Posted on 10/28/2011 6:59:29 AM PDT by markomalley
October 31 is only three days away. For Protestants, it is Reformation Day, the date in 1517 on which Martin Luther nailed his Ninety-Five Theses to that famous door in Wittenberg, Germany. Since I returned to the Catholic Church in April 2007, each year the commemoration has become a time of reflection about my own journey and the puzzles that led me back to the Church of my youth.
One of those puzzles was the relationship between the Church, Tradition, and the canon of Scripture. As a Protestant, I claimed to reject the normative role that Tradition plays in the development of Christian doctrine. But at times I seemed to rely on it. For example, on the content of the biblical canon – whether the Old Testament includes the deuterocanonical books (or “Apocrypha”), as the Catholic Church holds and Protestantism rejects. I would appeal to the exclusion of these books as canonical by the Jewish Council of Jamnia (A.D. 90-100) as well as doubts about those books raised by St. Jerome, translator of the Latin Vulgate, and a few other Church Fathers.
My reasoning, however, was extra-biblical. For it appealed to an authoritative leadership that has the power to recognize and certify books as canonical that were subsequently recognized as such by certain Fathers embedded in a tradition that, as a Protestant, I thought more authoritative than the tradition that certified what has come to be known as the Catholic canon. This latter tradition, rejected by Protestants, includes St. Augustine as well as the Council of Hippo (A.D. 393), the Third Council of Carthage (A.D. 397), the Fourth Council of Carthage (A.D. 419), and the Council of Florence (A.D. 1441).
But if, according to my Protestant self, a Jewish council and a few Church Fathers are the grounds on which I am justified in saying what is the proper scope of the Old Testament canon, then what of New Testament canonicity? So, ironically, given my Protestant understanding of ecclesiology, then the sort of authority and tradition that apparently provided me warrant to exclude the deuterocanonical books from Scripture – binding magisterial authority with historical continuity – is missing from the Church during the development of New Testament canonicity.
The Catholic Church, on the other hand, maintains that this magisterial authority was in fact present in the early Church and thus gave its leadership the power to recognize and fix the New Testament canon. So, ironically, the Protestant case for a deuterocanonical-absent Old Testament canon depends on Catholic intuitions about a tradition of magisterial authority.
This led to two other tensions. First, in defense of the Protestant Old Testament canon, I argued, as noted above, that although some of the Church’s leading theologians and several regional councils accepted what is known today as the Catholic canon, others disagreed and embraced what is known today as the Protestant canon. It soon became clear to me that this did not help my case, since by employing this argumentative strategy, I conceded the central point of Catholicism: the Church is logically prior to the Scriptures. That is, if the Church, until the Council of Florence’s ecumenical declaration in 1441, can live with a certain degree of ambiguity about the content of the Old Testament canon, that means that sola scriptura was never a fundamental principle of authentic Christianity.
After all, if Scripture alone applies to the Bible as a whole, then we cannot know to which particular collection of books this principle applies until the Bible’s content is settled. Thus, to concede an officially unsettled canon for Christianity’s first fifteen centuries seems to make the Catholic argument that sola scriptura was a sixteenth-century invention and, therefore, not an essential Christian doctrine.
Second, because the list of canonical books is itself not found in Scripture – as one can find the Ten Commandments or the names of Christ’s apostles – any such list, whether Protestant or Catholic, would be an item of extra-biblical theological knowledge. Take, for example, a portion of the revised and expanded Evangelical Theological Society statement of faith suggested (and eventually rejected by the membership) by two ETS members following my return to the Catholic Church. It states that, “this written word of God consists of the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments and is the supreme authority in all matters of belief and behavior.”
But the belief that the Bible consists only of sixty-six books is not a claim of Scripture, since one cannot find the list in it, but a claim about Scripture as a whole. That is, the whole has a property – i.e., “consisting of sixty-six books,” – that is not found in any of the parts. In other words, if the sixty-six books are the supreme authority on matters of belief, and the number of books is a belief, and one cannot find that belief in any of the books, then the belief that Scripture consists of sixty-six particular books is an extra-biblical belief, an item of theological knowledge that is prima facie non-biblical.
For the Catholic, this is not a problem, since the Bible is the book of the Church, and thus there is an organic unity between the fixing of the canon and the development of doctrine and Christian practice.
Although I am forever indebted to my Evangelical brethren for instilling and nurturing in me a deep love of Scripture, it was that love that eventually led me to the Church that had the authority to distinguish Scripture from other things.
The queen of heaven worshiped in Ephesus was Diana. The temple built there to her was purported to be magnificent. Adopting the queen of heaven mantra sure appealed to those who had been worshiping her didn’t it. Of course the merchants mentioned in Acts 19 could simply keep making their trinkets to the queen of heaven and not lose their livelihood. Can you say mixing pagan with Christian.
“Shut down the post and ping list and bring out the human stretching board..we got ourselves a Heretic here...Somebody bake the Heretic Sheet Cake and make the Ivo of Chatre Cheeseball..it’s a good day to be the pious ones.”
***No central governing authority there ****
Again, you change the premise of the discussion.
So, which is it, CB. Did you ask to be shown an “organized church” in the Scriptures or a “central governing authority?
I gave you the answer to your question, yet you come back with something all together different.
But, I will play the game and answer.
That deacons were appointed shows that there was authority accepted by the believers.
That Paul could ask for a weekly, daily or monthly collection shows an acceptance of his authority to do so.
The letters were written TO those whom the Apostles had taught and set in place as leaders of the community once they had moved on to other places. That means they had the desire to correct and reprove and teach the true faith, and authority to do so. An authority given them by Christ which they then passed on to others.
2 Peter 1:12Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth. 13Yea, I think it meet, as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance; 14Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me. 15Moreover I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance.
St. Peter here tells the church that he will endeavor to assure that we will have remembrance of the things he and the others have taught about Jesus even after he has passed away.
***Is the Holy Spirit the RCC claims to have more powerful then the Holy Spirit promised to each of us?***
The Holy Spirit is the same for us all, but we are all called to serve the Lord in different capacities.
***That’s why they wrote it all down to have a record so there would be no adding or taking away later in time. By their own admission the RCC has surely developed doctrine not in scripture.***
Not explicit but supported by Scripture.
Muslims and Mormons also consider me a heretic. Is there a trend there?
There is no point arguing. The truth is not determined on these threads, it has existed from before the beginning of time. It cannot be declared by any church or absence of church. It is not determined by rules of evidence, convincing rhetoric, lame excuses, gotcha questions, ping-list dog-piles, precedent, moderators or errors in argument by Catholics. It is not contrived by false assertions, nor logical fallacies. It simply is and is immutable.
Any idiot can make up a lie and challenge you to prove the negative. The only way you lose an argument like this is to validate it by responding. That is why the Church established anathema. Not to deal with the evil, but to protect the saints from the occasion of sin.
I would repeat myself, but as it was ignored the first time, I won’t.
God is the Alpha and the Omega, there is nothing that existed before Him and nothing which He did not will into existence.
Before Jesus, all who were not Jewish were not of the “chosen people” of God and He had not revealed Himself to them.
After Jesus, all men/women are children of God and heirs with Jesus to the eternal kingdom, for all may see the glory of God.
Those outside the Jewish faith, who did not KNOW God, but desired Him are now brought into the household of God and the gods and goddesses that were worshiped have been shown to be false. The One True God revealed to us in Jesus has claimed all things for Himself.
Yes, He did at the Last Supper.
And it was that flesh that died, was buried and was resurrected unto glory.
The same flesh which He offered to St. Thomas to touch in order that the “doubting” Thomas would know that, indeed, Christ is Risen.
OH, I don’t argue, lol.
I offer truth and the rest argue or wrestle with it.
Same thing as far as the RCC is concerned.
>> St. Peter here tells the church that he will endeavor to assure that we will have remembrance of the things he and the others have taught about Jesus even after he has passed away.<<
Yep, and he made sure that everything he thought we needed was written down and assured us again of the presence of the Holy Spirit in each of us.
>> The Holy Spirit is the same for us all, but we are all called to serve the Lord in different capacities.<<
So you would agree that the Holy Spirit within each of us is that one reliable authority?
>> Not explicit but supported by Scripture.<<
Then you could show me from scripture the support for the bodily assumption of Mary and also the concept of a “queen of heaven” inherent in the teachings of Jesus or the Apostles.
The RCC puts the church between God and man. Jesus promised the indwelling of the Holy Spirit to each individual yet the RCC claims supperiority to the leading of that Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit does not lead us to a "church". The Holy Spirit leads us to Christ.
Either defend you faith or don’t.
It’s no coincidence that much of RCC icons, markings, statues, rituals, and decorations resemble or exactly replicate pagan artifacts. Even the arrangement and edifices of St. Peters square is fashioned after pagan symbols.
Wow, so lets see the meme of standing up and preaching goes to the Hindu sanyasis, so I guess your post is saying that preaching the gospel is pagan in your post’s convoluted logic
"In the beginning God created the heaven (singular) and the earth." Gen.1:1. He created the heaven for a reason, and He created the earth for a reason. That is what the Bible is about, Natural Law. Those two creations of God and WHY He created those two. They were both created by Christ, for Christ, and for the glory of God. God and mankind and His truth. There are so many things to learn from God's Word, He has revealed so much to man in order to reconcile man to Himself. ANd yet, to some, even His Word is not enough. THey must have more. More revelations, extra information. Spending a lifetime seeking the wisdom of God by going to man's explanations of what God meant to say. IT is all foolishness to God.
It is no wonder that His wrath is going to fall. And when it does, it will be Divine justice. He has told us what He says we need to be reconciled to Him. Accept it, reject it.
Do you know why the heaven (singular) and the earth were created? We know there are three heavens. He created one of those for a specific reason.
I'd suggest you get the guide to English first before looking into German.
Really -- amazon might even give a discount to you on that book "DU guide to English" or "you can now speakee English Abdulla"
Maybe your non-Christian religion condemns Christianity for believing that Jesus Christ is God, but who cares about your non-Christian religion? No one
I guess the Koran condemns Christianity, eh guys?
We have the example of Christ and the Apostles preaching. Could you show the example of Christ and the Apostles using the four spoked wheel of Baal? How about Christ or the Apostles using “pillars” or obelisks? Maybe the use of the sunburst pattern explained by Christ or the Apostles?
****Same thing as far as the RCC is concerned.****
The Catholic Church does indeed recognize that Jesus instituted a Church which was organized in order to insure the continuity of Truth in doctrine and faith and that His Church has the authority to proclaim and protect that Truth.
But, you deflect on my charge that when I give you the answer to a challenge, rather than respond to the veracity of that answer, the parameter is moved so as to make it seem that I gave an incorrect or misleading answer.
It is a frequent and exasperating method of debate on these boards.
***Yep, and he made sure that everything he thought we needed was written down and assured us again of the presence of the Holy Spirit in each of us.***
True but incomplete, as it is proven in Scripture that men were given the charge to lead the church and instructed as to the one true faith, so that they may with authority proclaim and protect that faith.
Thus, I can say with certainty, that the Apostles and the disciples handed on the faith both through written and oral teaching. First, orally and after they had instructed and ordained others, through the written word, in the form of letters meant to affirm, reprove and reproach those to whom they had entrusted the good news.
***So you would agree that the Holy Spirit within each of us is that one reliable authority?****
I would agree that the Holy Spirit is one and the same and given to each of us according to God’s plan and will for us to serve Him and His Church.
It remains thus with the Church today.
***Then you could show me from scripture the support for the bodily assumption of Mary and also the concept of a “queen of heaven” inherent in the teachings of Jesus or the Apostles.***
I have done so in the past. All of Scripture must be believed. If one believes in Jesus, then one believes what has been said in the OT about Him as well as what is said in the NT.
****The RCC puts the church between God and man. Jesus promised the indwelling of the Holy Spirit to each individual yet the RCC claims supperiority to the leading of that Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit does not lead us to a “church”. The Holy Spirit leads us to Christ.****
This is your own erroneous understanding of the Church and interpretation of Scripture. The Church claims the guidance of the Holy Spirit which is no different than your own claim to know Truth by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
The difference is that we can see clear historical and organic growth of the Church with unity of doctrine under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, while within the ranks of those who claim to know the truth without the aid of the church, we see disunity and disagreement.
When have I done otherwise?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.