“Going to the Mat”
At a conference on poverty on May 12th, the President of the United States of America made some rather interesting comments as he contrasted the issue of poverty with other issues that are important to Christians (which he defines in a broad sense). One of those statements was:
This may sound self-interested because there have been—these are areas where I agree with the evangelical community and faith-based groups, and then there are issues where we have had disagreements around reproductive issues, or same-sex marriage, or what have you. And so maybe it appears advantageous for me to want to focus on these issues of poverty, and not as much on these other issues.
“A few disagreements” is an understatement. He is pro-abortion; the Bible is pro-life. He is pro-homosexual and now pro-homosexual “marriage” as well. The Bible condemns homosexuality consistently throughout, and to use marriage, which was designed by God for one man and one woman (Gen. 2:18-24), in connection with two people of the same gender is an absurdity. He once referred to Romans 1:26 as “an obscure passage in Romans,” but it is a prominent passage in a well-known and beloved book of the Bible. He claims that the subject of poverty should be at the forefront of the Christian agenda rather than social issues. He gives his advice that poverty should never be secondary, which is based on “one who has worked with both churches and worked in communities.” He adds:
There is great caring and great concern, but when it comes to what are you really going to the mat for, what’s the defining issue, when you're talking in your congregations, what’s the thing that is really going to capture the essence of who we are as Christians, or as Catholics, or what have you, that this is oftentimes viewed as a “nice to have” relative to an issue like abortion.
Poverty will always be an issue, and it could be a matter of life and death, but abortion involves death 100% of the time. Christians are therefore more willing to go “to the mat” for it than poverty; it is obviously a more fundamental and vital subject. Homosexual “marriage” seeks to redefine one of the most important concepts of society, in operation since the beginning of mankind. Christians continue to fight for the truth on these issues.
ATTEMPTED DEFENSE OF CATHOLICISM
Earlier in June, a woman named Carla in Oklahoma wrote the following words to a gospel preacher in an effort to defend Catholicism and attack Protestantism.
In reply to your June 5th post regarding the Septuagint you agreed that Jesus and His apostles extensively quoted from the Septuagint and that quotations by Jesus place His stamp of inspiration on it.
To quote from a version or translation does not imply that every verse in it is translated correctly. Many quote from the King James, but there are some verses that were not translated as well as they should have been. For example, Acts 12:4 put in Easter for Passover. However, that has not kept brethren from using and quoting from the King James (when it is accurate) for centuries. The same can be said for the American Standard. It is the most literal translation ever done, but it omitted some verses (based on textual variations) which actually belong in the Bible. All translations contain some verses that could have been rendered better. When we quote them, we are not saying the entire translation is inspired. Jesus and His apostles both quoted from the Septuagint and from the Hebrew, whichever one had the better text.
Someone might ask, “Then why do you not use certain translations, such as the NIV?” The answer is that it does not have just a few badly-worded verses; the entire translation is flawed, beginning with its translation philosophy of dynamic equivalence, which essentially means that the translators are providing the reader with what they think the text says rather than giving what it actually says. Carla continues her case against non-Catholics:
Why then would you choose to disregard 7 of the Books that were included in the Septuagint as Sacred Scripture? You accept Hebrews in the New Testament as inspired Sacred Scripture yet Hebrews 11:35 references 2 Maccabees 7 (there are many other references).
Two points are worthy of consideration here. First, the Septuagint does include additional books that are not in the Hebrew Bible. We do not know why the translators chose to include them when they were clearly no part of the Hebrew Bible (and still are not). Jerome, many centuries later, included those same books in his Vulgate (his translation of the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament into Latin).
Although they make for interesting reading, they do not have the ring of authenticity. In some are contradictions and strange doctrines found nowhere else in the Old or New Testaments. The version of the Septuagint this writer has was originally published by Samuel Bagster & Sons in 1851. It contains 15 books (not 7), 2 Esdras not being one of them, although it is part of Jerome’s version. Some variations between the Greek Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate exist, but all of the books were written prior to the New Testament era; so we are not under their authority today.
Hebrews 11:35 states: “Women received their dead raised to life again. And others were tortured, not accepting deliverance, that they might obtain a better resurrection.” 2 Maccabees 7 does relate how seven brothers and their mother were tortured and killed, expecting to be reunited again (presumably in the resurrection). They all expected to be raised up. However, the description of Hebrews 11:35 could refer to many people. It does not use the word brothers or even family and could apply to a number of people in the Old Testament. Therefore, to say it applies strictly to 2 Maccabees 7 is an assumption—not a fact.
Scholars do not agree with Carla’s assertion that the books of the Apocryphal were quoted. In Bagster’s introduction to the books of the Apocrypha, we read:
But the New Testament writers never quote these additional writings as Scripture. The writers of the early church, however, while expressly declaring their preference for the Hebrew canon, quote the books of the “Apocrypha” as of equal authority with the Old Testament.
It is interesting that the “writers of the early church,” as they are called, preferred the Hebrew version of the Old Testament which did not include the Apocrypha, but the Septuagint (also called LXX) did include them, but they didn’t like the translation as well. But what is particularly important is that the New Testament writers, who were inspired (unlike the “writers” who followed afterward) did not quote from the Apocrypha at all.
Even if they had cited these uninspired stories, however, it would not have endorsed the book itself. Paul, on Mars Hill, cited as true something that one of the poets had said, but he did not endorse everything the man wrote as Biblical (Acts 17:28). A prophet from Crete said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.” Paul affirmed the truth of this assessment, but that does not mean he endorsed everything the man spoke (Titus 1:12-13). No New Testament writer quoted from the Apocrypha, but even if one had, it would not have endorsed those books as valid—unless the one who cited it said the book was inspired. Carla continues her defense of Catholicism thus:
You say the books of the Bible are authentic because they are inspired, but the Koran, the Book of Mormon, and the writings of Mary Baker Eddy (founder of Christian Science) all claim inspiration also. My point is that in the first centuries of the Church, there were many false books claiming inspiration; so by what authority do you justify the New Testament as the Word of God?
It does not matter how many books claim to be inspired; the question is, “Are they?” It takes no talent to write something and then claim to be inspired. This writer could do so except that it would not be the truth. Does he believe what he writes is accurate? Yes. But is it inspired? No. Therefore, anyone who claims that what he wrote is inspired of God must be held to a very high standard.
None of the so-called “latter-day” revelations carry with them the marks of inspiration. Not one of them is anything like the Bible, and they were all written at one time instead of being spread out over a period of 1600 years. They do not contain either fulfilled past prophecies or make future ones (that could not be self-fulfilled). Muhammad tried to say that he was the one promised in John 16:12-13, but he was not the Holy Spirit, and such a claim is easily seen through.
The Koran (Qur’an) is not inspired; Muhammad gave historical inaccuracies. Mary Baker Eddy’s book is not inspired; it is barely intelligible and is full of hifalutin gibberish which few people can even comprehend; it is not written in the style of the books of the Bible. The Book of Mormon just about bores one to tears with useless information that is of no consequence. What Mormons should ask each other is, “Why does the so-called “inspired” Doctrine and Covenants contradict the so-called “inspired” Book of Mormon when it comes to the subject of polygamy?
Furthermore, the New Testament teaches that it is the complete, finished Word of God. Peter said that God had granted unto them “all things that pertain to life and godliness” (2 Peter 1:3). Anyone—whether Smith, Eddy, Muhammad, or the pope—who claims to have more revelation than what is in the New Testament is therefore presumptuous and not to be trusted. Jude encourages brethren to earnestly contend for the faith which had been delivered once for all to the saints (3). Notice, once for all—not a little bit now and some more later on.
How often do the books of the Apocrypha even claim to be inspired. Seldom is the subject mentioned. The reader may wonder, however, “Don’t Catholics have the same problem on this subject as non-Catholics?” Carla explains as she concludes:
Jesus did not leave us a Bible. As a Catholic I put my trust in the Church Jesus established (Matt 16:18-19) and that is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:14-15). As a Catholic, I know without a doubt that the Word of God (seed) can be found in all 73 books of my Bible. Question is how do you know that your 27 books of the New Testament are intact and not missing some inspirational books and that your OT is not missing 7 Sacred Books?
Did Jesus leave us a Bible? Technically, no. But He did promise the apostles (all of them—not just Peter) that when the Holy Spirit came, He would: 1) bring to their remembrance all things that Jesus had said to them (John 14:25-26); 2) guide them into all truth (John 16:12-13); and 3) show them things to come (John 16:13). Jesus, therefore, left us a Bible by sending the Holy Spirit to inspire the complete revelation of God to man.
Carla claims to put her trust in the Catholic Church to have included all the right books. However, when the canon was assembled, there was no Catholic Church. To be sure, the seeds of it were being sown, but it did not have one “universal bishop” (pope) until 606 A.D. These are the facts of history.
The Catholic Church is not the church of the New Testament. Jesus made no provision for a pope: He said He had all authority in heaven and on earth (Matt. 28:18). The New Testament does not speak of cardinals, either, or even a separate priesthood. The words mass, extreme unction, nuns, abbots, friars, vicar, confirmation, and a host of others are also absent. It bears no resemblance to New Testament Christianity.
That Jesus established the church is indisputable; that He established the Catholic Church can be successfully disputed. When Paul wrote that the church was the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15), he did not insinuate that the church originated truth; rather it supports it and sits steadfastly under it. Authority resides with God. No individual, no congregation, or plurality of churches has the right to invent or legislate truth; instead all should be upholding the truth God revealed.
Pointing out all of this information, however, does not answer the series of questions that Carla asks at the end of her comments. For her, just trusting in what the pope says is good enough, even though she goes by what he says instead of what the New Testament says. Jesus said that we will be judged by His words (John 12:48)—not those of a pope who has no authority to exist in the first place.
Christians have two ways to be certain that we have the Word of God and only the Word of God. One is that members of the church in the early centuries evaluated all of the works that claimed to be inspired and selected the 27 books we now have. Were they authoritative? Not at all, but they developed tests for authenticity, and these have been confirmed as reasonable, logical, and correct ever since. From reading what we know to be inspired books, students of the Scriptures get a feel for what is inspired and what is not. Besides, we believe in the providence of God to preserve for us what the Holy Spirit inspired in the first place. Would He give it to us and then allow it to be lost while forgeries were included? “But the Apocrypha were in Jerome’s Vulgate for 1,000 years.” Average people would not have even known, since they couldn’t read Latin. Besides, none of them is part of the New Testament, which is the covenant Christians today are under. Jesus promised that His words would never pass away (Matt. 24:35).
Those who do not know what they are saying shouldn’t be: