The 10 Most Important Things You Can Say to a Catholic

By Ron Rhodes

HARVEST HOUSE PUBLISHERS

Copyright © 2002 by Ron Rhodes
Published by Harvest House Publishers, Eugene, OR 97402
All Rights Reserved.
ISBN: 0-7369-0537-5

Contents

Ten Critical Points

1. The Apocryphal Books Are Helpful Historically, But They Do Not Belong in the Bible
   
2. The Bible Alone Is Authoritative, Not Tradition
   
3. Peter Was a Great Apostle, But He Was Not the First Pope
   
4. The Pope, the Bishops, and the Magisterium Are Fallible
   
5. Mary Was the Mother of Jesus, Nothing More
   
6. Justification Is Instantaneous, Once-for-All, and Entirely by Grace
   
7. The Sacrament of the Mass Does Not Appease God
   
8. The Sacrament of Penance Does Not Absolve Sins
   
9. There Is No Purgatory, Nor Is It Needed
   
10. Jesus Has Changed My Life Forever
    
11. Bibliography
    
12. Notes
    

This book is short by design. The chapters in this book are short by design. I believe there is much to be said for brevity. However—and I want to emphasize this very strongly— brevity should not be thought of as “shallowness.” This book contains ten critical points to share with your Roman Catholic friends, but the points are concise and succinct. This book is intended to provide you with the most important apologetic information in the briefest possible fashion. In a day of information overload, the merits of such an approach seem obvious.

I devote an entire chapter to each of the ten most important points you can make to a Roman Catholic. Each chapter presents one primary point, and there are a number of supportive arguments in each chapter that substantiate that particular point. My desire is that you would become thoroughly equipped to theologically interact with your Roman Catholic friends, with a view to helping them understand the gospel of grace and bringing them into the kingdom of light—the kingdom of Jesus Christ (see Colossians 1:13,14).

It could be that the concise information in this book will cause you to want to go deeper and learn even more about interacting with Roman Catholics. That is a good thing. The more you learn, the more God can use you in witnessing. In such a case, I urge you to dig into my larger volume Reasoning from the Scriptures with Catholics, which is significantly more comprehensive than the book you are holding in your hands. You will find that these two books complement each other. For your convenience, at the end of each of the following chapters I provide relevant page numbers from Reasoning from the Scriptures with Catholics.

One of the first things Protestants notice when interacting with Catholics is that the Catholic Bible is bigger. It has books the Protestant Bible does not have. These added books are collectively known as the Apocrypha. A key issue of debate between Protestants and Catholics is whether these books belong in the “canon” of Scripture.

The word canon comes from a Greek word meaning “measuring stick.” Over time, the word came to be used metaphorically of books that were “measured” and thereby recognized as being God’s Word. When we talk about the “canon of Scripture,” we are referring to all the biblical books that collectively constitute God’s Word.

Roman Catholics believe that the apocryphal books—seven complete books and four partial books, many of which originated in the period between the Old Testament and the New Testament—belong in the canon. While Protestants call these books “the Apocrypha,” Roman Catholics prefer to refer to them as deuterocanonical (literally, “second canon“). This so-called “second canon,” however, does not have secondary status among Roman Catholics. (For purposes of discussion, I will continue to refer to these books as the Apocrypha.)

The Roman Catholic Church decided these books belonged in the Bible shortly after the beginning of the Protestant Reformation. In fact, the Catholic Council of Trent (A.D. 1545—1563) canonized these books some 1500 years after they were written, largely as a reaction against the Protestant Reformation.

The Roman Catholic Apocrypha consists of Tobit, Judith, the Additions to Esther, the Additions to Daniel (the Prayer of Azariah and the Three Young Men, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon), the Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus (also called Sirach), Baruch (also called 1 Baruch), the Letter of Jeremiah, 1 Maccabees, and 2 Maccabees.

Martin Luther, the famous reformer, had criticized the Roman Catholic Church for not having scriptural support for such doctrines as praying for the dead. By canonizing the Apocrypha—which offers support for praying for the dead in 2 Maccabees 12:45-46—the Catholics then had “scriptural” support for this and other distinctively Catholic doctrines.

Roman Catholics typically argue that, because the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament that predates the time of Christ) contains the Apocrypha, this must mean that the Apocrypha belongs in the canon. As well, church fathers such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria used the apocryphal books in public meetings of the church and accepted them as Scripture. Even the great theologian St. Augustine viewed these books as inspired.

Catholics also note that some early Christian catacomb scenes portray episodes from the Apocrypha, showing that the early Christian community was familiar with and used the Apocrypha. Moreover, the Council of Rome (A.D. 382), the Council of Hippo (A.D. 393), and the Council of Carthage (A.D. 397) accepted the Apocrypha. Finally, some apocryphal books were found in Qumran (the Dead Sea community) along with Old Testament canonical books. (Collectively these documents have become known as the “Dead Sea Scrolls.“) These factors are said to prove that the apocryphal books belong in the canon.

History reveals that many church fathers denied the Apocrypha. Though some church fathers spoke approvingly of the Apocrypha, others—notably Origen, Jerome, Athanasius, and Cyril of Jerusalem—denied its inspiration and canonicity. Therefore, merely quoting some church fathers in favor of the Apocrypha does not make a convincing argument. History reveals that some church fathers used apocryphal books for devotional or preaching purposes, but did not consider them canonical. One can demonstrate respect for a book without necessarily canonizing it.

Unlike the New Testament books, which claim to be inspired (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:21; 1 Timothy 5:18; 2 Peter 3:16), none of the apocryphal books claim to be inspired. Further, no apocryphal book was written by a true prophet or apostle of God. And no apocryphal book was confirmed by divine miracles—something that happened often with the prophets in the Old Testament and apostles in the NewTestament (for example, see 1 Kings 18 and Hebrews 2:4). Finally, no apocryphal book contains predictive prophecy, which would serve to confirm divine inspiration. Be sure to point these facts out to your Catholic friend.

Early Christian evidence argues against the Apocrypha. Though it is true that some early church leaders quoted several of the apocryphal books as Scripture (as Roman Catholics are quick to point out), it is also true that many early church leaders rejected these books. One of the earliest Christian lists of Old Testament books is that of Melito, the bishop of Sardis, who in A.D. 170 affirmed all the Old Testament books (except Esther), but did not mention a single apocryphal book. Moreover, in A.D. 367 the great champion of orthodoxy, Athanasius (a bishop of Alexandria), wrote his “paschal letter,” in which he listed all the books of the New Testament, and all the Old Testament books except Esther. Although he did also mention some of the apocryphal books, such as the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, Judith, and Tobit, he said these are “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 Palestinian Jews of the early Christian era rejected the Apocrypha. The Jews of Palestine—including the Jewish Council of Jamnia, which met in A.D. 90—rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture. This is understandable, in view of the fact that there were no Jewish prophets who lived during the 400-year period between the Old and New Testaments. (It was during this time that much of the Apocrypha was written.) In keeping with this, ancient Jewish historian Flavius Josephus excluded the Apocrypha from Scripture. Philo, a Jewish teacher who lived in the first century, quoted from almost every canonical Old Testament book, but never once quoted from the Apocrypha.

No New Testament writer quoted from any of the apocryphal books as Scripture or gave them the slightest authority as inspired books. Jesus and the disciples virtually ignored these books, something that would not have been the case if they had considered them to be inspired. By contrast, there are many quotations by Jesus and the apostles from the canonical books of the Old Testament. A good example of this is the Gospel of Matthew, which contains about 130 Old Testament citations and allusions. Ask your Catholic friend about the significance of this.

The Apocrypha contains historical errors. Scholars have noted that, unlike the canonical Scriptures, which have consistently proven to be historically accurate, the Apocrypha contains obvious historical and geographical errors. For example, Tobit contains historical errors— including the idea that Sennacherib was the son of Shalmaneser (1:15—he was actually the son of Sargon.) Second Maccabees likewise contains numerous discrepancies in chronological, historical, and numerical matters.

The reason this is significant is that historical and archaeological studies have always been a friend to the canon of the Old and New Testaments, but not to the apocryphal books. While such studies have provided solid verification for numerous customs, places, names, and events mentioned in the Bible, this is not the case with the Apocrypha.

This does not mean the apocryphal books are worthless. They are valuable for historical purposes and cultural insights. But they are not inspired and do not belong in the canon. They are clearly man-made documents.

Among these false doctrines is the doctrine of the Mass (2 Maccabees 12:42-45; contrast Hebrews 7:27); the notion that the world was created out of pre-existent matter (Wisdom of Solomon; contrast Genesis 1 and Psalm 33:9); the idea that giving alms and other works can make an atonement for sin (Ecclesiasticus 3:30; 3:3; 5:5; 20:28; 35:3; 45:16; 45:23; contrast Romans 3:20); the invocation and intercession of the saints (2 Maccabees 15:14; Baruch 3:4; contrast Matthew 6:9); the worship of angels (Tobit 12:12; contrast Colossians 2:18); and purgatory and the redemption of souls after death (2 Maccabees 12:42,46; contrast Hebrews 9:27).

Because we know that the Old and New Testaments are the Word of God, and because the Apocrypha contains doctrines that contradict the Old and New Testaments, we may conclude that the apocryphal books are not the Word of God. Why? Because God does not contradict Himself.

The Apocrypha was likely not in the earliest versions of the Septuagint. It is true that late copies of the Septuagint include the Apocrypha. Scholars have noted, however, that although the Septuagint was translated several centuries before the time of Christ, it was apparently not until the fourth century after Christ that the Apocrypha was appended to this translation. Scholars know of no Septuagint manuscripts earlier than the fourth century that contain the Apocrypha, suggesting that the Apocrypha was not in the original Septuagint. But even if a first-century manuscript of the Septuagint were found with the Apocrypha in it, that still does not mean the Apocrypha belongs in the canon.

I say this because the apostles quoted from the first-century Septuagint in their New Testament writings—yet there is not a single quote from the Apocrypha in their writings. This could mean one of two things: 1) the Apocrypha was not in the first-century Septuagint (which is what the historical evidence seems to suggest), or 2) if the Apocrypha was in the first-century Septuagint, it was all but ignored by the apostles because they knew it did not truly belong in the canon of Scripture.

Scenes from the Apocrypha on Roman catacomb walls do not prove the Apocrypha’s canonicity. The existence of such scenes simply indicates that some of the events recorded in apocryphal books were meaningful enough to some people that they drew pictures of them on the walls. It is noteworthy that there are numerous events recorded in the Old and New Testament canonical books that are nowhere found on the catacomb walls, but this does not mean they are not canonical. Using reverse logic, the fact that certain scenes from the Apocrypha are recorded on catacomb walls does not mean that these books belong in the canon. This is faulty reasoning.

Church councils are human institutions whose opinions sometimes reflect human fallibility. The fact that some church councils accepted the Apocrypha may seem like a strong argument at first sight. But the fact that different church councils held during different time periods have come to differing conclusions on certain matters truly proves only one thing— church councils are not infallible. Only God and His Word are infallible. Human beings and their councils make mistakes.

Furthermore, some of the councils—such as the local councils of Hippo and Carthage in North Africa—were heavily influenced by Augustine (A.D. 354—430), the most powerful voice of ancient times among those who accepted the Apocrypha. Augustine felt that the apocryphal books belonged in the Bible because of their mention “of extreme and wonderful suffering of certain martyrs“—but this is hardly a criteria for canonicity. Further, Augustine seems to have accepted the apocryphal books as canonical based largely on the fact that these books were contained in the Septuagint of his day. As noted above, though, there is good evidence to suggest that the original Septuagint did not contain the Apocrypha.

Since the reasons for Augustine’s acceptance of the Apocrypha are erroneous, the conclusions of the councils that drew many of their ideas from him are erroneous as well.

The presence of apocryphal books at Qumran (among the “Dead Sea Scrolls“) does not prove their canonicity. If the presence of a book at Qumran did prove its canonicity, this would mean that all the books discovered at Qumran (there were hundreds of books or fragments of books discovered) belong in the canon. The reality is that members of the Qumran community used many of these books for worship purposes without considering them canonical. There is no hard evidence that apocryphal books were venerated as Scripture among the Qumran inhabitants.

There were five primary tests the early church used as it sought to formally recognize which books belonged in the canon: 1) Was the book written or backed by a prophet or apostle of God? (The Word of God, inspired by the Spirit of God for the people of God, must be communicated through a man of God.) 2) Is the book authoritative? (Does the book ring with the sense of “thus saith the Lord“?) 3) Does the book tell the truth about God and doctrine as it is already known by previous revelation? 4) Does the book give evidence of having the power of God? 5) Was the book accepted by the people of God? Measuring the Apocrypha by these tests reveals that it does not belong in the canon. The books were not written by prophets or apostles of God. The books do not ring with the sense of “thus saith the Lord.” The books contradict doctrines revealed in the pages of the Old and New Testaments. Though some church fathers used the books for devotional purposes, the books nevertheless fall far short of the transforming effect of the Old and New Testaments (as even many church fathers admitted), and hence do not display the power of God. And the books, for the most part, were not accepted on a broad scale by the people of God— at least not until 1500 years after their writing, when the Council of Trent pronounced them canonical.

Some Catholics may point to Hebrews 11:35—“Women received back their dead, raised to life again. Others were tortured and refused to be released, so that they might gain a better resurrection“(NIV)— and argue that this verse is a quotation from the Apocrypha (2 Maccabees 7:12). It is alleged that this proves the Apocrypha belongs in the Bible.

Such a view is incorrect for a number of reasons. First, even if Hebrews 11:35 alludes to an apocryphal book, it is definitely not a quotation of it. In fact, there is not a single clear quotation in the New Testament of any apocryphal book. This is not at all the case with the Old Testament books, for these books are quoted consistently throughout the New Testament.

Further, even if there were a citation of an apocryphal book in the New Testament, that in itself would not prove that the apocryphal book belongs in the canon of Scripture or that it is inspired by God. (It is noteworthy that the writer of 2 Maccabees expressly disclaims inspiration. ) Moreover, we must keep in mind that the Bible also alludes to pseudepigraphal books (pseudepigrapha = “false writings“) like the Bodily Assumption of Moses (Jude 9), but even Roman Catholics reject that book from the canon. The Bible also quotes from pagan poets and philosophers (Acts 17:28; Titus 1:12), but that does not mean these writings are inspired or belong in the canon.

---

Excerpted from The 10 Most Important Things You Can Say to a Catholic by Ron Rhodes. Copyright © 2002 by Harvest House Publishers. Excerpted by permission. All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.

---