Back to John Robin's Homepage
2 February 1997
Why Norman Geisler is not a Roman Catholic
re: Dr. Norman Geisler's "What Roman Catholics Believe", and "Why I am not a Roman Catholic".
Dear B---,
Thank you for lending me your copies of Dr. Norman Geisler's lecture tapes, "What Roman Catholics Believe", and "Why I am not a Roman Catholic". They proved to be very interesting and thought provoking. Perhaps 'provocative' would be more accurate!
In the opening section of "What Roman Catholics Believe", I thought Dr. Geisler's description of beliefs shared in common among Protestants and Roman Catholics was fairly clear and helpful. He displayed some appreciation of certain beliefs we hold in common but which many non-Catholics mistakenly think that they alone hold.
However in approaching the issue of Catholic beliefs rejected by Protestants, Dr. Geisler on both tapes appears to entertain profound misconceptions of basic Catholic doctrines. This was a surprise to me, for Dr. Geisler is a well known authority within Protestant apologetic circles, and his reputation certainly extends beyond the limits of Protestantism. Having advanced degrees from Catholic universities, Dr. Geisler presumably had opportunity to study these matters.
By contrast, I have had no advanced training in theology. Still, I could plainly see that Dr. Geisler's characterizations of Catholic belief were flawed by serious omissions and distortion of facts.
It is important to me to make some sort of response to you regarding these tapes. But to deal meaningfully with every item that calls for redress would be a large task I could not soon complete.
I think it would not be fruitful to try to respond to everything at once. I don't have the time necessary to tackle this as a single task, and you may not have the time or inclination to read the resulting tome. Instead, I will try to restrict myself to one issue, addressing the others, I hope, after we reach some resolution of the first item.
Which should the first item be?
Let's take Dr. Geisler's first stated reason for remaining non-Catholic:
"They added books to the Bible... I am not a Roman Catholic because they have the Bible plus the apocryphal books that have no grounds to be in the Bible."
elsewhere, he charges,
"In 1546 A.D., the Roman Catholic Church added these books to the Bible."
You may recall that our mutual friend, Dan ---, and I have exchanged several letters on this very issue. In my letter to Dan of 30 September 1996 I documented from distinguished sources various pre-Trent papal and conciliar decrees which explicitly include the deuterocanonical books in the canon of Scripture. These references originate as early as the fourth century, with the latest being more than a hundred years prior to Trent. I refer you to my letter of 30 September for verbatim excerpts from these important documents.
I have documented only incompletely the 'paper trail' —the historical record— substantiating the early and authoritative acceptance of the full Catholic canon. If an amateur like myself can easily find such evidence in prominent and scholarly resources, how does one explain Dr. Geisler's heavily slanted treatment of the topic?
He emphasizes the fact that there were members of the early Church who did not regard the deuterocanonical books as canonical. True enough. But he ignores the flip side of the coin: that there were also many individuals who fully accepted their canonicity. And these books were not merely considered canonical by various individuals, they were widely used. Further, their canonicity was explicitly upheld by Pope and council at least as early as 382 A.D.
At issue here is not whether there was ever controversy over these books. Undeniably there was. Certain persons disputed the books' canonicity for a variety of reasons. Some others thought them canonical but felt they should not be used in debates with Jews, some of whom rejected these books. But the real issue here is whether these books enjoyed authoritative recognition by the Roman Catholic Church before the Council of Trent. Dr. Geisler takes the position that they did not, but his claim is capsized beneath the weight of historical evidence.
These facts are obviously extremely relevant to the issue, yet Dr. Geisler does not openly acknowledge that a wealth of historical evidence supports the Catholic position. He only hints at this indirectly and superficially. Geisler trivializes the Catholic position on this point in these exact words:
"...and the Roman Catholic Church says, 'Well, we had this little council here and that little council there, and these Fathers here', and they got together in 1546 and they officially made it part of the Bible."
Based on the evidence I have cited, I conclude that Dr. Geisler's analysis of this issue is factually incorrect and unfair in its selective exclusion of available historical data.
There are further glaring distortions within Geisler's treatment of the deuterocanonicals. But why go into them now? The above is just one of the many serious distortions which can be found within "Why I am not a Catholic".
But let me rest my case temporarily at this point. Dr. Geisler's handling of the deuterocanonical issue is so mortally flawed that I question whether you would choose to defend it. In fact, I would invite you either to defend or reject it. If you agree with me that his analysis of the issue is indefensible, then we can move on to the next issue. Perhaps we'll find that Geisler has a substantive criticism there. Perhaps not.
If, however, you feel that Dr. Norman Geisler is correct, that the deuterocanonical books were foreign to the Roman Catholic canon of Scripture until 1546, when they were "added" in reaction to the Reformers, then at least we have a clear focus for discussion and debate.
B---, I welcome your thoughts!
Your friend,
John Robin.
encl: On the following pages I've reprinted some of the evidence supporting my claims and disproving Geisler's. Please refer to my letter of 30 September 1996 for more detail...
_______________
Not until the Council of Trent?
Documentary evidence supporting the Roman Catholic Church's early and continuous recognition of the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books of the Holy Scriptures:
The Council of Rome, A.D. 382 —Pope Saint Damasus I
(366-384):Latin excerpt(1), followed by an English translation(2):
Nunc vero de Scripturis divinis agendum est, quid universalis catholica recipiat Ecclesia et [vel] quid vitare [vitari] debeat.
Incipit ordo Veteris Testamenti. Genesis liber unus; Exodus lib. 1; Leviticus lib. 1; Numeri lib. 1; Deuteronomium lib. 1; Iesu Nave lib. 1; Iudicum lib. 1; Ruth lib. 1; Regum libri 4; Paralypomenon libri 2; Psalmi CL [Psalterium] lib. 1; Salamonis lib. 3: Proverbia lib. 1, Ecclesiastes lib. 1, Cantica Canticorum 1.1; Item Sapientia lib. 1; Ecclesiasticus lib. 1.
Item ordo Prophetarum. Esaiae liber unus; Hieremiae lib. 1, cum Cinoth id est Lamentationibus suis; Exechiel[is] lib. 1; Danihel[is] lib. 1; Oseae lib. 1; Amos lib. 1; Micheae lib. 1; Iohel lib. 1; Abdiae lib. 1; Ionae lib. 1; Naum lib. 1; Ambacum [Abacuc] lib. 1; Sophoniae lib. 1; Aggei lib. 1; Zachariae lib. 1; Malacihel [Malachiae] lib. 1.
Item ordo storiarum. Iob liber unus; Tobiae lib. 1; Esdrae [Hesdrae] libir 2; Hester lib. 1; Iudit lib. 1; Machabeorum libri 2.
Item ordo Scripturarum Novi et aeterni Testamenti, quem sancta et catholica [Romana] suscipit [et veneratur] Ecclesia...
Likewise it has been said: Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun.
The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis one book, Exodus one book, Leviticus one book, Numbers one book, Deuteronomy one book, Josue Nave one book, Judges one book, Ruth one book, Kings four books [I, II Kings; I, II Samuel](3), Paralipomenon two books [I, II Chronicles](4), Psalms one book, Solomon three books, Proverbs one book, Ecclesiastes one book, Canticle of Canticles one book, likewise Wisdom one book, Ecclesiasticus one book.
Likewise the order of the Prophets. Isaias one book, Jeremias one book, with Ginoth, that is, with his lamentations [including Baruch?(5)], Ezechiel one book, Daniel one book, Osee one book, Micheas one book, Joel one book, Abdias one book, Jonas one book, Nahum one book, Habacuc one book, Sophonias one book, Aggeus one book, Zacharias one book, Malachias one book.
Likewise the order of the histories. Job one book, Tobias one book, Esdras two books [Ezra, Nehemiah](6), Esther one book, Judith one book, Machabees two books.
Likewise the order of the writings of the New and eternal Testament, which the holy and Catholic Church supports...
The Council of Carthage (III),
28 August, 397:Latin excerpt(7), followed by an English translation(8):
[Placuit,] ... ut praeter scripturas canonicas nihil in ecclesia legatur sub nomine divinarum Scripturarum. Sunt autem canonicae scripturae: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numeri, Deuternomium, Iesu[s], Nave, Iudicum, Ruth, Regnorum libri quatuor, Paralipomenon libri duo, Iob, Psalterium Davidicum, Salomonis libri quinque, duodecim libri Prophetarum, Esaias, Ieremias, Daniel, Ezechiel, Tobias, Iudith, Hester, Hesdrae libri duo, Machabaeorum libri duo. Novi autem Testamenti...
Canon 36 (or otherwise 47). [It has been decided] that nothing except the Canonical Scriptures should be read in the church under the name of the Divine Scriptures. But the Canonical Scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Canticles, Ecclesiastes, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus(9)](10), twelve books of the Prophets [Minor Prophets: Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi](11), Isaias, Jeremias [including Baruch?(12)], Daniel, Ezechiel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Machabees. Moreover, of the New Testament...
Pope Saint Innocent I
, A.D. 401-417:From the epistle "Consulenti tibi" to Exuperius, Bishop of Toulouse, February 20, 405:(13)
A brief addition shows what books really are received in the canon. These are the desiderata of which you wished to be informed verbally: of Moses five books, that is, of Genesis, of Exodus, of Leviticus, of Numbers, of Deuteronomy, and Josue, of Judges one book, of Kings four books, and also Ruth, of the Prophets sixteen books, of Solomon five books, the Psalms. Likewise of the histories, Job one book, of Tobias one book, Esther one, Judith one, of the Machabees two, of Esdras two, Paralipomenon two books. Likewise of the New Testament...
The Creed of the Council of Toledo
, A.D. 400, 447:(14)The rule of the Catholic faith against all heresies...
12. If anyone either believes that any scriptures, except those which the Catholic Church has received, ought to be held in authority or venerates them, let him be anathema.
The Council of Florence
, 1438-1445:(15)...It [the Roman Church] professes one and the same God as the author of the Old and New Testament, that is, of the Law and the Prophets and the Gospel, since the saints of both Testaments have spoken with the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, whose books, which are contained under the following titles it accepts and venerates. [The books of the canon follow, cf. Council of Trent, Session IV, DS 784].
The Council of Trent
, Session IV, April 8, 1546:(16)The sacred and holy ecumenical and general Synod of Trent, lawfully assembled in the Holy Spirit, with the same three Legates of the Apostolic See presiding over it, keeping this constantly in view, that with the abolishing of errors, the purity itself of the Gospel is preserved in the Church, which promised before through the Prophets in the Holy Scriptures of our Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God first promulgated with His own mouth, and then commanded "to be preached" by His apostles "to every creature" as the source of every saving truth and of instruction in morals [Matt. 28:19 ff., Mark 16:15], and [the Synod] clearly perceiving that this truth and instruction are contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions, which have been received by the apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, or from the apostles themselves, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit, have come down even to us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand, [the Synod] following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and holds in veneration with an equal affection of piety and reverence all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament, since one God is the author of both, and also the traditions themselves, those that appertain both to faith and to morals, as having been dictated either by Christ's own word of mouth, or by the Holy Spirit, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession. And so that no doubt may arise in anyone's mind as to which are the books that accepted by this Synod, it has decreed that a list of the Sacred books be added to this decree. They are written below:
Books of the Old Testament: The five books of Moses, namely, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first book of Esdras, and the second which is called Nehemias, Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Psalter of David consisting of 150 psalms, the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], Isaias, Jeremias with Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel, the twelve minor Prophets, that is Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Michaeas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of the Machabees, the first and the second.
Books of the New Testament...
If anyone, however, should not accept the said books as sacred and canonical, entire with all their parts, as they were wont to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate edition, and if both knowingly and deliberately he should condemn the aforesaid traditions let him be anathema. Let all, therefore, understand in what order and in what manner the said Synod, after having laid the foundation of the confession of Faith, will proceed, and what testimonies and authorities it will mainly use in confirming dogmas, and in restoring morals in the Church...
Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod taking into consideration that no small benefit can accrue to the Church of God, if it be made know which one of all the Latin editions of the sacred books which are in circulation is to be considered authentic, has decided and declares that the said old Vulgate edition, which has been approved by the Church itself through long usage for so many centuries in public lectures, disputations, sermons, and expositions, be considered authentic, and that no one under any pretext whatsoever dare or presume to reject it.
Furthermore, in order to curb impudent clever persons, the synod decrees that no one who relies on his own judgment in matters of faith and morals, which pertain to the building up of Christian doctrine, and that no one who distorts the Sacred Scripture according to his own opinions, shall dare to interpret the said Sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which is held by holy mother Church, whose duty it is to judge regarding the true sense and interpretation of holy Scriptures...
Miscellaneous citations
"Jerome was responsible also for the official canon of the Scriptures approved by the Roman Council of 382."(17)
"When the Hebrew Canon of Scripture was finally settled (traditionally at the Synod of Jamnia, c. A.D. 100), the Hebrew text of the excluded Books ceased to be copied... the Greek [canon] survived because of its use by Christians, who at first received all the Books of the Septuagint equally as Scripture...
"Down to the 4th century the Church generally accepted all the Books of the Septuagint as canonical. Greek and Latin Fathers alike (e.g. Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian) cite both classes of Books without distinction...
"At the Reformation, Protestant leaders, ignoring the traditional acceptance of all the Books of the LXX in the early Church... refused the status of inspired Scripture to those Books of the Vulgate not to be found in the Hebrew Canon."(18)
"The Reformers had maintained that a personal interpretation of Sacred Scripture was a sufficient rule of faith, and they had denied the canonicity of certain books in each Testament. To refute these errors the council [of Trent]... reaffirms the listing of the canonical books given by the Council of Florence— a listing that agrees exactly with the list given as early as the year 382 in the Council of Rome under Pope St. Damasus I."(19)
__________________________________
(1)
Denzinger, Henricus. Enchiridion Symbolorum —Definitionum et Declarationum de Rebus Fidei et Morum, n. 179. 33rd edition. 1965, Verlag Herder KG, Freiburg.(2)
Deferrari, Roy, translator. The Sources of Catholic Dogma [from the Thirtieth Edition of Henry Denzinger's Enchiridion Symbolorum], n. 84. 1957, B. Herder Book Co., Saint Louis, MO.(3)
Cross, F. L., editor. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, pp. 769. 1958 Oxford University Press, London.(4)
Cross, F. L., editor. p. 1014.(5)
Cross, F. L., editor. p. 137.(6)
Cross, F. L., editor. p. 462.(7)
Denzinger, Henricus. n. 186.(8)
Deferrari, Roy, translator. n. 92.(9)
Cross, F. L., editor. p. 436, 1471. (Presently I am not certain that Ecclesiasticus (a.k.a. Sirach) belongs in this list, but my references strongly support its position here in the "books of Solomon" of this canon.)(10)
Cross, F. L., editor. p. 1269.(11)
Cross, F. L., editor. pp. 904, 1212.(12)
Cross, F. L., editor. p. 137.(13)
Deferrari, Roy, translator. n. 96.(14)
Deferrari, Roy, translator. n. 18, 32.(15)
Deferrari, Roy, translator. n. 706.(16)
Deferrari, Roy, translator. n. 783-786.(17)
New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. ?, p. 625. 1967, Catholic University of America, Washington, DC. cf. "Damasus I, Pope, St."(18)
Cross, F. L., editor. pp. 68-69.(19)
Clarkson, John F., et al, translators, The Church Teaches —Documents of the Church in English Translation, n. 94. 1955, B. Herder Book Co., St. Louis, MO.