Posts Tagged ‘Council of Trent’

Back to the Basics Series: How We Got Our English Bible, Part 1

Posted: November 9, 2010 in Bible, Sermons
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
0

To grow as a Christian the Word of God must be paramount in our lives. How can we be certain that this book we call the Bible is the Word of God? How did God get His Word from His mind onto the pages of the Bible we hold in our lap? James B. Williams has a book entitled, “From the Mind of God to Mind of Man.” How does God get His Word from His mind into your mine? Here are the steps God took.

Step One: Revelation

When God speaks, He does not mumble. God has revealed Himself in two ways. God revealed Himself generally and specially.

A. God has revealed Himself generally through nature or creation as seen in Psalm 19:1-6. “The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament shows His handiwork.” Spurgeon said, “Creation is an outstretched hand pointing to God.” Nature is a giant billboard declaring, “There is a God.” General revelation, however, is sufficient to condemn the sinner but not sufficient to save. Paul declared this limitation in Romans 1:20.

B. God has revealed Himself specially in Scripture which David stated in Psalm 19:7-14. “The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.” To the sinner who responds to the limited message of nature God will get him the saving gospel as He sent Peter to Cornelius in Caesarea (Acts 10).

Step Two: Inspiration

A. Revelation is truth that God has communicated to man.

B. Inspiration is the means God used to write down revelation.

1. The origin of Scripture is recorded in 2 Timothy 3:16. Puritan Thomas Watson said, “The Old and New Testaments are the two lips of God by which He has spoken to us.” Scripture did not originate with man. The Bible is the Word of God.

2. The method of inspiration is recorded in 2 Peter 1:21.

a. There is a human instrumentality in the method. Peter says, “holy men of God spoke” or wrote is Peter’s idea that he makes clear in 3:16. Scripture did not originate with man but God used man in the recording of inspired Scripture.

b. There is the divine instrumentality also. This is called Dual Authorship. Peter continues his thought that “holy men of God spoke or wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” When the Holy Spirit superintended the writing of Scripture, the Holy Spirit suspended the ability of the writers to make mistakes. Therefore what they wrote was without error. This is the doctrine of Inerrancy.

Step Three: Canonicity

A. The canon of Scripture is the list of 66 inspired books that belong in the Bible.

B. The study of the canon of Scripture answers these questions, “Why are there only 66 books in the Bible?” “Who decided on these 66 books?” “What about Paul’s lost letter in 1 Corinthians 5:9?”

There are two answers. One is incorrect and the other is correct.

1. The Correct Answer: God decided which books would be in the Canon when He inspired the 66 books which were later recognized by godly believers.

2. The Incorrect Answer: The Roman Catholic Church decided and therefore included 14 other books called the Apocrypha. It was not until 1546 at the Council of Trent that the RCC declared the Apocrypha part of the canon or list of books that belonged in the Bible. These books are rejected because they contradict the message of the 66 inspired books. For example, apocryphal Judith and Tobit teach salvation by works. There are 250 New Testament quotes of Old Testament books in the New Testament and none from the Apocrypha.

Step Four: Textual Criticism

We do not possess the original writings of the apostles and prophets. We carry around a copy of a copy of a copy, etc. So how can we be confident that through the copying process, God has preserved His Word? For example, there are 5000 existing New Testament manuscripts in part or whole of the New Testament which is miracle in itself. There are only 9-10 copies of Caesar’s Gallic Wars.

“Modern scholars believe they have a fairly exact rendering of Shakespeare’s ‘Hamlet,’ since a handful of copies of the play made within 200 years of its original writing exist. But the New Testament is without question the most documented book in history” (Adrian Rogers. Back to the Basics, Vol 1 page 20). We posssess a papyrus fragment of John 18 that dates back to A.D. 125 or within less than 50 years when John wrote his Gospel.

Of the 5000 copies of the New Testament, however, no two are the same. The textual critic helps us determine the exact wording of the Bible by examining the existing manuscripts. There are three well know textual critics: Jerome, Erasmus, and the KJV translators.

Desiderius Erasmus, a Dutch Roman Catholic scholar, is the most well know textual critic. Erasmus produced the first published Greek New Testament in 1516. Erasmus was severly criticized for trying to improve on Jerome’s Latin Vulgate. Erasmus’ fourth edition became the basis for the Textus Receptus which in turn became the basis for the KJV. Erasmus compared 4 or 5 manuscripts to produce the KJV.

The textual critic guarantees that the Word of God in the original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek have been preserved. Most believers today do not read and speak in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek which makes the next step necessary.

Step Five: Translation

God wants His Word in the common language of the people and He accomplishes this purpose through translations.

1. When the Greek language under the influence of Alexander the Great replaced Hebrew and Aramaic, God in His providence produced the Greek translation of the Old Testament called the Septuagint in 200 B.C. The LXX was the Bible of the first century believer. The LXX was Jesus’ Bible. All of the OT quotes in Hebrews are from the LXX not the Hebrew and Aramaic.

2. When the Roman Empire succeeded the Greeks and Latin replaced Greek as the universal language of Europe and the common language of the people, God in His providence led Jerome, a textual critic who used the Old Latin Bible, to write the Latin Vulgate in 405. Jerome also was criticized for producing a new translation. The Latin Vulgate is important for two reasons

a) It was the Bible of the people for 1000 years.

b) Jerome’s Latin Vulgate became the basis for the first English Bible in 1350, Wycliffe’s Bible.

3. When English replaced Latin as the common language of the common people, God in His providence produced English translations.

a) The first was the John Wycliffe’s English N. T. translation in 1380 and two years later the Old Testament.

Wycliffe wanted to reform the corrupt RC whose priesthood generally was immoral. For this reason, Wycliffe is called, “The Morning Star of the Reformation.” Wycliffe believed if the common people had the Bible in their own language, they would demand a reformation of the church. Since 1229, the RCC had forbidden the use of the Bible to laymen. “The Word was precious or rare in those days” (1 Samuel 3:1).

Because Wycliffe knew no Hebrew and no Greek, he translated directly from the Latin Vulgate into the English vernacular. Wycliffe’s traveling preachers whom he trained called the Lollard’s went everywhere  preaching and circulating Wycliffe’s English Bible. The RCC was infuriated that laypeople had the Bible in their language. One RCC Bishop complained, “The jewel of the clergy has become the toy of the laity.”

In 1401, King Henry IV enacted a statue making “heresy” a secular crime punishable by burning. The heresy was spreading the Word of God in the common language of the people. The RCC courts began trying “heretics” and hauling convicted ones over to the secular courts for burning. The lay preachers, the Lollards, undaunted continued to preach and disseminate the English Bible. Then the RCC in England did what no other country had ever done. They forbad the circulation of the Bible in the common language of the people.

A penalty of burning was enforced for anyone owning or even reading the English Scriptures. In 1414 another Church decree banned Wycliffe’s books and warned that anyone who was caught reading the English Bible would “forfeit land, cattle, life, and goods from their heirs forever.”

The price of one copy of Scripture was expensive antedating the invention of the printing press. Many Christians were willing to pay large sums of money just to read the Scriptures for an hour or two. People would give a whole load of hay just to have the Scripture for an hour. We are unlike the believers of Wycliffe’s day. We are inundated with English Bibles. Also we are unwilling with freedom to read, study, memorize and meditate.

After Wycliffe died the RCC ordered Wycliffe’s books burned, his bones dug up, burned and scattered over the river flowing through Lutterworth, Wycliffe’s town.

In Part 2 we will consider William Tyndale’s English Bible.

Are Evangelicals Catholic?

Posted: March 27, 2010 in Salvation
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
0

I have some close friends who are Catholic and we have talked candidly about salvation by grace through faith in Christ. A church member from another church once said to me, “Catholics are Christians.” My response was there are Catholics who are Christians just as there are Baptists and Methodists who are Christians. I also explained that while it is possible for a Catholic to be a believer, it is not possible for a Catholic to be a believer and adhere to what the Catholic Church teaches about salvation. The same, however, would be true for some liberal Baptist and Methodist denominations.

Then I read Wayne Grudem in his popular Systematic Theology who quotes a Catholic theologian as representative of “the traditional Roman Catholic understanding of justification.” The Catholic theologian is Ludwig Ott, who wrote in 1960, “According to the teaching of the Council of Trent, justification is sanctifying and renewing of the inner man.’” This quote is from Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma on page 257 and of course confuses justification and sanctification.

Grudem disagrees with the Roman Catholic view quoted from Ott, but then Grudem makes a follow-up comment about which I have questions: “It should be noted that Ott represents more traditional, pre-Vatican II Roman Catholicism, and that many contemporary Roman Catholics have sought an understanding of justification that is closer to a Protestant view” (Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994, p. 727). My question is, on what basis does Grudem say that contemporary Roman Catholics are closer to the Protestant view of justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone? Has there been a recent RC council that has rewritten the RC doctrine found in the Council of Trent of 1560s? Has there been a Papal decree that documents Catholicism’s move to the Reformation doctrine of justification by faith alone? (For an excellent defense of the Reformation’s sola fide or doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone see R.C. Sproul’s Faith Alone.)

The Council of Trent of the 1560s

 The Roman Catholic position was stated clearly at the Council of Trent (1545-63) and has not changed. The following is Canon 24 from the Council of Trent: “If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to the obtaining of  the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema” (Canon 9 of the Council of Trent, see also Canon 14).

The Vatican II of the 1960s

The Vatican Council, Second, 1962-65, the 21st ecumenical council which was attended by 2,400 Catholic bishops did not change the Roman Catholic Council of Trent’s view on works for salvation. “For it is the liturgy through which, especially in the divine sacrifice of the Eucharist, ‘the work of our redemption is accomplished,’ and it is through the liturgy, especially, that the faithful are enabled to express in their lives and manifest to others the mystery of Christ and the real nature of the true Church” (Vatican II, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Introduction, paragraph 2).

“Thus by Baptism men are grafted into the paschal mystery of Christ. . . . They receive the adoption as sons” (Vatican II, Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy, Chapter I, paragraph 6).

The new Catechism of the Catholic Church in 1992

The Roman Catholic Church’s position has not changed since The Vatican Council II in the mid-sixties as the new Catechism of the Catholic Church in 1992 declared: “The grace of the Holy Spirit has the power to justify us, that is, to cleanse us from our sins and to communicate to us ‘the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ’ and through Baptism” article 1987.

The Evangelical Catholics

Evangelical Catholics, like Keith A. Fournier, claim to be Christians who in their thinking is not in contradiction with Catholic tradition and theology. In his book Evangelical Catholics, Fournier writes, “Many Christians misunderstand the Catholic theology of salvation as one of salvation by good works. . . . this view does not represent Catholic theology.” But, then Fournier writes approvingly of the Vatican II: “In their marvelous document entitled the ‘Decree on Ecumenism,’ the Bishops of the Catholic Church show the respect which must properly be afforded to all Christians:

‘. . . All those justified by faith through baptism are incorporated into Christ’” (Keith A. Fournier, Evangelical Catholics, Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1990, pages 16, 96). This statement from the Catholic Church clearly teaches salvation by good works and Evangelical Catholic Fournier agrees. You can go to www.evangelicalcatholic.com and read how contemporary Evangelical Catholics speak glowingly about the Vatican II.

The problem is that Evangelical Catholics use the vocabulary of Scripture but a different dictionary. This makes it difficult for undiscerning believers to know the difference and thus allow them to think that “Catholics are Christians.” Baptist or Methodist or Catholic are not Christians if they believe any reglious work or ritual is necessary for salvation. How is the Roman Catholic Church’s doctrine of Justification by Works gotten closer to the Biblical doctrine of Justification by Grace alone through Faith alone in Christ alone according to Grudem? I hope this brief survey of Catholic doctrine will help us answer church members who have questions concerning Catholicism and witness to the unsaved who may be confused about the biblical truth of justification by faith alone.

The Apocrypha, Part 1

Posted: October 5, 2009 in Bible
Tags: , , , , , ,
3

Stephen and Janet Ray converted from Protestantism to Roman Catholicism over the canonization of the Apocrypha: “Protestants are dependent on the tradition of the Catholic Church for the current New Testament” (Crossing the Tiber p. 54). A church council in A.D. 397 recognized the books of the Bible as canonical.

 “There is no list of canonical books anywhere” (George Sim Johnston Protestants and Sola Scriptura). The Roman Catholic reasoning is, since there is no list of canonical books, there has to be an outside authority to determine which books belong in Scripture. My refutation of this view is that God gave authority to Scriptures, not a church, and each book was canonical the moment it was written.

The Apocryhpa are the uninspired books added to the 39 Old Testament declared to be canonical by the Roman Catholic Church at the Council of Trent in 1546. The Roman Catholic Council of Trent occurred only 29 years after Martin Luther nailed his protest against the abuses of priesthood in 1517. The R.C.C. priests were selling indulgences in order to pay and pray loved ones out of purgatory. The Apocrypha teaches works for salvation and prayers for the dead and was quoted against Luther to support the R.C.C. position.

The 1500 years prior to Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation, the Apocrypha had not been accepted as Scripture. Here is the quote from the Council of Trent concerning the canonicity of the Apocrypha:

“The following: the first and second of Esdras, Tobias, Judith, Baruch, two books of Maccabees . . . . If anyone does not accept as sacred canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety. . . . let him be anathema.”(Council of Trent, 1546).

In addition to the ones listed in 1546, the R.C.C. also has the following Apocryphal books: Ecclesiaticus, Wisdom of Solomon, The Song of the Three Hebrew Children, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, The Rest of Esther, and the Prayer of Manasseh.

Why were these written? For different reasons. The Rest of Esther was written by sincere Jews who were concerned that Esther did not have one reference to God. The Rest of Esther contains over 30 references to God. 1st Maccabees is an excellent historical record of the Maccabean revolt.

God warns about adding to the Word of God in Deuteronomy 4:2: “You shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall you diminish ought from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.”

There are four different views on the Old Testament.

Much of this information is from A General Introduction to the Bible by Norman Geisler and William E. Nix. This is an excellent source for any Bible student who is serious about Bibliology.

1. Books that are accepted by all or the homologoumena. 34 of 39 of the O.T. were accepted by all the Church Fathers.

2. Books were disputed by some or the antilegomena.

1) These are the five that were not accepted at one time or another by some of the Fathers: Song of Solomon., Eccelesiastes., Esther, Ezekiel., Proverbs.

2) Song of Solomon was said to be sensual and Ecclesiastes too skeptical. Ecc.12:13 answers this false charge. Esther was considered too anti-Moses. But no examples are given by the Rabbinic School of Shammai. Proverbs was too illogical and contradictory. The example given is Proverbs 26:4-5 which is simply an example of someone saying, “On the one hand, and on the other hand.”

3) Books that were rejected by all or the pseudepigrapha.

Jude 14, 15 quotes Enoch 1:9 and Jude 9 quotes The Assumption of Moses (none of these is Apocryphal). Quoting uninspired sources is not unusual. Paul quotes the heathen poet Aratus in Acts 17:28. There is no such formula “it is written” with any of these books.

4) Books accepted by some or the Apocrypha.

The Apocrypha teaches heresy such as prayers for the dead and the existence of purgatory (II Maccabees 12:33-34; 44-45). These dead Jews being prayed for had committed idolatry which is a mortal sin which contradicts R.C.C. doctrine. Scriptures teach judgment after death, Heb. 9:27, therefore prayer for the dead is useless.

The Apocrypha teaches salvation by works (Tobit 12:9; Ecclesiasticus 3:30). The Apocrypha is fanciful in nature. In Bel and the Dragon and II Esdras “the pagan priests of Bel try to deceive Daniel by using a trapdoor to go in and consume the food offered to Be to prove that Bel is ; a ‘living God’ who ‘eats and drinks every day’. So, in order to assist the ‘living God,’ Bel, ‘in the night the priests came with their wives and chldren, as they were accustomed to do, and ate and drank everything’ (v. 15).” The Apocrypha is immoral: Ecclesiasticus 33:26-28 teaches cruelty to slaves. The Apocrypha is historically inaccurate. Judith speaks of Nebuchadnezzar as reigning in Nineveh (1:1). In the next post we will discuss why the Apocrypha was in the 1611 KJV.

The Importance of Doctrinal Statements, Part Two

Posted: April 25, 2009 in Doctrinal Statements, Pastoral Theology
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
9

0128xA church member once said to me, “Catholics are Christians.” I tried to explain the difference between what the Catholic Church and the Bible teaches about salvation. I explained that while it is possible for a Catholic to be a believer it is not possible for a Catholic to be a believer and adhere to what the Catholic Church teaches about salvation.

Then I read Wayne Grudem in his popular Systematic Theology who quotes a Catholic theologian as representative of “the traditional Roman Catholic understanding of justification.” The Catholic theologian is Ludwig Ott, who wrote in 1960, “According to the teaching of the Council of Trent, justification is ‘sanctifying and renewing of the inner man.’” This quote is from Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma on page 257 and of course confuses justification and sanctification.

Grudem disagrees with the Roman Catholic view quoted from Ott, but then Grudem makes a follow-up comment about which I have questions: “It should be noted that Ott represents more traditional, pre-Vatican II Roman Catholicism, and that many contemporary Roman Catholics have sought an understanding of justification that is closer to a Protestant view” (Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994, p. 727). My question is, on what basis does Grudem say that contemporary Roman Catholics are closer to the Protestant view of justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone? Has there been a recent RCC council that has rewritten the RCC doctrine found in the Council of Trent of 1560s? Has there been a Papal decree that documents Catholicism’s move to the Reformation doctrine of justification by faith alone? (For an excellent defense of the reformation’s sola fide or doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone see R.C. Sproul’s Faith Alone.)

The Council of Trent of the 1560s

The Roman Catholic Church’s doctrinal statement was written clearly at the Council of Trent (1545-63) and has not changed. The following is Canon 24 from the Council of Trent (The RCC’s doctrinal statement): 

“If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to the obtaining of the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema” (Canon 9 of the Council of Trent, see also Canon 14).

The Vatican II of the 1960s

The Vatican Council, Second, 1962-65, the 21st ecumenical council which was attended by 2,400 Catholic bishops did not change the Roman Catholic Council of Trent’s view on works for salvation:

For it is the liturgy through which, especially in the divine sacrifice of the Eucharist, ‘the work of our redemption is accomplished,’ and it is through the liturgy, especially, that the faithful are enabled to express in their lives and manifest to others the mystery of Christ and the real nature of the true Church (Vatican II, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Introduction, para.2).

“Thus by Baptism men are grafted into the paschal mystery of Christ. . . . They receive the adoption as sons” (Vatican II, Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy, Chapter I, para. 6).

At Mark Driscoll’s website Resurgence, pastor Justin Holcomb posts a very dangerous evaluation of the Second Vatican Council.

Here is one of the favorable comments by Holcomb concerning the Second Vatican Council:

The Council also sought to foster dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and other faiths and Christian denominations. In fact, the Council stated in regard to Eastern faiths, “the Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these religions.” Yet, the Council still held to the fact that Christ is the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6).

“Protestants can glean wisdom from some of the formulations of the Second Vatican Council. Perhaps most importantly, we can look to the Council’s urging for us to be the church to the world in a relevant and faithful way. This is an affirmation that emphasizes an understanding of the gospel expressed in evangelism and in loving action to the world. So, while there may be elements of Vatican II with which we disagree, there is also that plenty we would affirm.” Holcomb says “there may be elements of Vatican II with which we disagree.” Does he not disagree with Vatican II’s baptismal regeneration? Paul had a very severe view of works for salvation as expressed in Galatians 1:6-9.

Justin Holcomb also presents a very weak summary of the Council of Trent. He seeks to find common ground with this RCC anathema of justification by faith alone rather than exposing this document as false teaching.

The new Catechism of the Catholic Church in 1992

The Roman Catholic Church’s doctrinal position on salvation has not changed since The Vatican Council II in the mid-sixties as the new Catechism of the Catholic Church in 1992 declared: “The grace of the Holy Spirit has the power to justify us, that is, to cleanse us from our sins and to communicate to us ‘the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ’ and through Baptism” article 1987.

The Evangelical Catholics

Evangelical Catholics, like Keith A. Fournier, claim to be Christians who in their thinking is not in contradiction with Catholic tradition and theology. In his book Evangelical Catholics, Fournier writes, “Many Christians misunderstand the Catholic theology of salvation as one of salvation by good works. . . . this view does not represent Catholic theology.” But, then Fournier writes approvingly of the Vatican II: “In their marvelous document entitled the ‘Decree on Ecumenism,’ the Bishops of the Catholic Church show the respect which must properly be afforded to all Christians: ‘. . . All those justified by faith through baptism are incorporated into Christ’” (Keith A. Fournier, Evangelical Catholics, Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1990, pages 16, 96).

This statement from the Catholic Church clearly teaches salvation by good works and Evangelical Catholic Fournier agrees. You can go to www.evangelicalcatholic.com and read how contemporary Evangelical Catholics speak glowingly about the Vatican II and also state that a believer can be “fully Catholic and fully evangelical.” This is impossible when the RCC teaches salvation by works and conservative evangelicalism teaches salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. It is true that evangelicalism is very board today and includes works righteousness so I must qualify what I mean by evangelicalism.

The problem is that Evangelical Catholics use the vocabulary of Scripture but a different dictionary. This makes it difficult for undiscerning believers to know the difference and thus allow them to think that “Catholics are Christians.” I have dear friends who are Catholics. You cannot judge a church, denomination, or movement by the personalities in it but by the beliefs adhered to in their doctrinal statements.

How is the Roman Catholic Church’s doctrine of Justification by Works gotten closer to the Biblical doctrine of Justification by Grace alone through Faith alone in Christ alone according to Grudem?

I hope this brief survey of Catholic doctrinal statements will help us answer church members who have questions concerning Catholicism and witness to the unsaved who may be confused about the biblical truth of justification by faith alone.