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 Churchs 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 Florences 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 Bibles content is settled. Thus, to concede an officially unsettled canon for Christianitys 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 Christs 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.
IOW, the whole house of cards comes tumbling down and some people are out of a job.
Nah, you still have your televangelists, megachurches, TBN, Prosperity Gospel, Rapture Books, Healer Caravans, “Send me a thousand dollars and God will send you three...” etc. etc.
No Cathedrals to be so PROUD of, no glory in men, or their efforts, or their "wisdom". Just the simplicity that is in Christ. All for God's glory. "That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus." Eph. 2:7.
That pretty much nails it.
Well, that’s no different, to be sure. That’s the problem with following men.
However it is being recognized....
Its (Past) Time for a Charismatic Reformation
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2804843/posts
Congratulations on a Pyrrhic victory.
Some, well, a few, posters on here will attempt apologetics for almost everything; Calvinism, Arminianism, Universal Unitarianism, Dispensationalism, anti-Dispensationalism, likely Oneness Pentecostalism, Messianic Judaism, whatever, contradictions notwithstanding.
You've agreed you're both EXACTLY not Catholic.
Enjoy.
You may choose to not believe, but you may not choose to believe that it is made up. Either Paul was a lunatic, or he was given a commission by the risen Christ, which he fulfilled. And that was the formation of the church the body of Christ in the dispensation of the grace of God. Do with it as you will, but it doesn't change what God's Word of truth says.
Ah, you're exempt then. But you left off "fallible" in the formula.
And, alas, it seems Protestantism is not without its own danger of "the whole house of cards coming tumbling down and some people are out of a job."
But then consistency is so over-rated.
D-fender:Ah, you're exempt then. But you left off "fallible" in the formula.
*fallible men*. It's a bit redundant, don't you think.
It pretty much goes without saying. The only infallible man was Jesus.
I know. All the pieces fits so nicely together. As they do for Calvinism. And for Oneness Pentecostals. And for Messianic Jews. And for Unitarians.
You can take the pieces and make them fit so nicely and pick which resulting jigsaw strikes you as the best, most pleasing fit.
But that is not Christianity. It’s taking the Church’s book and getting your own meaning from it. Your meaning, your best fit, contradicts another. There is no quantitative standard of ‘best fit’ for Scripture; nor is ‘best fit’ the defining element of the Christian faith.
It is only an individual subjective standard of true meaning. This would be fine if we were discussing Moby Dick or watching Apocalypse Now and discussing what it means.
But this is not how the Christian faith is and has been transmitted and maintained through the centuries. Your teachers’ theology is less than two centuries old, some of the others I mentioned are from less than a century old. What new system will be “Christian” next year or the next decade? What new fit can be made from the same verses? Infinite.
You cannot have a Christian faith that is One, Holy and Universal and Eternal this way. Your teachers and what they have taught you are prima facia evidence of this.
Ah, positively Clintonian, you and your theology are off the hook again. :)
"And He said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved..."And these signs SHALL follow THEM THAT BELIEVE; In my name SHALL they cast out devils; they SHALL speak with new tongues; they SHALL take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it SHALL not hurt them; they SHALL lay hands on the sick, and they SHALL recover." Mark 16:15-18.
This says quite plainly that all who believe and are baptized SHALL do these things. Not just a few, it says ALL who believe. It does not say maybe, or should, or can, if you have enough faith. It does not say to pick out a few signs that fit your personality and let them be for you; it says ALL signs are for ALL who believe.
Or let's go a little simpler. When did you sell all you had and joined together with other believers and had all in common? When did you give alms?
Now, if you were truly following ALL of Christ's words, would you not be doing these very things He instructed you to do? I didn't think so. And yet, you choose not to follow Christ's revelations to Paul, for us, either. So you are following those things you choose to follow. Is that what Christ said to do? Either in the kingdom gospel or the gospel of the grace of God? I'll let you answer that one.
Oh, I BEG TO DIFFER.
"There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling. One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." Eph. 4:4-6.
My teacher, the Holy Spirit has revealed God's Word of truth. Once again, Ephesians gives you the answer. That would be one of Paul's Epistles. To the church the body of Christ, in the "But Now" of God's Word for the dispensation of the grace of God. A body of believers united by the grace of God in the finished work of Jesus Christ.
I’m far from following all of Christ’s words. This is my failing not Christ’s and why I pray for His mercy.
But my failing does not mean Christ’s teaching are wrong or no longer in effect.
Christ is Truth. This is fundamental Christian faith, it has no ‘sell by’ date.
Study those who do better than I in following Christ, study Mt. Athos for example, if you no longer believe what He taught is true.
My, and your, failures and weaknesses in no way make Christ’s words, ministry and being false or no longer in effect.
Honestly, in my opinion it only compounds, sublimates or makes a crutch out of our weakness to go the route you’ve chosen and give up on following Christ.
Egads, man, it's NOT the church's book.
It the God breathed inspired Word of God.
*** Bangs head on desk****
No wonder Catholics don't consider it authoritative.
Yeah, that's what the Calvinists, Unitarians, etc. etc. say too.
And you came up with Dispensationalism all on your own? No teachers, other than the Holy Spirit of course?
Sorry, this line doesn't even begin to address the point.
Another difference is Christians serve a 'Risen Savior'....he's alive...all other religions serve dead leaders or entities which aren't real...and never were.
Say, isn't that passage in Mark the one that Catholics like to appeal to to demand that water baptism is required for salvation, but then ignore when it comes to the rest of it?
The gift of God is free. Yup.
Ephesians 2:4-10
Romans 8:1-11
Colossians 3:3-4
So for you still, the misinterpreted words of Paul trump the words of Christ.
Absolutely I do. My point is that we do it. I don't see where you guys do.
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.