Is Divine Revelation Needed?

St. Thomas Aquinas’ answer is a resounding “Yes!”  Unaided human reason can discover a lot about God. However, the things that have to do with our salvation cannot be known unless God makes them known. For that, divine revelation is both needed and provided. 

Thomas lays out the reasons as to why that is. One thing that stuck me when I first read this is the fact that he quotes from Sirach as sacred text. That means he accepted the Deuterocanonical books as inspired Scripture. So did those whom he was refuting. 

They quoted from Sirach 3, but left out a key part. Thomas includes it to show that God reveals things that are too high for human reasoning alone to grasp. 

 Hence the sacred text continues, "For many things are shown to thee above the understanding of man" (Sirach 3:25).

See also Romans 1.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article 1. Whether, besides philosophy, any further doctrine is required?Objection 1. It seems that, besides philosophical science, we have no need of any further knowledge. For man should not seek to know what is above reason: "Seek not the things that are too high for thee" (Sirach 3:22). But whatever is not above reason is fully treated of in philosophical science. Therefore any other knowledge besides philosophical science is superfluous.Objection 2. Further, knowledge can be concerned only with being, for nothing can be known, save what is true; and all that is, is true. But everything that is, is treated of in philosophical science--even God Himself; so that there is a part of philosophy called theology, or the divine science, as Aristotle has proved (Metaph. vi). Therefore, besides philosophical science, there is no need of any further knowledge.On the contrary, It is written (2 Timothy 3:16): "All Scripture, inspired of God is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice." Now Scripture, inspired of God, is no part of philosophical science, which has been built up by human reason. Therefore it is useful that besides philosophical science, there should be other knowledge, i.e. inspired of God.I answer that, It was necessary for man's salvation that there should be a knowledge revealed by God besides philosophical science built up by human reason. Firstly, indeed, because man is directed to God, as to an end that surpasses the grasp of his reason: "The eye hath not seen, O God, besides Thee, what things Thou hast prepared for them that wait for Thee" (Isaiah 64:4). But the end must first be known by men who are to direct their thoughts and actions to the end. Hence it was necessary for the salvation of man that certain truths which exceed human reason should be made known to him by divine revelation. Even as regards those truths about God which human reason could have discovered, it was necessary that man should be taught by a divine revelation; because the truth about God such as reason could discover, would only be known by a few, and that after a long time, and with the admixture of many errors. Whereas man'swhole salvation, which is in God, depends upon the knowledge of this truth. Therefore, in order that the salvation of menmight be brought about more fitly and more surely, it was necessary that they should be taught divine truths by divine revelation. It was therefore necessary that besides philosophical science built up by reason, there should be a sacred science learned through revelation.Reply to Objection 1. Although those things which are beyond man's knowledge may not be sought for by man through his reason, nevertheless, once they are revealed by God, they must be accepted by faith. Hence the sacred text continues, "For many things are shown to thee above the understanding of man" (Sirach 3:25). And in this, the sacred scienceconsists.Reply to Objection 2. Sciences are differentiated according to the various means through which knowledge is obtained. For the astronomer and the physicist both may prove the same conclusion: that the earth, for instance, is round: the astronomer by means of mathematics (i.e. abstracting from matter), but the physicist by means of matter itself. Hence there is no reason why those things which may be learned from philosophical science, so far as they can be known by natural reason, may not also be taught us by another science so far as they fall within revelation. Hence theology included in sacred doctrine differs in kind from that theology which is part of philosophy.

Resources on the Deuterocanonical Books of the Bible - 4

The early acceptance of the deuterocanonicals was carried down through Church history. The Protestant patristics scholar J. N. D. Kelly writes: "It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive than the [Protestant Old Testament] . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called Apocrypha or deuterocanonical books. The reason for this is that the Old Testament which passed in the first instance into the hands of Christians was . . . the Greek translation known as the Septuagint. . . . most of the Scriptural quotations found in the New Testament are based upon it rather than the Hebrew.. . . In the first two centuries . . . the Church seems to have accept all, or most of, these additional books as inspired and to have treated them without question as Scripture.
Quotations from Wisdom, for example, occur in 1 Clement and Barnabas. . . Polycarp cites Tobit, and the Didache [cites] Ecclesiasticus. Irenaeus refers to Wisdom, the History of Susannah, Bel and the Dragon [i.e., the deuterocanonical portions of Daniel], and Baruch. The use made of the Apocrypha by Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian and Clement of Alexandria is too frequent for detailed references to be necessary" (Early Christian Doctrines, 53-54).

Quoted from

DEFENDING THE DEUTEROCANONICALS

James Akin This article by Akin is an amazing defense of the Deuterocanonical books of the Bible. It is well worth the time to read. Protestants have accepted without question the narrative that has been promoted since the time of the Reformation. The above quote is significant, since it is from a Protestant source. He is an authority on the the subject of the patristic period of Christianity. (100 A.D. - 450 A.D.) During this time period, what are called the early Church Fathers lived, taught, and wrote. Many of them were disciples of the original Apostles. Others were disciples of those disciples, and so forth. That is, these men were direct spiritual descendants of those who lived in the 1st Century, knew Jesus in the flesh, wrote New Testament books, and had  even heard Jesus speak. Their faith and practice shows what the early Church was really like. If those Fathers quoted from the Deuterocanonical books in the same way they quoted from other Scripture, then that helps to show they accepted those books as inspired. The answer is, yes, they did quote from those books in their writings. They did consider them to be inspired Scripture. Their practice contradicts the Protestant narrative. If you have time, and this subject interests you, then read the article. Consider the evidence. What if Protestants have been wrong about the canon of Scripture? Protestants love God’s Word. They believe it to be, as many say, God’s love letter to His children. It is worth checking out the claim that Jesus, the apostles, and the early Church all loved and quoted from the Deuterocanonical books as God’s very Word. If that is true, don’t you want to know?

Resources on the Deuterocanonical Books of the Bible - 3

The Bible of the Early Church

300 years before Christ was born, the Hebrew bible, which Christians consider the Old Testament, was translated into Koine Greek. The title of this translation was called the Septuagint. It is this translation that was used by the Paul, the Apostles, and the early church. It is still in use by the Orthodox Church today, however, sadly, it is rejected by most modern Christians in favor of the Masoretic text.

------------------------------------

The quote above is from an article written by an Orthodox apologist. 

When I was a Protestant,  I just accepted the narrative I had learned. Yes, I had been taught the Protestant version of the history of the canon of Scripture. I never questioned it seriously.

Why is it important to establish the fact that the Old Testament of the early Church was the Septuagint?  

That translation contains the Deuterocanonical books of the Bible. Protestants reject those books as inspired Scripture. They follow the lead of Martin Luther who did a translation of the Bible into vernacular German. 

He removed those 7 books from the Old Testament and put them in the back of his Bible. All Protestants have followed his lead. In fact, Protestant Bibles have gone even farther. Those books have now been removed entirely.  

In effect, Martin Luther became the authority for the Protestant canon of Scripture. He decided to go with the Hebrew Masoretic text. That version did not contain the Deuterocanonical books. That settled it for Protestantism. Everyone else followed his lead. 

Check out the history of what is called the Masoretic text. Check out the history of the Jewish canon of Scripture. You might be surprised to find out when they decided on their canon and when the Masoretic text was finally compiled. 

Resources on the Deuterocanonical Books of the Bible - 2

"The Masoretic text differs from the Septuagint in hundreds of places.”
- from Masoretic vs. Septuagint : Guns, Lies, and Forgeries
  A Bible Story by Robert E. Reis

Here is the summary of the article. 

The Masoretic Text is part of a tradition that began with Rabbi Akiva. Rabbis rewrote the Jewish Bible to destroy the credibility of the New Testament.The Hebrew versions of the Old Testament have been used to proclaim scores of “messiahs” . The Septuagint was only used once.

It is a pretty bold claim.  If you go to this website, you will find that there is a link provided to the original article, along with all the entertaining comments.

As with everything, there is a lot of disagreement and discussion!  At least it might get someone to think about why both Catholic and Orthodox Churches consider the Deuterocanonical books - known as the Apocrypha  for Protestants - to be sacred Scripture.

In fact, if you are a Protestant you may never have even thought about this.

Why should this interest Christians?  Martin Luther decided his Old Testament canon based on the Masoretic text. What if he was wrong, and Protestants have been wrong for 500 years? What if the Deuterocanonical books really are God-breathed Scripture?

One of the rallying cries of the Reformation was “Scripture alone”.  Protestants love the Word of God. What if they don’t have the complete canon of Scripture? More than that, what if the Masoretic text was corrupted on purpose?

Resources on the Deuterocanonical Books of the Bible - 1.

Here is an excerpt from the answer to the question that was posed to Catholic Answers. 

Did the Church add the Deuterocanonical books to the Bible at the Council of Trent?

Q. Is it true that at Trent the Church added the seven Deuterocanonical books (Judith, Tobit, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Baruch, and Ecclesiasticus) to the Bible ?

 A. No. The Council of Trent (1545-1564) infallibly reiterated what the Church had long taught regarding the canons of the Old and New Testaments. Pope Damasus promulgated the Catholic canons at the Synod of Rome in A.D. 382, and later, at the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419), the Church again defined the same list of books as inspired.

Check out full article by clicking on the link here.