Wisdom of TVD

When you're neither clever nor handsome, can't play ball and can't play guitar, aren't funny or charming, inventing your own theology and sneering at everyone else's becomes an attractive life goal.
TVD

Feast Day of St. Matthew

Yesterday's Bible readings from the USCCB include the story of Jesus’ call of Matthew to follow Him.

Yesterday was his feast day, the day he was remembered and honored  in the Church calendar. 

Here is the Scripture passage that tells us this story of Matthew’s call. He was a tax collector, so his mind was on the things of this world. Money was what occupied his time and attention. 

All of that changed in a moment when he met Jesus. 



Gospel Mt 9:9-13
As Jesus passed by,
he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the customs post.
He said to him, “Follow me.”
And he got up and followed him.
While he was at table in his house,
many tax collectors and sinners came
and sat with Jesus and his disciples.
The Pharisees saw this and said to his disciples,
“Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”
He heard this and said,
“Those who are well do not need a physician, but the sick do.
Go and learn the meaning of the words,
I desire mercy, not sacrifice.
I did not come to call the righteous but sinners.”

Jem Sullivan, PhD, is a fine Bible teacher. In today’s video reflection she makes reference to Caravaggio’s painting of the call of Matthew. She pointed out how the hand of Jesus extended towards Matthew is taken from Michelangelo’s painting of the creation of Adam. 

Notice the hand of Jesus pointing towards Matthew, whose head is down as he counts the money.  It is a life-giving gesture. Jesus says to him, “Follow me.” 


Matthew got up and followed. Now instead of being consumed by worldly goods, he became consumed with following Jesus. 

Contemplate this painting and the words of the Gospel of Matthew. He is telling us a little of his own life and calling. 

Listen to the little video reflection by Dr. Sullivan. She brings in more details and encourages us to think about God’s call on our own lives. How are our lives transformed by our encounter with Jesus, the Son of God? 

Here is the Caravaggio painting. 

Check out the video reflection for September 21, 2016. 

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?

What am I?

D. G. Hart says:
September 17, 2016 at 8:26 am
Mermaid, “I suspect that both Jeff and Robert – and all conservative Reformed people – kind of ride on the coat tails of the teaching magisterium of the Catholic Church.”>>>>>

Brother Hart:

Wrong.>>>>

Hello. Who preserved Scripture so that you could have it to be all sola about? Catholic and Orthodox monks. 

Martin Luther was a Catholic monk, Dr., and priest. He didn’t want to leave the Church. 

Then there’s the greatest of all theologians – St. Thomas Aquinas, Catholic Dr., monk, and priest. His Summa summarized Christianity. His commentaries summarized all the teachings of the Church. 

St. Augustine, Catholic bishop and priest. Read ‘em and weep. 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2016/04/st-augustine-was-catholic-not-proto-protestant.html

Yeah, you guys drink deep from the wells of Roman Catholic scholarship which forms the foundation of the Teaching Magisterium of the Catholic Church. If you have a Bible, thank a monk. 

Brother Hart:
You and Susan draft on Protestant ways of being Christian. Propositional statements, certainty, cocksureness. All of that you picked up while a Protestant and you carry it with you to Rome. You embarrass cradle Roman Catholics.>>>>

Well, I may have embarrassed cradle Catholics by wearing my chapel veil to Mass, but that’s not what you mean. Then there is my growing collection of what I call Catholic kitsch,  patron saints, and holy cards. That’s definitely NOT Protestant.

[I should have added Rosaries of all kinds.]

Now my world makes more sense...

Robert says:
September 17, 2016 at 8:08 am
Mermaid,

Can an omniscient God communicate truth such that His child can know with certitude that Jesus Christ rose from the dead?

Robert:
Yes, yes, a thousand times yes.>>>>

You and I believe that Jesus Christian [I mean Jesus Christ] rose from the dead not because it is falsifiable. Your epistemology had nothing to do with it. You believe it because God enabled you to have faith. Faith is a gift of God. 

If God had not revealed the fact of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, using – as you would agree – sinful, weak, flawed human beings making up His Church *, you would have no idea that Christ rose from the dead. That truth has been passed down through the Church such that you and I can hear and believe by the grace of God.

You know the facts because God revealed them and faithful men passed those facts down through the millennia until they reached your ears and mine. You and I believe them to salvation because God enabled us to believe. Justification is by faith, and faith is a gift of God. You know the Scriptures. Eph. 2 lays it out. 

There are those who believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, but do not believe that He is Messiah, their Savior. Remember the testimony of the Jewish man who accepted the fact that Christ rose from the dead, but did not have faith in Him as Messiah? 

Robert:
And He has done that using infallible revelation (the Word of God) mediated to us by fallible individuals and churches (preachers, etc.).>>>>

Agreed. See above. The Church recognizes that there are many Christian congregations where the Holy Spirit is active. Read the CCC to see that. The Church recognizes the fact that there are many true brethren who are not in full communion with her. 

That offends you. I understand how it could. You don’t feel any less Christian than the Called to Communion guys. You don’t need no stinkin’, apostate Catholic Church to make you a real Christian. Something like that? “Why did they leave us? Do they think we [are]  that terrible?” you seem to be asking. 

These guys left Protestantism. Some of them were Reformed, even PCA and OPC. Now they sit on their blog and call you guys to communion. Yes, it would annoy me. Can’t help you there. 

What am I doing here? I’m not Called to Communion. I followed TVD here. I have followed him on his American Creation blog for awhile. I like what he has to say. 

He got himself kicked off here. For some reason that even I cannot explain fully, I am still here. Maybe I am perverse, as Jeff seems to think. 

Maybe I just wanted to hear you say that you really do believe that God communicated infallible truth to you. You have certitude about the resurrection. I knew you did. Now maybe I can leave you dear brothers alone. 

Maybe I like to see what goofy comment Brother Hart will make to me, and how I can respond in kind. It’s like a game we play. I think I win. 

Jeff is still mad at me, but oh well. I don’t believe he really follows his epistemology when it comes to truth that can only be known through revelation. I mean come on. The Trinity is not falsifiable, yet you guys believe it to be true. 

Sure. Faith in the Divinity of the Trinity involves our human rationality. However, we don’t believe it because somehow we can falsify it. Now if you try to, I will laugh and laugh! …and know you don’t mean it. 

Robert:
You are the one saying that fallible mediators are insufficient even though you have never once had direct contact with an organ of infallibility. Hence Jeff’s point.>>>>

It seems you are focusing on those who are delivering the message. The idea of infallibility is that in spite of how human beings have messed up, the message of the Gospel is communicated accurately. 

It is all about God’s ability to communicate truth to fallen mankind. He does that through His Word, the Bible, and His Church. The Holy Spirit breathed out God’s Word and we have it in written form. The Holy Spirit was poured out on the Church on the day of Pentecost. He led and is leading her into all truth. Not just her as a whole, but each individual within the Church.

[I should have added that it is the Holy Spirit who enables someone to believe in Christ, and it is the Holy Spirit who sanctifies the believer. He is active in the Church* and in the individual Christian.]

Not even Pope Francis believes himself to be infallible on everything he says. He is infallible to the degree that he is faithful to the deposit of truth that has been entrusted to the Church. He certainly does not claim sinless perfection. 

So, maybe I’ll stick around, or not. Your affirmation, without qualification, of the ress. is what I wanted to hear from you. Not to prove you wrong somehow, but to prove what I suspected about you all along. 

You have unshakable faith in the basic fact[s] of the Gospel. Jesus Christ died for our sins, rose from the dead, and appeared to many, according to the Scriptures. You believe that by grace through faith. So do I. 

You don’t believe it because it is falsifiable. 

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

* [Robert would not capitalize “church”, but he holds to the Nicene and Apostles’ creeds.]

Luther on the New Testament Canon

Here is evidence that Martin Luther did not accept the books of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation as canonical. One can read his own words. See the quotes below that I provided, along with the link where the full prefaces can be found.


If someone can show that Luther retracted these statements, then I will add that evidence to my blog. The greater question is this. Why did Luther think he had the authority to pronounce on the canonicity of these books in the first place?

The answer is that he gave that authority to himself. If he had retracted, he would have done it on the same authority - that which he gave to himself.

I find Martin Luther to be a complex human being, not without his virtues.  I think he was wrong on many things. Protestants can still admire him if they wish. At the same time, they can accept him as he was, not as they wish he had been.

Luther’s appeal to his own authority is part of what is wrong in Christianity.  This extreme individualism has its downside.

Yes, we all suffer from it, so I don’t mean to say this is a problem with Luther and not with me.

It just doesn’t seem that is how Jesus wants His Church - His Body - to be run. The Apostles didn’t even claim that kind of individualistic authority for themselves.


Notice the words in red.

1.  Hebrews:

   
   

   However that may be, it is a marvelously fine epistle. It discusses Christ’s priesthood masterfully and thoroughly, out of the Scriptures, and interprets the Old Testament finely and richly. Thus it is plain that it is the work of an able and learned man, who was a disciple of the apostles, learned much from them, and was greatly experienced in faith and practiced in the Scriptures. And although, as he himself testifies in Hebrews 6:1, he does not lay the foundation of faith, which is the work of an apostle, nevertheless he does build finely thereon gold, silver, precious stones, as St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 3:12. Therefore we should not be hindered, even though wood, straw or hay be mixed in with them, but accept this fine teaching with all honor; though to be sure, we cannot put it on the same level with the apostolic epistles.
   

   
   

   James:

   In a word, he wants to guard against those who relied on faith without works, and is unequal to the task [in spirit, thought, and words, and rends the Scriptures and thereby resists Paul and all Scripture], and would accomplish by insisting on the Law what the apostles accomplish by inciting men to love. Therefore, I cannot put him among the chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from putting him where he pleases and estimating him as he pleases; for there are many good sayings in him.
   

   
   

   Jude:

   Concerning the Epistle of St. Jude, no one can deny that it is an extract or copy from St. Peter’s second epistle, so very like it are all the words. He also speaks of the apostles as a disciple coming long after them, and quotes sayings and stories that are found nowhere in the Scriptures. This moved the ancient Fathers to throw this Epistle out of the main body of the Scriptures. Moreover, Jude, the Apostle, did not go to Greek-speaking lands, but to Persia, as it is said, so that he did not write Greek. Therefore, although I praise the book, it is an epistle that need not be counted among the chief books, which are to lay the foundation of faith.
   

   
   

   Revelation:

   PREFACE TO THE REVELATION OF SAINT JOHN (2) 1522 FT510

   
   

   About this book of the Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own ideas, and would bind no man to my opinion or judgment; I say what I feel. I miss more than one thing in this book, and this makes me hold it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic. First and foremost, the Apostles do not deal with visions, but prophesy in clear, plain words, as do Peter and Paul, and Christ in the Gospel. For it befits the apostolic office to speak of Christ and His deeds without figures and visions; but there is no prophet in the Old Testament, to say nothing of the New, who deals so out and out with visions and figures. And so I think of it almost as I do of the Fourth Book of Esdras, and can nohow detect that the Holy Spirit produced it.

   
   

   Moreover, he seems to me to be going much too far when he commends his own book so highly, — more than any of the other sacred books do, though they are much more important, — and threatens that if anyone takes away anything from it, God will deal likewise with him. Again, they are to be blessed who keep what is written therein; and yet no one knows what that is, to say nothing of keeping it. It is just the same as if we had it not, and there are many far better books for us to keep. Many of the fathers, too, rejected this book of old, though St. Jerome, to be sure, praises it highly and says that it is above all praise and that there are as many mysteries in it as words; though he cannot prove this at all, and his praise is, at many points, too mild.

   
   

   Finally, let everyone think of it as his own spirit gives him to think. My spirit cannot fit itself into this book. There is one sufficient reason for me not to think highly of it,-Christ is not taught or known in it; but to teach Christ is the thing which an apostle is bound, above all else, to do, as He says in Acts 1:8, “Ye shall be my witnesses.” Therefore I stick to the books which give me Christ, clearly and purely.
   

   
   
2. 
   

   http://www.godrules.net/library/luther/NEW1luther_f8.htm

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. 

The Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul

St Peter

“I do so love St Peter,” says a friend of mine. “Whenever he opens his mouth, he puts his foot in it”.
  She is right, of course. Whatever else St Peter may be, he is not the model of a wise and noble hero. He walks on the water – but then panics and starts to sink. He makes the first profession of faith – and moments later blunders into error and is called Satan by the Lord. He refuses to be washed, and then, when the purpose is explained to him, demands to be washed all over. And, of course, he betrays his master soon after having been warned that he will and having sworn not to. If Peter is the rock on which the Church is built, what a fissured and friable rock it is! How much better, we think, to have chosen the Sons of Thunder, for their energy; or Judas Iscariot, for his financial acumen; or John, because he was loved the best.
  The choosing of Peter teaches us a lesson. The Church’s foundation-stone and its first leader is not all-wise, all-knowing, good, heroic, and beautiful. He is a very ordinary man who makes about as many mistakes as we would in his place, and kicks himself for them just as thoroughly afterwards. If St Peter had been a hero, we could easily have despaired of ever becoming like him. If St Peter had been great, and noble, and good, we could have told ourselves that the Church is for the saints, despaired, sat down, and not bothered. But the Church is not just for saints: it is for confused, impetuous, cowardly people like us – or St Peter. The rock crumbles, the ropes are frayed, the wood is rotten – but, although that improbable building, the Church, is made of such inferior materials, it grows (on the whole) faster than it collapses, and it is grace that holds it together.
  In the end, it was grace that gave the coward the courage to bear witness when it counted, grace that gave the fool the wisdom he needed to set the infant Church on her way, grace that taught the impetuous man patience and forbearance.
  We none of us admire ourselves, however much we would like to; let us not try to admire St Peter either, but admire instead the grace he was given, and pray that, weak as we are, we may be given it too, and may use it.

I don’t know who wrote the above, but it is from todays Universalis readings. This is the day of the solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul. 

The heading of today's page reads like this.:

The Lord is the king of apostles; come, let us adore him.

It is hard to convince Protestants that Catholic veneration of the saints is not worship of the people themselves. Maybe this reading will help someone see that in the veneration of the saints - even of St. Peter - they are not really the focus of attention. At least they should not be. 

We should not confuse Creator and that which is created. Saints are creations of God. They do not create themselves. 

We are encouraged to see and marvel at the grace of God operating in the lives of those God has used in extraordinary ways. We stand amazed because we know that these saints are people like us, yet God took them and made them into something extraordinary. 

Even more than that, He has that destiny in mind for every one who believes in Christ. The goal for all saints - even every Christian -  is to be saintly. They show that God is able to do what we could never do ourselves. 

Venerating a saint is much like looking at a beautiful work of art and marveling at the artist’s ability. How did the great master paint like that, or sculpt like that? 

It is a lot like listening to a great piece of music - like Bach’s Mass in B minor, which I keep coming back to - and wondering how an ordinary human being could write something so intricate and sublime. 

It is a lot like looking at a sunset, awestruck by its majesty. 

These works of God and man should bring us to our knees in worship of the God who is by definition Creator. We are created in His image after all. Everything in all of creation points to Him. 

Saints are no exception. Man doesn’t just imitate God in the creative process. Somehow he cooperates with God. 

Yes, I know that Protestant resistance to the veneration of saints is not easily overcome. However, maybe what I say will help someone else at least understand a bit better.