Responding to Sam Shamoun, Brittany Gefroh, and justforcatholics.org

16 thoughts on “Responding to Sam Shamoun, Brittany Gefroh, and justforcatholics.org”

1. You are aware that charity in 1 Peter 4:8 means love, right, and not giving charity to someone?

   “Above all, let your love for one another be intense, because love covers a multitude of sins.” New American Bible (Revised Edition)

   Moreover, 1 Peter is not saying that my sins will be covered if I show love towards other Christians. Rather, it is saying that when you love someone you are willing to overlook and forgive any sins or offenses they commit against you. This is exactly what the Apostle Paul wrote:

   “If I speak in human and angelic tongues but do not have love, I am a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal. And if I have the gift of prophecy and comprehend all mysteries and all knowledge; if I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give away everything I own, and if I hand my body over so that I may boast but do not have love, I gain nothing. Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, [love] is not pompous, it is not inflated, it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, IT DOES NOT BROOD OVER INJURY, it does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.” 1 Corinthians 13:1-7 NABRE

   Reply

   • I don’t believe that charity necessarily means giving charity. It can mean that and certainly the spirit of charity leads to charitable giving.

     Please note that this is the Protestant King James translation. The Douay Rheims Bible renders it charity as well. Love is a bad word to use because there are numerous kinds of love – see CS Lewis’ The Four Loves.

     I disagree with your exegesis of 1 Peter 4:8. I think you’re reading into the text. I’m also glad that you quoted 1 Cor 13. If you continue reading it states that charity is greater than faith. Not only does this cause problems for the doctrine of Sola Fide, but it shows that it isn’t the same as faith. It is an extension of faith and therefore greater than faith itself.

     Reply

     • Allan, I have to say your answer here doesn’t provide a substantive reply since the Greek word is agape, which means love. This is why I quoted your Catholic approved Bible, the New American Bible, to show you that this is not a point of contention. And the reason why the KJV Bible rendered it charity is because the translators were influenced by the Latin, which they used extensively. And since the Latin is based on the Greek, not the other way around, it is therefore irrelevant what that version has to say. As such, you are stretching things quite a bit by insisting that it means charity.

       Furthermore, you can disagree with me regarding 1 Peter 4:8 all you want, since that doesn’t refute my point. You need to show why my view is wrong based on the context of the passage, and that you haven’t done to be quite frank.

       Moreover, you claim to have read White’s book on justification and yet here you are attacking straw man since true faith produced by the Spirit encompasses love. Therefore, the only problem 1 Corinthians 13 poses is the one imagined in your mind due to your misrepresentation of Sola Fide.

       Reply

       • Sorry that I’m late with the reply Sam. I’ve been busy.

         So both Catholic and Protestant Bibles render it as charity or love. Yes, the NABRE is an approved Bible but so is the Douay Rheims. We can quote translations all day long and debate which one is more authoritative. However, the most authoritative translation in the Church is not an English one, but the Latin Vulgate.

         In the Vulgate, the word “caritas” is used which means charity. This was the translation made by Saint Jerome directly from the Greek. He is not only a Saint but a Doctor of the Church. He’s the greatest Biblical scholar who ever lived and that is why we Catholics use his translation and consider it authoritative over any other translation made.

         I concede that I should not have brought up Sola Fide. It was a red herring and nothing to do with the issue at hand. I apologize.

         Reply

         • Allan,

           Not trying to debate you or be stubborn but it is not an issue of translation but of the original languages of the Holy Bible. Can you cite your catechism or any authoritative source that denies that the Old Testament is originally written in Hebrew with parts of it in Aramaic, and that the New Testament is originally in Koine Greek, not Latin? As such, the Greek word is Agape, which isn’t charity but self-sacrificial, unconditional love, the kind of love that God possesses and happens to be by nature.

         • “Can you cite your catechism or any authoritative source that denies that the Old Testament is originally written in Hebrew with parts of it in Aramaic, and that the New Testament is originally in Koine Greek, not Latin?”

           Why would I cite one? I’ve never made such a claim. If you read my previous comment, it clearly says that Saint Jerome translated from the Greek. I’m just saying that the greatest Biblical scholar and translator of all time agreed with me on this on how agape should be translated. Words mean different things in different contexts and at different times in history.

           Example, if someone said they were gay in 1950, it would mean something very different than someone saying those exact words today. Words change with time and context. Agape is a tricky word. It’s not as concrete as you’d like it to be. In a way it means love but in a way it means charity as well. That is why Catholic and Protestant translations render it both ways. I’m going to go with St. Jerome on this one.

         • I am going to have to disagree with you again since there is nothing tricky about the word agape. Agape does not mean charity, and your appeal to Jerome is one sided and inconsistent since Jerome rejected your deuter-cnonicals so then why don’t you go with Jerome on that issue? We both know why don’t we?

           There is a legitimate Greek word for charity/alms and it isn’t agape:

           “Teaching About Almsgiving. 1 “[But] take care not to perform righteous deeds in order that people may see them; otherwise, you will have no recompense from your heavenly Father. 2 When you give alms, do not blow a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets to win the praise of others. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward. 3 But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right is doing, 4 so that your almsgiving may be secret. And your Father who sees in secret will repay you.” Matthew 6:1-4 NABRE

           The word for alms here is eleémosuné, which the Vulgate renders as eleemosyn. If the Apostle really meant charity then he could have easily used this word, but he didn’t.

           Moreover, your appeal to the word gay confirms my case, not yours. Since the word gay has a different meaning today then it did back then, would you call someone gay today in trying to describe him as a happy person? No you wouldn’t since this would miscommunicate and lead people to assume that the person thus described is a homosexual. Likewise, you don’t translate agape today as charity when this word fails to capture the precise definition of the Greek seeing the charity doesn’t carry the same connotation today that it did back then. And to further prove to you that charity is an incorrect rendering of the Greek word for today’s audience, pay close attention to the following:

           “Love never fails. If there are prophecies, they will be brought to nothing; if tongues, they will cease; if knowledge, it will be brought to nothing. 9 For we know partially and we prophesy partially, 10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. 11 When I was a child, I used to talk as a child, think as a child, reason as a child; when I became a man, I put aside childish things. 12 At present we see indistinctly, as in a mirror, but then face to face. At present I know partially; then I shall know fully, as I am fully known. 13 So faith, hope, love remain, these three; but the greatest of these is love.” 1 Corinthians 13:8-13

           The Apostle says that faith, hope and love will continue to remain even after the perfect appears. Now you don’t seriously believe that this means we will continue to give charity or alms when the perfect has come and swallowed the imperfection of this world, do you? I hope not.

         • Hi Sam, sorry again for the late reply.

           St. Jerome did not reject the Deutero-canonical books. If you read Epistle 108 which is the Epistle to Eustochium he states in paragraph 21 he states: “for does not the scripture say Burden no yourself above your power? “ This is a quote from Sirach 13:2. It should also be pointed out that in paragraph 16 of this epistle, Jerome quotes Sirach 3:30. It’s not specifically identified as Scripture as in paragraph 21 but it’s sandwiched between quotes from Matthew, Luke, and Daniel, which no one denies are scripture. The article on justforcatholics.org that Brittany referenced, shows this verse as proof of theological errors in the deuteron-canonical books. If you read paragraph 16 he uses this verse and ones from Matthew, Luke and Daniel and says: “and Daniel’s words to King Nebuchadnezzar in which he admonished him to redeem his sins by almsgiving.” Not only does Jerome accept the canonicity of this book, he accepts the theology and equates it with theology of verses from proto-canonical books.

           Here is the link to the epistle. Read paragraph 16.

           http://newadvent.org/fathers/3001108.htm

           I have more quotes from Jerome and can produce them if you’d like. He did not reject the deuterocanonical books.
           You quote Matthew 6 and 1 Corinthians 13 to determine what a word means in 1 Peter 4:8. We should look to 1 Peter 4 to determine the context. If we look in verse 9 which is the verse right afterwards it shows that it is something very close to charity and alms. The verse says:

           Use hospitality one to another without grudging.

           This shows that it’s a much deeper meaning than merely love. Yes, it’s done out of love but it’s so much more than that. It’s the charity and alms that flow through true love and the immediate context of 1 Peter 4 shows that.

         • Actually, Jerome did reject the canonicity of the Deutero-Canonicals:

           A similar perspective to Rufinus was held by Jerome. He and Origen are the only fathers considered to be true biblical scholars in the early Church, and Jerome, alone among all the fathers, is considered to be a Hebrew scholar. Given the many errors in translation found in the Septuagint, Jerome undertook to provide a fresh translation directly from the Hebrew for the Latin Church. He received a great deal of criticism because many felt, in undertaking this translation, he was casting aspersion upon the Septuagint which they considered inspired. His translation became known as the Latin Vulgate and became the standard Bible translation used by the Western Church throughout the medieval ages and the post-Tridentine Roman Catholic Church. Jerome lived in Palestine and consulted with the Jews. As a result he refused to translate the Apocrypha because the books were not part of the Hebrew canon. His position was that of Rufinus and Athanasius. He made it clear that the Church of his day did not grant canonical status to the writings of the Apocrypha as being inspired. While commenting on the Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus, Jerome made these statements about the books of Judith, Tobit and Maccabees:

           As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it also read these two Volumes (Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus) for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church (emphasis mine).80

           Jerome’s convictions about the canon were clearly expressed in numerous places in his writings, in particular, the Prefaces he wrote to the Old Testament books. In these he enumerated the canonical books according to the Hebrew canon, thus rejecting the Apocrypha.81

           Some have suggested that Jerome later changed his opinion and included the Apocrypha in the canon of the Vulgate. However, there is no evidence to support this. Jerome continued to write commentaries on the Old Testament books until his death. There is no record that he ever retracted his original statements about the Apocrypha. In his work, Against Rufinus, written in AD 401-402, he reiterated and defended his earlier position on the Apocrypha. Again, his comments come after the North African councils. Though he did not consider the Apocryphal books to be canonical in the strict sense, Jerome quoted from them in accordance with his own convictions, for the purposes of edification. Again, this is the same distinction drawn (between canonical and ecclesiastical books) by Athanasius and Rufinus. As we will see, Jerome’s views had enormous influence on the Church of subsequent ages even down to our own time. (William Webster. The Old Testament Canon and the Apocrypha, Part 2: From the Beginning of the Church Age to Jerome http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/Apocryphapart2.html)

           And here is what the New Catholic Encyclpedia says concerning Jerome’s position concerning the Apocrypha:

           Etymologically, the derivation of Apocrypha is very simple, being from the Greek apokryphos, hidden, and corresponding to the neuter plural of the adjective. The use of the singular, “Apocryphon”, is both legitimate and convenient, when referring to a single work. When we would attempt to seize the literary sense attaching to the word, the task is not so easy. It has been employed in various ways by early patristic writers, who have sometimes entirely lost sight of the etymology. Thus it has the connotation “uncanonical” with some of them. St. Jerome evidently applied the term to all quasi-scriptural books WHCIH IN HIS ESTIMATION LAY OUTSIDE THE CANON OF THE BIBLE, and the Protestant Reformers, FOLLOWING JEROME’S CATALOGUE OF OLD TESTAMENT OF SCRIPTURES — one which was at once erroneous and singular among the Fathers of the Church — applied the title Apocrypha to the excess of the Catholic canon of the Old Testament over that of the Jews. Naturally, Catholics refuse to admit such a denomination, and we employ “deuterocanonical” to designate this literature, which non-Catholics conventionally and improperly know as the “Apocrypha”. (See CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.)…

           (d) Fourth Book of Esdras

           The personage serving as the screen of the real author of this book is Esdras (Ezra), the priest-scribe and leader among the Israelites who returned from Babylonia, to Jerusalem. The fact that two canonical books are associated with his name, together with a genuine literary power, a profoundly religious spirit pervading Fourth Esdras, and some Messianic points of contact with the Gospels combined to win for it an acceptance among Christians unequalled by any other apocryphon. Both Greek and Latin Fathers cite it as prophetical, while some, as Ambrose, were ardent admirers of it. Jerome alone is positively unfavourable…

           (c) Third Book of Esdras

           This is also styled by non-Catholics the First Book of Esdras, since they give to the first canonical Esdrine writing the Hebrew form Ezra. Third Esdras is one of the three uncanonical books appended to the official edition of the Vulgate. It exists in two of the oldest codices of the Septuagint, viz., Vaticanus and Alexandrinus, where it precedes the canonical Esdras. The same is true of manuscripts of the Old Latin and other versions. Third Esdras enjoyed exceptional favour in the early ages of the Church, being quoted as Scripture with implicit faith by the leading Greek and Latin Fathers (See Cornely, Introductio Generalis, I, 201). St. Jerome, however, THE GREAT MINIMIZER OF SACRED LITERATURE, rejected it as apocryphal, and thenceforward its standing was impaired. (Apocrypha http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01601a.htm)

           And:

           The influence of Origen’s and Athanasius’s restricted canon naturally spread to the West. St. Hilary of Poitiers and Rufinus followed their footsteps, excluding the deuteros from canonical rank in theory, but admitting them in practice. The latter styles them “ecclesiastical” books, but in authority unequal to the other Scriptures. St. Jerome cast his weighty suffrage ON THE SIDE UNFAVOURABLE TO THE DISPUTED BOOKS. In appreciating his attitude we must remember THAT JEROME LIVED LONG IN PALESTINE, in an environment where everything outside the Jewish Canon was suspect, and that, moreover, HE HAD AN EXCESSIVE VENERATION FOR THE HEBREW TEXT, the Hebraica veritas as he called it. In his famous “Prologus Galeatus”, or Preface to his translation of Samuel and Kings, he declares that everything not Hebrew should be classed with the apocrypha, AND EXPLICITLY SAYS that Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobias, and Judith ARE NOT IN THE CANON. THESE BOOKS, he adds, ARE READ IN THE CHURCHES FOR THE EDIFICATION OF THE PEOPLE, AND NOT FOR THE CONFIRMATION OF REVEALED DOCTRINE. An analysis of Jerome’s expressions on the deuterocanonicals, in various letters and prefaces, yields the following results: FIRST, HE STRONGLY DOUBTED THEIR INSPIRATION; secondly, the fact that he occasionally quotes them, and translated some of them as a concession to ecclesiastical tradition, is an involuntary testimony on his part to the high standing these writings enjoyed in the Church at large, and to the strength of the practical tradition which prescribed their readings in public worship. Obviously, THE INFERIOR RANK to which the deuteros were relegated by authorities LIKE ORIGEN, ATHANASIUS, AND JEROME, was due to too rigid a conception of canonicity, one demanding that a book, to be entitled to this supreme dignity, must be received by all, must have the sanction of Jewish antiquity, and must moreover be adapted not only to edification, but also to the “confirmation of the doctrine of the Church”, to borrow Jerome’s phrase…

           The canon of the Old Testament from the middle of the fifth to the close of the seventh century

           This period exhibits a curious exchange of opinions between the West and the East, while ecclesiastical usage remained unchanged, at least in the Latin Church. During this intermediate age the use of St. Jerome’s new version of the Old Testament (the Vulgate) became widespread in the Occident. With its text went Jerome’s prefaces DISPARAGING THE DEUTEROCANONICALS, AND UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF HIS AUTHORITY THE WEST BEGAN TO DISTRUST THESE and to show the first symptoms OF A CURRENT HOSTILE TO THEIR CANONICITY. On the other hand, the Oriental Church imported a Western authority which had canonized the disputed books, viz., the decree of Carthage, and from this time there is an increasing tendency among the Greeks to place the deuteros on the same level with the others–a tendency, however, due more to forgetfulness of the old distinction than to deference to the Council of Carthage. (Canon of the Old Testament)

           With that said, citing an apocryphal writing no more proves that Jerome accepted the canonicity of that particular book then Jude quoting 1 Enoch proves that 1 Enoch is canonical scripture. You are stretching things quite a bit since your method of determining canonicity would end up proving too much, since it would end up establishing the canonicity of books like 1 Enoch which even your own church rejects.

           Finally, as a Protestant I can admit that fathers like Origen, Athanasius and Jerome occasionally cited the apocrypha in their writings, even though they rejected their canonicity. I can even admit that certain fathers accepted them as sacred writings and therefore a part of the canon, while others did not. You, on the other hand, cannot deal with these facts since you are bound to the decree made at the Council of Trent regarding the canonicity of the apocrypha, since you take this to be an infallible pronouncement which can never be questioned or rejected if you are to remain a faithful Roman Catholic. In other words, you cannot simply follow the evidence and allow the fathers to speak clearly if the facts conflict with the teachings of your magisterium.

         • Let me deal with Webster first. He only quotes one document and says it’s from 401-402 AD. However, my quotation from 404 AD which postdates this work. It’s obvious that at a later date, he changed his mind and started quoting them as scripture. I never denied that he rejected them early in his life but by 404 AD he didn’t have any problems quoting them as scripture as I showed.

           The Catholic article you brought up only referenced(and didn’t even quote) the Prologus Galeatus which was written before Against Rufinus, which Webster quoted.

           If you go to his earlier life, he rejected them, but by at least 404 AD his mind had been changed.

           You mentioned that Jude quotes 1 Enoch. That is true but not as scripture. I provided you the link. Check it out. Jerome quoted Sirach 13:2 as scripture.

           You said:

           “Finally, as a Protestant I can admit that fathers like Origen, Athanasius and Jerome occasionally cited the apocrypha in their writings, even though they rejected their canonicity. I can even admit that certain fathers accepted them as sacred writings and therefore a part of the canon, while others did not.”

           I’ve never studied Origen so I won’t comment on him. Yes, Athanasius did reject them. I never denied that, but we were discussing Jerome and therefore I brought up his late letter.

           You said:

           “You, on the other hand, cannot deal with these facts since you are bound to the decree made at the Council of Trent regarding the canonicity of the apocrypha, since you take this to be an infallible pronouncement which can never be questioned or rejected if you are to remain a faithful Roman Catholic.”

           I have no problem admitting that certain fathers rejected them. The Church allowed a bit of wiggle room on this issue since its a tough issue. In fact, in my initial post which you shared on facebook, I said:

           “It is true that there were a few Church Fathers and Medieval theologians who denied these 7 books to be Scripture. I’ll never deny that, but that’s not what Slick said.”

           You said:

           “In other words, you cannot simply follow the evidence and allow the fathers to speak clearly if the facts conflict with the teachings of your magisterium.”

           You said fathers in the plural. We were only talking about one father and that was St. Jerome. To the very last thing you said, yes. I follow Trent now that the Catholic Church has spoken with infallible authority on this issue.

         • You write:
           “Let me deal with Webster first. He only quotes one document and says it’s from 401-402 AD. However, my quotation from 404 AD which postdates this work. It’s obvious that at a later date, he changed his mind and started quoting them as scripture. I never denied that he rejected them early in his life but by 404 AD he didn’t have any problems quoting them as scripture as I showed.
           The Catholic article you brought up only referenced(and didn’t even quote) the Prologus Galeatus which was written before Against Rufinus, which Webster quoted.
           If you go to his earlier life, he rejected them, but by at least 404 AD his mind had been changed. ”

           You obviously didn’t bother reading what I posted carefully or clearly. Here goes:
           Some have suggested that Jerome later changed his opinion and included the Apocrypha in the canon of the Vulgate. HOWEVER, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS. Jerome continued to write commentaries on the Old Testament books until his death. THERE IS NO RECORD THAT HE EVER RETRACTED HIS ORIGINAL STATEMENTS ABOUT THE APOCRYPHA. In his work, Against Rufinus, written in AD 401-402, he reiterated and defended his earlier position on the Apocrypha. Again, his comments come after the North African councils. Though he did not consider the Apocryphal books to be canonical in the strict sense, Jerome quoted from them in accordance with his own convictions, for the purposes of edification. Again, this is the same distinction drawn (between canonical and ecclesiastical books) by Athanasius and Rufinus. As we will see, Jerome’s views had enormous influence on the Church of subsequent ages even down to our own time. (William Webster. The Old Testament Canon and the Apocrypha, Part 2: From the Beginning of the Church Age to Jerome http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/Apocryphapart2.html)

           This in itself sufficiently refutes your claim, seeing that it comes from the New Catholic Encyclopedia, and therefore is biased towards the Apocrypha and would want to have Jerome accept the canonicity of the Apocrypha.

         • I did read what you posted. I then produced a letter to show that he had no problem quoting them as scripture from as early as 404 AD which was later than any source that Webster or the Catholic Encyclopedia quoted. You can continue to believe what William Webster and the New Catholic Encyclopedia believe about St. Jerome but I’m going to believe what St. Jerome says about St. Jerome. St. Jerome in 404 AD quoted Sirach 13:2 as scripture so that contradicts the statement that there is no evidence that he changed his mind. There is evidence and I gave you the link.

         • You further write:

           “You mentioned that Jude quotes 1 Enoch. That is true but not as scripture. I provided you the link. Check it out. Jerome quoted Sirach 13:2 as scripture.”

           In the first place, can you show me where Jude said he isn’t quoting it as Scripture? Or are you arguing from silence at this point? Secondly, you apparently missed the distinction I made between something as Scripture and citing something as canonical. This distinction is not one I made up but is something that other scholars that I have read have noted as well. There are places where certain fathers cite a writing as scripture even though they do not accept its canonicity, as being a part of the canon itself. And there are other times where a father will cite something as scripture solely because the audience he is writing to deem it as such. Again, note what the New Catholic Encyclopedia writes:

           “… secondly, the fact that he [Jerome] occasionally quotes them, and translated some of them as a concession to ecclesiastical tradition, IS AN INVOLUNTARY TESTIMONY ON HIS PART TO THE HIGH STANDING THESE WRITINGS ENJOYED IN THE CHURCH AT LARGE, AND TO THE STRENGTH OF THE PRACTICAL TRADITION WHICH PRESCRIBED THEIR READINGS IN PUBLIC WORSHIP. Obviously, THE INFERIOR RANK to which the deuteros were relegated by authorities LIKE ORIGEN, ATHANASIUS, AND JEROME, was due to too rigid a conception of canonicity, one demanding that a book, to be entitled to this supreme dignity, must be received by all, must have the sanction of Jewish antiquity, and must moreover be adapted not only to edification, but also to the “confirmation of the doctrine of the Church”, to borrow Jerome’s phrase…”

           Anyway, this will be it from my end since I have said all that I needed to say about this matter. Take care.

         • Well, if you read the book of Jude, he never refers to it as scripture. Jerome refers explicitly to Sirach 13:2 as scripture.

           You said:

           “This distinction is not one I made up but is something that other scholars that I have read have noted as well. There are places where certain fathers cite a writing as scripture even though they do not accept its canonicity, as being a part of the canon itself. And there are other times where a father will cite something as scripture solely because the audience he is writing to deem it as such. Again, note what the New ”

           These are opinions. It’s asserted but not proved. When someone refers to something as scripture, I accept that they think it’s scripture. At least at the point when they quote it as in the case of St. Jerome.

           If that is your last post then this is mine. Thanks for the discussion.

         • BTW, here is a post for you to consider since it responds to another Roman Catholic who tried to argue that Jerome ended up changing his mind: http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/06/guest-blogdid-jerome-change-his-mind.html

           This will help you see more clearly how the other side responds to this claim of Jerome changing his view.

         • Read it years ago. Wasn’t impressed.