times because Witnesses believe that Jesus Christ Himself was created. In Matthew 26:26 the NWT reads "...
this means my body..." instead of "This is my body," because Witnesses deny the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
33. Moreover, the old Latin Vulgate version of the Bible received a very particular approval by the Church at the Council of Trent among all the Latin
editions of the Scriptures then in circulation. The Council of Trent declared: "Moreover, the same Holy Council [of Trent]... ordains and declares that the old
Latin Vulgate Edition, which, in use for so many hundred years, has been approved by the Church, be in public lectures, disputations, sermons and
58
expositions held as authentic, and that no one dare or presume under any pretext whatsoever to reject it." (Fourth Session, April 8, 1546). Hence, as Pope
Pius XII stated in his 1943 encyclical letter Divino Afflante Spiritu ("On the Promotion of Biblical Studies"), the Vulgate, "when interpreted in the sense in
which the Church has always understood it," is "free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals."
In 1907 Pope Saint Pius X (1903-1914) initiated a revision of the Vulgate to achieve even greater textual accuracy. After his death, this huge project was
carried on by others. In 1979 Pope John Paul II promulgated a "New Vulgate" as "Editio typica" or "normative edition.
34. It should be noted that the inventor of the printing press Johannes Gutenberg was Catholic, and that the first book he printed was the Bible ( circa
1455). It should also be noted that the first printed Bible contained 73 books, the exact same number as todays Catholic Bible. Protestants deleted 7
books from the Old Testament after the Bible had already begun being printed.
35. By some estimates there are approximately 25,000 different Protestant denominations and sects. In the approximately 500 years since Protestantisms
origin with Martin Luther (usually dated at 1517), this number translates into an average of one new Protestant denomination or sect every week! Even if
you take a conservative estimate of 10,000 denominations and sects, you still have a new one developing every 2 weeks.
36. Even the original "Reformers" Martin Luther, John Calvin and Ulrich Zwingli did not agree on doctrinal matters and labeled each others teachings
heretical.
37. The quantity of three is used here for illustrative purposes only. The actual historical quantities (i.e., the number of variant interpretations for various
passages) are far larger.
38. It is not denied here that a given passage from Scripture can have different levels of interpretation or that it may have different levels of meaning in
terms of its application in the life of a believer. It is, however, denied here that a given passage can have more than one theological or doctrinal meaning in
the face of opposing interpretations. For example, if two people assert, respectively, "X" and "not-X" for a given interpretation, they cannot both be correct.
Take the doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, for instance. If the first person says that the bread and wine at Mass actually become the Body and Blood of Jesus
Christ and the second person says that they do not, it is impossible for both views to be objectively true.
39. The Pharisaic canon, which was used by Jews in Palestine, did not contain the deuterocanonical books. The Septuagint or Alexandrian canon, which
was used largely by Jews living in the Dispersion (i.e., Hellenistic regions outside of Palestine), did contain the deuterocanonical books.
40. W. H. C. Frend [Protestant author], The Rise of Christianity (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1984), pp. 99-100.
41. For some examples, compare the following passages: Matt. 6:14-15 with Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) 28:2; Matt. 6:7 with Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) 7:15(14);
Matt. 7:12 with Tobit (Tobias) 4:16(15); Luke 12:18-20 with Sirach 11:19 (Ecclus. 11:19-20); Acts 10:34 with Ecclus. 35:15 (Sirach 35:12); Acts 10:26 with
Wisdom 7:1; and Matt. 8:11 with Baruch 4:37.
42. Lee Martin McDonald [Protestant author], The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon, Appendix A (Nashville, TN: The Parthenon Press, 1988).
(Listing entitled "New Testament Citations and Allusions to Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphal Writings ," adapted from The Text of the New Testament , by
Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, two well-known Biblical scholars.)
43. They include a) the Qumran canon, which we know of from the Dead Sea Scrolls, b) the Pharisaic canon, and c) the Sadducees/Samaritan canon,
which included only the Torah (the first books of the Old Testament).
44. McDonald, op. cit. p. 53.
45. Ibid, p. 60.
46. Hartmann Grisar, S.J., Martin Luther: His Life and Work (B. Herder, 1930; Westminster, MD: The Newman Press, 1961), p. 426.
47. Jansen, Vol. III, p. 84, as quoted in OHare, op. cit., p. 51.
48. Cf. Fr. William Most, "Are We Saved by Faith Alone?", cassette tape from Catholic Answers, P.O. Box 17490, San Diego, CA 92177.
49. Father Peter Stravinskas, ed., Catholic Encyclopedia (Huntington, Indiana: Our Sunday Visitor, Inc., 1991), p 873.
Faith -Works & Salvation

"Be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves"
James 1:22
The Scriptures | The Church Fathers
For Catholics it is not an opposition between faith and works but a unity of both faith and works which are necessary for salvation even if faith has the
primary position (in that without faith we cannot please God - Heb 11:6) . When we speak of faith and works what we imply is a faith that works through
charity (Gal 5:6). The Catholic and biblical Position is clear, namely that both works and faith are necessary for salvation. However we must keep in mind
that works are simply a product of faith we dont buy heaven, we dont earn heaven It was earned through Christ that we are saved but if we have faith
the works should come with it. We are not "automatically saved" simply by claiming to have once off "excepted Jesus Christ as Lord as savoir". If this were
truth that Christ warnings and exhortations from falling away from the faith would have not only been futile but also ridiculous and absurd. For example
we could take anyone of Christ's parables or his exhortations at random (see Matt 5:29, Matt 13:3, Mk 11:14, Luke 12:35 etc) and ask ourselves the
following question: If we are once off saved (as is erroneously held by some) then what is purpose of the exhortations of Christ to perform good works and
avoid sin for a believer ? (or for non-believers who are not saved anyway! Mark 16:15). If our works did not have a direct relation upon our salvation the
exhortations would be without purpose.
59
The works are nevertheless necessary. Why because it is by them that we testify to Christ and live a life incorporated in Christ.
When Catholic's say the word faith, we automatically incorporate works into it, Why ? because I mean can you say that you love some one and not be
willing to do anything for them?. Jesus himself declares the greatest love a friend Can show for another is to lay down his life for that friend (John 15:13).
One notices that to lay down ones life is a sacrifices (a holy act) it is more than words but it is a deed, . Our works can be said to give life to our faith. This
is professed by St James the apostle who says (James 2:20) "Faith without works is Dead".
A person's works done out of Love and Charity are in themselves called "works of Faith" for unless we have faith we would not be inspired by the Grace of
God to do the works (unless out of Pride which would in themselves reap vain Glory and Eternal torment Matthew 6:1-4), but it is the Charity of Christ that
impels us (Romans 15:30) to imitate Christ Himself.
The greatest way Christ Explains to the people that it is their works that they will one day render an account of is to explain to them by the logical
reasoning of the things they see around them. For example he uses the Principle of Nature that is When a person goes to a tree to pick fruit, it is friut that
he expects to obtain, but if he doesn't obtain any then the Tree can be rendered useless, that is why Christ makes it clear saying, (Matthew 7:19) Every
tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. Note he did not say every tree that bares bad fruit but every tree that bears no
fruit, in other words if you do not have any works to present unto him then indeed you are accursed unto eternal torment.
We must understand that their is nothing lacking in the suffering of Christ but that our sufferings and works add to that which is wanting the mystical body
of Christ, the Church (Col 1:24).
Some Verses that further show this :
1 Corinthians 13:2 " .. If I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing."
Matthew 19:16-21
Now someone approached him and said, "Teacher, what good must I do to gain eternal life?" He answered him, "Why do you ask me about the good?
There is only One who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments." He asked him, "Which ones?" And Jesus replied, " `You shall not
kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; honor your father and your mother'; and `you shall love your
neighbor as yourself.'" The young man said to him, "All of these I have observed. What do I still lack?" Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be perfect, go, sell
what you have and give to (the) poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
Apocalypse 20:12
I saw the dead, the great and the lowly, standing before the throne, and scrolls were opened. Then another scroll was opened, the book of life. The dead
were judged according to their deeds, by what was written in the scrolls.
Acts 10:34-35
Then Peter proceeded to speak and said, "In truth, I see that God shows no partiality. 35 Rather, in every nation whoever fears him and acts uprightly is
acceptable to him.
Galatians 6:2 Bear one another's burdens, and so you will fulfill the law of Christ.
Phillipians 2:12-13
So then, my beloved, obedient as you have always been, not only when I am present but all the more now when I am absent, work out your salvation with
fear and trembling. For God is the one who, for his good purpose, works in you both to desire and to work.
1 John 3:18 Children, let us love not in word or speech but in deed and truth.
James 4:17
So for one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, it is a sin.
2 Timothy 2:11-12
60
This saying is trustworthy: If we have died with him we shall also live with him; 12 if we persevere we shall also reign with him. But if we deny him he will
deny us.
1 Corinthians 6:20
For you have been purchased at a price. Therefore, glorify God in your body.
1 John 4:11-12
Beloved, if God so loved us, we also must love one another. No one has ever seen God. Yet, if we love one another, God remains in us, and his love is
brought to perfection in us.
Hebrews 12:14
"Follow peace with all men and holiness: without which no man shall see God."
Matthew 7:21
Not every one who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
NOTE :
There are many warnings in scripture that warn against falling away from salvation (Gal 4:9, Col 1:23, 1 Tim 1:19, 4:1, Heb 3:12-14, 12:14-15, 2 Pet 2:20-
21, Rev 2:4-5).
THE CHURCH FATHERS ON - Once Saved Not Always Saved -
Ignatius of Antioch,To the Ephesians,10(A.D. 110),in ANF,I:53-54 "And pray ye without ceasing in behalf of other men; for there is hope of the
repentance, that they may attain to God. For 'cannot he that falls arise again,and he may attain to God.'
Didache,16(A.D. 140),in ANF,VII:382 "Watch for your life's sake. Let not your lamps be quenched, nor your loins unloosed; but be ye ready, for ye
know not the hour in which our Lord cometh. But often shall ye come together, seeking the things which are befitting to your souls: for the whole time of
your faith will not profit you, if ye be not made perfect in the last time. "
Hermas,The Shephard,3:8:7(A.D. 155),in ANF,II:41-42 "And as many of them, he added, as have repented, shall have their dwelling in the tower.
And those of them who have been slower in repenting shall dwell within the walls. And as many as do not repent at all, but abide in their deeds, shall
utterly perish...Yet they also, being naturally good, on hearing my commandments, purified themselves, and soon repented. Their dwelling, accordingly,
was in the tower. But if any one relapse into strife, he will be east out of the tower, and will lose his life."
Justin Martyr,fragment in Irenaeus' Against Heresies,5:26:1(A.D. 156),in ANF,I:555 "[T]hat eternal fire has been prepared for him as he
apostatized from God of his own free-will, and likewise for all who unrepentant continue in the apostasy, he now blasphemes, by means of such men, the
Lord who brings judgment [upon him] as being already condemned, and imputes the guilt of his apostasy to his Maker, not to his own voluntary
disposition."
Tatian the Syrian,To the Greeks,13(A.D. 175),in ANF,II:71 "Now, in the beginning the spirit was a constant companion of the soul, but the spirit
forsook it because it was not willing to follow. Yet, retaining as it were a spark of its power, though unable by reason of the separation to discern the
perfect, while seeking for God it fashioned to itself in its wandering many gods, following the sophistries of the demons. But the Spirit of God is not with all,
but, taking up its abode with those who live justly, and intimately combining with the soul, by prophecies it announced hidden things to other souls."
Irenaeus,Against Heresies,4:27:2(A.D. 180),in ANF,I:499 "Christ shall not die again in behalf of those who now commit sin, for death shall no more
have dominion over Him; but the Son shall come in the glory of the Father, requiring from His stewards and dispensers the money which He had entrusted
to them, with usury; and from those to whom He had given most shall He demand most. We ought not, therefore, as that presbyter remarks, to be puffed
up, nor be severe upon those of old time, but ought ourselves to fear, lest perchance, after [we have come to] the knowledge of Christ, if we do things
displeasing to God, we obtain no further forgiveness of sins, but be shut out from His kingdom. And therefore it was that Paul said, 'For if [God] spared not
the natural branches, [take heed] lest He also spare not thee, who, when thou wert a wild olive tree, wert grafted into the fatness of the olive tree, and wert
made a partaker of its fatness.'
61
Tertullian,On Repentance,6(A.D. 204),in ANF,III:661 "But some think as if God were under a necessity of bestowing even on the unworthy, what He
has engaged (to give); and they turn His liberality into slavery. But if it is of necessity that God grants us the symbol of death, then He does so unwilling.
But who permits a gift to be permanently retained which he has granted unwillingly? For do not many afterward fall out of (grace)? is not this gift taken
away from many?"
Cyprian,Unity of the Church,21(A.D. 251),in ANF,V:428 "Confession is the beginning of glory, not the full desert of the crown; nor does it perfect our
praise, but it initiates our dignity; and since it is written, 'He that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved,' whatever has been before the end is a step
by which we ascend to the summit of salvation, not a terminus wherein the full result of the ascent is already gained. "
Aphrahat,Demonstrations,6:14(A.D. 345),in NPNF2,VIII:371-372 "Therefore, my beloved, we also have received of the Spirit of Christ, and Christ
dwelleth in us, as it is written that the Spirit said this through the month of the Prophet: --I will dwell in them and will walk in them.Therefore let us prepare
our temples for the Spirit of Christ, and let us not grieve it that it may not depart from us. Remember the warning that the Apostle gives us:--Grieve not the
Holy Spirit whereby ye have been sealed unto the day of redemption. For from baptism do we receive the Spirit of Christ ... And whatever man there is that
receives the Spirit from the water (of baptism) and grieves it, it departs from him until he dies, and returns according to its nature to Christ, and accuses
that man of having grieved it."
Cyril of Jerusalem,Catechetical Lectures,I:4(A.D. 350),NPNF2,VII:7 "Thou art made partaker of the Holy Vine. Well then, if thou abide in theVine,
thou growest as a fruitful branch; but if thou abide not, thou wilt be consumed by the fire. Let us therefore bear fruit worthily. God forbid that in us should
be done what befell that barren fig-tree, that Jesus come not even now and curse us for our barrenness."
Athanasius,Discourse Against the Arians,3:25(A.D. 362),in NPNF2,IV:407 "For what the Word has by nature, as I said, in the Father, that He
wishes to be given to us through the Spirit irrevocably; which the Apostle knowing, said, 'Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?' for 'the gifts of
God' and 'grace of His calling are without repentance.' It is the Spirit then which is in God, and not we viewed in our own selves; and as we are sons and
gods because of the Word in us, so we shall be in the Son and in the Father, and we shall be accounted to have become one in Son and in Father,
because that that Spirit is in us, which is in the Word which is in the Father. When then a man falls from the Spirit for any wickedness, if he repent upon his
fall, the grace remains irrevocably to such as are willing; otherwise he who has fallen is no longer in God (because that Holy Spirit and Paraclete which is
in God has deserted him), but the sinner shall be in him to whom he has subjected himself, as took place in Saul's instance; for the Spirit of God departed
from him and an evil spirit was afflicting him."
Basil,To Amphilochius,Letter 199:32(A.D. 375),in NPNF2,VIII:237 "Clerics who are guilty of the sin unto death are degraded from their order,but not
excluded from the communion of the laity."
John Chrysostom,To the Fallen Theodore,Letter 1(A.D. 378),in NPNF1,IX:91 "This temple is holier than that; for it glistened not with gold and
silver, but with the grace of the Spirit, and in place of the ark and the cherubim, it had Christ, and His Father, and the Paraclete seated within. But now all
is changed, and the temple is desolate, and bare of its former beauty and comeliness, unadorned with its divine and unspeakable adornments, destitute of
all security and protection; it has neither door nor bolt, and is laid open to all manner of soul-destroying and shameful thoughts; and if the thought of
arrogance or fornication, or avarice, or any more accursed than these, wish to enter in there is no one to hinder them; whereas formerly, even as the
Heaven is inaccessible to all these, so also was the purity of thy soul."
Gregory of Nazianzen,Oration on the Holy Lights,39:19(A.D. 381),in NPNF2,VII:359 "But these sins were not after Baptism, you will say. Where
is your proof? Either prove it--or refrain from condemning; and if there be any doubt, let charity prevail. But Novatus, you say, would not receive those who
lapsed in the persecution. What do you mean by this? If they were unrepentant he was right; I too would refuse to receive those who either would not
stoop at all or not sufficiently, and who would refuse to make their amendment counterbalance their sin; and when I do receive them, I will assign them
their proper place; but if he refused those who wore themselves away with weeping, I will not imitate him."
Pacian of Barcelona,Penance,4(A.D. 385),in JUR,II:143 "These are capital sins, brethren,these are mortal."
"Let us admonish each other. Let us correct each other, that we may not go to the other world as debtors, and then, needing to borrow of others, suffer the
fate of the foolish virgins, and fall from immortal salvation." John Chrysostom,Concerning Statues,21(A.D. 387),in NPNF1,IX:363
Jerome,Against Jovianus,2:30(A.D. 393),in NPNF2,VI:411 v "Some offences are light, some heavy. It is one thing to owe ten thousand talents,
another to owe a farthing. We shall have to give account of the idle word no less than of adultery; but it is not the same thing to be put to the blush, and to
be put upon the rack, to grow red in the face and to ensure lasting torment. Do you think I am merely expressing my own views? Hear what the Apostle
John says: 'He who knows that his brother sinneth a sin not unto death, let him ask, and he shall give him life, even to him that sinneth not unto death. But
he that hath sinned unto death, who shall pray for him? 'You observe that if we entreat for smaller offences, we obtain pardon: if for greater ones, it is
difficult to obtain our request: and that there is a great difference between sins.'
Augustine,On Rebuke and Grace,12(A.D. 427),in NPNF2,V:476 "And, consequently, both those who have not heard the gospel, and those who,
having heard it and been changed by it for the better, have not received perseverance, and those who, having heard the gospel, have refused to come to
Christ, that is, to believe on Him, since He Himself says, 'No man cometh unto me, except it were given him of my Father,' and those who by their tender
62
age were unable to believe, but might be absolved from original sin by the sole layer of regeneration, and yet have not received this laver, and have
perished in death: are not made to differ from that lump which it is plain is condemned, as all go from one into condemnation."
Augustine,On Rebuke and Grace,16(A.D. 427),in NPNF2,V:478 "The faith of these, which worketh by love, either actually does not fail at all, or, if
there are any whose faith fails, it is restored before their life is ended, and the iniquity which had intervened is done away, and perseverance even to the
end is allotted to them. But they who are not to persevere, and who shall so fall away from Christian faith and conduct that the end of this life shall find
them in that case, beyond all doubt are not to be reckoned in the number of these, even in that season wherein they are living well and piously. For they
are not made to differ from that mass of perdition by the foreknowledge and predestination of God, and therefore are not called according to God's
purpose, and thus are not elected"
Augustine,On Rebuke and Grace,18(A.D. 427),in NPNF2,V:478 " "It is, indeed, to be wondered at, and greatly to be wondered at, that to some of
His own children--whom He has regenerated in Christ--to whom He has given faith, hope, and love, God does not give perseverance also."
Augustine,On the Gift of Perseverance,19(A.D. 429),in NPNF2,V:531-532 "Let the inquirer still go on, and say, 'Why is it that to some who have in
good faith worshipped Him He has not given to persevere to the end?' Why except because he does not speak falsely who says, 'They went out from us,
but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, doubtless they would have continued with us.' Are there, then, two natures of men? By no means. If
there were two natures there would not be any grace, for there would be given a gratuitous deliverance to none if it were paid as a debt to nature. But it
seems to men that all who appear good believers ought to receiveperseverance to the end. But God has judged it to be better to mingle some who would
not persevere with a certain number of His saints, so that those for whom security from temptation in this life is not desirable may not be secure."
Pope Leo the Great[regn A.D. 440-461],To Theodore,Epistle 108:2(A.D. 452),NPNF2,XII:80 "The manifold mercy of God so assists men when
they fall, that not only by the grace of baptism but also by the remedy of penitence is the hope of eternal life revived, in order that they who have violated
the gifts of the second birth, condemning themselves by their own judgment, may attain to remission of their crimes, the provisions of the Divine Goodness
having so ordained that GOD'S indulgence cannot be obtained without the supplications of priests. For the Mediator between GOD and men, the Man
Christ Jesus, has transmitted this power to those that are set over the Church that they should both grant a course of penitence to those who confess,
and, when they are cleansed by wholesome correction admit them through the door of reconciliation to communion in the sacraments."
Council of Orange,Canon 24(A.D. 529),in DEN,79-80 "The branches of the vine. Thus there are branches in the vine, not that they may bestow
anything upon the vine, but that they may receive from it the means by which they may live...And by this it is an advantage to the disciples,not to
Christ,that each have Christ abiding in him, and that each abide in Christ. For if the branch is cut off, another can sprout forth from the living root; but that
which has been cut off, cannot live without the root."
Pope Gregory the Great[regn A.D. 590-604],Pastoral Rule,30(A.D. 591),in NPNF2,XII:62 "And they who mourn their transgressions certainly
cast forth by confession the wickedness with which they have been evilly satiated, and which oppressed the inmost parts of their soul; and yet, in recurring
to it after confession, they take it in again. But the sow, by wallowing in the mire when washed, is made more filthy. I And one who mourns past
transgressions, yet forsakes them not, subjects himself to the penalty of more grievous sin, since he both despises the very pardon which he might have
won by his weeping, and as it were rolls himself in miry water; because in withholding purity of life from his weeping he makes even his very tears filthy
before the eyes of God."
John of Damascus,On the Orthodox Faith,4:9(A.D. 743),in NPNF2,IX:78 "The remission of sins, therefore, is granted alike to all through baptism:
but the grace of the Spirit is proportional to the faith and previous purification. Now, indeed, we receive the firstfruits of the Holy Spirit through baptism, and
the second birth is for us the beginning and seal and security and illumination s of another life. It behoves as, then, with all our strength to steadfastly keep
ourselves pure from filthy works, that we may not, like the dog returning to his vomit, make ourselves again the slaves of sin. For faith apart from works is
dead, and so likewise are works apart from faith. For the true faith is attested by works."
63

A Catechism of The Bible

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Catechism of The Bible

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A CATECHISM OF THE BIBLE

By Rev. John O'Brien, M.A.

WHO GAVE US THE BIBLE IN ENGLISH?

HOW THE NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION DELETES WHOLE VERSES!

Problems with the King James Version

The Errors In The NWT Christian Greek Scriptures

WHAT THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH SAYS ON "DEGREES OF SIN:"

PROTESTANT ERRORS ON SALVATION

What is Sola Scriptura?

Faith -Works & Salvation

The Scriptures | The Church Fathers

Some Verses that further show this :

THE CHURCH FATHERS ON - Once Saved Not Always Saved -

You might also like