Biblical Fundamentalism

By Gene Frost Faced with the problem of defections from the Catholic faith, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops has launched a counterattack against what they term Biblical Fundamentalism. Many Catholics are being attracted to religious movements which place emphasis upon the Bible as the rule of ones life. Realizing that Bible study for the laity has been neglectedeven discouraged and forbiddenthe Committee has issued a Pastoral Statement,1 which calls for a plan for the word of God that will place the Sacred Scriptures at the heart of the parish and individual life. The Committee hopes that the Catholic teaching community will appeal more to the Bible in order to blunt the appeal of Biblical fundamentalism. Biblical fundamentalism is defined as a persons general approach to life which is typified by unyielding adherence to Bible doctrines and positions. Biblical fundamentalists are those who present the Bible as the only necessary source for teaching about Christ and living. This approach is too simplistic, the Bishops contend, and ignores the authoritative teaching role of the Catholic Church. The Pastoral Statement for Catholics on Biblical Fundamentalism addresses two areas of concern, the Bible and the Church, and points out differences between those who follow the Bible and Catholics. Without the benefit of the Statement itself, which is copyrighted by the U.S. Catholic Conference, we will articulate the differences as therein expressed. The Bible Those who subscribe to the Bible, as the sole source of the Lords authority and accept it as a guide of life, recognize it to be inspired of God and inerrant in all that it says. Catholics, while acknowledging the Bible to be inspired, do not have the same view. They believe God put into the sacred writings what may be referred to as salvation truths, but inerrancy does not extend to scientific and historic matters. Further, the teaching role of the Catholic Church, it is argued, has precedence over the Bible: the Church produced the New Testament. It, the argument continues, has authoritatively told us which books are inspired and are therefore canonical. Since the authoritative teachings of the Catholic Church, along with its traditions, are inspired, they say, emphasis has not been put upon Bible study. The fullness of Christianity is not found in the Bible, but in the eucharist and the other six sacraments, the celebration of the word in the liturgical cycle, the veneration of the Blessed Mother and the saints, etc. In review, we want now to consider these three points: (1) the inspiration and inerrancy of the Scriptures; (2) the canon of the Scriptures; and (3) the Catholic attitude toward the reading and study of the Bible. 1. The Inspiration of The Scriptures The Bible claims, and we so believe, that all Scripture is inspired by God (2 Tim. 3:16). 2 Inspired by God (theopneustos) is literally God-breathed, signifying that what is given is Gods own word. It is the revelation of the mind and will of God. This word was given through the Holy Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets (Eph. 3:3-5, John 16:13). As Paul acknowledged, God has revealed His will through his Spirit: which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in the learning of the Spirit, combining spiritual with spiritual. (1 Cor. 2:13) The New American Standard, translating from the Greek, reads: which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words. This is verbal inspiration, i.e. the divine will has been revealed in words divinely selected to correctly and precisely convey it.

Verbal inspiration (not to be confused with mechanical inspiration) insures that the whole, in its every part, is accurate and faithfully conveys the revelation of God. In essence, then, the Scriptures are Gods words. (1 Thess. 2:13) This being the case, they are inerrant, i.e. exempt from error, free from mistake. Of whatever God speaks, it is true. Historical references are accurate for God was there. Scientific references are correct, for, after all, He created all things. The Catholic view of inspiration and inerrancy is quite different, they say. For some Biblical fundamentalists, inerrancy extends even to scientific and historical matters. They quote Vatican Council II as affirming that the Scriptures teach without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation. Thus a distin ction is made between historical and scientific matters (not protected from error) and matters of salvation (which are inerrant). This is a strange admission in view of Catholic tradition concerning inerrancy. Rationalism, which has afflicted the Catholic church as well as the entire religious world, makes this same charge against the Scriptures: that the Bible is unreliable in its scientific and historical references. It is a matter that has demanded the attention of Catholic theologians and authorities. The Catholic Dictionary (Addis and Arnold) informs us that in more recent centuries some notable theologians began to reason that inspiration was limited to moral and dogmatic teaching, excluding everything in the Bible relating to history and the natural sciences. In fact, in January 1983, Mgr. dHulst gave a sympathetic account of this opinion in Le Correspondant in calling attention to the two schools of apologists:
First, those who consider as true history, infallible by reason of its being inspired , every narrative not manifestly a parable; and those who, after having first put aside all that is dogmatic and moral, consider that a sifting process (triage) may be made of the remainder according to the methods of historical 3 criticism.

This latter broad (large) school would restrict inspiration to matters of faith and morals, and would admit the possibility of error in the uninspired portions.4 However, Pope Leo XIII, who was militant against rationalism, was quick to respond. In an encyclical letter, Providentissimus Deus,of the same year, he wrote,
But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture or to admit that the sacred writer has erred. For the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of those difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond, because (as they wrongly think) in a question of the truth or falsehood of a passage we should consider not so much what God has said as the reason and purpose which He had in mind 5 when saying itthis system cannot be tolerated.

He adds that this is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church... But this is not the case, for now it is argued by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops that inspiration does not cover matters of history and science. It appears that the Conference has drunk deeply from the well of rationalism, and that the unchanging faith of Catholicism has changed once more. (Incidentally, if a Papal Encyclical Letter contains doctrinal teaching, Catholics are bound to give them interior as well as exterior assent and obedience.6 ) Of course, believing the Bible, we at once reject the different view of inspiration and inerrancy presented in the Pastoral Statement. And we would emphasize this difference. The one lets God be found true, though every man be found a liar (Rom. 3:4), while the Catholic view makes God the author of such error.7 With the current view, it is no wonder that truthseeking Catholics are turning away from the traditions of Rome to be guided in their faith and lives by the Scriptures. 2. The Canon of the Scriptures The Pastoral Statement claims that strict faith in the Bible, as the source of ones faith and practice, falls short in that it leaves out the teaching church. It is the Catholic church that has 2

binding authority, it is argued, and only through this authority do we even have the Bible. (In a later section, under The Church, we want to note the argument concerning the teaching church and its authority. In this section, we will note the claim that the Catholic Church established the canon of Scriptures.) The bishops claim that the Catholic church produced the Bible is incorrect for two principal reasons. First, the Bible did precede the Catholic Church, as church is used in the Pastoral Statement to refer to the ecclesiastical organization to whom the laity looks, viz. the teaching church. This concept and hierarchical development is much too late to identify with the church as revealed in the New Testament. The Catholic Church is historically an evolving faith and organizational structure. (This is an interesting and worthwhile study in itself, but is not part of the present view.) Second, the Scriptures were given by God through individuals, identified as apostles and prophets, and not through an hierarchical organization. Without any determinations or pronouncements of men, we have the Bible. God, and not men, gave us the Bible. The inspired writings were given, received, and collected before there was any thought, much less any convening, of a Council. We now propose to show the following: (1) The canon of Old and New Testament Scriptures were established before any Catholic council recorded a list of canonical books in 393 A.D. These canons did not include the apocryphal or deuterocanonical books which the Catholic church lists as canonical. (2) The Bible which the Catholic church claims to have produced, and proclaims as authentic, is neither the text the Lord inspired (not genuine) nor is it reliable (it is a corrupted text). Old Testament Canon The 39 books of the Old Testament, as in our Bible, were counted as 22 by the Jews. Their reason was there are 22 letters in the Jewish alphabet. According to this classification, Judges and Ruth make but one book; the two books of Samuel, two of Kings, and two of Chronicles, make but three in all; Ezra and Nehemiah are one, Jeremiah and Lamentations are one, and the twelve Minor prophets are but one.8 Josephus (c. 37- 95 A.D.) wrote:
For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, (as the Greeks have,) but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all past times; 9 which are justly believed to be divine

This unity of acceptance by all Jews is remarkable in view of the fact that the Pharisees accepted an Oral Law, the Talmud, as well as the Written Law, whereas the Sadducees insisted on the Written Law only as a rule of faith and practice. Even though the Pharisees were zealous for these traditions, they never presumed to list them with the Old Testament canon, which was recognized alike by both Pharisees and Sadducees.10 When Jesus came, the canon was well established. The Jews recognized three divisions in the Old Testament Scriptures:
(1) The law (or Torah): corresponding to our Pentateuch. (2) The prophets: Former (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings) and Latter (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Minor Prophets). (3) The Psalms (or Writings): Poetical (Psalms, Proverbs, Job), Megilloth (Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther), and Chronicles (Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah).

These are the same books as in our Bibles today. Jesus accepted them, claiming to have fulfilled all written of Him in the law, the prophets, and the psalms (Luke 24:44). He did not quote from nor acknowledge those books we call apocryphal (or deuterocanonical): they did not belong to what the Jew recognized as the canon of Scriptures. Philo Judaeus (c. 30 B.C. - 45 A.D.), a hellenizing Jewish philosopher of Alexandria, also refers to all 39 books of the Old Testament in his writings.

The canon of the Old Testament was already established when Jerome translated the Old Testament from the Hebrew into Latin. He only used the 39 books he found in its manuscripts. These only he considered canonical; the deuterocanonical books he called apocryphal.11 It is ludicrous, hundreds of years after the Old Testament was inspired of God, received and collated by the Jews, for the Catholic church to tell us that they produced and canonized these Scriptures! New Testament Canon The canon of the New Testament was established by the early disciples, who possessed the spiritual gift of discernment. (1 Cor. 12:4-11, 10; 14:29) The inspired writings were circulated (Col.4:16), and false claimers were easily detected and exposed. (1 John 4:1, Rev. 2:3). When the Synod of Hippo (393 A.D.), and again at Carthage (397), listed the books of Scripture, they did not establish the canon of Scriptures. What the Synods did was to add to what was accepted as canonical, which additions we reject. So the Catholic Church neither produced the Bible nor restablished its canonicity.
One thing must be emphatically stated. The New Testament books did not become authoritative for the Church because they were formally included in a canonical list; on the contrary, the Church included them in her canon because she already regarded them as divinely inspired, recognizing their innate worth and generally apostolic authority, direct or indirect. The first ecclesiastical councils to classify the canonical books were both held in North Africaat Hippo Regious in 393 and at Carthage in 397 but what these councils did was not to impose something new upon the Christian communities but to codify 12 what was already the general practice of these communities.

This fact must be conceded, as we observe it is in the Catholic Encyclopedia:

They are sacred and canonical b ecause, having been written by inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they 13 have God for their author, and as such have been handed down to the Church.

To argue that because someone lists books already in circulation and accepted, he therefore gave the world these books, is ludicrous on the surface. I could as well list herein the volumes of the Catholic Encyclopedia, and then announce to Catholic world that I have given them this work. The Catholic Bible The official Catholic text of the Bible is Jeromes Vulgate translation into Latin, made in the latter part of the fourth century. The Hebrew Old Testament was translated directly from a late Hebrew text. A perfect work it could not be...Few of the many advantages enjoyed by modern scholars were open to him. Hebrew had ceased for centuries to be a living tongue, and Jerome, moreover, had to learn it orally: there was no such thing as a Hebrew grammar, or a dictionary, or a concordance...He made many mistakes now impossible to a tyro of average intelligence who has learnt the elements in a good grammar.14 From an early day the text of the Vulgate began to suffer corruptions, mostly through the copyists who introduced familiar readings of the Old Latin or inserted the marginal glosses of the MSS. which they were transcribing. In the eighth century Alcuin undertook and completed (A.D. 801) a revision with the aid of the best MSS. then current. Another was made about the same time by Theodulph, Bishop of Orleans. The best known of other and subsequent recensions are those of Lanfranc (d. 1089), of St. Stephen, Abbot of Citeaux (d. 1134), and of Cardinal Nicolas (d. 1150).Then the universities and religious orders began to publish their Correctoria biblica, or critical commentaries on the various readings found in the MSS. and writings of the Fathers. After the first printing of the Vulgate by Gutenberg in 1456, other editions came out rapidly. Their circulation with other Latin versions led to increasing uncertainties as to a standard text and caused the Fathers of the Council of Trent to declare that the Vulgate alone was to be held as authentic in public readings, discourses, and disputes, and that nobody might dare or presume to reject it on any pretense (Sess. IV, decr. de editione et usu sancrorum librorum).15 4

Observe that the Council of Trent in 1550 declared the Vulgate to be authentic: in substance entire and incorrupt, and therefore to be received as divine.16 Catholic students are taught:
A translation is authentic when it agrees with the original. The Vulgate, therefore, by the very fact of 17 its being called authentic, is declared to be substantially identical with the original text. ...the books as we now possess them are divine and canonical only as they are identical with those inspired by the Holy 18 Ghost.

Even if the then present Vulgate had been identical with the original Latin of Jerome, it would not be the Hebrew and Greek text inspired by God. But, we note, no particular edition of the Vulgate is declared to be authentic.19 No authoritative edition existed at the time of the decree. All that was available was a corrupted Vulgate and the confusion that prompted the Council of Trent to find a solution. They left it to the Holy See to provide a corrected revision.20 In quest of a revised Vulgate text, John Henten, O.P., published in Louvain, in 1547, an amended text with variants. It was republished in 1583, at Antwerp, with a larger number of variants. In 1590 a Roman edition was prepared by a commission of scholars. Sixtus V introduced alterations of his own, all for the worse.21 Shortly before he died he had it printed, along with a Papal Bull to enforce its use as the standard text.22 His immediate successorsthere were five popes in two years (1590-1591)proceeded to call in the defective revised Vulgate text and to remove the blunders. This presented a problem: how to substitute a more correct edition without attaching a stigma to the name of Sixtus. A solution was found when
Bellarmine proposed that the new addition should continue in the name of Sixtus, with a prefatory explanation that, on account of aliqua vitia vel typographorum vel aliorum had crept in, Sixtus had himself resolved that a new impression should be undertaken. The suggestion was accepted, and Bellarmine 23 himself wrote the preface, still affixed to the Clementine edition ever since in use.

The Sixtine revision of the Vulgate was withdrawn from circulation on account of its many errors, corrected, and reissued in 1592.24 The revision of the Sixtine text was again revised under Clement VIII (d. 1605), and was printed in 1598 with the title unchanged: Biblia Sacra Vulgatae editionis, Sixti V Pontificis Maximi jussurecognita et edita. After 1641, the name of Clement VIII has appeared under the title. This revision is now the officially recognized version of the Latin Rite and contains the only authorized text of Vulgate. That it has numerous defects has never been denied...25 In 1907, Plus X entrusted to the Benedictines the work of further revision. Note that the Bible which the Catholics claim to have given the world is not the inspired text, given of God through the Holy Spirit in the Hebrew and Greek, but a Latin translation! When first translated by Jerome, it contained many mistakes. In the years following, his Vulgate translation suffered many corruptions. Even so, the Council of Trent declared the Vulgate to be authenticentire and incorrupt. Sixtus V revised it, adding numerous errors, and issued it as the standard text. But two years later, with a false statement attached, it was further revised. Under Clement VIII the Vulgate was further revised, and became the only authorized text. Even so, it has numerous defects. And so we are indebted to the Catholic Church for the Bible, and a weaknessof Biblical Fundamentalism, we are told, is a failure to recognize it! 3. Catholic Attitude Toward The Reading of the Bible The National Conference of Catholic Bishops objects to those who try to find in the Bible all the direct answers for livingthough the Bible itself nowhere claims such authority. Admittedly, the Bible is not the source of authority for Catholics, and the Catholic Church in the past did not encourage Bible studies as much as she could. In fact, the record shows that not only was Bible study not encouraged, it was discouraged and often forbidden.

That the Bible is a light to ones feet (Ps. 119:105 ), a guide for his life, is affirmed in the Scriptures. As Jesus has all authority, He has expressed the same in His word. (Matt. 28:18, Eph. 3:3-5, 1 Cor. 14:37) What He has revealed through His apostles and prophets, as set forth in the Scriptures, is authoritative: But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel to you other than that we have preached to you, let him be anathema! As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone preach a gospel to you other than that which you have received, let him be anathema! (Gal. 1:8-9) The faith of Gods people is not an evolving process, but is a faith once for all delivered to the saints. (Jude 3 ) Therefore, If anyone speaks, let it be as with words of God. (1 Pet. 4:11). In every activity of life, we must conduct ourselves according to the Lords will. Whatever you do in word or in work, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him. (Col. 3:17) He teaches in His word how we are to conduct ourselves in (1) our family life (Eph. 5:22-6:4), (2) in relationship to government (Rom. 13:17), (3) in social matters (Matt. 22:39, Gal. 5:10), (4) in business (2 Thess. 3:10-12, Rom. 12:17), as well as in (5) our worship (John 4:24). We, who respect the Bible, look to Jesus as our example, and walk according to His word (1 Pet. 2:21). We give Bible authority for what we believe and practice. Lacking this respect for the Bible, Catholic leaders have turned to pagan religions for many of their practices:
We need not shrink from admitting that candles, like incense and lustral water, were commonly employed in pagan worship and the rites paid to the dead. But the church from a very early period took them into her service, just as she adopted many other things indifferent in themselves, which seemed proper to enhance the splendour of religious ceremonial. We must not forget that most of the adjuncts to worship, like music, lights, perfumes, ablutions, floral decorations, canopies, fans, screens, bells, vestments, etc. were not identified with any idolatrous cult in particular; but they were common to almost 26 all cults.

Most of the Catholic laity grow up thinking that what they are taught to believe and practice are ordered from God. They do not realize that doctrines peculiar to Catholicism are not found authorized in the Bible. And a study of the Bible has not been encouraged, but rather discouraged. Here are the admissions:
It is not necessary that all Christians read the Bible More than this,the fact that some cannot readparts of the Bible are evidently unsuited to the very young or to the ignorant and hence Clement XI condemned the proposition that the reading of Scripture is for all. These principles are fixed and invariable, but the discipline of the Church with regard to the reading of the Bible in the vulgar tongue has 27 varied with varying circumstances.

When challenges to orthodox Catholic teaching and practice are made, the hierarchy has responded:
To meet these evils, the Council of Toulouse (1229) and Tarragona (1234) forbade the laity to read the vernacular translations of the Bible. Plus IV required the bishops to refuse lay person to read even Catholic versions of the Scripture, unless their confessors or parish priests judged that such reading was 28 likely to prove beneficial.

In the Encyclical Letters of Leo XIII, he writes under The Prohibition And Censorship Of Books:
7. As it has been clearly shown by experience that, if the Holy Bible in the vernacular is generally permitted without any distinction, more harm than utility is thereby caused, owing to human temerity: all versions in the vernacular, even by Catholics, are altogether prohibited, unless approved by the Holy See, or published under the vigilant care of the bishops, with annotations taken from the Fathers of the Church and learned Catholic writers. 29 8. All versions of the Bible, in any vernacular langua ge, made by non-Catholics are prohibited...

The present allowance for Catholics to read the Bible is a new experiment. And already the Catholic Church is suffering the consequences when men follow the Scriptures instead of blindly following traditions that have been borrowed from paganism and from the will of men. The Conference wants the people indoctrinated with Catholic interpretations, and the Bible to be frequently quoted in order that it might appear to the laity that the Catholic religion is a Bible taught religion. We rejoice in the fact that our neighbors and friends within the Catholic faith are permitted to read the Bible for themselves. Even though limited to Catholic versions, with annotations, as one will search it carefully, he will soon detect that what Christ and His apostles taught is not what is taught and practiced in Roman Catholicism. They have gone far beyond the teaching (doctrine) of Christ:
Anyone who advances and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ, has not God; he who a bides in the doctrine, he has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not received him into the house, or say to him, Welcome. For he who says to him, Welcome, is sharer in his evil works. (2 John 9-11)

__________
1 - Pastoral Statement for Catholics on Biblical Fundamentalism, dated March 26, 1987;released Sept. 30, 1987; published in Origins, (Nov. 5, 1987), vol. 17, no. 21, pages 376-377. 2 - Challoner-Rheims Version. 3 - Catholic Dictionary, by William E. Addis and Thomas Arnold, page 450. 4 - Ibid. 5 - The Great Encyclical Letters of Leo XIII, page 296. 6 - Catholic Dictionary, by Donald Attwater, page 169. 7 - The Great Encyclical Letters of Leo XIII, page 297. 8 - New American Cyclopedia, vol. 3, page 225. 9 - Flavius Josephus, Against Apion, Book I, Sec. 8. 10 - Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of The Jews, Book XIII, Ch. X, Sec. 6. 11 - Catholic Dictionary, by Addis and Arnold, page 845; Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. I, page 601. 12 - F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents, page 27. 13 - Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. II, page 543. 14 - Catholic Dictionary, by Addis and Arnold, page 848, 15 - Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. XV, page 370. 16 - Catholic Dictionary, by Addis and Arnold, page 850. 17 - Ibid. 18 - W. Wilmers and James Conway, Handbook Of The Christian Religion, page 139. 19 - Catholic Dictionary, by Addis and Arnold, page 848. 20 - Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. XV, page 370. 21 - Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. II, page 412. 22 - Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. XV, page 370. 23 - Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. II, page 412. 24 - Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. XV, page 370. 25 - Ibid. 26 - Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. III, page 246. 27 - Catholic Dictionary, by Addis and Arnold, page 79. 28 - Ibid. 29 - Encyclical Letters of Leo XIII, pages 412-413.