Sometimes in discussions
between Catholics and Protestants, it is
interesting to see how their minds operate.
Catholics are geared to think one way, while Protestants have a
different mentality. We recently read an
article that clearly demonstrated the difference between the two. The article is titled, “Is Catholicism
Biblical? That Question is Backwards!” by Dr. Jeff Mirus. It can be found here:
The Cart Before the Horse?
In the article, Mirus
recognizes the fact that Protestants (in general) see the Bible as the ultimate
authority for the Christian. According
to Protestants, it is (or should be) the Rule of Faith. But Mirus finds fault with this concept and believes
that we Protestants have it all backwards.
He states:
“The key question is not
whether Catholicism stands the test of Scripture, but whether Scripture stands
the test of Catholicism.”
He also says that it is “not
whether the [Catholic] Church is Scriptural… [but] whether Scripture is
Catholic—whether what we call ‘scripture’ is or is not part of the original
Revelation which the Church received.”
And again, he says, “The
Bible did not give rise to the Catholic Church; the Catholic Church gave rise
to the Bible.”
According to Mirus, this was
all because “the Church came first.”
That is, the church was established before the Bible was, and it was the
church that then “created the Bible by definitively proclaiming which early
writers were inspired and which were not.”
But is this true?
A Faulty Foundation
All right, notice that Mirus is
operating on several false premises:
First, the Scriptures were not
at all “created” by the church. The
early church simply recognized the
Scriptures (the infallible writings) that God,
Himself, created. It was by His inspiration that every word was
divinely spoken, recorded and preserved.
Yes, God used people as instruments to hear it, and to write it down,
but He is the Creator of Divine
revelation, which contains HIS thoughts and HIS plans (2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2
Peter 1:19-21). It is erroneous
and arrogant to say that the church “created
the Bible.”
Second, the church did not
“come first” (i.e., before the Bible). The
Old Testament (which makes up about three-forths of the Bible) has been around
for hundreds of years before the church ever existed. Although the church started before the canon
(list of inspired books) was complete, it is not true that the church
pre-existed Scripture. This claim is
deceptive, at best.
Third, it seems that every
time there is a controversy with Protestants, Catholics will say something
like, “But the Catholic Church is right because
she gave us the canon!” This seems
to be the “go to” answer in many of their arguments! But see these links which put this false idea
to rest:
But building upon Mirus’ first
two points above, he believes that since it is the church that has recognized
which of the books are actually Scripture, that this somehow means that the Bible
should be subject to the church. But recognizing or discovering something does
not make you lord over it. Sir Isaac
Newton’s discovery of gravity did not
give him any authority over gravity. He
discovered it, but he was still subject to its forces. Benjamin Franklin’s discovery of electricity
in no way made him master over this powerful force, either. It is the same with the church and Scripture. The church recognized the inspired books, but
the church is still subject to those
books’ authority (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
The fourth false premise is the
way most Catholics use the word “Church.”
Notice how Mirus uses the term in his article:
- “… the Church’s infallible authority.”
- “… only the Church could identify which books were…inspired…”
- “What is the judgment of the Church about this text?”
- “Does the Church judge it to be inspired?”
- “… only by the authority of the Church…”
- “…the Tradition and teachings of the Church…”
- “… Revelation which the Church received.”
In each of these, the
Catholic assumes a reference to an
infallible hierarchy of leaders within the organization. This demonstrates the deep-rooted mindset of
the devout Catholic. Now, in contrast,
notice how the Bible uses the word “church.”
Note that it is only used in two ways: as either 1) the local assembly of believers, as a whole (1 Corinthians 1:2; Galatians 1:2;
Revelation chapters 1, 2, and 3), or 2) the “universal” body of
Christ, including all true believers worldwide
(Ephesians 5:23; Colossians
1:17-18). It is never
used in the Bible to refer to a church leader (or leaders) only. In the way that Mirus uses the seven examples
above, none of them fit the biblical
definition. This point is very important, but
seems to be missed by most people. This
subtle difference in the misuse of the term “church” is ingrained in the
Catholic and it becomes a deep-seated part of his mentality.
The next time you hear a
Catholic use the term “the church,” listen closely and see if he is speaking of
the leaders only (for example, “the
Church teaches…”, or “the Church’s infallible authority…”)… OR, if is he using
it biblically. Substitute his use of it
with the phrase “local assembly of believers,” or “the universal church
worldwide” to see if his meaning actually lines up with the way the Bible uses
the term.
Who Serves Who?
Catholics will officially
claim that the Catholic Church serves
Scripture (“Dei Verbum,” Chapter 2, paragraph 10), which would
make their Church a SERVANT thereof, but it is obvious in practice that they
see their Magisterium as ABOVE the Bible.
For example:
If the Bible says A about a
particular topic, but the Ecumenical Councils say B, the Catholic will go with
B.
If the Bible says C, but
“Sacred Tradition” says D, the Catholic will choose D.
If the Bible says X, but
church fathers say Y, the Catholic will say Y.
Time and time again, the
Bible is put on the back burner so that the Catholic Church can be exalted.
It is hard to take the Catholic
Church’s supposed “servant” status toward the Bible seriously, when Catholics
like Dr. Mirus write this kind of article.
Word Games
In this next pitiful attempt
to weaken the authority of Scripture, Mirus said:
“But Revelation was not given
to a book but to persons. Revelation was not even given originally in and through a book. It was given
by Jesus Christ to His apostles and disciples.”
But saying that revelation is
not given to a book, but to persons, is like saying that money is not given to
a bank, but to tellers. The point is,
the money eventually ends up in the bank
and is stored and protected there. In
the same way, infallible revelation is ultimately “stored” in the Bible, even
if first given to men.
Conclusion
Yes, folks, this is the
mentality of the devout Catholic. He
claims to have equal devotion to Scripture and to the Church’s Tradition (CCC #82), but in practice, the Bible
often takes a back seat.
Jeff Mirus’ article is a good
example of many Catholics’ condescending attitude toward the Bible. Saying things like, “[it’s] not whether
Catholicism stands the test of Scripture, but whether Scripture stands the test
of Catholicism,” is not only untrue, but it also clearly demonstrates
arrogance. You can’t say things like
that and still have a truly healthy respect for Scripture (See Psalm
119). It is the Catholic
Church’s great (and false) claims about itself that give rise to this type of mindset.
