Berean Beacon on "Idolatry in the Church"

Berean Beacon's article:
http://www.bereanbeacon.org/articles/sorted/04_Idolatry_and_the_Gospel/Idolatry_in_the_Church.pdf

Graven images... statues... paintings... drawings... to represent God or Jesus amount to
idolatry.  That is Mr Bennett's belief.  Mr Bennett and his co-author interpret Deut 4:14-16 to strictly proscribe any man-made image of God.  I suppose this is the first link in their chain of logic used to condemn that Catholic practice of using images and statues, etc. in the worship of God and in the prayer life of individual Catholics.   But if you read Deuteronomy 4:14-16 in context (read the whole chapter 4 and Chapter 5 also) you will see that it is referring to creating idols in order to worship them as God or a god, as opposed to worshipping God. It does not prohibit representations of God in an absolute sense.

Catholics use objects, sometimes objects which represent God the Father or God the Son or God the Holy Spirit, to enhance their worship of God Almighty.  The object is not the target of prayer and adoration, but a tool to aid the person's focus of heart and mind and
spirit upon God. For us children of God, images do not "confuse the distinction between
God and His created world" because the Spirit within us recognizes Him and gives Him all
glory and honor.

Berean Beacon article states "Our knowledge of Jesus Christ must be formed from the truths in Scripture...". I agree so far. But  I suggest that Berean Beacon's first error in their position on this is in their misinterpretation of Scripture.  Refer to the links below.

It continues "...and not by subjective impressions of artistic interpretation." I suggest that the eye of the beholder is what determines what is represented by any artistic human creation. Obviously, a portrait of Jesus by Norman Rockwell would be interpreted to be Jesus but an impressionist's image of Jesus would not be interpreted as such by most people. So, is it then an "image of God"? To me, two perpendicular intersecting line segments represents Christ. It would then be considered an "image of God".  Likewise with the fish symbol.  (I do give credit to the Berean Beacon, however, for consistency in that they do not have any such or other "symbols of God" on their web site.) 

By this statement the article means images shouldn't be used to convey the Gospel message whereas only Scripture should be.  However, most, if not all, religious images depict an
event or message or person from Scripture. Like Scripture, an image is open to be
interpreted rightly or wrongly by the viewer. The Spirit can guide our interpretation of
images as well as Scripture. Knowledge of Jesus can be enhanced by implementing images to aid one's memory.

Something to remember is that the use of images or statues or relics is not a required
practice  (Excepting, of course, when it comes to the adoration of the eucharistic bread
and wine which appear to be mere bread and wine but are really the body and blood of God incarnate, Jesus Christ).  Any Catholic is at liberty to use them or not. If you already have good mental and spiritual focus and can raise your heart and soul up to the Lord without such tools, that's great, more power to ya!   If a person thinks that they might be worshipping an object in using an image then he should simply not use it.  As for
myself, I like to have a crucifix or two in my home.  For my morning prayer the one in the
living room serves to help focus my sleepy brain on Him, and what He did for me, as I
start the day.


More information to consider:

Here's a summary of Scripture passages...
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/sacramentals.html

Catholic Encyclopedia on "Veneration of Images"...
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07664a.htm

"Statues in Church" by David MacDonald, a Catholic Convert...
http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/statues_in_church.htm

That Which is Wrong with the Berean Beacon (www.bereanbeacon.org)

Anyone getting information from this web site who has an open mind should research Mr Bennett's references and consider context of the quotes he puts forth. God gave us a brain and freedom so that we can give Him the full assent of our intellect and will. To do this, we should look at all the information available to us and not just accept a guy who comes along and demonstrates "irrefutably" the errors of our faith system. (I mean this for non-Catholics as well as Catholics. If I tell you some doctrine of yours is wrong and give you some quotes, I hope you don't just accept my word without question. Look into it, prayerfully, and use the intellect and will and conscience God gave you to determine if I'm right.)

Everything for which Mr Bennett criticizes the Catholic Church is based on Scripture alone (actually, his own private interpretation thereof). He points out the errors of Catholic doctrine and behavior. The problem is his own private interpration is flawed. He does not consider the proper context.

Here's Mr Bennett's letter "Identifying the Early Church"
http://www.bereanbeacon.org/articles/sorted/03_Church_History/Identifying_the_Ea\ rly_Church.pdf


To put into proper context his Scripture references and his concept of "Church", here are Scott Hahn's lectures on Salvation History...

One Holy Family
http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m2/slvhst1.html

One Holy Tribe
http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m2/slvhst2.html

One Holy Nation
http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m2/slvhst3.html

One Holy Kingdom
http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m2/slvhst4.html

One Holy Church
http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m2/slvhst5.html


ON THE CHURCH FATHERS...

Mr Bennett sees the Apostolic Fathers as supporting Sola Scriptura as opposed to a visible hierarchical organization to spread the Gospel. His quotations seem to support his view. But, as he does with Scripture, he doesn't consider them in context.

For example, Here's a quote from Jerome contradicting him...

'And let them not flatter you themselves if they think they have
Scripture authority since the devil himself has quoted Scripture
texts...we could all, while preserving in the letter of Scripture,
read into it some novel doctrine'
ibid 28

Sola Scriptura in the early Church...
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/sola_her.htm


Pat Madrid shows how "sola scripture is unhistorical, unbiblical and unworkable."...
http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/SOLASCRI.TXT

Here's a collection of quotes of the Fathers. As with Scripture, quotes must be taken in context. More of the Father's writing must be read in order to see what he meant by any given quote...
http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/TRAD.TXT


ON THE REAL APOSTOLIC BIBLE-CHURCH...

Mr. Bennett sees as truly-Biblicaly-Christian some particular groups in history, notably the Waldenses, the Albigenses, the Paulicians. Does Mr Bennett know what these groups believed and practiced? They were each obviously counter-Scriptural in belief. They were heresies which were suppressed because their false doctrines were threatening the salvation of many souls with their preaching and in that day and age the secular authorities saw heresy as a threat to civil order.

Here's the Catholic Encyclopedia entries on these groups...

Waldenses: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15527b.htm

Paulicians: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11583b.htm

Albigenses: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01267e.htm

The Real St Patrick

I'm currently investigating St Patrick.  Here's the Berean Beacon's take on the man... http://www.bereanbeacon.org/articles/sorted/03_Church_History/The_Legacy_of_the_Real_St_Patrick.pdf

To Be a Berean

I have been challenged to "Be a Berean" (Acts 17:10-11) and look at Scripture and see how the Gospel of Jesus contradicts the doctrines of the Catholic Church. I have accepted that challenge but have concluded that the Catholic Church is teaching truth. (Though I believed the Catholic doctrines in the first place, I did pose to myself questions such as "How can 'such and such' doctrine be supported in Scripture? I've never seen any Scriptural support!") (Incidentally, "To be a Berean" is a concept which already exists in the Catholic system... it is acquiring knowledge so that we can give the full assent of our intellect and will to God in our lives.)

Here's my journey in Bereanization...

First, I considered the Bereans themselves. Berea was a Greek city, so I presume they used the Greek language Bible, which in all likelihood would be the Septuagint, which in all probability included the deuterocanonical books (lacking in the modern Protestant translations). Some Catholic doctrines find
support in the "deutero's", sometimes more so than in the protocanonical books. (That's one reason the Protestant Reformers tossed them out of their canon of Scripture.) The Bereans were also of a culture/time/place/language which gave them a worldview that allowed them to correctly interpret Scripture without
great difficulty.

But here I am... 2000 years later, half a world away, in an utterly different culture, reading an American-English translation of the Scriptures. In order to correctly intreptret these Scriptures I need to understand the
culture/time/place/language/linguistic sense of the writers. In order to gain that understanding I need to learn it from other humans (unless God chooses to reveal it directly, but that's not generally the way He works). That is quite a bit of learning to acquire. So I'd spend a lifetime to learn all there is in those regards, and read the Hebrew or Greek Scriptures keeping in mind all the cultural customs and issues of the day. Then I would have come as close as is possible to "becoming a Berean" and could then most accurately interpret Scripture. But most people don't have the relative luxury or time, nor some the intellectual inclination, to take on such a daunting academic task. So we depend on others to guide our interpretation. In this way we accept a certain tradition of interpretation.

As for me, I read the New RSV Catholic Edition. I also read the writings of the post-Apostolic Christians (leaders of the Christians and the first Scripture-commentators) to see how they interpreted Scripture. I also read modern commentators (Protestant as well as Catholic). I also read the Catechism of the Catholic Church and refer to the Catholic Encyclopedia and the Catholic Bible Dictionary. And Strong's Concordance. I also look in to secular historical information. Oh, yes, prayer is the first tool to use when delving in to Scripture.

At this point in my studies, I have learned the historical/cultural/linguistic/literary contextual interpretation of enough of the scriptures to conclude that Catholicism is true. Mainly, I've looked in to the contested doctrines (Holy Eucharist, Popery, Mary-ology, Sacramentalism, etc.) and found that they do have Scriptural support. When the proper context (historical/cultural/linguistic/literary) is considered, such doctrines, even if not explicitly described, are implicit and logically inferrable.


I have found the Catholic commentaries and explanations to be more thorough and logical, in general, than the Protestant commentaries and explanations. This is due to the nearly-2000-year history of the Church's study and pondering and prayer on Scripture. The Church's understanding of Apostolic doctrines grows and deepens with time and study and prayer and meditation. (But no new doctrine or public revelation has been introduced since the the last Apostle died.) Periodically through time the Church leadership will declare certain doctrines to be dogma. These dogmas are not new teachings but ancient teachings which are clarified (perhaps due to some church member teaching error) and henceforth required to be accepted by Catholics (and, indeed, all other Christians as well. But that's another discussion in itself). Examples are the three-person nature of God, the divinity of Jesus, the humanity of Jesus, and Adam and Eve being real people and the actual couple from whom has sprung every human being.


Scott Hahn does a good job conveying the contextual interpretation...

Here he's discussing Covenantal Salvation History, describing Christ's Church as
the ultimate outgrowth of the original family of God, Adam and Eve:
http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m2/Mod2.html

And here he Answers Common Objections to Catholicism:
http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m4/Mod4.html

(Those are transcripts of lectures. The audio can be found online.)

So, to truly be a Berean in this age and place and culture we need to accept a tradition to guide our  interpretation of Scripture. I choose the Tradition of Catholicism. It has sensible doctrines (when correctly understood) and is traceable to the Apostles. Non-Catholic traditions (notably Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide) can't be traced back to them and are not Scriptural.