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.
Oh dear, does Paul say that you must work for your salvation and that you can be disqualified?
Absolutely not...The passage says nothing of the kind...Can you not understand a simple passage after you read it??? Weren't others concerned about your comprehension skills...
The context is preaching...Preaching the Gospel...Paul even claims it in the scripture you highlited...
1Co 9:27 But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.
Paul was called by God to preach the Gosple...The Gospel of the Grace of God...Paul worked hard as an ambassador for Jesus Christ to make sure he didn't lead some in the wrong direction that would result in his being rejected by those he was trying to win to Christ...
There's absolutely nothing in the verses about salvation...
And Paul knew at the end of his ministry, there would be a special Crown for him...Preachers get a special Crown...
Would that be comparable to the conjuring up of the assumption of Mary?
Good to see you are almost with us on that one...All of your Catholic cohorts on these threads claim that one is saved by grace, as long as you do enough good works to get you there...
Actually, good works are the result of the Holy Spirit working in a person who has trusted Jesus Christ for their salvation...And of course, an unsaved person can do good works so it may not be a manifestation of anything...
What is the Kumbaya kind of faith???
What did I write to make you think I missed that???
What post was that?
Well, you're pretty sure of the rest of what the RCC teaches based on the definitive absolutist statements you've made about Roman Catholic theology, so why shouldn't you? If you know all the rest, why not this?
****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.****
I think there is much confusion between the protestant and the Catholic regarding faith and works. A Catholic does not believe that “works” earns them eternal salvation. Only Jesus makes that possible and only when one believes on/in Him.
Our conflict, I think, stems from what we perceive as to what comes after that initial faith.
Quite simply one who has faith behaves in a certain way. The faithful love God and love each other as Jesus commanded.
Farther along in Galatians, St. Paul quite clearly warns what happens when one no longer lives according to the Spirit.
Gal 5:13 You, brothers and sisters, were called to enjoy freedom; I am not speak ing of that freedom which gives free rein to the desires of the flesh, but of that which makes you slaves of one another through love. 14 For the whole Law is summed up in this sentence: You shall love your neigh bor as yourself. 15 But if you bite and tear each other to pieces, be careful lest you all perish.
And...
16 Therefore I say to you: walk according to the Spirit and do not give way to the desires of the flesh! 17 For the desires of the flesh war against the spirit, and the desires of the spirit are opposed to the flesh. Both are in conflict with each other, so that you cannot do everything you would like. 18 But when you are led by the Spirit you are not under the Law.
And....
19 You know what comes from the flesh: fornication, impurity and shame lessness, 20 idol worship and sorcery, hatred, jealousy and violence, anger, ambition, division, factions, 21 and envy, drunkenness, orgies and the like. I again say to you what I have already said: those who do these things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
In Gal 6, St. Paul says this...
9 Let us do good without being discouraged; in due time we shall reap the reward of our con stancy. 10 So while there is time, let us do good to all and es pecially to our family in the faith.
What does he mean by “while there is still time”?
God remains faithful, He has given us the path to salvation and will stay true to His promise that faith in Jesus is what sets us upon that path.
We must not not stray from that path and our actions, keep us on that path and perfect our faith. The more we love each other out of love for Jesus, the harder it is for us to be deceived or tempted away from His love for us.
St. Paul says in Romans....
6 He will give each one his due, according to his actions. 7 He will give everlasting life to those who seek glory, honor and immortality and PERSEVERE IN DOING GOOD. 8 But anger and vengeance will be the lot of those who do not serve truth but injustice. 9 There will be suffering and anguish for everyone committing evil, first the Jew, then the Greek. 10 But God will give glory, honor and peace to WHOEVER DOES GOOD, first the Jew then the Greek, 11 because one is not different from the other before God.
I am familiar with Roman Catholic Theology, because in many ways we share doctrine and dogma, being that we were the same church until 1054. However, I have not read the latest Catechism, and I certainly would not have memorized it if I did.
So you would say that the story of paying for the sins of those slain found in 2 Maccabees 12 is in agreement with the rest of scripture? After all the sins were worshipping idols but the teaching is that if you pay enough money after that person is dead you can buy their forgiveness. Do you say that agrees with the rest of scripture?
All of 'em...
I will have to read that story to give you an answer. What Chapter and verse? Also, that book is Deuterocanonical, which means it is not used for doctrine, but for teaching.
Now there’s a nice play on words. It’s “possible” but still needs something added right? It’s not “finished” as Christ declared. It’s not “sufficient” as scripture clearly states. It’s “possible”. Not enough, just “possible”.
Chapter 12, it’s stated in the post.
>> Also, that book is Deuterocanonical, which means it is not used for doctrine, but for teaching.<<
LOL Teaching in that it supports unscriptural teachings of the church which are doctrine. What a crock. Somehow agreeing that it isn’t inspired but still using it. Is there any wonder we stick with “inspired” scripture?
Plausible deniability and scapegoating comes to mind.
But we can concluded, even based on the most extreme positions voiced by the anti-Catholics, that those who perform no works, who do not heed the call to Beatitude, are void of Grace.
No work of ours could/can make possible eternal life. It is only by God’s grace.
Nothing we do adds to the finished work of Jesus, for only He could make possible our inheritance.
IOW, Jesus has opened the gates of heaven, His sacrifice was sufficient to do that and His mission is finished.
There is a vast difference between these two statements,
There is nothing a sinner can do to gain heaven.
There is nothing a sinner must do to gain heaven.
One says that only Jesus could open the gates.
The other says that only the sinner can choose to walk through them.
Jesus is the vine and we are the branches. As long as we produce good fruit, we remain on the vine. If we do not produce good fruit, we are dead branches and will be cut off.
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
John 15: 4-7
I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.
Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.
Now you are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.
Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.
I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.
If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.
If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.
In this is my Father glorified, that you bear much fruit; so shall you be my disciples.
As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love
If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love.
These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full.
This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.
Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.
Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.
Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.
These things I command you, that ye love one another.
Would that also be true of someone who does not have membership in the CC?
The same clergy that was guided to put together the canon, also included the deuterocanonicals. Obviously they felt that they had value.
Like I have said, Protestants pick and choose what THEY consider to be canonical. They could care less what the venerable Church Fathers took into consideration. Even the 1611 KJV had them included!
By the way, do you not think that the history of the Jews under the Greeks, Selucids, and Hasmoneans is a valuable thing?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterocanonical_books
...The large majority of Old Testament references in the New Testament are taken from the Greek Septuagint (LXX)—which includes the deuterocanonical books, as well as apocrypha —both of which are called collectively anagignoskomena (things that are read)...
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.