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.
Mark, it is obvious that those who try to convince us they, not we, are the experts on the Catechism have never actually read it beyond the few articles presented out of context in anti-Catholic literature,
CCC - 11 This catechism aims at presenting an organic synthesis of the essential and fundamental contents of Catholic doctrine, as regards both faith and morals, in the light of the Second Vatican Council and the whole of the Church's Tradition. Its principal sources are the Sacred Scriptures, the Fathers of the Church, the liturgy, and the Church's Magisterium. It is intended to serve "as a point of reference for the catechisms or compendia that are composed in the various countries".
CCC - 18 This catechism is conceived as an organic presentation of the Catholic faith in its entirety. It should be seen therefore as a unified whole. Numerous cross-references in the margin of the text (numbers found at the end of a sentence referring to other paragraphs that deal with the same theme), as well as the analytical index at the end of the volume, allow the reader to view each theme in its relationship with the entirety of the faith.
I make way too many spelling / content mistakes and don't catch them all, so you're not alone.
Tomorrow they'll wake up with a whole new wad of lint from their navels.
Since I’m clothed in Christ, even if I am judged by my works, God will be seeing Christ’s works imputed to me and I’ll still be OK.
So I post a direct warning from Christ about doing or not doing the will of His Father in Heaven, and your reply to me is that not only you worship the god in the mirror, so does Christ? In spite of Jesus, Peter, Paul, John et al issuing repeated warnings about every man being Judged, you think that it won't happen to you or that you get a pass?
When they are quoted in the Catechism, it is wise to see what the quotes mean if unsure.
I gotta give CB general credit here, though; he's kept the dialogue on a somewhat even keel with only an occasional cross wind.
The gift of God is free. Yup.
Ephesians 2:4-10 4But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ— by grace you have been saved— 6and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
Romans 8:1-11 1There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. 3For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. 6For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. 7For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. 8Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
9You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. 10But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 11If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.
Colossians 3:3-4 3For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. 4When Christ who is your life appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.
It can be yours, too, simply for the asking.
How nice. We do too. My point was to clarify how you interpret the verse that every knee would bow and tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, Philippians 2:9-11 says, "Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
This goes WAY beyond whether someone kneels at "church". It concerns the entire creation "in heaven, in earth and things under the earth" professing and bowing in submission to Jesus Christ as LORD and the day when ALL WILL. God cares more about the position of the heart than the position of the body. I DO hope you understand this.
Got that? Catholic kneeling is just not good enough. Who knows if Catholic kneeling equals kneeling in the heart? Who knows if Carholics submit in the heart? We probably don’t understand this. /extreme dripping sarcasm
Nuff said about that.
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast." Eph. 2:8,9.
Okie doke.
I figure that’s a “No.” “Jesus’s teaching about the Kingdom of Heaven is not relevant or applicable, to everyone, us.”
In general or overall, would you say; none of Jesus’s ministry is relevant and applies to us? Very little? Some?
Many. II Corinthians 11:13-15 speaks of such:
For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works.
I think this is obvious to anyone who does any amount of study of cults and world religions. It should be no surprise that Satan, who from the start sought to replace Almighty God, would also try to lure the objects of God's love (mankind) away from him. Unfortunately, he doesn't run around in red PJs with horns and a pitchfork, easily identified. No, he masquerades as an "angel of light" and his demons as "ministers of righteousness". He is a "roaring lion" who walks about seeking who he may devour. Just as he used trickery and deceit to entice Adam and Eve to sin, he STILL uses those guiles today and people STILL fall for it. Our ONLY protection is the full armor of God.
We are advised in Ephesians 6:10-13 about what that armor is intended for, "Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might. Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
That "armor of God" is:
Stand therefore, having girded your waist with truth, having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace; above all, taking the shield of faith with which you will be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God; praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit (Eph. 6:14-18)
"Howbeit for this cause I (Paul) obtained mercy, THAT IN ME FIRST Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, FOR A PATTERN TO THEM WHICH SHOULD HEREAFTER BELIEVE ON HIM to life everlasting." 1 Tim. 1:16.
Hereafter believe: "But Now". You want to live your life as a workman for God who does not need to be ashamed when you stand before Him? Paul is your pattern to follow. Paul was a chosen vessel to Jesus Christ. And he tells you every revelation that Christ gave him for us in this age of grace.
So. As I read your post, you believe Jesus’s ministry is relevant to us in so far as He says to follow St. Paul.
Because: “Paul is your pattern to follow.”
It sounds like a fun little puzzle your teachers made of the New Testament and likely quite interesting to scramble and fit the pieces together in novel ways.
However, did it ever occur to you somewhere along the way that being a follower of Christ, a Christian, would be incongruent with the statement: “Paul is your pattern to follow.”?
1 Corinthians 11:1-2 Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ. 2Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you.
Catholics certainly don't have any problem following Paul when they quote him to justify their elevating the traditions of men to the level of Scripture.
Why is that?
Wow MM, I completely missed it. When did you become a Dispensationalists?
Dripping sarcasm - EXACTLY! Apparently, you DID NOT "get it". Rather than trying to wring as much hatred and criticism out of every one of our posts, why not simply cool your jets and hear what I am saying.
I did not say Catholics' kneeling isn't "good enough" and I am NOT saying Catholics' don't "kneel" with their hearts or understand what the verse in Philippians is talking about. What I am trying to express is there is a big difference in bowing the knee to recognize that Jesus Christ is LORD and the act of kneeling in church. One is an attitude and one is a position. One day EVERYONE, EVERYTHING will confess and bow in submission to Jesus whether they are in heaven, on earth or even under the earth. Like I said, it is WAY more than just talking about what one does when they pray. Plenty of people kneel who are NOT in submission to Jesus as Lord, plenty of people go to church every Sunday who have never submitted themselves to Christ. Tares and wheat, remember?
Markbsnr took off on the same tangent you seem to be on, that the act of kneeling during Mass is obeying what the verse is speaking of and he took it further by implying since he didn't ever see "Protestants" kneeling in THEIR church, they aren't confessing Jesus as Lord. My replies have been to clarify the point. Now, you may think he's right that because Catholics kneel and others don't it means Catholics are the "real" Christians and we aren't, and I probably can't do much to shake loose that impression, but I hope at least this time you get it that I'm not the one doing the comparing.
Exactly. We are told to follow Paul as he followed Christ. Why is that taken to be that one is not following Christ if he is following Paul? It’s ridiculous. But my guess is this: there is no $$$ to be made with following the free gift of God. There is no power over men when one realizes that we are all free. There is no way to deceive or threaten men once they realize they have the God-given to study the Scriptures for themselves, rightly divided if they have been saved. There is no fear to instill in men once they realized they are saved, sealed, and secure in Christ. There is nothing to gain financially or politically once man realizes he is an ambassador for God, and his commission is to preach the reconciliation of 2 Cor. Chapter 5. He can no longer be deceived or mired in the doctrines and traditions of fallible men. He is FREE. Not because some institution declares it so, but the word of God says it so.
Then “Paul is your pattern to follow.” is, at best, subterfuge. Christ is our pattern.
Except when it comes His teaching about the Kingdom of Heaven, right?
Seems you've been taught that Paul has teaching and Christ has teaching. And, where they differ, "Paul is your pattern to follow." According to your posts.
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.