Why Are There So Many Different Versions Of The Bible?

• Defining The Issues: 

          -Several translations of the Bible have been produced in the English language and are in circulation today. Christians read from translations ranging from the King James Version, New King James Version, New American Standard Bible, the New Living Bible, and others. Church groups even recommend specific Bible translations over others and use them in preaching pulpits. In fact, one may mistakenly infer that the existence of multiple editions of the Bible is the primary cause of division throughout the church or that the manuscripts used for finding English equivalents for the words of the Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic languages are unreliable. To make a long story short, there are several translations of the Bible which contain deviations in wording, sentence structure, and even differences in chapter verses. However, having more than one translation of the Bible can prove to be beneficial in study. They can be used in further spreading the gospel. The existence of multiple Bible translations is not a bad thing in and of itself, although this is not to deny that some people are motivated by greed.

• Bible Translation Or Version? 

          -The word "version" is not necessarily the best way to describe a translation of a religious text. It misrepresents the nature of the painstaking research conducted by scholars who worked diligently to give us the most accurate as possible presentation of what the original authors of the biblical narratives wanted to convey to their audiences. The science of translation works to find equivalents in one language so that different languages are able to maintain communication and understanding. The word "version" can give the misleading implication of intentional alteration or perversion with malicious motives (there are works of this nature in existence). The process of translating works to make deciphering a message in a foreign language possible to others. Creating a "version" can carry with it connotations of carving out wanted portions of any given text to fit one's underlying biases. Translating ancient manuscripts from different languages is no different than translating the words of a speaker from another country such as a foreign diplomat giving a news conference. So describing a translation of the Bible as merely being a "version" can be misleading.

• Why There Are Many Different Bible Translations?:

          -Different translations of the Bible exist because different groups of scholars knowledgeable in languages of Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic have collaborated at different periods of time to develop them. Words have a semantic range or a variety of meanings in a group of words that are appropriate to use depending on context. For example, the word "angry" has other words with similar connotations like mad, upset, irate, vehement, furious, and enraged. Those terms differ in degrees of forcefulness and may thus not fully convey what a person intends to say in various contexts. Hebrew and Greek syntax can even be obscure sometimes. There have been discoveries of manuscripts and archaeology which provide further data to use in improving translations. The meaning of the text when considered in its entirety essentially remains the same. There is therefore still one Bible.

          -The science of translation involves explanation or interpretation, since it is a process of making something known that could not otherwise have been known to those unfamiliar with biblical languages. Shades of Hebrew and Greek are inevitably lost to a degree in translation, which is a good reason to have two to three different translations of the Bible at a minimum (even though one cannot have perfect knowledge about such unless he knows the original languages for himself). In addition, words have changed in their meaning since four hundred years ago when Elizabethan English was spoken. A good example of this would be the word "gay" which is used in the King James Version of the Bible and how that same word is used today. The meaning of a word is determined by its usage in context. The three types of translations available are word for word, thought for thought, and paraphrase. How could Christians be required to agree on only one edition of the Bible when it also needs to be translated into different languages?

• Which Bible Translation Is The Best One To Read From?:

          - All Bible translations existing contain their own weaknesses and imperfections. They were produced by fallible men who did not have an inerrant set of manuscripts given to them. No one can claim that any existing manuscripts today are inspired by God in the same sense as the original text, since we cannot compare them to the first manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments. Those no longer exist. Whether we like it or not, there are certain limitations that we just have to accept. Reliable translations convey accurately to a considerable degree what the authors of the biblical text said. This point can be verified by a careful and honest comparison of various translations in an overwhelming majority of cases, regardless of ideological background. The overall similarity of wording present amongst them is nothing short of impressive. The answer to the question of which Bible translation is the best would be the one that an individual chooses to read. This is not to say, however, that one should use them without caution. Not all translations of the Bible are good or equally good. One also needs a primary translation to use for study purposes.

The Roman Catholic Church And Apostolic Tradition

• Preliminary Points:

          -The Roman Catholic Church teaches that Scripture alone is an insufficient guide for Christian doctrine and that Jesus Christ gave the twelve apostles infallible oral tradition to pass on to future generations through the Magisterium. It is claimed that we need to submit to an infallible interpreter of Scripture in order to properly understand its message. Apologists for Rome have attempted to construct a biblical case for their their Church's claims by citing various passages such as John 20:30, 21:25, 2 John 12, 3 John 13, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 3:6, and 1 Corinthians 11:2.

          -"Can you learn to save your soul just by reading the Bible? No, because certain things in the Bible can be misunderstood and because the Bible does not include everything God taught." (William James Cogan, A Brief Catechism for Adults: A Complete Handbook on How to Be a Good Catholic, Lesson 16: The Catholic Church is the Only True Church, Q&A #1)
          -It is true that the Bible never presents itself as the only source of authority for the church. However, Sola Scriptura means that Scripture is the final court of authority in all religious matters. Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith for the church to use. Therefore, people who object to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura by using a faulty definition (i.e. that the Bible is the only or sole authority) are attacking a straw man argument.
          -It is self-contradictory to appeal to the Bible as the ultimate standard of authority to prove that it is not the ultimate standard of authority for the church to follow. It is a hypocritical double standard for Roman Catholics to use Scripture as a means to justify their doctrines, but disapproving of Protestants acting in the same manner.

• Clarifying That Sola Scriptura Is Not Opposed To All Forms Of Tradition: 

          -It needs to be understood that Protestantism is not opposed to "traditions," as long as they are consistent with the principles of Scripture. They have to be kept subject to its judgment. We do not reject using “tradition” as such or the testimony of “the church” (meaning early patristic writers). For example, what other sources can we use to gather historical information? Scripture itself is apostolic tradition in written form.

• Do 2 Thessalonians 2:15 And 2 Thessalonians 3:6 Prove The Necessity Of Roman Catholic Oral Tradition?:

          -The previous context of 2 Thessalonians 2:15 reveals that the Apostle Paul is speaking of traditions pertaining to the second coming of Christ. Those should be measured against apostates who pervert the truths concerning that doctrine, eternal salvation, and the gospel. These topics are addressed in both the Old and New Testaments (Daniel 7:13-14; Zechariah 14:1-9; Matthew 24:5-27; Psalm 22-23; Isaiah 53; John 3:16). Hence, there is no need to depend on extra-biblical oral traditions.
          -2 Thessalonians 3:6 refers to teaching regarding working and not being idle. Consider texts such as Psalm 128:2, Proverbs 21:25, and 2 Thessalonians 3:10. The Apostle Paul was not trying to establish a distinction in content between oral and written revelation, but rather demonstrates the unity of his message when communicated in both forms.

• Does 1 Corinthians 11:2 Prove The Necessity Of Roman Catholic Oral Tradition?: 

          -The immediate context is about the purposes of men and women in worship and in terms authority (v. 3-16). Then, the Apostle Paul goes on to talk about the correct observance and practice pertaining to the Lord's Supper (v. 17-31). Later on, he goes on to identify traditions, which he himself previously received, as the basic message of the gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1-8). None of these oral traditions are mysterious in nature or foreign in substance to Scripture.

• Do John 20:30, John 21:25, 2 John 12, and 3 John 13 Prove The Necessity Of Roman Catholic Oral Tradition?: 

          -The passages from John do not say that some the teachings of Jesus were not written in Scripture. Rather, all the miracles that He performed were not recorded. Scripture tells us everything that we need to know concerning salvation (John 20:31).
          -The logic employed by our critics here is self-defeating because Roman Catholic tradition does not furnish us with all the details of Jesus' life.
          -Anybody (including Mormons) can abuse Scripture passages like these by claiming that we need the doctrines of his religion. They can be misused to open up doors to just about any heretical system of doctrine. We need to know exactly what John is talking about in the above passages. We cannot make assertions that are devoid of evidence.
          -Why assume that 2 John 12 and 3 John 13 are referring to some apostolic teaching that gets passed on to posterity? None of these texts indicate specifically what the contents of John's message are. It is equally possible for the unknown details to be from other parts of the New Testament, a public rebuke of sin or heresy, or even personal details about his life or close companions such as his fellow ministers, the apostles.
          -2 John 12 and 3 John 13 simply indicate that the Apostle John decided not to write down every single detail of what he intended on saying in his epistles. He wanted to speak directly to his audience for the sake of his audience's comfort, joy, and edification. How do we know that what John spoke of would have been different in substance than what is found in written revelation? Can Roman Catholics produce any sayings of Jesus Christ or the apostles that exist apart from Scripture?

• Are The Traditions Of The Roman Catholic Church Equal To The Bible In Terms Of Authority?:

          -Jesus Christ rebuked the scribes and Pharisees for placing their own traditions on par with the Old Testament in terms of authority (Matthew 15:1-9; Mark 7:1-13). This scenario is a mirror reflection of the modern-day Roman Catholic Church because it teaches as God-given truth its own oral traditions. It claims that its traditions were handed down to us from the early church fathers, just as the religious leaders whom Christ scolded claimed that their traditions were passed on to them from the elders. The Roman Catholic Church, like the scribes and Pharisees of the Law, say that their traditions are of divine origin. The scribes and Pharisees taught doctrinal error as a result of putting man-made tradition on the same level of authority as Scripture. The Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church has fallen into the same grievous error for its inflated perspective of "oral tradition" and claims to perpetual teaching infallibility. The underlying issue is pride amongst religious leaders.

A Scriptural Refutation Of Calvinism

• Introduction:

          -Calvinism is a movement within traditional Protestantism that was developed by John Calvin (1509-1564), a French theologian. He was influenced primarily by the writings of the theologian and philosopher Augustine of Hippo. There are five major points to this complex theological system which are known by the acronym: "T.U.L.I.P."

          -Calvinism is a soteriological system that places a heavy emphasis on the sovereignty of God, to a point at which some believe it compromises human free will. God alone is believed to be responsible for the salvation of man. Calvinists believe that God not only saves entirely on the basis of grace, but also gives man faith as a divine gift. Adherents call this system of theology the doctrines of grace.

• Total Depravity:

          -A consequence of the fall of Adam and Eve is that man has been corrupted by sin. This has affected us negatively in every aspect of our being; physically, mentally, and spiritually. We, therefore, have inherited a natural inclination to disobey God. We have a natural bent toward evil, and experience bears this point out through boundless examples. This doctrine is one that actually can be empirically verified. The implication of man being a fallen creature is that he cannot redeem himself from his own curse. All who remain in this state and die while in it will undergo divine judgment. In fact, they already have received their sentence of eternal condemnation (John 3:18). It is not something to be handed down in the future.

          -We cannot in any way change our sinful condition. Our state of being is utterly hopeless, apart from the grace of God. However, the doctrine of original sin does not mean that man is born with evil manifesting itself at its worst point or that he cannot do any kind of good works whatsoever. Human beings have their own standards of goodness or what they consider to be ethical. Even if man retained but a shimmer of his former goodness and purity which he possessed in the Garden of Eden, he remains an utterly wretched creature in his own right. He is an enemy of God and his own worst enemy.

          -Man has a natural bent toward choosing evil over good (Ephesians 2:1-3). He is said by the Apostle Paul to be dead to sin, meaning that is his default way of living. It is harder to be good than it is to be bad. Man not only shuns the things of God, but actively opposes them. The nature of his rebellion is both internal and external, covering both his thought life and his behavior. The extent of human corruption is thorough. The Law of God says what it says, despite our inability to live up to that standard. Thus, it condemns us. However, this is where grace comes into the picture of things. The mercy of God is the only hope that man has for escaping his just sentence.

• Unconditional Election:

          -“All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death.” (Institutes of the Christian Religion: Book 3, Chapter 21, Section 5)
          -"The decree, I admit, is, dreadful; and yet it is impossible to deny that God foreknew what the end of man was to be before he made him, and foreknew, because he had so ordained by his decree." (The Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, section 7)
          -The Bible teaches a different form of predestination than what is found in Calvinism. The scriptural view is that God determined beforehand, not which individuals will receive salvation and which ones will receive damnation, but how we would serve Him and the means by which we are redeemed. This view is known as corporate election. It pertains to the work that believers do in the church for the glory of God. He has predestined believers to be conformed to the image of His Son Jesus Christ (Romans 8:28-30; Ephesians 1:3-6). He has prepared in advance that we do good works (Ephesians 2:10). We become a part of God's elect by hearing and believing on the gospel as it is being proclaimed (John 6:51; Ephesians 1:13-14). 

          -God is not a respecter of persons (Acts 10:34; Romans 2:11-12; 1 Peter 1:17). He does not will that any perish, but all be saved (Titus 2:11; 1 Timothy 2:3-4; 2 Peter 3:9). God does not lead any into temptation (James 1:13-15). Sin is not from God (Jeremiah 7:24).

          -If we have already been predestined to heaven or hell, then what is the purpose of being cautious of the devil's plans of causing deception (1 Peter 5:8)? Why pray that His will be done (Matthew 6:10)?
          -If God has already meticulously predetermined everything since the foundation of the world, then it makes perfect sense for one to say that we have no free will. Why preach repent or perish?
          -Why would God sentence sinners to eternity in hell when He created them to be that way? Why would He punish people who had no control over their sinful actions in the first place?
          -If God has already meticulously predetermined everything since the foundation of the world, then there is no point in debating these issues since He created members of His elect to oppose Calvinism.
          -If God has foreordained since the beginning of time that the unbelieving and unrepentant are to perish eternally, then why did the Lord Jesus Christ claim that He was sent to seek and save that which is lost (Luke 19:9-10)? Why did God grieve over making man (Genesis 6:6)?

• Limited Atonement:

          -"It maintains that God's design and intent in sending Christ to die on the cross was to pay for the sins and secure the redemption of those whom God has predetermined to save, namely the elect." (Theopedia, "Definite Atonement")

          -According to Scripture, Jesus Christ died not only for our sins, but also the whole world (1 John 2:1-2). 
          -According to Scripture, Christ died even for false teachers (2 Peter 2:1). He has died for both the just and the unjust (1 Peter 3:18). 

          -Jesus Christ identified those who continually reject and oppose His message as being among those that He came to save (John 12:47-48).
          -If Jesus Christ was able to save the Apostle Paul who referred to himself as being the chief of sinners for persecuting the church of God in his younger days (1 Timothy 1:15-16), then would that not also imply that salvation is available to all who believe on the gospel (contrary to limited atonement)?
          -Notice how Paul included in his inspired definition of the gospel that Jesus Christ died "for our sins" (1 Corinthians 15:1-4). This sounds like a personal invitation to salvation. That is literally equivalent to me saying that Christ died for you and me, which refutes limited atonement.

          -Regardless of whether one is Calvinistic in soteriology or not, there is a sense in which the atonement is limited. It is either limited in scope (i.e. whoever is specifically chosen by God from before the foundation of the world) or by application (i.e. whoever believes the gospel receives the benefits of Christ's atonement).

• Does Unlimited Atonement Necessitate Universalism?:

          -Christ's death for all men denotes divine judgment to the same extant because we have all been commanded to repent and believe on the gospel (Mark 1:15; Acts 17:26-31).
          -Just as the Jewish people had to look at the bronze serpent in order to be physically healed, so we must turn to Christ in order to have our spiritual infirmities removed (Numbers 21:9; John 3:14-16). Thus, no decision to receive salvation means no application of soteriological benefits.
          -God made atonement even for those whom He foreknew would not repent because of His love and graciousness. He blessed Adam and Even in the Garden of Eden, even though He knew beforehand that they would fall. He sent prophets to admonish the Jews, even though He knew beforehand that they would reject them.
          -God is, in the present tense, bringing about all things to His glory (Romans 8:28-30). If He specifically determined that the benefits of the cross be applied to all who repent and believe, then the gospel and His power are not undermined by belief in unlimited atonement.

• Irresistible Grace:

          -"Those who obtain the new birth do so, not because they wanted to obtain it, but because of the sovereign discriminating grace of God." (Theopedia, "Irresistible Grace")
          -If irresistible grace is a biblical doctrine, then why is it that God would "spread out His hands all day long" to His rebellious nation Israel (Isaiah 65:2)? Why would God put Himself through so much trouble when He could have instantaneously resolved that problem? Why did Jesus mourn over Israel's unwillingness to accept the prophets God had sent (Matthew 23:37)?

• Perseverance Of The Saints (Other Names For This Teaching Would Include Eternal Security And Once Saved, Always Saved):

          -"...those who are truly saved will persevere to the end and cannot lose their salvation. It doesn't mean that a person who is truly saved will never lose faith or backslide at any time..."Eternal security" is often seen as synonymous with "Perseverance of the saints." (Theopedia, "Perseverance of the Saints")

          -Warning texts directed to Christians against apostasy do not sit well with the idea that it is impossible for one to lose his salvation (Hebrews 3:12; 2 Peter 3:17; 1 Corinthians 9:24-27;1 Timothy 4:1-4; 6:20-21; Galatians 5:4-5; 2 Peter 2:1-3; 20-22; James 5:19-20). 

          -We even have a few examples of people who seem to be Christian falling away from the faith recorded in New Testament (1 Timothy 1:18-21; 5:11-15; 2 Timothy 4:10).

          -God disciplines those who He loves, just as a father does a son who is guilty of some wrongdoing (Deuteronomy 8:3-5; Proverbs 3:12). A God who is willing to lay down His life for sinners is not going to instantaneously give up on somebody. 

          -A person does not reach sinless perfection upon conversion. We still struggle with a sin nature, but the grace of God, which we do not deserve, does transform our hearts. How God dealt with Israel in the Old Testament is a testimony to His grace and patience. 
          -The loss of salvation is not caused by a single bad work, but is a slow, gradual process that takes place over time. We do not do bad works to "get unsaved." Bad works are the evidence, not the cause, of a declining faith or hardening heart. 

          -Our works are symptomatic of our spiritual state. God examines our hearts. We are justified by faith, apart from the merit of any good works (Romans 4:2-8). We are saved by faith in Christ. We obtain mercy from God through genuine repentance.

          -It is technically difficult for a Christian to "lose" his salvation, but not impossible. It is something that we can "walk away" from or forfeit. We are either fully a part of God's kingdom or not a member at all.

          -God is slow to anger (Psalm 145:8). He is rich in mercy (Ephesians 1:7-8). He does not will that any man perish (2 Peter 3:9). God is faithful even during our times of unfaithfulness. The Holy Spirit continually convicts the conscience of sin.

          -Christians do not lose their free will upon conversion. He certainly has the power to keep us, but will not force people into heaven. That would not be love. We were not created to be robots or puppets (these are only used as analogies and may not perfectly correspond to what Calvinists believe), but His children.

          -We are kept in the kingdom of God by the Holy Spirit the same way that we entered: faith (Galatians 3:1-6). In other words, we are both justified and sanctified by faith. Salvation is not analogous to some wage that we can deplete by sin. We are not saved by acting better or remaining faithful, but by trusting in the atonement of Christ.

• Does A Rejection Of Calvinism Mean That Man Takes Credit For His Own Salvation Or That God Is Not Sovereign?:

          -It is true that man in his fallen condition can never please God. He has no power in and of himself to change his state of being, but the grace of God can and does. Only God has the power to bring about a miracle such as this. We could never merit our salvation. His grace is an absolute necessity, if we are ever to be spared from divine judgment. 

          -We absolutely need Christ's imputed righteousness. It is by faith in Him that we are saved, not our personal merit. However, we must accept the terms of forgiveness as prescribed in the gospel, which in and of itself is a gift of grace by God to man. 

          -This is analogous to a physician informing a patient of the need for a procedure such as a heart transplant and him consenting to its performance. The latter performs the work on the former. In the same vein, it is God who diagnoses our problem of sin and totally removes it from our being. The basis of the entirety of this operation is His grace.

          -We have the ability to recognize that we have a spiritual problem in light of divine revelation. The choice to accept the gift of justification is not a work, anymore than is grabbing a lifesaver while drowning or accepting a birthday gift from a loved one. To say that we take credit for accepting a free, and even undeserved, gift would be irrational in the highest degree.

          -There is no that one can deny salvation is all of God. He is both its author and finisher. It is God who gets all the credit for saving us. Our decision to approach Him in humble repentance does not merit us anything. God is not under any obligation whatsoever to save us. 

          -God is compassionate and merciful. Our decision to repent is distinguished from His decision to save us. These two ideas cannot be equated. Faith is the antithesis of works (Romans 4:4-5; 11:6; Ephesians 2:8-9). Faith carries with it no merit of its own. The basis of our justification before God is the righteousness of Christ given to us.

          -Atonement is applied freely to all who come to Christ by faith. It is God who regenerates us, and grace is what brings it about. The gospel itself also has sufficient power to draw any sinner to God (Romans 1:16; 1 Corinthians 1:21). His grace is an absolute necessity in our conversion. The gospel is God's gracious offer of salvation to undeserving sinners.

Answering Practical Objections To Sola Scriptura

• Is Sola Scriptura Based On Circular Reasoning?:

          -This objection would hold water if, and only if, adherents to this doctrine were to argue for belief in the divine inspiration of Scripture solely on the basis of what it says about itself. That would be a fallacious claim by reason of being a viciously circular argument.

          -Arguments giving credence to the inspiration of Scripture:
            *Excellent moral teaching and life transforming power of Scripture. One could argue for the supremacy of the moral teachings of Christ compared to other world religions.
            *Incredible manuscript evidence for the authenticity of the New Testament writings
            *Consistency with world history/archaeological discoveries. If the four gospels, for instance, can be shown to be as reliable as (or even more so than) extra-biblical authors such as Plutarch, Josephus, and Tacitus, then we must accept Jesus Christ as the Son of God. Radical skepticism toward the biblical text would not be appropriate in that instance.

            *The fulfillment of prophecies contained in Scripture points to its supernatural origin.
          -If the Bible is truly the Word of God, then it follows from that premise everything set forth by that source must also be true. That would not be circular, but sequential thinking.
          -Sola Scriptura is not a denial of the usefulness of extra-biblical sources. It does not mean that we cannot consult material outside of the Bible to verify claims.

          -Some degree of circularity will always exist in the operational processes of any system that functions on the basis of an ultimate source of authority. It does not matter whether whether it be Catholic, Protestant, or secular. 

• High Illiteracy Rates In The Early Church: 

          -Being illiterate does not mean that a person has less of an ability to understand concepts. Sola Scriptura was still possible for the early Christians because:
            *Scripture can be taught orally by those who are literate. Scripture can be memorized or recited from memory. It can still be studied.

            *In Paul's day, literate people would read things aloud to those who could not read. That is also how the average Israelite learned Deuteronomy. It has the structure of a song that they could easily memorize. This is basic knowledge of the ancient world.

            *The early church had a practice of sharing letters and teachings among different congregations, which would have included the writings of Paul, Peter, James, and others. This practice helped to establish a unified doctrine and fostered communication between separated Christian groups.
          -The fact that persecution of Christians in the early church was problematic for the spread of the gospel did not reduce the importance of the unconverted hearing that message. In similar fashion, illiteracy rates would indeed make it harder to learn Scripture. However, that point does not lessen its authority. The Bible still testifies to who Christ is (John 5:46-47).

          -The Roman Catholic Church expected its priests to interpret the Bible for the average person. Efforts were even made to stop the Bible from being translated and circulated. This became more pronounced during the Middle Ages, particularly from the 5th to the 15th centuries. This was certainly different from the Jewish practice of public Torah readings and how the earliest Christians (coming from that background) treated Scripture.
          -If Jesus Christ passed on infallible, extra-biblical oral traditions that were meant to be heard by us, then what about the people who are deaf? If illiteracy rates disqualify Scripture from functioning as the only infallible rule of faith, then is the Roman Catholic "three-legged stool" disqualified because deaf people cannot hear oral teaching?

• Malnutrition In The Early Church:

          -The availability of food varied among early Christians. Some faced challenges due to religious fasting practices, while others cared for the sick and poor. Overall, their nutrition depended on factors like socio-economic context and adherence to religious rules. It takes no more nourishment to understand teachings found in a catechism than it does to understand passages of Scripture.

          -In order to refute Sola Scriptura, one has to demonstrate that this principle somehow conflicts with Scripture. The authority of Scripture is not determined by our intelligence. The authority of Scripture is not determined by our health. The authority of Scripture is not determined by its availability. Scripture is inherently authoritative because it is God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16). It is not limited by personal circumstance or inconveniences.

Examining The Roman Catholic Dogma Of Purgatory

• Introduction: 

          -The Roman Catholic Church defines purgatory as "purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven” and for those “who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified” (CCC 1030). It is touted as a necessity, since nothing defiled by sin can enter into the presence of God. It is further maintained that, “this final purification of the elect...is entirely different from the punishment of the damned” (CCC 1031). Therefore, it would be incorrect for one to assert that Rome teaches individuals who fail to get cleansed of all sin in this lifetime must experience a temporary sentence in a lesser degree of hell. Purgatory is said to be a separate state altogether for people who are not under eternal condemnation.

          -"The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration, as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God" (Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England, Article XXII).

• Purgatory Contradicts Justification By Faith Apart From The Merit Of Works:

          -Abraham was justified by faith in order that boasting be eliminated from the instance of justification before God (Romans 4:2). The one who comes to Him with a contrite spirit is accepted as righteous in His sight, not coming to Him with a list of one's own achievements. Justification is not a matter of God reimbursing us for time spent in service to Him, but given to us independently of our good works (Romans 4:4). This is where the concept of grace comes into play. God bestows a righteous status to us, despite us having done nothing to deserve it (Romans 4:5). This has all been done for us "without works" (Romans 4:6). Thus, faith stands alone as an object of consideration for being declared righteous before God. If, however, the doctrine of purgatory is true, then that would mean our standing before God would depend partially on our works. It would indicate that our goodness at least in some measure affects our entrance into heaven. One must do works of penance in order to be granted an indulgence for oneself or a loved one, which are good works. But Paul's gospel of grace will not allow for any of this. A man must approach God without any sense as to his own merit. His righteousness must be received on the basis of faith, without works of righteousness.

• Purgatory Denies The Sufficiency Of Christ's Sacrifice:

          -The idea that we are able to atone for any kind of sin undermines the message of the gospel. Christ made a sacrifice to save those who are utterly unable to make amends for sin themselves. We cannot offer any atonement sacrifice for sins by suffering in purgatory or by offering indulgences because that debt has already been fully settled by Christ Himself on the cross. To suggest that we must pay the penalty for any sin, even after it has been pardoned by God, diminishes the efficacy of His atonement. That is a terribly inadequate and inconsistent view of forgiveness. It would be an insult against God to the highest degree to try to pay for even the smallest part of a debt that He has already fully paid. It is an indirect way of saying that His work is not good enough for us. If we are forgiven for sin yet there is still some sort of punishment that we must endure in the afterlife, then we are not really forgiven after all.

• The Absence Of Purgatory From Eschatological Contexts:

          -The story of the rich man and Lazarus gives us a few details of how things work in the afterlife (Luke 16:19-31). The latter was a beggar left to the mercy of the elements. The former selfishly enjoyed his luxuries while still alive. This order of fortune was reversed after both passed away. This transition seems to have taken place immediately. Lazarus entered into Abraham's bosom, which is a state of bliss and comfort. The rich man entered a state of torment and humiliation. This narrative emphasizes the existence of two fixed destinies. It nowhere mentions a temporary state existing for the purification of souls. The great chasm between Abraham’s side and Hades implies a permanent separation. If purgatory existed, then it would suggest a bridge or connection of some sort between these realms. The rich man’s plea for Lazarus to warn his brothers indicates that there is no second chance after death. If purgatory is allowed for the expiation of sins committed in this life after death, then it would make no sense for him to utter this plea. Further, this passage may contain implications which deny the efficacy of prayers to Mary and the saints. Abraham rejected the rich man's request to send Lazarus to warn his relatives of the upcoming doom that they would face in the absence of repentance from sin. He was told that if the testimony of Moses and the prophets were not sufficient to bring about conversion, no one rising from the dead would work either. This theme is one of the dead not having contact with the living.

          -Another text worth considering is Revelation 20:11-15, which concerns the final resurrection and judgment of the dead. The focus here is on all people without consideration of anything, except their deeds. The righteous are granted entrance into the kingdom of God. The wicked are cast into hell for eternity with Satan and his minions. The deeds of people are said to be documented in various "books." There is no mention of believers coming out of a place from which their souls were being purified. There is no indication of believers being sentenced by God to a temporary period of detention for "venial" sins committed during this life. This can be taken as evidence that the biblical authors were unaware of any such concept as purgatory.

• Does 2 Maccabees 12:39-46 Offer Biblical Support For Purgatory?:

          -These dead soldiers were struck down by God because of their idolatry (v. 40). According to the Catholic Church, idolatry is a mortal sin (CCC 1857-1858). Mortal sins send a person to hell. Purgatory is for "venial" sins. Thus, we have no evidence for Purgatory in 2 Maccabees. This text is rejected as canonical by both Jews and Protestants. The Roman Catholic New American Bible Revised Edition has this footnote, "The author, however, uses the story to demonstrate belief in the resurrection of the just (7:9, 14, 23, 36), and in the possibility of expiation for the sins of otherwise good people who have died. This belief is similar to, but not quite the same as, the Catholic doctrine of purgatory."

• Does Matthew 5:25-26 Offer Biblical Support For Purgatory?:

          -The context is about anger and settling disputes in relationships (v. 21-24). No one can deny that this passage is speaking about hell because it is mentioned in context (v. 22). A person in hell would be there "until he had paid the last cent," meaning that his stay there would be eternal, as he could never give a ransom for it.

• Does Matthew 12:31-32 Offer Biblical Support For Purgatory?:

          -The parallel passage makes the meaning of this one crystal clear (Mark 3:28-29). It simply means that a person who commits the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will never receive forgiveness from God. Catholic Priest William G. Most agrees with this interpretation, "...the expression quoted is known in Rabbinic literature, where it means merely "never."

• Does 1 Corinthians 3:15 Offer Biblical Support For Purgatory?:

          -This text is not about punishment for sins. It talks about eternal rewards (or lack thereof). In other words, the context is about testing the quality of each believer's work which determines his heavenly rewards (v. 10-14). It is not about believers undergoing punishment after death for venial sins. God will evaluate the quality of each believer's work so as to bestow praise appropriately (1 Corinthians 4:5). The phrase "he shall suffer loss" in verse fifteen refers to the loss of heavenly rewards. Catholic Priest William G. Most comments on this passage, "...the fire seems to mean the apocalyptic fire of the last day, not a fire of purgatory." The Roman Catholic New American Bible Revised Edition has this footnote on the text of 1 Corinthians 3:15, “The text of v. 15 has sometimes been used to support the notion of purgatory, though it does not envisage this.”

• Does 1 Peter 3:19 Offer Biblical Support For Purgatory?:

          -This text is not referring to human beings suffering in purgatory, but rather concerns Christ descending into Hades for the purpose of proclaiming His victory to the fallen angels. It means that the same Holy Spirit of God who resurrected Jesus Christ from the grave also enabled Him to use Noah as an instrument to preach repentance to other men during his earthly lifespan (during the construction of the ark which took place prior to the Genesis flood). Jesus preached the message of His triumph over sin and death to the fallen angels who have been imprisoned since the time of the flood. 1 Peter 3:19 is referring not to a place for believers who were not fully purified from venial sins in this life, but to a place for nonbelievers. The Roman Catholic New American Bible Revised Edition has this footnote: "3, 19: The spirits in prison: It is not clear just who these spirits are. They may be the spirits of the sinners who died in the flood, or angelic powers, hostile to God, who have been overcome by Christ (ch 22; Gn 6, 4; Enoch 6-36, especially 21, 6; 2 Enoch 7, 1-5)."

• The Origin Of The Roman Catholic Dogma Of Purgatory:

          -“...The written prayers which have survived, and the evidence from the catacombs and burial inscriptions indicate that the early church believed deceased Christians to be residing in peace and happiness and the nature of the prayers offered for them were that they might have a greater experience of these. As early as Tertullian, in the late second and beginning of the third century, these prayers often used the Latin term refrigerium as a request of God on behalf of departed Christians, a term which means ‘refreshment’ or ‘to refresh’ and came to embody the concept of heavenly happiness. So even though the early Church prayed for the dead, it does not support the concept of a purgatory for the nature of the prayers themselves indicate the Church did not believe the dead to be residing in a place of suffering. The roots on the teaching on purgatory can be traced back to pagan Greek religion and philosophy in such writings as the Roman poet Virgil's Aeneid and especially through the influence of Plato, whose views were introduced into the Church primarily through Origen...He was an influential promoter of purgation through suffering after death.” (William Webster, Roman Catholic Tradition: Claims and Contradictions, p. 63-64)

Refuting The Use Of Objects In Worship

• Introduction: 

          -The Roman Catholic Church (and Eastern Orthodox) use statues and icons as part of their worship. People who occupy objects for such purposes believe that they aid them in remembering God, Jesus, Mary, or other important figures in Christianity. The Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church says, "Christian veneration of images is not contrary to the first commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed, “the honor rendered to an image passes to its prototype,” and “whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it.” (Paragraph 2132)
          -Advocates of using images in worship regularly bow down before statues, icons, and images of Christian figures, kissing at the feet of the statues, and praying to them. Some will even be rolling in front of statues, showering flowers on them, lighting candles before them, carrying statues in procession, and changing the clothing on them daily. In Roman Catholic churches, there are several paintings of Jesus, Mary, Peter, and canonized saints. There is an abundance of religious iconography.

          -"Owing to the influence of the Old Testament prohibition of images, Christian veneration of images developed only after the victory of the Church over paganism. The Synod of Elvira (about 306) still prohibited figurative representations in the houses of God (Can. 36)." (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 320)

          -Roman Catholic scholar Rachel Bundang said the following: "Christianity emerged from Judaism, which itself rejected figurative religious art as being too much like idol worship (see Ex 20:3). But once Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire under Constantine in the 4th century CE, it was not long before Roman practices of portraying and honoring the divine (their gods and emperors) would make their way into Christian practices as well."

• The Case Against The Use Of Statues, Images, And Relics In Worship:

          -Actions such as kneeling (in religious contexts) and prayer are defined as worship according to Scripture (Exodus 20:5; Isaiah 44:17; 45:20; Matthew 4:9-10; 6:6-14; Philippians 2:10). The apostles refused to accept honor as people knelt before them (Acts 10:25-26; 14:13-15). Even the angels who served God did not want people bowing before them in reverence (Revelation 4:10; 19:10; 22:8-9). Directing such adoration and devotion to entities other than God is idolatry. It also is noteworthy that Roman Catholics sing worship psalms to various saints and wear amulets with pictures of Mary on them.
          -God clearly condemned making figures for the purpose of giving religious devotion or honor to beings other than Him (Exodus 20:4-5; Deuteronomy 4:15-24; 2 Chronicles 33:6-7). In fact, the Apostle Paul specifically said that God is not served with physical objects (Acts 17:23-25). God said that He would not give His glory to another (Isaiah 42:8). We are not to worship God like the pagans do with their gods. That kind of worship is offensive to Him.

• A Valid Practice In The New Testament?:

          -In the New Testament, we are never given permission to use statues as an aid in worship. We have no examples of such activity being approved of by God. As noted previously, the Apostle Paul affirmed Old Testament prohibitions on using material objects in worship. Idols pose a danger to our relationship with God. There are also different forms of idolatry (Ephesians 5:5-7). The only time we see people bowing before statues in Scripture are the unfaithful and unbelieving.

• Veneration Verses Worship:

          -When Roman Catholics are accused of worshiping Mary and the saints, they usually respond by saying that they are simply venerating (i.e. giving honor to) them. This claim is elaborated on by dividing this veneration into three distinct categories (using Latin): latria (God alone), hyperdulia (Mary alone), and dulia (saints and angels).
          -Even though this argument sounds good when written on paper, it is theoretical only. It does not pan out in reality. Occupying separate labels does not change the essence of what is being done. Moreover, Scripture does not provide any justification for three different classes of honor to give to three different classes of beings (i.e. God, Mary, and saints). In fact, every instance of religious veneration recorded in Scripture by a faithful person is directed to God alone. That point is not without significance. We would do well to remember that God is a jealous God (Exodus 20:5; Deuteronomy 4:24; Nahum 1:2). He does not take the issue of worship lightly. 

• Defining What Is Permissible:

          -We ought to give honor to the people who deserve it (Romans 13:1; Hebrews 13:7). Bowing can be a custom of respect toward authority, although God has never ordained that a person represented by a statue be the recipient of such honor. It is also not wrong to have pieces of art for decoration and pictures that we cherish. God can indeed use images to communicate divine truths. Moreover, it is even acceptable to honor Christians from the past by acknowledging their faith and following their moral example (Hebrews 11). However, building statues with the intent of bowing before them and offering prayer or adoration to entities other than God Himself transcends honor. Such behavior is idolatry.

• Does The Creation Of The Bronze Serpent Support Bowing Before Statues In Worship (Numbers 21:6-9)?:

          -God commanded Moses to make the Bronze Serpent for a one time purpose (John 3:14-16). However, the Israelites converted it into an object of worship. It ended up getting destroyed by King Hezekiah (2 Kings 18:3-4). There is no scriptural evidence that the Bronze Serpent was ever supposed to be used as an aid in worship.

• Does The Creation Of The Two Cherubs Support Bowing Before Statues In Worship (Exodus 25:18)?:

          -God commanded the making of two golden cherubs, but the Jews were not called to bow down before them or serve them.

• Does The Creation Of The Ark Of The Covenant Support Bowing Before Statues In Worship (Joshua 7:6-7)?:

          -God ordered the Israelites to make the ark so that He could dwell in their presence and meet with the leaders (Exodus 25:8; 22). But why does the ark have two images of angels (Exodus 25:18-21)? It has them because it is a replica of God's throne in heaven (Isaiah 6:1-2). This is further evidenced by the fact that the ark of the covenant also served as a footstool for the "feet" of the Lord (1 Chronicles 28:2). Unlike the ark, the images used in Roman Catholic veneration represent alleged saints.

The Lord's Prayer (An Exegetical Analysis Of Matthew 6:6-14)

          In prayer, our principal focus must be on God. He is to be the object of our attention and thoughts. We are in His divine presence. He answers a man's prayer based on his sincerity and faithfulness (v. 6). Christ's words are not a condemnation of public worship itself. Rather, prayer is not to be done with the intent of impressing other people.

          We are not to pray in the manner that pagans do, like the worshipers of Baal did (1 Kings 18:26). Prayer should be intelligent and coherent. Repetition itself is not a problem (Matthew 26:42–46). It is not to be done boisterously or in a state of ecstasy. We are not to utter rash sayings in offering up our prayers to God (v. 7). He rejects prayer tainted with self-righteousness.

          God knows everything, which includes our prayer requests, even before we even go to Him (v. 8). We do not know ourselves as well as He does. Only pagans think that their gods need to be told about human needs. That is not the case with the living God. Thus, the purpose of prayer is communion with Him. Christ is our spiritual food. He is consumed by faith.

          We acknowledge that God is the Creator and Lord of all. It follows from that premise we are to give Him rightful honor and worship (v. 9). We must approach Him in humility and respect. Jesus Christ was giving to His disciples a proper model for prayer in contrast to the vain and empty words of unbelievers. It would also indicate who was one of His disciples. Israel had failed to properly honor God's name (Ezekiel 36:22-23).

          We pray with knowledge beforehand that God is sovereign for His kingdom to come (v. 10). It has no boundaries in terms of extent. Our wills are to be perfectly aligned with God's will. Our desire is that good conquers the evils of this world. God has a plan, which cannot be thwarted. It will be fully brought to fruition when Christ returns for a second time.

          We live in a world that overflows with tragedies, from poverty, wars, famine, diseases, and so on. Only goodness can exist in the kingdom of God. We pray that He supply our needs on a daily basis (v. 11). He continues to provide for us according to His will. This points to the reality that we need to depend on God daily. Prayer is more than merely asking God for material items.

          In prayer, we humbly ask God for the forgiveness of our sins (v. 12). Sin is an offense against Him. We have repeatedly violated His perfect standard of morality, the Law. We must pray for sins committed, even after conversion. This does not mean we must approach God with a list of our sins because we could not possibly remember all of them or realize the degree to which we are sinful. His mercy is greater than that.

          We must follow the example of God forgiving our trespasses against Him (v. 14). That means we ought not hold anger or resentment towards other people. We do not hold offenses committed against us by others in the past over their heads. We must forgive the sins of other people because that is what He has done for us. We too are sinful beings. Forgiveness is the essence of the Christian message. It eliminates human pride and boasting.

          We pray to God that He protects us from succumbing to the influences of evil in this world. This request encompasses both attacks from Satan and unfortunate events in our lives. Temptation is inevitable for us as long as we live on this earth. God will bring His purposes to pass in His own timing. He is entitled to perpetual glory (v. 13). 

Surveying The Book Of Ecclesiastes

          The Book of Ecclesiastes describes what life is like in a fallen world. It gives an account of man living out his life in temporal terms and God's control over him (Ecclesiastes 3:15; 9:1). The author of this work, traditionally ascribed to Solomon, portrays eating, drinking, and work in a positive light. He says that there is a time for everything, whether it be laughter, joy, or sorrow. These things are beneficial to man in their own way. 

          This work is distinct from other writings of the Old Testament due to its seemingly pessimistic language in regard to the continued pursuit of earthly pleasures. Taken at face value, this piece may not be an enjoyable read. However, it would be better approached with an eternal perspective in mind than with our finite human understanding. It is from the former point of view that optimism shines through in our lives. We are hereby compelled to change how we think about things.

          Ecclesiastes is similar to Philippians in that all earthly pursuits are subordinate to the surpassing worth of knowing Jesus Christ (Philippians 3:8). The author of this work uses the phrase "under the sun" more than once in writing. He made observations about the transitory nature of our life and achievements. They are as a grain of sand in a desert. All the flattery that this life has to offer is nothing in the face of the reality of spending eternity with our Creator.

          Ecclesiastes illustrates the futility of placing an over emphasis on worldly passions. It destroys the mentality of a materialist by showing him the futility of his own ways. Even if one could find satisfaction in earthly possessions and success, death lies at the door. He will meet his maker sooner than he thinks. Compare Ecclesiastes 3:19 to Genesis 3:19. We can honestly say with Abraham that we are but dust and ashes (Genesis 18:27).

          The fate of man is the same as that of a beast, death. The fate of the righteous man is the same as that of the unrighteous man, death. Our souls will return to God and our bodies will return to the earth from which they were made. The only difference lies in our eternal destinies, whether it be eternal life or eternal damnation. Man dies and is forgotten. His life is but a candle that dims upon melting. His life is forever hidden from posterity. Man no longer partakes of things in this world once he passes away (Ecclesiastes 9:5-6). 

          Ecclesiastes crushes any form of human pride by setting forth a proper perspective of life. The point being made is not that earthly pursuits as such are bad in and of themselves. Rather, it is a grave error to excessively esteem our status and achievements. We are mostly reinventing the wheel, so to speak. Life from a materialistic perspective is futile. It is vain and pointless. That is the reason for the author's usage of the phrase "vanity of vanities." He decries the futility of the ways of mankind and his lack of wisdom.

          The human heart longs for something more than this life. That is why man is instinctively religious. He has a strong desire for something that transcends this temporal order. Man wants an ultimate sense of fulfillment which he cannot find in the various forms of entertainment that the world has to offer, and is available to someone wealthy like Solomon. The human heart finds its fulfillment in God. The world and the things therein are perishing. The things of our fallen world are subject to wear and tear. The human heart can only rest content in God.

Amazing Grace

        Amazing grace! How sweet the sound That saved a wretch like me! I once was lost, but now am found; Was blind, but now I see.

        ’Twas grace that taught my heart to fear, And grace my fears relieved; How precious did that grace appear The hour I first believed.

        Through many dangers, toils and snares, I have already come; ’Tis grace hath brought me safe thus far, And grace will lead me home.

        The Lord has promised good to me, His Word my hope secures; He will my Shield and Portion be, As long as life endures.

        Yea, when this flesh and heart shall fail, And mortal life shall cease, I shall possess, within the veil, A life of joy and peace.

        The earth shall soon dissolve like snow, The sun forbear to shine; But God, who called me here below, Will be forever mine.

        When we’ve been there ten thousand years, Bright shining as the sun, We’ve no less days to sing God’s praise Than when we’d first begun.

Lyrics originally written by John Newton

Did The Catholic Church Give The World The Bible?

• Defining The Issues:

          -The Church of Rome argues that if we did not have what it considers to be apostolic oral tradition, then we would not know what books belong in canon of Scripture. This claim is obviously an attempt by Rome to exalt itself as an infallible authority in addition to the Bible.
          -It is claimed that the canon issue was settled at the Council of Hippo (393 AD) and the Council of Carthage (397 AD). Then, these decisions are said to have been cemented by the Council of Trent (1545-1563 AD). Therefore, we are indebted to the Roman Catholic Church and personally obligated to submit to its claims to infallible teaching authority.

          -Roman Catholic apologists oftentimes argue that we must embrace the traditions of their church in order to know with certainty which ancient writings are canonical. They make the assertion that we can have no certainty as to which books are authentic, apart from Rome's authoritative declarations on the matter.

• A Circular Appeal:

          -It is the Roman Catholic Church that defines what the contents of the Bible are and what constitutes apostolic tradition, and that same organization interprets those same sources in a way that gives credence to its claim of having infallible teaching authority. That is a circular position for one to embrace. We cannot know for sure whether Rome's claims are true, unless we are permitted for ourselves to evaluate the meaning of Scripture and weigh that against various oral traditions, a premise denied to us from the very beginning. If that were to be allowed, then Rome's extremely skeptical approach to our ability to interpret Scripture without an infallible teaching office has been undermined. After all, we would be competent to assess the truthfulness of claims on our own, defeating the very purpose for which Rome claims to exist. This is clearly a difficult position from which there is no escaping. Further, "infallible" dogmas must be fallibly interpreted by the individual, further making absurd the claim that we need an infallible teaching authority to interpret Scripture for us.

• What About The Councils Of Hippo And Carthage?:

          -The Councils of Hippo and Carthage were only provincial. The decisions of these groups were limited to their respective regions, despite there being debates with broader implications than their associated localities like clerical discipline, baptism, and heretical practices. Their rulings were not binding on the Christian church as a whole. These were African councils, not decisions made by Rome. Further, neither the Councils of Hippo nor Carthage were able to definitively settle any issues occurring in the church during that specific time.

• The Problem Of The Old Testament Canon:

          -How did the Jewish people, who lived centuries prior to the birth of Jesus Christ, correctly identify which Old Testament books were inspired by God? How did they know what writings were inspired without the assistance of an infallible teaching authority? For example, the Prophet Daniel makes mention of the Book of Jeremiah (Daniel 9:2). Jesus cited the Prophet Isaiah by name (Matthew 15:7-9). Peter cited Joel by name (Acts 2:16-18). Paul specifically cited Isaiah (Romans 9:27-29). The author of Hebrews quotes David from the Psalms (Hebrews 3:7-11). The author of Matthew quotes Jeremiah by name (Matthew 27:9).

          -The Roman Catholic Magisterium could not have identified the inspired books of the Old Testament for the Jews because it did not exist before the birth of Christ. Moreover, there is no historical evidence pointing to any sort of belief in the infallibility of the Jewish religious leaders. Jesus Christ rebuked the scribes and Pharisees for doctrinal errors (Matthew 15; Mark 7). This undercuts any claims made by Rome that we need an infallible authority to declare which books are canonical, since the Jews did so by themselves and had no such thing available to them.

• How Can We Know Which Person Wrote Which Books Of The Bible?:

          -We must be dependent on outside sources of information in order to correctly identify the canon of Scripture. No figure from the early church can directly tell us which texts are authoritative because they are now deceased. The apostles themselves are no longer alive to be able to tell us anything. Therefore, we must resort to the extant extra-biblical writings of the early church (for the New Testament canon) as well as Jewish authorities (for the Old Testament canon). We must draw a number of our conclusions from people who lived before us.

          -As far as the New Testament canon is concerned, there was surprisingly little disagreement over its contents. Early councils only affirmed what was already widely regarded as canonical. There has been unanimous consensus on that matter for roughly 1,500 years. This picture is contrasted with something like the apocrypha, which has always been challenged as to its reliability.

          -As far as apocryphal gospels are concerned, they contain fanciful stories of Jesus bringing deceased friends back to life, Him healing the bones of people, and turning clay birds into living ones that fly away. None of this silliness is consistent with the simplicity of the four canonical gospel accounts, which points to their authenticity. Spurious works usually were written long after the apostles were deceased, which eliminates them for consideration into the New Testament canon.

          -Canonical writings such as Job and Hebrews have unknown authors, yet the Roman Catholic Church has never officially identified who wrote those books. If "not knowing the author" automatically means a denial of the divine inspiration of a text, then would Roman Catholics be willing to discard those books of the Bible, since their authors are unknown?

• The Irony Of Affirming The Need Of Infallible Certainty Over The Canon:

          -“According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the Biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church (at the Council of Trent). Before that time there was some doubt about the canonicity of certain Biblical books, i.e., about their belonging to the canon.” (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 3, page 29, Copyright 1967; Under “Canon, Biblical”)

            *If infallible certainty over the canon is as important as Roman Catholic apologists make it sound, then why did it take Rome over 1,500 years to officially settle the issue at the Council of Trent? Why would a supposedly infallible institution wait so long to give adherents infallible certainty as to the canon of Scripture?

            *If the Roman Catholic Church dogmatically settled the issue of the canon during the fourth century, then why did other canon lists continue to get produced and circulated at much later times? Was Rome unsure of itself on this issue?

            *The claim that Rome is the custodian of the canon of Scripture is absurd, for many of its own scholars no longer hold to the traditional authorship of various biblical works. Further, we have in our possession no infallible list as to the number of infallible statements uttered by the pope.

• The Canon Of Scripture And Church Councils:

          -While church councils helped to make more pronounced the canon of Scripture, they did not give those books their authority. On a different note, that claim is not an official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, but a popular assertion parroted by its apologists. Church councils mostly reflected the popular opinion of their times.

          -The degree of certainty that one can possess regarding the canon is sufficient certainty. The early Christians identified inspired writings and affirmed them as such. The lists produced by church councils were not inspired, but the lists named inspired books.

          -There were already lists containing almost the entire New Testament canon by the second century. Given that our knowledge of this period is fragmentary, it is possible that there may have been earlier lists that corresponded exactly to what we have today.

          -Rome was never the sole contributor to the development of the canon or its sole possessor. It would be an oversimplification to claim that any single church council decided for all time and for everybody else what books belonged in the canon of Scripture.

          -"It is a remarkable fact no early Church Council selected the books that should constitute the New Testament Canon. The books that we now have crushed out all rivals, not by any adventitious authority, but by their own weight and worth. This is in itself a strong proof of the genuineness and authenticity of the books that have survived. It is not until the close of fourth that any Council even discussed the subject." (Henry Clarence Thiessen, Introduction to the New Testament, p. 25)