CONTRACEPTION (Part 2)

We will continue in this article with some of the reasons why the Catholic Church is against any and all forms of artificial contraception. We stated in Part 1 that our objective is not to glorify it, and that contraception should only be used by legally married couples. We also want to repeat that any contraception that would cause abortion is not acceptable. But our purpose here is to demonstrate that the Catholic Church’s reasons for condemning responsible artificial contraception are actually unreasonable.

“Natural Law”

The Catholic Church tells us that contraception is a violation of “Natural Law,” because it deliberately “blocks” the natural purpose of sex which was designed by the Creator. But we could say that using deodorant / antiperspirant is also a violation of “Natural Law,” since using it, too, deliberately blocks the natural purpose of the skin and sweat glands, which were designed by the Creator. What about suppressing the urge to use the restroom until you have an appropriate time to go? Aren’t you “blocking” that natural function (at least temporarily) that God designed? What about medicines that block the natural production of stomach acid, or the ones that reduce a fever? And doesn’t suntan lotion / sunscreen block the natural UV rays from access to your skin?

So, if contraception violates the Natural Law, then so do these other things. But we don’t see the Catholic Church up in arms over these other things. So, their “Natural Law” argument doesn’t work because the Church is being inconsistent with it.

As we mentioned in Part 1, “Natural Family Planning” (NFP) is the only type of contraception allowed by the Catholic Church. They insist that the “possibility” of conceiving during sex must always be there. But, ironically, Catholics often brag that NFP, as a contraceptive, is just as, or more efficient, than other contraceptive methods, and can be as high as 99% to 100% effective. If this is true, then why are Catholics allowed to use NFP as a contraceptive, since it offers the least amount of “possibility” for conception?

These are simply more examples of the Catholic Church playing word games. From a moral standpoint, when NFP is used as a contraceptive method, the Catholic couple deliberately avoids conceiving and has the same intent (no pregnancy) and they get the same result (no pregnancy) with NFP as they would with artificial contraception, but without using artificial contraception. Morally, there is no difference.

The Guilt Trip

Some Catholics will say that using artificial contraception is “playing God.” According to the Catholic Church, contraception “…harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life’.” (Vademecum for Confessors, 2:4)

First of all, is it “true love” to impregnate an already tired, over-burdened wife with yet another child, a wife who is already concerned about the couple’s ability to adequately manage the energetic toddlers they already have?

Second, being a good steward by making wise choices in spacing your children is not “denying God’s sovereignty.” Using artificial contraception will not, and cannot, override His sovereignty. Nothing can do that. If God really wants a woman to be pregnant OR barren, there is nothing that can stop Him, so this is a false argument. It may have something to do with His specific will in a particular couple’s lives, but it doesn’t affect His sovereignty. By definition, it is not possible to “interfere” with God’s sovereign will. He has already taken all things into account. On the other hand, it is possible to go against His “moral” will (i.e., His Law / Commandments). But we find nothing in this Law that prohibits responsible contraception.

“Let God Decide…”

Catholics will say, “When you are using NFP you are letting God decide the number of children you have. This is the right way to do it.” This is a noble thought, but exactly how does a couple “let God decide”? Do they just casually ignore any potentially serious problems, like health, financial or child spacing issues? No, God expects us to make reasonable and responsible choices in every other area of life, so why not in this area also?

Yes, God is the One Who makes the final “decision” as to whether pregnancy occurs or not. But there’s a difference between getting pregnant because God overrides our well-intended and responsible plans, and getting pregnant because we were just being irresponsible.

Every couple should strive to know God’s will for their family and be accountable for it. You are disobeying God if He wants you to have a large family, when you are striving for a small one. And you are disobedient to God if He wants you to have a small family, when you are striving for a large one. Every couple should first seek God’s will earnestly, and put aside any selfishness. But the idea of “letting God decide” should not justify a couple going beyond their means. God expects us to use common sense.

“God Will Provide…”

Because the Church encourages large families, another thing Catholics will often say when couples are hesitant to bring more children into the world is, “Don’t worry, God will provide.” This, too, sounds very spiritual, but this does not remove the obligation to make wise decisions on the part of the couple.

Yes, God even provides for those who are not His children. He causes the sunshine and the rain to fall on the just and the unjust (Matthew 5:45). But this fact alone doesn’t mean that you are in His will. There comes a point where a person can be guilty of tempting God in this “God will provide” context. Should we quit our jobs, stand around doing nothing all day, and “just trust God” to provide for our needs? Obviously not. Again, there is a balance when it comes to trusting God and exercising responsibility. The Bible says that the one who doesn’t provide for his own family has denied the faith and is worse than an infidel (unbeliever). (1 Timothy 5:8)

The Case of Onan

Catholics believe they have a biblical case against contraception by pointing to Onan in Genesis 38:6-10:

“And Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, whose name was Tamar. And Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the Lord; and the Lord slew him. And Judah said unto Onan, ‘Go in unto thy brother’s wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.’ And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother’s wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. And the thing which he did displeased the Lord: wherefore He slew him also.”

So the question is, why exactly did God take Onan’s life?

Catholics claim that Onan’s sin was that he practiced contraception, namely that he “spilled his seed” on the ground, using the “withdrawal method” instead of impregnating Tamar. They will say that his sin was his chosen METHOD of birth control.

But this assumption is quickly disproved by asking a simple question: “Would Onan have been spared if he had used ‘Catholic-approved’ birth control (i.e., NFP) to prevent pregnancy?” Of course not. In God’s eyes, he would still have been avoiding his duty. So, it had nothing to do with the specific method used.

But it’s very clear in this passage that Onan’s sin was that he failed to raise up a son for Er, “…lest that he should give seed to his brother.”

But Catholics believe that can’t be the case; there had to be more involved, since the penalty for not providing a son for your brother’s wife was not death, but public humility. (Deut. 25:7-10)

Perhaps so, but we think that it can safely be said that Onan’s case was similar to that of Ananias and Sapphira in the early church (Acts 5:1-10). They withheld a certain amount of money in their offering and lied about it. But neither lying nor stealing (withholding money) was a capital offense, yet God took their lives also because of their deception. It is very possible that Onan (like Ananias and Sapphira) was killed by God because of his deception in pretending to do a godly service (providing a son for his brother), but actually neglecting to do so.

The simple lesson in this is NOT that contraception is bad. The lesson is that disobeying God is bad.

It is also interesting to observe that the footnotes in the Catholic New American Bible say:

“In the present story, it is primarily Onan’s violation of this law [the law of levirate], rather than the means he used to circumvent it, that brought on him God’s displeasure.” (World Publishing, copyright 1987, p. 44)

Furthermore, according to the New Catholic Encyclopedia concerning Genesis 38:

“Consequently, no certain argument can be based upon this text to prove the sinful character of either improperly completed intercourse or masturbation. Evidence for this must be sought elsewhere.” (McGraw Hill, copyright 1967, Volume 10, “Onanism”, page 696)

For the record, whether Onan was aware of it or not, this family line was extremely important to God – Tamar was destined to be an ancestor of Christ! (Matthew 1:3)

The Fathers Know Best?

Catholics will almost certainly also point to the early church fathers and their opposition to contraception. But what was the reasoning which determined the early fathers’ view of contraception? Was Scripture the greatest influence which led them to their beliefs? Were these beliefs accurate, biologically? The answer in both cases is no.

For a long time, one of the false beliefs of the early church was that the male’s semen contained a fully formed human being and the female’s womb was simply a place for it to grow. These early church fathers considered any male semen that was not implanted in the female (i.e., “blocked” or “wasted” in any way) to be a form of abortion.

It was the heavy influence of rigid Stoic philosophy, along with this faulty understanding of conception, that was the main reason for their negative view of contraception.

According to the New Catholic Encyclopedia:

“Clement [of Alexandria] adopted the Stoic rule set out by Musonius Rufus: the SOLE LAWFUL PURPOSE for initiating marital intercourse was procreation… This rule became the dominant opinion of the Fathers and of the medieval theologians on the lawful use of marriage; it effectively excluded contraception.” (McGraw Hill, copyright 1967, Volume 4, “Contraception”, page 271) [Ephasis added]

Again, not only did it exclude contraception, it excluded sex for a lawfully married couple for ANY reason other than for having children. In other words, the accepted modern Catholic form of contraception (NFP) would not have been accepted by them. Today, it would be very rare to find a modern denomination that actually follows the contraception views of the early fathers.

“I Just Feel Used…”

The Catholic Church states, “…It is also to be feared that the man, growing used to the employment of anti-conceptive practices, may finally lose respect for the woman and, no longer caring for her physical and psychological equilibrium, may come to the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion.” (Humanae Vitae, 17)

That’s possible, but there are two sides to this coin. It is also possible that the Catholic wife, fearful of the condemnation of the Church, could come to view herself as merely a “baby factory” for producing Catholic children. But Humanae Vitae doesn’t mention this possibility. So if it’s wrong for the husband to make her feel “used,” then it’s also wrong for the Church to make her feel “used.”

Where Does This Lead?

In the old days, the birth of a child didn’t cost anywhere near what it does today (not to mention the cost of raising the child). The temptation to lean on government assistance for help today can be very strong. Since artificial contraception is severely condemned by the Church, it can even drive the faithful poor (who may see no other way out) deeper into the welfare system and to depend more and more on government assistance, because of his (reluctantly) growing family. This is one result of such a system of unnecessary guilt.

What Do You Really Want?

God will sometimes give us what we want, even if it is not in our best interest. For example, in the Old Testament the people wanted Saul as king, but Saul was not God’s choice. However, He gave them what they wanted (1 Samuel 8:9). But it was not till later that they realized the serious error of their selfish request.

But God will sometimes allow this just so that in the end we would say, “I should’ve seen it God’s way and taken advantage of His blessings. What I THOUGHT I wanted is now grieving me.”

In the same way, many couples want to be childless, and they should have that freedom (Romans 14). Refusing to have children is not necessarily a sin – although (just as the Jews who demanded Saul as king) this could very well be something the couple will live to regret.

Personally, I find it difficult to see how anyone can NOT ever want children. Children are certainly a blessing from God (Psalm 127:3-5). Big families are wonderful, and children from large families are generally more disciplined (depending on the parents), and usually more acquainted with having to share with, and care for, younger siblings. But the bigger the family is, the greater the responsibility. God wants us to be good stewards of all that He gives us… but He wants us to have what we can reasonably manage. Not every couple can handle eight or ten children.

Conclusion

Leviticus 20:10-21 contains a list of specific sex sins. But why is artificial contraception not included here? If God feels so strongly about this “mortal sin,” then why don’t the Scriptures condemn it? Maybe… just maybe… it is just the Catholic Church that feels so strongly about it, and not God.

This is another case of truth mixed with error. We want to stress that there is nothing wrong with “Natural Family Planning.” It is a worthy and acceptable method of birth control. What IS wrong is demanding that this is the ONLY method approved by God, and condemning all other methods.

The Catholic view of contraception is used as a bullying tactic causing an unnecessary guilt trip on good, responsible, concerned and legitimately married couples who may not want large families.

Once again, the Catholic Church’s view of contraception is unbiblical, unbalanced and misleading.

CONTRACEPTION (Part 1)

Today, more than ever, we live in a society that is obsessed with sex… a society with rapidly weakening morals and very little self-control. Many things contribute to this moral decline, but the Catholic Church will blame contraception as a major factor. Contraception is often blamed for the rise of abortion, pornography, homosexuality, feminism, and the increase in sexually-transmitted disease. It is believed that it encourages promiscuity (sexually loose morals) and that it promotes irresponsibility.

It is true that the abuse of contraceptives has played a role in the moral downfall of this nation. But the abuse of something does not necessarily mean that it cannot be used for good when used responsibly and wisely. Yes, there are wrong reasons to use contraceptives, but that doesn’t mean that ALL contraceptive use is wrong. Now, we are not promoting any contraception that causes abortion, since abortion is murder. And even acceptable contraceptives are not appropriate for everyone, since sex outside of legitimate marriage is condemned by God. They should only be used by legally married couples. All couples should educate themselves on this important issue in order to prayerfully determine which contraceptives are safe and acceptable.

The purpose of this article, though, is not to glorify contraception, nor to condemn it altogether, but rather, to show that the Catholic Church’s view of it is unbiblical, unbalanced and misleading.

The Catholic Church’s View

The Catholic Church condemns all use of artificial contraception for any reason, even for legally married couples. The Church describes contraception as:

“Abortion… sterilization… [and] “… every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible.” (Humanae Vitae 14)

Besides abortion and sterilization, their list of forbidden methods would include “coitus interruptus” (the withdrawal method), condoms, IUD’s, the Pill, spermicides, and others.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church calls artificial contraception “intrinsically evil.” (CCC #2370) Furthermore, according to the Church, “This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable” [infallible?]. (Vademecum for Confessors, 2:4)

As for as the Church is concerned, any “legitimate intentions” when using contraceptives, don’t count (CCC #2399). The correct method must be used.

But on what basis does the Catholic Church make these claims? Let us look at some of the reasons now.

Natural vs. Unnatural

The only type of contraception that the Catholic Church accepts is what is called “Natural Family Planning” (NFP), a method which includes observing the rhythm of the wife’s natural cycle, testing the cervical mucus, and observing body temperature. Thus, one can determine the time of fertility and abstain from sex on those days.

One of the main reasons that the Catholic Church is against artificial contraception is because it is… “not natural.” They are basically saying here that “natural” is right and “unnatural” is wrong. But if being natural is a requirement for something to be morally right, then shaving your beard, trimming your nails, cutting your hair, and using deodorant are all sinful practices, since these actions go against the “natural.” So, are these things immoral? Of course not.

If interfering with something that happens naturally is wrong, then why take medicine when you’re sick, because it just may be God’s will for you to die! Surely, you don’t want to interfere with God’s will, do you? And if “unnatural” is wrong, then having a prosthetic (artificial) limb would also be a sin. But would anyone dare to suggest this?

Closer to the topic, if “unnatural” is wrong then adoption is also wrong, since it too, is not “natural.” Perhaps those who have to adopt were “never meant to have children” in God’s eyes, and that adoption is actually opposing His will! Of course, this is silly. Furthermore, what is more UN-natural than celibacy? Yet, the Catholic Church has nothing against any of these things. So, they are not being consistent in this, but rather, are playing word games.

Bottom line: “Unnatural” does not necessarily mean morally wrong. Whether “natural” is good or bad depends on the context.

Or perhaps, when they say it’s not “natural,” they are speaking more specifically of the intent of the Creator, that it’s not something that God meant to be. Ok, fine. But does the Catholic Church know God’s intention for every last couple on earth? Does God intend for every wife to become pregnant? And if so, how many times, and how are the children to be spaced? Is His will identical for all couples? No, indeed.

So, it is obvious that the Catholic Church (or any church) can’t speak for every couple. And since the Bible does not specify how many children to have or how often to have them, and since responsible contraception does not go against any scriptural principle, therefore each individual couple is obligated, concerning family planning, to make good decisions and to take responsibility as good stewards (1 Peter 4:10).

Be Fruitful and Multiply

Another reason that Catholics are against contraception is because God commanded Adam and Eve to “Be fruitful and multiply.” (Gen. 1:28) So they claim that this direct command to the first parents extends to us today. But remember, there were ONLY TWO PEOPLE on earth when God said this! The need to “fill the earth” is not so great today as it once was. Large families were more common (and more necessary) in the Old Testament because of the financial and social security that they brought in that society. But God never set a quota (high end) nor a limit (low end) to the amount of children they could or should have. Again, each couple’s situation is different.

By the way, if it was truly God’s will for every wife to “be fruitful and multiply” (i.e., beyond a child or two), then Mary was certainly a sinner, since she could have had other children after the birth of Jesus, but didn’t (according to Catholics).

The Catholic Church tells us that, in the act of sex, the possibility of conception must always be there, that the couple must always be “open to the transmission of life.” (Humanae Vitea 11) But why? Is this a command from God? If the possibility of conception must always be there, then what about those times when conception is impossible, e.g., when the wife is already pregnant, or during menopause, or after she has had a hysterectomy for a valid reason, etc.? Should the couple never have sex at all during these times?

Catholic documents tell us that, in the act of sex, we “cannot separate the unitive from the procreative.” Really? According to whom? Did God say this, or did man? Because nature itself shows us, in the female reproductive cycle, that there IS a natural separation / distinction between the time of fertility and the time of non-fertility. There are naturally times in her cycle that conception is not possible. So, this idea of not being able to separate the two elements is false.

Also, God, through the apostle Paul, warns us concerning sex between husband and wife:

“Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again lest Satan tempt you because of your lack of self-control.” (1 Corinthians 7: 5 - NASV)

God knows that whenever a husband and wife have sex, the level of temptation to be unfaithful decreases. Notice that Paul does not encourage long periods of abstinence, but tells them to “come together again.” Why? So they will not be tempted by the devil… NOT because of some missed opportunity to produce children. Paul doesn’t say, “Come together again, but only when conception is a possibility.” His concern here was the spouses satisfying each other, so as not to be tempted.

The Catholic Church is against artificial contraception because of the reduced chances of conceiving. But if responsible artificial contraception is wrong because the possibility to conceive is limited, then NFP is equally wrong (when used as a contraceptive method). The purpose of both of them is avoiding pregnancy - the intent is the same. In both cases, sex is “intentionally rendered unfruitful.” So, why would one method be sinful and not the other? There is no moral difference between them. Again, it’s just semantics.

It is ridiculous to think that a couple would be allowed to avoid conception by NFP all their lives, yet, it is “intrinsically evil” to do the exact same thing (avoid conception) by responsible artificial means, even once.

Catholic documents on contraception are filled with warnings which bully Catholics (who may not really want many children) into having large families.

Some Catholics may say that the Church doesn’t force them to have large families, but given the intimidating, guilt-inducing language in some of these documents, many devout Catholics are certainly made to feel guilty if they would rather have a small family, or no children at all.

We will continue this topic in Part 2…

DID THE CATHOLIC CHURCH GIVE US THE BIBLE?

You will hear it often when Catholics and Protestants are discussing their faith. The Protestant quotes a Scripture verse and points to the fact that the Bible is the final authority on faith and morals. But the Catholic will often say something like, “But without the Catholic Church’s Tradition, you Protestants would not have a Bible. The Catholic Church gave us the Bible, therefore you should submit to our Church.” Quite a statement… but is this really true?

Some Questions

Before answering him, we should start off by asking the Catholic a couple of important questions. First, we should ask, “What do you mean by saying the Catholic Church ‘gave us the Bible’?” Is he suggesting that the Catholic Church wrote the Bible? If so, this certainly cannot be the case, since the Old Testament was written long before the Catholic Church existed. Neither can they claim to have written the New Testament, since that was written by the apostles and their close associates. And the apostles knew nothing of those teachings which are uniquely Catholic.

What Catholics generally mean when they say that their Church gave us the Bible is that the Catholic Church, through certain councils, was responsible for revealing to us the “canon” of the Bible, i.e., which books are inspired by God and actually belong in the Bible.

If this is indeed what they mean, then we need to ask him our second question: “When did this happen?” And they will usually say that the canon was finally settled at the Council of Hippo (393 A.D.) and the Council of Carthage (397 A.D.), and it was later restated / reaffirmed at the Council of Trent (1546 A.D.).

This sounds really nice, but there are a number of problems with their claims.

Local, Not Ecumenical

Point #1 - The Councils of Hippo and Carthage were local or “provincial” councils (synods), and they could not “finally settle” the canon or any other issue that affected all the churches. They were not “ecumenical” councils, because their rulings were not binding on the whole church. The reason that this is a problem is because Catholics often stress the idea that we really “need” infallible certainty on the canon. But according to the New Catholic Encyclopedia, the canon of Scripture was not “infallibly” declared until the Council of Trent did so in 1546:

“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, McGraw Hill, Copyright 1967, Volume 3, “Canon, Biblical”, p. 29)

Likewise, the online “New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia” (Under “Canon of the Old Testament”) says:

“The Tridentine decrees [i.e., from the Council of Trent] from which the above list [of books] is extracted was the first infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement on the Canon, addressed to the Church Universal.”

So, according to this, the church existed for over 1500 years without an infallibly-pronounced canon. Why is this, if “infallible certainty” is so important?

For more on infallible certainty and the canon, see our article here:

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2010/02/canon-and-infallible-certainty.html

Wrong Canon

Point #2 - To make matters worse for Catholics, the canon given by the Councils of Hippo and Carthage does not match the canon which was given by the Council of Trent. This is because the canon of Hippo and Carthage comes from the Septuagint (the Old Testament in Greek – written sometime between 300 B.C. and 100 B.C.), while the Council of Trent specifically mentions using the canon of the Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin translation – written 382-405 A.D.):

“But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.” (Council of Trent, Fourth Session) [Emphasis added]

The problem is that both canons contain a book called 1 Esdras, but the earlier 1 Esdras is different from the one at the Council of Trent. How do we know this? According to a chart in the New Catholic Encyclopedia, the Septuagint’s 1 Esdras is equivalent to the Vulgate’s 3 Esdras. And it specifically says, “The Council of Trent definitively removed it from the canon.” (New Catholic Encyclopedia (New York: McGraw Hill, 1967, Volume II, Bible, III, pp. 396-397) [Emphasis added]

So, Trent declared 3 Esdras in the Vulgate [1 Esdras of the Septuagint] to be uncanonical (not belonging in the Bible), and it was therefore removed from the canon. So, if this book was “removed” from the canon by Trent, it must have been there in the first place sometime earlier. And that is because it was there from the earlier councils, i.e., Hippo, Carthage, etc. So, by the Catholic Church’s own admission, the earlier canon was different from Trent’s, because it had an extra book. So the idea that Trent accepted and simply reaffirmed the earlier councils’ canon is wrong.

To confirm this with another Catholic source:

“Except for Jerome’s OT from the Hebrew, all other Lat renderings of the OT and NT were made from the Greek.” (The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1999, page 1100)

The irony in all this is that according to the quote from Trent above, rather than affirming, this ecumenical council actually condemns with anathema the Councils of Carthage and Hippo because their canon did not match the Vulgate’s.

So, what if the Catholic says, “Ok, so the Catholic church gave us the Bible (i.e., the correct canon) at Trent instead of Carthage and Hippo, so what?” But, taking 1500 years to recognize the canon is not very reassuring, especially for a Church who insists on the need for infallible certainty. It certainly seems that Catholic “Tradition” failed to protect the early canon from error in this case.

There are a number of church historians / scholars and other sources who also point out this difference between the Septuagint’s canon and the canon of the Vulgate. See the details in this very informative article by William Webster:

http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/sippocanon.html

The Apocrypha

Point #3 – The Protestant Bible contains 66 Books (39 in the Old Testament and 27 in the New). The Bible that the Catholic Church claims to have given us contains 7 more Old Testament books than the Protestant Bible (and some additional verses in the books of Daniel and Esther).

These 7 extra books Catholics call the “Deuterocanonical” books. Protestants usually refer to them as the “Apocrypha,” and they do not consider them to be inspired, but Catholics do. But there are some problems with these books that we will deal with only briefly:

1) These books were not accepted by the Jews, and it was the Jews who knew the canon best because they were the ones who wrote the Old Testament.

2) Some of these books contain historical and geographical errors. Do we really want to accept the “inspiration” of a book which is not even reliable in worldly matters?

3) Some of the books teach doctrines which contradict the rest of the Scriptures.

4) There are a number of people throughout church history who denied the inspiration of the Apocrypha. One is Jerome, the very person who translated the Vulgate Bible (which the Catholic Church embraces). Catholic Cardinal Cajetan, who opposed Martin Luther and his teachings, also believed that the Apocrypha should not be used to confirm matters of faith, but only for edification. We could also mention Pope Gregory the Great, Athanasius (the bishop of Alexandria) and many others who believed that (at least some of) the Apocryphal books were not canonical.

Even the online New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia says concerning the church fathers of the Middle Ages and their attitude toward the Apocrypha:

“Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity.” (Under “Canon of the Old Testament”)

For much more information on the Apocrypha, see the William Webster link that we mentioned above.

Teachings Not Biblical

Point #4 - If the Catholic Church really did give us the Bible, then why do so many of its teachings either contradict the Scriptures, or cannot be found within its pages (e.g., doctrines like confession to a priest, Mary’s sinless birth and life, Mary’s Assumption into Heaven, indulgences, Purgatory, the Treasury of Merit, the office of pope, praying to saints, etc., etc.)? Interestingly, we find none of these in the Bible they claim to have given us.

Used by God

Point #5 - When it comes to spiritual deception the most dangerous lies are the ones that contain a certain amount of truth mixed in. And that is the case here. The “certain amount of truth mixed in” is that the Catholic Church was used, to some extent, in preserving and copying the Bible. But the Catholic Church did not “give us the Bible.” GOD did. It is HIS Word given to His people… the Old Testament given through the Jewish prophets, and the New Testament given through the Apostles and their close associates. The universal church of the New Testament just recognized the inspired Scriptures… it did not create or establish them. It was simply used by God in identifying the canon.

But apparently, some Catholics believe that if God uses someone, then we must submit to them.” But this does not logically or necessarily follow because God can use anybody or anything, good or bad, to accomplish His will. But this only proves that God is sovereign. God has used a whale (Jonah 1:17), a rooster (Matthew 26:74-75), and even a donkey (Numbers 22:22-34) to do His will, but that doesn’t mean that we are to submit to whales, roosters or donkeys, does it?

God can also use evil men to prophesy (John 11:49-52), but are we expected to yield to them? Obviously not. God can even use the devil to accomplish His will (Job 1:6-12; 42:10), but does this mean that we should be obedient to Satan? Again, the point is, just because God has USED a person or group in some way to bring about His will, that doesn’t necessarily mean that we must now submit to them. We should only submit to a person or church whose teachings are biblical.

This same misguided reasoning would also require us to submit to Judaism, the religion of the Jews (including any of its un-Christian traditions), since God used the Jews to write and preserve three-fourths of the Bible which we have today (the Old Testament). After all, it was to the Jews that the oracles of God were first given (Romans 3:2). In light of this, the Jews would have more right to claim to have “given us the Bible” than the Catholic Church has.

So Where Did it Come From?

Many Catholics act as though there was nothing but utter confusion over the canon in the early church and the multitudes were desperate to find someone, an infallible authority, who could “determine” the canon for them. Then the Catholic Church stepped in with their councils and saved the day… or at least that’s what many Catholics would like us to believe. But it was not so.

Ok, so where did we get the Bible from, if it wasn’t from the Catholic Church?

Demanding an answer to questions like “Who gave us the Bible?” is actually misleading. There is no one person or group that is responsible for giving us the Bible. Just as the books of the Old Testament were, little by little, accumulated over the years by God’s people who recognized His Spirit moving in His prophets (and eventually writing it down)… it was the same with the apostles and the New Testament. It was a gradual process with many believers involved over time. And just as the Jews recognized Old Testament Scripture without an infallible authority, it was the same with the early Christians.

Although the councils did help, to a certain extent, to crystallize the canon in the minds of the early Christians, these councils, for the most part, merely affirmed the books that were already widely accepted. They were simply attempting to make it “official.”

Even though there were some doubts concerning a few of the books that would eventually end up in the canon, there was, collectively, a general consensus among Christians on most of the books. Only a few of them were actually disputed.

It is said that virtually the whole New Testament could be reproduced simply from the writings of the Ante-Nicene church fathers (those who lived before the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D.). So, the early church was already familiar with the canon of Scripture at this time.

In all fairness, the Catholic Church (i.e., the Church of Rome) did have a role in preserving and copying the Scriptures, as we mentioned earlier. But this doesn’t mean that “the Bible comes from them.”

Conclusion

The implications of all this are sobering and far-reaching. When Catholics say that the Catholic Church gave us the Bible, they are in effect saying that this Church (along with its “Tradition”) is the final authority, and that we must submit to them. They are implying that the Bible gets its authority from that Church and only they have the authority to properly interpret it. But this is certainly not true. The universal church recognized the inspired writings. However, the Scriptures are not “church-breathed,” but God-breathed (2 Tim. 3:16-17)

Simply recognizing something (the canon) is not the same thing as being responsible for its existence. The Bible no more owes its existence to the Catholic Church than gravity owes its existence to Sir Isaac Newton.

The idea of the Catholic Church giving the Bible to the world is yet another boastful (but empty) claim coming from the Catholic side. One has to wonder… how many of the Catholic Church’s claims need to be exposed as false, before the “lay Catholic” in the pew will see the light? How many exaggerated claims from his leaders must he endure before he breaks free of the Catholic Church’s shackles? Hopefully, very few.

MESSAGES FROM GOD?

This brief article will have little, if anything, to do with Catholics, for a change, except maybe some in the Catholic Charismatic Movement. No, this is mainly for those Protestants who believe in “personal prophecy,” especially those in the “Word of Faith” type churches. Now, the serious problems in the Word of Faith Movement are many, but our focus today will be on this single issue of personal prophecy, i.e., when someone gives a special “word from the Lord” to either an individual or to the whole congregation.

We have a dear Christian friend who used to be part of this Word of Faith Movement. She has a sweet spirit, loves God with all her heart, and would do anything to please God. But her life was pretty much ruined by the Word of Faith church she attended. Through several personal prophecies from others in her church and in prayer meetings, she was led to believe that it was God’s will to marry a particular man in her church to whom she was not physically attracted, nor had any desire whatsoever to even date. But the prophecies seemed to imply that it was her “duty” to marry him. Wanting to be obedient to God, she gave in and married this man. After they got married, the man became very controlling and the spiritual lives of both of them were sorely affected, and they both realized their mistake. They are both now miserable and (not wanting to grieve God further through divorce) are trapped in a very unhappy marriage. These particular “prophecies” deceived them both and swallowed them up into a life of bondage.

No doubt, there are many more tragic stories similar to this one. All too often, this happens because 1) there are many false prophets out there, like Jesus said there would be (Matthew 24:11), and 2) there is a desperate lack of biblical discernment in the church today. These facts provide a major reason that we are in this great apostasy (falling away from the faith) in these last days. (2 Thessalonians 2:1-4)

Not everything uttered as a “prophecy” is from God. Some of these utterances may simply come from peer pressure, since everyone else in the group may be prophesying, and the person doesn’t want to appear “unspiritual”; or he gets caught up in the moment and all the emotion; or a person’s prophecy can be from his own spirit (Jeremiah 14:14; 23:16); and then there are some that will be directly given by the “inspiration” of demons. Either way, none of these are from God. These false messages have done more harm to the body of Christ than we can imagine.

Many have fallen prey to the effects of such prophecies, and this is especially true if one is desperately seeking to “hear from God.” His life can be drastically changed by a single false prophecy.

Now, there is such a thing as the gift of prophecy in Scripture (1 Corinthians 12:10), and God does not want us to despise this gift (1 Thessalonians 5:20), but there is also much abuse in this area. So, to balance this, the Bible tells us to “examine everything carefully [and] hold fast to that which is good (1 Thessalonians 5:21 - NASB), and we do this with God’s Word, the Scriptures.

Christians, be very careful. The next time you hear someone say, “Thus saith the Lord…”, ask yourself these questions:

• First and foremost, is what the “prophet” saying lining up with Scripture? Even if what he says comes to pass, and even if miracles are involved, his message should not be accepted if it goes against God’s Word. (Deuteronomy 13:1-5)
• Are the people saying, “Wow! What a great prophet this guy is! What wonderful prophecies!”, or is Jesus Christ the One being glorified?
• Is he going on and on using flowery speech or “King James” language, or is he getting straight to the point and speaking like he normally would?
• Is the “prophet” blasting someone with threats and warnings, or is he encouraging / consoling and confirming in the faith (which is the purpose of prophecy in the church)? (1 Corinthians 14:3)
• Did the prophecy “come out of nowhere,” or was it a confirmation of something that God was already dealing with you about?
• Is the person known to have given false prophecies before?
• What is this “prophet’s” life like? Is he really a man of God, showing the fruit of the spirit (before AND after the giving of the message)?

Christians should never rush to accept any prophetic message. All prophecies MUST be tested first. The only prophecies that are infallible (i.e., without the possibility of error) are those in Scripture, and thus, the Bible is our standard by which we test everything.

Let us learn from the mistakes of those who have failed to apply this test, and have suffered the consequences. Because of this failure, some have lost physical / temporal things, some have lost their lives, and it is very likely that some have lost their eternal souls.