Reformation Day

While to most North Americans 31 October is Halloween, it is also Reformation Day.  It was on 31 October 1517 when Luther nailed his ninety-fivetheses; the act that triggered Reformation.  What Luther harshly criticized is indulgences or to be precise the sale of indulgences to raise money.  Today most Catholics hardly talk about indulgences; some might even think it is no longer part of Catholic teaching – but it is part of Catholic teaching.  We look first at the official definition of indulgences:

An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed conditions through the action of the Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints

Catechism of the Catholic Church # 1471

Indulgences are neither permits to indulge in sin nor forgiveness of past, present and future sins – they are remission of (temporal) punishment of (venial) sin that was already forgiven.   They are not salvation for sale either as some Protestants and “Bible only” Christians may rhetorically say. 

Just like purgatory the reason why Catholic Church teaches indulgences is the concept of punishment for our sins. Catholics understand that sins, after being forgiven by God, still carry punishments.  This is something that all Protestants and “Bible only” Christians will find hard to swallow.  The reason is they are so accustomed to their (courtroom style) forensic justification; God is the judge while we are debtor or criminal.  If Christ already paid our debt or penalty of our sins, once we believe in Him, why are we still to be punished for our sins?   Does it make what Christ did on the cross not sufficient?  Catholics, who use Family analogy in Justification, should find no problem with punishments.   God is our father and we are His children who became His through faith in Christ (Ephesians 1:5).  Any child in a family, who misbehaved is still punished even after he said sorry and was already forgiven by his parents.  This punishment is not meant to torture them but to discipline them for their own good.   Scripture says that God chastises His sons (Hebrews 12:6).   The same Greek word for chastise is used in Matthew 10:17, Matthew 20:19 and Acts 22:25, translated as to whip or to scourge (a form of punishment).  We do suffer under punishment but it is for our own good.  Does punishment mean we nullify what Christ did on the cross?

Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church,

Colossians 1:24 (RSV)

Note first the phrase “what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions”. The Greek word translated as “lacking” is “husterema”, which means absence or wanting.  In the New Testament the word also appears in Luke 21:4 (translated as poverty in RSV and NIV, as penury in KJV), 1 Corinthians 16:17, 2 Corinthians 8:14, 9:12, 11:9, Philippians 2:30 and 1 Thessalonians 3:10.   Second, Paul clearly indicated he completed what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions. 

Does the Bible support the belief that God still punish us even after He forgives our sin?  When the Israelites were about to enter the Promised Land, they rebelled (Numbers 14).  Later they repented and God forgave them (verse 20) but He still punish them by asking them to wander in the desert for forty years until those over twenty years died save Joshua and Caleb (verses 29-30).   David committed adultery with Bethsheba and had her husband murdered (2 Samuel 11).  He repented and was forgiven (2 Samuel 12:13) but God still punished him through the death of his first child with Bethsheba (verse 14).   In the New Testament Zachaeus told Jesus that he would pay back those he had wronged four times and gave half of his wealth to the poor.  As tax collector he might overcharge some; he still had to make restitution even after he repented and felt sorry for what he did.   

Catholics differentiates between eternal and temporal punishments.  Through (Sacrament of) Baptism original sin, all sins and their punishments are forgiven.  The inclination to sin remains in us and makes us sin again, mortally and venially.  Eternal punishment is the outcome of mortal sin, which is cancelled through sacrament of penance.   Venial sin, on the other hand, leads to temporal punishment, which we undergo in our life and/or in purgatory.  Indulgences are means for Catholics to dispose this temporal punishment during their life and they can also offer indulgences for the departed in purgatory.   The Catholic Church grants indulgences by the virtue of the power Christ gave her to bind and to loose on earth and in heaven (Matthew 16:19, 18:18).  To gain from indulgences for oneself or for others a Catholic must be in the state of Grace (i.e. have all mortal sins forgiven).  He/she must perform with contrite heart certain acts as prescribed by the Church (for the detail, refer to Handbook of Indulgences, New York Catholic book Publishing).   Just for few examples: there are indulgences that can be gained through praying, Scripture reading and adoration of the Blessed Sacrament.   Due to the abuse in Reformation era, indulgences gained through involvement of money were abolished.  There is nothing wrong with giving money to God and/or for charity – it is rewarded by God (Matthew 6:3-4, 19:21). The abuse crept in when raising fund for the Church was used to grant indulgences.  Despite of the abuse, indulgences remain one of the Catholic teachings to this day that the faithful must believe.   Keep in mid that Catholics believe the Elect will still go to heaven without performing (or somebody else performs for them) any indulgences.

Misquoting Jesus vs. Misquoting Truth

         

This is my first post with pictures – they are front covers of two books: Misquoting Jesus by Bart D. Ehrman and Misquoting Truth by Timothy Paul Jones.  Dr. Bart Ehrman is biblical scholar and Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill while Timothy Paul Jones (Ed.D., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) is senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Rolling Hills, Tulsa, Oklahoma.   Misquoting Truth was written as a response to what Misquoting Jesus claims.

In Misquoting Jesus since we don’t have the original manuscript (or autograph) of all books of New Testament but only copies of copies (of copies and so on), which differ from one another in many places, the New Testament we have now is not reliable.  Dr. Ehrman pointed out that scribes in the past intentionally or unintentionally altered verses or even added verses (examples of such addition are John 7:53 to 8:12 and the so-called longer ending of Mark’s Gospel, Mark 16:9-20). How do we know for sure that New Testament books we have now carry the same message or words as in their autograph? The development of canon of New Testament posed another problem to him.  Why it took nearly three hundred years (in 367 AD) for Christians to finally declare only twenty-seven books belong to New Testament?  The result of his study made him see New Testament as a very human book. Thus in his conclusion, Dr. Ehrman, former evangelical with born again experience, wrote (page 211): “Given the circumstance that he [God] didn’t preserve the words, the conclusion seemed inescapable to me that he hadn’t gone to the trouble of inspiring them.”

In Misquoting Truth Dr. Jones managed to refute claims of Misquoting Jesus.   He admitted that there are discrepancies among manuscript but most of them are not significant: but what Ehrman doesn’t clearly communicate to his readers is the insignificance of the vast majority of these variants (Misquoting Truth, page 43). Well, actually Dr. Ehrman did communicate that fact to his readers: To be sure, of all the hundreds of thousands of textual changes found among our manuscripts, most of them are completely insignificant, immaterial, of no real importance for anything other than showing that scribes could not spell or keep focused any better than the rest of us (Misquoting Jesus, page 207).  How about significant discrepancies and additional verses?  Do they alter our belief? Dr. Jones pointed out that even in judging which one is the correct reading or whether particular verse(s), like Acts 8:37, should belong to Scripture or not, both options do not contradict New Testament as a whole.  Certainly the dogma of Trinity is not based solely on longer version of 1 John 5:7-8.  However, Dr. Jones does not offer solution for John 7:53 to 8:12 (page 63-64).  He admitted those verses were not part of fourth Gospel, but how does he accept them as inspired? Catholics accept them as inspired based on the authority of the Church.   There is no other option, we cannot accept them because they portrait Christ as a person with love and compassion as depicted in the rest of four Gospels.  Neither can we accept them because it does not contradict authentic tradition about Christ, that’s what Dr. Jones applied to explain the acceptance of longer ending of Mark’s Gospel.  How do we define authentic tradition in the first place?  How about apocryphal Gospels; if they or part of them agree with this authentic “tradition” then could we accept them as inspired?  As for development of New Testament canon, I cannot agree with him that what Athanasius listed in 367 AD reflected consensus of earlier Christians – Athanasius list was the earliest list with twenty-seven books treated equally as part of New Testament.  As Dr. Jones admitted (page 136) only twenty books were unanimously accepted by early Christians.  They are the four Gospels, Acts, all thirteen Paul’s Epistles, 1 Peter and 1 John.  The other seven (Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, James, Jude and Revelation), either all seven or some were accepted by some and rejected by others.   Dr. Jones wrote about divine standard guiding the process of selection – to Catholics this divine standard worked through the Catholic Church.  He was correct to say that Athanasius did not set the limit of New Testament books – New Testament canon was declared in Hippo and Carthage councils in 393, 397 and 419 AD and even these councils are not ecumenical ones either.   To Catholics canon of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments was closed in the decrees of 16^th century Trent council.  

Quoting from Muratorian canon Dr. Jones pointed out that as early as second century Christians already rejected works like Shepherd of Hermas.  However around the same time the same book was cited as Scripture by Irenæus, bishop of Lyon.

Truly, then, the Scripture [Shepherd of Hermas] declared, which says, “First of all believe that there is one God, who has established all things, and completed them, and having caused that from what had no being, all things should come into existence: “He who contains all things, and is Himself contained by no one.

Irenæus, Against Heresies 4.20.2

Even in the early third century Origen cited the Shepherd as Scripture, while he was aware that some did despise this book.

But that we may believe on the authority of holy Scripture that such is the case, hear how in the book of Maccabees, where the mother of seven martyrs exhorts her son to endure torture, this truth is confirmed; for she says, “I ask of thee, my son, to look at the heaven and the earth, and at all things which are in them, and beholding these, to know that God made all these things when they did not exist.” In the book of the Shepherd also, in the first commandment, he speaks as follows: “First of all believe that there is one God who created and arranged all things, and made all things to come into existence, and out of a state of nothingness.”

Origen, de Principiis 2.1.5

For as man is said to consist of body, and soul, and spirit, so also does sacred Scripture, which has been granted by the divine bounty s for the salvation of man; which we see pointed out, moreover, in the little book of The Shepherd, which seems to be despised by some, where Hermas is commanded to write two little books, and afterwards to announce to the presbyters of the Church what he learned from the Spirit. For these are the words that are written: “And you will write,” he says, “two books; and you will give the one to Clement, and the other to Grapte. And let Grapte admonish the widows and orphans, and let Clement send through all the cities.

Origen, de Principiis 4.1.11

In Table 1 Dr. Jones shows three early lists of New Testament books: Muratorian list, Codex Claromontanus and Eusebius list.   In Muratorian list he combined 2 and 3 John into one book but actually the list has only 1 and 2 John (refer to my earlier post).  How did he know that they were combined into one book?  To the best of my knowledge they did not combine any books of New Testament in antiquity.  They did that to some Old Testament books like Ruth was combined with Judges and Lamentations with Jeremiah.  Table 1 also shows Codex Claromontanus (or known as Clermont list) as to have all twenty seven books.  The same list in F.F. Bruce’s Canon of Scripture (page 218) does not have Philippians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians and Hebrews.  Since the whole corpus of Paul’s thirteen epistles was generally accepted the omission of Philippians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians was most likely accidental, but the same may not apply to Hebrews.

Behold I stand at the door and knock

Some of us might have seen a picture or painting of Christ knocking at a door.  Usually the door in the picture has no handle, i.e. it must be opened from inside.  The picture, minus door handle, is based on Revelation 3:20:

Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.

Revelation 3:20 (RSV)

Notice the conditional statement (starting with “if”) in the above verse, i.e. Christ will come in if the person hears His voice and opens the door.  While Christ takes the initiative to knock our door, He will not force Himself in; He waits our response and respects our freedom.  Thus it is possible that the person does not hear Christ knock or he/she hears it but decides not to open the door.   Catholics and some Protestants believe that while God takes the first initiative to save us, we do have freedom either to accept or to reject His free offer (free offer means that we neither have to be good persons nor do something that pleases God to make Christ knock at our door).  In other words in Catholicism God’s Grace requires human cooperation – humans are not robots that will automatically move in prescribed direction after being switched on by God’s Grace (other analogy is humans are not cars that moves according to the will of the drivers).  The Catholic Church declares her position on human freedom in responding to God’s Grace in the following:

If any one saith, that man’s free will moved and excited by God, by assenting to God exciting and calling, nowise co-operates towards disposing and preparing itself for obtaining the grace of Justification; that it cannot refuse its consent, if it would, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive; let him be anathema

Council of Trent, Canon IV of the Decree of Justification

When God touches man’s heart through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, man himself is not inactive while receiving that inspiration, since he could reject it; and yet, without God’s grace, he cannot by his own free will move himself toward justice in God’s sight. “

Catechism of the Catholic Church # 1993

Note the last phrase in Catechism of the Catholic Church # 1993: without God’s grace, he cannot by his own free will move himself toward justice in God’s sight.   This phrase makes clear that Catholics are not semi-Pelagians, who believe we can use our freedom to make the first move for our salvation.

Athanasius and Canon of Old Testament

Athanasius (c. 300 to 373 AD) was bishop of Alexandria from 328 to 373 AD.  He was known as one of strong opponent of Arianism. His festal letters were his homilies where in one of them he gave list of Old and New Testament books.  His list of New Testament books is the earliest list with twenty-seven books as we have now (English translation from The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. 14, Vol. 4):

There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua, the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the twelve being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations, and the epistle, one book; afterwards, Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament. 

But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit

Athanasius, 39th Festal Letter

His list has twenty-two books corresponding to twenty-two letters of Hebrew alphabet.  They comprise five books of Moses, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings (Samuel and Kings) counted as two books, Chronicles, Ezra 1 and 2 (Nehemiah) in one book, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job and ends with books of Prophets (Twelve minor prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Daniel).  Athanasius list has Baruch and Letter of Jeremiah as part of Jeremiah together with Lamentations but it omits Esther.  He considered Esther together with Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Judith and Tobit as having inferior grade but still approved them to be read (edifying) in the church.  However in his other works, Athanasius cited Tobit, Sirach and Wisdom as scripture, indicating that he did not always restrict himself to only those 22 books (English translation is from The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. 4 with added scripture reference).

And they are not ashamed to parade the sacred mysteries before Catechumens, and worse than that, even before heathens: whereas, they ought to attend to what is written, `It is good to keep close the secret of a king [Tobit 12:7];’ and as the Lord has charged us, `Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine [Matthew 7:6].’

Athanasius, Defence Against the Arians 11

Wherefore when Diogenes came, and Syrianus laid in wait for us, both he and we and the people demanded to see the Emperor’s letters, supposing that, as it is written, `Let not a falsehood be spoken before the king [Sirach 7:5];’ so when a king has made a promise, he will not lie, nor change.

Athanasius, History of Arians 52

I congratulate the most excellent Sarapion, that he is striving so earnestly to adorn himself with holy habits, and is thus advancing to higher praise the memory of his father. For, as the Holy Scripture somewhere says, `though his father die, yet he is as though he were not dead: for he has left behind him a memorial of his life [Sirach 30:4].

Athanasius, Defence Against the Arians 66

Since, however, after all his severe sufferings, after his retirement into Gaul, after his sojourn in a foreign and far distant country in the place of his own, after his narrow escape from death through their calumnies, but thanks to the clemency of the Emperor,-distress which would have satisfied even the most cruel enemy,-they are still insensible to shame, are again acting insolently against the Church and Athanasius; and from indignation at his deliverance venture on still more atrocious schemes against him, and are ready with an accusation, fearless of the words in holy Scripture, `A false witness shall not be unpunished [Proverbs 19:5];’ and, `The mouth that belieth slayeth the soul [Wisdom 1:11];’ we therefore are unable longer to hold our peace, being amazed at their wickedness and at the insatiable love of contention displayed in their intrigues.

Athanasius, Defence Against the Arians 3