The New Testament: In Medio Ecclesiae

Catholic Faith ^ | Jan 2001 | Thomas Storck

[markomalley]

The New Testament: In Medio Ecclesiae
by Thomas Storck

---

One of the strangest things about the theology of Protestants and of others, such as Jehovah's Witnesses, who claim to base their doctrine on Sacred Scripture, is their use of Scripture as a judge, even an enemy, of the Catholic Church. That is, by treating Scripture as independent of the Church, instead of as something produced by the Church, they erect the Bible, particularly the New Testament, into something it was never intended to be, an entirely independent source of sacred doctrine. In this article I intend to show from the text of the New Testament, especially from the Acts of the Apostles, that invaluable history of the Church in the early Apostolic era, that the text of the New Testament must always be viewed in medio ecclesiae, in the midst of the Church, something of, by and for the Church, a book that cannot be understood apart from the Church and which can never rightly be separated from the Church, let alone made into a judge of the Church.

---

The first thing to understand, and a fact that can hardly be denied, is that the creation of the Catholic Church preceded the creation of the New Testament. Thus all the documents of the New Testament, the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, all the various epistles, and the Book of Revelation (Apocalypse), were written by members of the Church, presuppose the existence of the Church, and reflect her teaching and liturgical practice. In the Acts of the Apostles we possess an account of the spread of the Gospel from the time of the Ascension of our Lord until shortly after St. Paul's arrest and detention in Rome. Any open-minded reader of Acts must see that from the very beginning it focuses on the work of the Church. Although all the details are by no means clear to us, the fact of the Church appears on every page of the book of Acts and must be obvious to anyone who looks at it without prejudice. Let us take a tour through that book to highlight some of the major points which reflect or presuppose the existence and doctrine of the Church.

Before doing so though, it would be well to say a word about when the Acts of the Apostles was written. For if it is not, in fact, an historical account of the earliest life of the Church, compiled from contemporary accounts, in fact written by St. Luke, companion of St. Paul, then its historical value is much less. The traditional date of the composition of Acts is about 63 A.D., that is, a mere thirty years after our Lord's Ascension. Thus concerning those events which Luke himself did not witness, such as the Ascension or the day of Pentecost, he was able to interview the participants themselves. Therefore we need have no hesitation about accepting the work as a perfectly reliable historical document. With this in mind, let us begin our journey through Acts, focusing on those elements which in some way involve the place and role of the Church.

At the very beginning of Acts, right after Jesus's Ascension is narrated, we have the account of the selection of Matthias to take the place of Judas among the Apostles. We should note here that it was Peter who initiated Matthias's selection, but for the purposes of this article, we will concentrate on the fact that already this early band of followers of Jesus Christ is acting, not only like a corporate body, but a body with officers and procedures, and at least some sense of its future mission. It was not simply some unorganized band of men who were inspired by the teachings of Jesus or who individually received enlightenment from the Holy Spirit, but a regularly constituted organization. In other words, here already we have in germ the Catholic idea of the Church, a body with officers, created by God and which received from him its authority to carry out the work of making disciples of all nations and bringing the means of grace to the human race.

Next follow the events of the day of Pentecost, when God the Holy Spirit came upon the early Catholics and endowed them with the power of preaching the Gospel throughout the world. Here also the institution of the Church is apparent: Peter preaches the first Catholic sermon, and "those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls" (Acts 2:41). Added to what? To the Church, of course, and added by means of an external and public rite, Baptism, not by a merely subjective salvation experience. And what did these new converts do? They "devoted themselves to the apostles's teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers" (Acts 2:42).

Here we would do well to pause and look more closely at this last phrase, "to the breaking of bread and the prayers." What exactly does this mean? We, of course, can be sure that it refers to the Eucharist, to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. But does the text say this exactly and without any doubt? No, for this is just one example of how the New Testament presupposes knowledge of the Church's practices in order to be fully understood. Were we "Bible-only" Christians, and seeking to emulate the life of the Jerusalem church, what would we do? Break up pieces of bread while we engaged in prayer? The point is that the book of Acts, like the rest of the New Testament, does not explain a very great amount of what it mentions or alludes to, simply because St. Luke was assuming that its readers, faithful Catholics, would understand it in a Catholic sense. We will see this happen many times as we proceed with our discussion.

The next incident in Acts that we will look at is the institution of the order of deacons in chapter 6. When confronted with a disagreement between Greek-speaking and Aramaic-speaking Catholics, the Apostles created and ordained the first deacons to take charge of the distribution of food. Here again the Apostles act with consciousness of their own authority. They clearly consider the Church to be one body of believers over which they rule. And all this happens, we should note, before any book of the New Testament exists. Unlike Protestants, they do not "search the scriptures" to find out what they should do, because either by command of Christ Himself, given to them orally when He was on earth, or by the continuing inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they, as rulers of the Church, know what to do to meet the needs and continuing crises of her existence. They clearly claim an authority that derives immediately from Jesus Christ, not simply from Jesus Christ by means of the written Scriptures, as Protestants today perforce would. The question of the creation of deacons, moreover, is akin to the question of the Sacrament of Confirmation or the conferring of the Holy Spirit. Let us look at how Acts treats this subject.

Chapter 8 of Acts contains the account of the visit of Peter and John to Samaria so that the new converts there "might receive the Holy Spirit" (8:14-15). The way St. Luke recounts the experience of various new converts with the reception of the Holy Spirit is a good example of how the bare text very often cannot be understood apart from knowledge of the Church's doctrines and practices. On the day of Pentecost God the Holy Spirit came upon the Apostles and the other members of the Church (chap. 3), and Peter promises the three thousand who were about to be baptized that they "shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (3:38), but nothing is said about there being a sepa-rate rite for this. What can we conclude from that? Nothing really, though the "Bible-only" Christian might wonder about the correct manner that the Holy Spirit is to be given to believers. Indeed, in the account of the Ethiopian eunuch who was baptized by Philip (Acts 8:27-39), there is no mention of the newly-baptized receiving the Holy Spirit. Though after Paul is converted he is told that he is to be "filled with the Holy Spirit" (Acts 9:17), again nothing is said about a separate rite for this, only that he was baptized (verse 18). And finally, in chapter 10, Cornelius, a gentile, together with his friends and relatives, receives the Holy Spirit while Peter is preaching, and immediately afterwards they are baptized by Peter's command. So here we see accounts of people being baptized with no mention of their receiving the Holy Spirit, and yet of others who receive this gift before their Baptism. But in chapter 8, as I said, Peter and John are expressly sent to Samaria because the Holy Spirit "had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." And those Apostles then "laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit" (Acts 8:17). Now what can these various narratives teach us?

I think that the "Bible-only" Christian would be perplexed here, or at least he ought to be. If he seeks to follow the teaching and practice of the New Testament Church, how is he to handle the matter of receiving the Holy Spirit? Is this for everyone or only for some? And who can confer the Holy Spirit? If only apostles, then is there anyone living today who can do this? But Catholics, knowing the practice of the Church, can see that Luke simply omits to mention the conferring of the Holy Spirit on the three thou-sand converts of the day of Pentecost or on the Ethiopian eunuch. There is no implication here that receiving the Holy Spirit is optional or simply a part of baptism. And although the early Church undoubtedly witnessed many supernatural charisms that no longer are given or are no longer common, in this matter of receiving the Holy Spirit we can see the current Catholic practice of the Sacrament of Confirmation (or chrismation). All the newly baptized are to receive the Holy Spirit, which is the reason Peter and John were sent to Samaria. And since, at this early date, it is likely that the Apostles had not yet ordained or consecrated anyone else to the priesthood, there was no one else able to confer Confirmation, which is why they had to ask Jerusalem to send someone to administer this sacrament. And if in any particular account of someone's conversion the reception of the Holy Spirit is not mentioned, this is simply an oversight by the author, it does not imply that this is optional or unimportant. But the reader of Acts who does not have the framework of the Church's teaching to help him understand has no way of knowing this. He would be in doubt about who is to receive the Holy Spirit, when (before or after Baptism), and by whom the Holy Spirit is to be conferred.

This same confusion about the sacraments is reflected in the interpretation of some Protestants (the Berean Baptists) about I Corinthians 1:17. There Paul is deploring the divisions in the church of Corinth and he states that he is grateful because he himself had baptized very few of the Catholics there. Then he says (verse 17): "For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel." From this these Protestants have concluded that baptism is optional or unnecessary and that the Church in the time of St. Paul did not regard it as obligatory. Again, looking at this passage with the Catholic fullness of faith, we recognize simply one of St Paul's characteristic overstatements. But how are Protestants, using only the bare text of Holy Scripture, to deal with this objection?

In a similar vein, the question of who is the proper subject of baptism has also been a controversy between Catholics and many Protestants. That is, can infants be baptized? Does the New Testament say anything about this one way or the other? In fact, the text of the New Testament is not clear on this matter, but we might pause and look at a phrase that occurs in connection with Baptism, namely that someone is baptized `and all of his household' or a similar phrasing. Does `all his household' include children below the age of reason? From the text of the New Testatment, we do not know definitely, for some Protestants would argue that, just as the statement, "All the family enjoys reading books," excludes infants, so here there is no implication that infants are included either. The point is, that the New Testament text is not definite. But would Jesus Christ leave his followers in doubt about a matter of such great importance? Would he leave his followers merely a book, a book that can and has been interpreted a thousand different ways? Without the existence of the teaching, believing and worshipping Church, we would be in the dark about not only Baptism but about many equally important questions of faith and practice.

To return to the Acts of the Apostles, in chapter 13 we begin to read of Paul's various missionary journeys. And here again we see the Church in action, for Luke states that Paul, and his companion St. Barnabas, returned to the cities where they had preached the Gospel and "appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting . . . " (14:23). Now who are these "elders?" They are previously mentioned in Acts 11:30, but, unlike the order of deacons, no account is given of their creation. And to make matters more confusing, they are sometimes equated with another office, that of bishop (e.g., Acts 20:17 and 28, Titus 1:5-7). What can one conclude from this? If one looks at the names of the officials who lead various Protestant congregations today, sometimes one will find a pastor, sometimes an elder, occasionally even a bishop. For, again, the text of the New Testament does not set forth clearly a system of church government. A Christian who seeks to rely solely on the Bible would be confused by the variety of titles and functions. But we Catholics know that whatever names may have been used in the early Church, there are three distinct orders of ministry, bishops, priests and deacons, that are of divine institution. But from this we can see two important facts: First, that the New Testament church regarded itself as an institution which required officials, and that these officials were not free-lance agents nor did they receive their authority from their congregations; and secondly, that the bare text of the New Testament does not allow us to make any certain judgment about the powers and authority of bishops or elders and their relationship with the Apostles. Again, only our knowledge of the Church and her teachings and our recognition of the fact that, despite our inability always to understand the meaning of some of the New Testament passages, we have in the constant practice of the living Church a sure method of interpretation, allows us to avoid the confusion that ought to exist for one seeking in the biblical text alone all his theological and ecclesiastical knowledge.

In the next chapter of Acts (chap. 15) occurs one of the great events of the Apostolic Church, the Council of Jerusalem, called to decide whether the newly-converted had to submit to circumcision and keep the Mosiac law in order to become Christians. Or in other words, whether all Catholics had first to become Jews. This event alone ought to be enough to put to rest forever Protestant notions of ecclesiology, for in this serious crisis about what Christians must believe and how they are to act, it is not by consulting the Scriptures nor by individual prophecies from the Holy Spirit, but by the hierarchy meeting together and listening to the Apostles, particularly Peter, that a decision is reached. And when a decision is reached, not only is it imposed on the whole Church authoritatively, but the actual decree that is sent out begins: "For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us . . . "! (15:28). What group of Protestant pastors would ever presume to speak in the name of God the Holy Spirit himself? Yet here the Catholic Church does so with no hesitation or hint of embarrassment. And to this day the Catholic Church continues to speak with authority and the world is still astonished by it, much as it was astonished at that Church's Founder "for he taught them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes" (Matthew 7:29).

Although there is much else that might be mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, Msgr. Ronald Knox sums up well the career of the Church as it is recounted in that book:

From the very outset of the Acts, you have the impression that the Church has sprung into being ready-made. Not that it has no lessons to learn from experience, needs no fresh revelations to guide it. But it knows already how to deal with each fresh situation that arises, and does so with a wonderful sureness of touch.

It would be beyond the scope of this article to review the entire New Testament in the same manner in which we have just reviewed parts of the Acts of the Apostles. But I would like to call attention to two more passages, Colossians 4:16 and I Thessalonians 5:27, each of which also illustrates something of the Catholic nature of the New Testament Church. In these passages St. Paul commands the letters he has just written to be read aloud in the congregations. In Colossians he writes: "And when this letter has been read among you, have it read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and see that you read also the letter from Laodicea." And in I Thessalonians, "I adjure you by the Lord that this letter be read to all the brethren." Now what seems interesting to me about these verses, is that very likely the practice of reading such letters aloud was common and was carried out in the case of all of St. Paul's letters, even though only twice does he specifically mention it. And what does this mean? It means that, unlike the Protestant notion of biblical interpretation, the Pauline letters were meant to be read in the context of the local church by the local clergy, and no doubt commented upon and the difficult passages and expressions explained for the benefit of the faithful. There was no notion of each believer taking his Bible into his study, reading it and coming up with his own interpretation. The Scriptures were read and interpreted within the local church. In fact, doubtless at least some of those in the congregations Paul addressed could not even read. So here again, when we actually look at the practice of the Church of the New Testament, far from seeing in it Protestant ideas and Protestant practices, we see ample evidence of Catholic faith and practice, often, it is true, not fully grown, but existing in germ. And in many other passages, we have allusions to practices and deeds which are not explained by the passage, and leave the reader in doubt about what the Apostolic practice really was. In both these cases the Catholic Church is the key to understanding the New Testament. As Catholics we must learn to see the New Testament as the prime book produced by the Church, a book that is in many ways unintelligible without the Church. If we do this, then we can rejoice with the Apostles and St. Paul, as we repeat:

Now to him who by the power at work within us is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations for ever and ever. Amen. (Ephesians 3:21)

---

1. The Catholic Church in the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation of the Second Vatican Council, Dei Verbum, nos. 9 and 10, teaches that "Sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God, which is entrusted to the Church . . . It is clear, therefore, that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others."

2. Catholic Biblical Association, A Commentary on the New Testament (Catholic Biblical Association, 1942) p. 365; John E. Steinmueller, A Companion to Scripture Studies, (New York : Joseph F. Wagner, c. 1943), vol. 3, p. 219. John A. T. Robinson, in his important book, Redating the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster, c. 1976), suggests a date of "62 or soon after" (p. 92). Robinson in this book carefully reexamines a hundred years of biblical scholarship and reaches surprisingly traditional conclusions about the dates of the New Testament books. On the other hand, Richard J. Dillon and Joseph A. Fitzmyer in The Jerome Biblical Commentary (Englewood Cliffs, N.J. : Prentice-Hall, c. 1968) give a late date of 80-85 A.D. for Acts, which depends on their late date for Luke (p. 165). But their whole argu-ment seems to me vitiated by a fallacy of positing the consequent. Cf. pp. 118-19.
3. Although this article does not explicitly deal with the primacy of the Apostle Peter, I will just note here that it is impossible not to see, from the text of the New Testament, that Peter was the leader of the apostles, and ipso facto, of the entire Church.
4. Catholic writers would do well to apply the term Catholic more often to the earliest Christians, for if we truly believe that it was Jesus Christ who founded the Catholic Church, and no other church, then it follows that the apostles and the earliest Christians were Catholics, and rightly called by this name, although the name itself did not come into use, as far as we know, until some time later, St. Ignatius of Antioch (early 2nd century) making the first recorded use of the term.

5. This occurs in Acts 16:15, 16:33 and I Corinthians 1:16.
6. It is generally thought that in the early Church the titles bishop and elder were used interchangeably for the same office (that of priest) until approximately the time of the death of the Apostles. Elder in Greek is presbyteros, that is presbyter or priest.
7. If someone were to read a diocesan newspaper without knowing anything about the Church, he might be confused by the use of the terms pastor, associate pastor, parish priest, monsignor, parochial vicar, curate, etc., and might conclude that they referred to different offices of ministry. And to make matters more confusing, in many countries monsignor is a term of address for a bishop.
8. Ronald Knox, The Belief of Catholics (Garden City, N.Y. : Image, 1958) p. 119.

---

Thomas Storck writes from Maryland.

---

[P-Marlowe]

I know the story, but we can think that God literally dictated the Bible or dictated by Prophets, Priests, and Apostles inspired by God. In any case, human hands set down the words.

Although written in 66 books by over 40 authors over a period of 4000 years, every word in the bible is there exactly as God wanted it to be. Every Jot and Every Tittle.

Wholly infallible in the autographs, preserved by the will of God for the dissemination of Truth through all ages.

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. (2 Timothy 3:16-17 KJV)

[markomalley]

I have not found a way to work with this kind of sophistry.

Agreed. That is why we should refer to scripture:

Take a look at I Cor 2:

But, as it is written, "What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him," God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. For what person knows a man's thoughts except the spirit of the man which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God, that we might understand the gifts bestowed on us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit. The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

Bottom line is that the Holy Spirit enlightens men's hearts. Not us. Consequently, Paul's recommendation to Titus (3:10) should be our guide:

As for a man who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.

Patient explanation, don't let them frame the argument, and we can't get emotional over it. Just isn't worth it!

IMHO, FWIW, YMMV...

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“I believe the first to make the claim that he was the first bishop of Rome was Eusebius followed by Jerome.”

So Eusebius and Jerome represent the sum total of the magisterium? Which one, Eusebius or Jerome, was pope? Neither. Which one was a Church council? Neither.

You’ve got to be able to do better than that, Uncle Chip.

“Both claimed that he became bishop of Rome in the 2nd year of Claudius [42 AD] and held the sacerdotal chair for 25 years until the 14th year of Nero [67 AD] -— all of which stretches credulity to such an extent that even the Catholic Encyclopedia has backed away from their claims.”

Whether or not it stretches credulity in your mind is immaterial. When will you post evidence that the magisterium teaches Peter was the first bishop of Rome? Again, I’m just curious as to how you came to the conclusion it does when I knew you probably would be unable to substantiate it. Maybe you’ll do it on your second try?

[Uncle Chip]

See Post 118

[vladimir998]

I just did. I think Mark has a point.

[markomalley]

See Post 118

And Post #118 cites a reference that has dissenting verbiage in it, thus showing that whether or not Peter was the first bishop of Rome is not a concluded dogma nor is it part of the Magesterium. Here (click on the link) are the citations in the Catechism for the word "Rome" -- nowhere will you see that it says Peter was the first bishop of Rome. It says in a number of places that the Pope is the successor to Peter; however, that is not the same thing.

It is commonly accepted that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, but that is a matter of history, not dogma (and Vladimir, please correct me if I'm in error there). And, as I asked you in Post 118, if there is some factual evidence to the contrary, I'll be happy to accept it. That offer still stands.

[markomalley]

Sorry...forgot to close the “I” tag after the word “was” — hope it doesn’t make it too difficult to read.

[Mad Dawg]

Luke was an ass?

Well he was a physician. And we all know physicians who are asses. So we have to admit it's a possibility.

Just saying ...

[Uncle Chip]

It is commonly accepted that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, but that is a matter of history,

No --- that is a matter of Tradition not History. And it is a Tradition that began with Eusebius.

[markomalley]

No --- that is a matter of Tradition not History. And it is a Tradition that began with Eusebius.

I don't have time to look it up right now (if it would matter to you anyway), but there are Patristic writings of far greater antiquity than Eusebius' Church History that make that statement.

[P-Marlowe]

Well he was a physician. And we all know physicians who are asses. So we have to admit it's a possibility. Just saying ...

Gee, MD. I do believe you just exhibited a keen sense of humor.

Let me introduce you to tiki.

Tiki, meet Mad Dawg.

[Bainbridge]

The Bible is a Catholic Book?
Tell that to the Chosen people of the Old Testament.

[vladimir998]

Uncle Chip, you wrote,

“No -— that is a matter of Tradition not History. And it is a Tradition that began with Eusebius.”

Actually, as J Van Engen notes in the Elwell Evangelical Dictionary, “Protestants once vigorously attacked all stories about Peter’s end, but the best evidence, as most scholars now agree, indicates that he in fact died a martyr in the time of Nero and that his cult originated very early in Rome, though Cullmann believes he was probably executed rather than buried at the present St. Peter’s on the Vatican Hill.”

It seems to me that most Protestant scripture scholars denied Peter was the Rock. Now, however, some (and increasingly more of them) accept the idea.

It seems to me that most Protestant historians denied that Peter was ever in Rome at all. Now, however, many(and increasingly more of them) accept the idea.

As JND Kelley wrote: “It seems certain that Peter spent his closing years in Rome. Although the NT appears silent about such a stay, it is supported by 1 Peter 5:13, where ‘BABYLON’ is a code-name for ROME, and by the strong case for linking the Gospel of Mark, who as Peter’s companion (1 Pet 5:13) is said to have derived its substance from him, with Rome. To early writers like Clement of Rome (c. 95), Ignatius of Antioch (c. 107), and Irenaeus (c. 180) it was common knowledge that he worked and died in Rome.” (Oxford Dictionary of the Popes, 6)

It seems to me that all Protestant historians once denied Peter held a special office. Now, however, some (and increasingly more of them) accept the idea even if with qualifiers like those thought up by O. Cullman.

We know why Protestants once so strongly contested these things. How do we know? They told us: “...to deny the Roman stay of Peter is an error which today is clear to every scholar who is not blind. The martyr death of Peter at Rome was once contested by reason of Protestant prejudice.” (Adolph Harnack cited in, The Search for the Twelve Apostles, by William Stuart McBirnie, 63).

[Bainbridge]

Oh, your intention is to help smooth things out by calling the “Separated Brethren” schismatics? Yes, I know the dictionary definition. You are either deceitful or a fool.

[Uncle Chip]

I don't have time to look it up right now (if it would matter to you anyway), but there are Patristic writings of far greater antiquity than Eusebius' Church History that make that statement.

Good luck in your search. I don't think you will find anything until maybe the 3rd century. And while you are at it, check on that 42 AD date again, because Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus, and Hippolytus all tell us that it was Simon Magus who came to Rome in 42 AD and had a long ecclesiastical Roman bishopric there that ended under Nero ------ not Simon Peter.

[markomalley]

The Bible is a Catholic Book?

Yup.

Tell that to the Chosen people of the Old Testament.

OK, since the subject of the Old Testament is the Messiah, the Head of the Catholic Church. (that person is Jesus Christ: I say the obvious in an effort to preempt trolls)

[RobbyS]

Does that include the translations? In any case, the oldest copies of Biblical texts in their original languages we have do vary (jot and tittle)among themselves. Then we have the problem of the Septuagent, which was the Scripture used by the Gospel writers. Are we really compelled to canonize only the books in Hebrew? By whose authority? And the basic question: MUST we treat the Bible as the Muslim’s treat the Qur’an: as the VERY Word of God. The Word of God is not a book: He is Jesus.

[Running On Empty]

I think it’s personal to call someone a fool. Our Lord advised us against doing that.

It also is personal to call someone deceitful if you aren’t absolutely sure of that person has the intention to deceive.

[Bainbridge]

Poor stewardship to engage here.

[P-Marlowe]

Does that include the translations?

No. In the original autographs. In any case, the oldest copies of Biblical texts in their original languages we have do vary (jot and tittle)among themselves.

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. (Matthew 5:18 KJV)

Obviously Jesus felt that every letter of the Bible was and every jot and tittle was there for a specific reason.

Are we really compelled to canonize only the books in Hebrew?

You will probably not rot in hell forever for using the septuagent.

And the basic question: MUST we treat the Bible as the Muslim’s treat the Qur’an: as the VERY Word of God.

You don't have to treat it as the VERY Word of God. It is. But you don't have to treat it that way.

The Word of God is not a book: He is Jesus.

Indeed, and His Words are in the Bible. He inspired them. They, like all his creations, were perfect in the autographs.

Again, I don't believe you will rot in hell forever for refusing to recognize the importance of scripture as the FINAL authority in all matters of faith and morals. God forgives a multitude of sins.