Bible Believing Churches

You know, the words “Bible Believing Churches” just cut right through me sometimes, when I’m talking to an Evangelical who thinks that I’m going to Hell for being a Catholic.  I feel like this is mainly due to how it shows a complete ignorance of history and of how a liturgically-based church service goes and the embracing of a meme spread throughout Evangelical Christianity; that there is no scripture in a church that uses a liturgy, and that there is no concept of Jesus dying for sins.  Likewise, the phrase conjures up the laughable image of how those who frequently employ it, will then add all sorts of extra-Biblical things of their own.

So let’s break things down.  Point Number One:  Just who compiled the Bible anyway?  I’m about to vastly oversimplify about 1200 years of fighting about the Bible here, but, that would be the Church, headquartered in Rome.  Under the patronage of the Roman Emperors, a pair of councils were held, the Council of Nicaea in 325CE and the Council of Constantinople in 381CE, which set the agreed upon (though not fully defined) canons of scripture and the Bible. Following the debates at these councils and the proclamations issued by them, as well as gatherings at Hippo and Carthage, Jerome created the Vulgate, the first Latin translation of what we now refer to as the Bible.  This did not mean the canon was fully set in stone however, this wouldn’t happen until the Council of Trent, during the Protestant Reformation, because…

Point Number Two:  How is it Sola Scriptura when you remove from Scripture?  Martin Luther felt that some of the books of the Bible needed to be removed, despite Deuteronomy 4:2 stating, “you shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. “  Luther removed the deuterocanonical books and referred to them as Apocrypha, thus seven books in the Catholic Bible do not appear in most non-Catholic sects today; he also tried to remove Esther to the Apocrypha, because it doesn’t mention God in the original Hebrew, but rather in additions found only in the Septuagint Greek texts. 

Likewise, Luther sought to remove four more books from the Bible, but was rebuffed by his followers, and ended up placing them at the end of his German language Bible; Luther’s translation, to the present day, holds his disdain for these books by placing them at the end.  Those four books are:  Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation.  Interestingly, while Luther claimed it was due to issues of historicity that he wanted to remove them, these books are those which most often can be difficult to reconcile with the theology he crafted during the Protestant Reformation, ranging from the place of works in our relationships with God, to the notion that the dead can pray for the living as in Revelation.  Thus the man who prompted Sola Scriptura, vastly changed Scripture, including to make it justify the other pillar of his Reformation, Sola Fide….what’s that?  Faith alone/grace?  Luther changed the wording of the book of James, in chapter three, verse twenty-eight to add the word “alone”, which does not appear in the original Greek, thus bringing about “faith alone”.

Point Number Three:  Is there any use of scripture in a Catholic Mass as compared to a typical Evangelical service?  In my life, I’ve been a Baptist, and I’ve also attended non-denominational and Evangelical services of various stripes, but nowhere in them have I found the level of scripture that I have in the Mass of the Catholic Church.  Usually in Evangelical Services there are a few verses quoted here and there in the sermon, with the admonition to “get out your Bibles” to look up the verse.  However, this isn’t the case in the Mass.

The Catholic Church establishes three year cycles (A, B, and C) for readings from the Bible.  The theory is, if you attend daily Mass, you will hear all of the Bible in three years…I’ll admit, I personally think they have to skip certain things, but that’s the claim anyhow.  During the course of the average Mass, as part of the stuff you absolutely can’t skip, you have an Old Testament reading, a New Testament reading, a responsorial Psalm sung back and forth between the cantor and the congregation, and a reading from the Gospel; all of these are found in the Missal in the pew.  Instead of a sermon on whatever the pastor’s pet idea is, as often happens in Evangelical churches, you’re supposed to work your homily into what scriptures have been read at that Mass and are encouraged to do an exegesis of it.  Not that this always happens, but again, in theory how it should work.

This doesn’t even touch the Easter Vigil readings, when people are brought into the Catholic Church.  There are only three sets of required readings of OT/NT/Psalms (and then a Gospel) for the Easter Vigil.  However, a priest may choose to do the entire suggested run…so one would hear seven readings from the Old Testament, seven readings from the New Testament, sing back and forth seven responsorial Psalms, and then hear a Gospel reading.

There are also fringe theologians, including noted Catholic apologist Dr. Scott Hahn, who will argue the entire structure of the Mass is consistent with the structure of the Wedding Feast of the Lamb in the book of Revelation.  If one wants to read an entire book on that, he’s written The Lamb’s Supper:  The Mass as Heaven on Earth.

Point Number Four:  Them there Catholics don’t ever talk about Jesus.  Go to Mass, take a shot every time you hear about Jesus, and you will be dead of alcohol poisoning.  I realize that’s a bit glib, but it’s accurate.  Listen to the prayers, listen to them talk about Christ dying for the sins of humanity.  Again, not to be glib, but I’ve sat through almost as many Mass homilies talking about a personal relationship with Jesus Christ as I have Evangelical sermons doing so, the difference being the lack of an altar call, due to the Catholic church baptizing as an infant and then using Confirmation as a time about whether to accept Christ for oneself or not.

Point Number Five:  “We’re a Bible Believing Church”.  Then we get to this phrase, the one I hear people say most often after trying to “Save” a Catholic, “you need to find a good Bible believing church”.  What they mean is one that adheres to Luther’s claims of Sola Scriptura (which isn’t backed by Scripture) and Sola Fide (which Scripture was edited to justify).  Bonus points if one tries to use the adverb-translation excuse.  Usually these words seem to come about due to an ignorance of scripture itself and the role it plays in Catholicism, wherein the Scriptures in Catholicism are supplemented (but not supplanted) by the traditions that have been passed own over the centuries and therefore become the focus of the people who tell the Catholic to go find a “Bible believing church”.  After all, they would never have their own non-Biblical traditions!

Well, you know, other than calling Communion a symbol when the Greek is anything but and it cost Christ followers because it flies against the laws of the Jewish covenant with God as per John chapter six.  Or the nigh-liturgical formula of a welcome, announcements, songs, sermon, altar call, songs, closing stuff.  Or the Sinner’s Prayer formulated by Billy Graham that everyone from Chick Tracts to God’s Not Dead to every Baptist minister I’ve ever met, will tell you is vital for salvation and you must say the words exactly right or you’re gonna burn.  Or the claims of “going back to the early Church”, which I feel is probably inaccurate unless you’re in a cave somewhere doing a love feast in Aramaic, Hebrew, or ancient Greek and selling all your property and giving it to your ministers.

Anyhow, I went on a bit of a shoddy ramble, sorry about that!