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.
I don't know why you're going off topic here. I guess 'cause I used the phrase "believe to receive" in my last post in response to your question earlier.
This was concerning one's motivation to believe. [how many works are enough; how much belief is enough..] And my response was that if our belief or works are motivated by our own selfish reward, then I think we're on the wrong track.
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.
You like the one better than the other, eh??? You can't deal with both of them, can you???
There's a difference between *believe AND receive* and *believe TO receive*.
I've heard the first one often enough. I don't have a clue where you got the second one or why you're making an issue about it.
It's kind of weird for someone to make something up and then argue with someone about it.
Now, if you could just figure it out and put it all together...
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Salvation is by grace thru faith, alone...AFTER you have accepted Jesus as your Savior, your works will be evident by Jesus Christ working in and thru you...
1Ti 1:16 Howbeit for this cause I 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.
There is no problem in James for those who believe Paul's epistles...We take and love all the scriptures...
It's you guys who avoid Eph. 2:8-9 like it's the bubonic plague...
Abraham’s faith never wavered, in fact, it increased.
What does the phrase, “counted to us” mean?
Abraham’s righteousness was due to his faith, but his faith was seen and strengthened by his works.
What do you think was the reason for the story of the Prodigal Son? The younger son took his inheritance and squandered it. When he returns, his father is joyful, for he had thought the son was dead.
How about the “lost sheep”?
Or the “lost coin”
Each of these illustrates a loss of someone or something.
To be lost implies that he/she or it was once found or in one’s possession.
The son had the inheritance, but squandered it in search of his own will and pleasure.
The lost sheep, was once in the fold but wandered out of the protection of the shepherd and was lost.
And the coin, which was “saved” was lost.
Jesus will never let us go, we cannot be snatched from his hand but we can certainly let go of it ourselves.
Like Abraham, we strengthen our faith through our works, faith is made perfect through our works according to James.
Works serve a purpose together with faith.
It's pretty common; click the links.
or why you're making an issue about it.
Review the discussion. It's from your question in 1689.
You seem to forget that hundreds of millions of people over the last 400 years wised up when they finally were allowed to view the words of God themselves...
Don't pretend it's just a handfull of folks who don't accept the private interpretaion of the scriptures by your religion...
OK...
Romans 4:1-8 1What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? 2For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness." 4Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due.
5And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, 6just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works: 7 "Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; 8blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin."
As in credited to an account. Perhaps a better way to explain it would be that God does not consider our sin when dealing with us when we are in Christ, when we have been forgiven by Him and adopted into His family.
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.
Our salvation is sure when we believed in Christ and put our trust in Him alone for salvation. It is not lost every time we sin and individual sin. That puts it squarely in the works camp. If you can lose your salvation by sin, that means that it's kept by works.
Sin may cost us our reward in heaven but it does not cost us heaven; heaven itself is not the reward. Our rewards are in addition to heaven.
Faith may be perfected through works, but that faith still saved before the works were part of it.
As far as James, then reconcile that with this......
Galatians 3:1-6 1O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. 2Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? 3Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? 4 Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? 5Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith— 6just as Abraham "believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness"?
If someone believes that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, there is no conflict in those passages. Only if someone believes that salvation is dependent on works does it cause a problem.
Whatever anyone adds to Jesus is the thing they are depending on for salvation because they are saying that what Jesus did wasn't enough, it takes (fill-in-the-blank). THAT thing is then what saves the person because Jesus wasn't adequate.
Luke 17:6 And the Lord said, "If you had faith like a grain of mustard seed, you could say to this mulberry tree, 'Be uprooted and planted in the sea,' and it would obey you.
Faith works not because of the amount of it, but because of what the faith is IN. Even if someone is putting faith in their faith, that isn't going to work. It has to be faith in GOD.
*believe to receive* is too much prosperity gospel.
It’s not really related to salvation but to getting stuff to spend on their lusts.
It’s not related to real salvation, IMHO; however, if one’s sole or primary motivation for believing is in order to gain heaven and avoid hell, then the phrase would fit there as well as the prosperity gospel pitch.
And I think it’s a fairly common pitch.
Then let’s Jesus speak for Himself. I have posted this to you before but it obviously needs looked at again.
Jesus disagreed with the words spoken about Mary and said those who believed were the ones who were blessed.
Luke 11:27And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked. 28 But he said, Nay rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.
The words spoken to Mary were no different then were spoken to Jael in Judges. In fact, Jael was called blessed above women. Mary was called blessed among women.
Luke 1:28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
Judges 5:24 Blessed above women shall Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite be,
Those words were also spoken of Noah, Moses, and David.
The Greek word charitoó is used by Catholics to try to point to Mary being “full of grace” or “highly favored. The word charitoo according to Greek concordances is: From charis; to grace, i.e. Indue with special honor -- make accepted, be highly favoured. [http://concordances.org/greek/5487.htm]
The word is used twice in the New Testament. Once in Luke 1 and the other in Ephesians 1.
Ephesians 1:6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.
Let them who have eyes see.
Well, face it. Jesus did warn us about the result of not believing.
In that respect everyone believes to avoid hell and gain heaven.
Ideally we should come to God out of gratitude and love for all the good things He’s done for us and given us. Reality is, I doubt there’s a person on this planet with pure enough motive. We are all so corrupted by sin that nothing we do is uncorrupted by it.
The great thing about God is that He meets us where we are. Even though we may initially come to Him out of fear, when we see what He’s done for us then we love all the more out of gratitude and thanksgiving.
Matter of fact, I don’t think there’s a place in Scripture where the motive of why we come to him is addressed. We come to Him and believe for different reasons. Loving Him is a separate issue.
I pretty much agree. We can hide our motives, and the ideal is compassion and self sacrifice as our Lord taught.
We can vary from this in degree, both in doing good works or intellectual assent in believing.
Still we are good at fooling ourselves in both categories. I think we might agree that on the selfish extreme end it is a matter of the heart and matters of the heart do matter in salvation.
That is a false interpretation that can only be found by sifting through the various translations and settling on the archaic and out of date translations.
The emphasis in this interpretation for purposes of determining the status of Mary is not on "blessed" but on "μενοῦνγε (menoúnge)", the word used for "nay, rather". In reality it means "additionally" which changes the meaning of the verse from "No, Mary is not blessed but you are, to "Yes, Mary is blessed and even more so are you". Even in those archaic translations it is translated in Rom 10:18, and Php 3:8 as "Yes, verily" and "Yea, doubtless".
But it IS your judgment, simply because you can not and do not know the motive of the heart - that is God's realm. Though I certainly agree that there are many people of all walks of life and creeds that say one thing and do another, it is hardly just all those "others" that are guilty of it. For example, there is a well known survey out there that shows a very low percentage of professing Roman Catholics believe in the divine inspiration of the Bible, that abortion is wrong or even whether or not premarital sex is wrong. I believe it also showed that Roman Catholics as a majority vote for Liberal Democrats and their policies. So, I agree that you probably have direct means to know people who say one thing but do the opposite especially within your own religion, but it would be disingenuous to broad-brush all of one group, wouldn't it? And it would certainly be wrong to judge character or faith by only outward acts of "religiosity", don't you agree?
Jesus said by their "fruits" we could know one another, in other words, their mere words don't count for much if actions don't back them up. But these actions, our fruits, are clearly spelled out in Scripture as love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control (Galatians 5:22).
The fruits, or acts, of the sinful nature are also easy to recognize. They are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity, lustful pleasures, idolatry, sorcery, hostility, quarreling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambition, dissension, division, envy, drunkenness, wild parties, and other sins like these (Gal. 5:19-21). So, I believe Jesus does want us to judge, to be "fruit inspectors" so to speak. Because how else would we really "know" anything about each other, whether or not what someone preached was truth? We should just be careful that what we condemn in someone we are not also doing the same things.
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.