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.
From what we have seen thoroughly demonstrated in these threads many of those who profess to have been Catholics are no more former Catholics than those who profess to having been Navy SEALs ever smelled cordite.
Actually, yes. Sounds more like something coming from a pagan or a muslim but it fits with their ‘God’s Word is not the final authority’.
They deny Him at their own peril and I believe the time when the HS calls them to Him is long past.
Good grief. Do Catholics not read scripture at all?
Apparently a lot more than many Bible Believers, given the ridiculous positions posted on this very thread.
1 Corinthians 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
If you read the previous 10 verses and put this into context, what Paul is doing is comparing their former sinful selves to their current state. According to http://scripturetext.com/1_corinthians/6-11.htm, the verse actually says:
Some of you were formerly like that but you are now washed, and are made holy and you are freed in the name of Jesus. They were freed from their former state. Remember that Paul is chewing them out and reminding them that they need to be better about things than they currently are. They are going before pagan judges with lawsuits against each other. Hardly perfection.
Hebrews 10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
They will be made perfect at some future period, and when that shall take place it will be to continue forever and ever. They are not perfect now. If you were perfect, you would never sin, right?
Hardly a diversion. They are not Apocrypha.
A heaping helping of YOPIOS goes a long way, doesn't it?
Matthew 16:18-19. But of course you know the verses of which I speak.
I am just going to consider the source. Thanks for the kind words, my brother in Christ!
LOL They were doing then what Catholics do today.
>>They are not perfect now. If you were perfect, you would never sin, right?<<
Once again I need to remind of the passage.
Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
Luke quoted the Greek inscription. OUTOS ESTIN O BASILEUS TWN IOUDAIWN (This is The King of The Jews)
Matthew since he was writing to the Jews whose language was Hebrew quoted the Hebrew inscription. This is The King of The Jews.
Interesing. I don't recall seeing this claim before. Do you have a source? After all, the NT was written entirely in Greek. Why would the Gospel writings each pick a different language?
I’ve been asked that over and over by Catholics and other pagans trying to discredit scripture. It gets really old because it only points to their lack of study of scripture.
I don't discredit Scripture. I do discredit pagans who make believe that they are true Christians and the real Christians are in fact, not.
The Rock is God not Peter.
Jesus does not claim the rest of the verse on that day..and the day of vengeance of our God: to comfort all that mourn." Is.61:2b.
After Jesus quotes "To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord", He CLOSES the book and sits down. And says " THIS DAY IS THIS SCRIPTURE FULFILLED IN YOUR EARS." Luke 1:21.
"The acceptable year of the Lord" was what was fulfilled "This day". But "and the day of vengeance of our God: to comfort all that mourn." was not part of what was fulfilled that day.
What I'm getting at here is that Christ took one verse of Scripture and divided it. Not one Chapter, or one of several verses, but ONE VERSE. For a reason. He gave part of it, and did not give the other part of it. Why do you think He did that? And does it matter in God's Plan for man, in your opinion?
And let’s not forget the German Princes wanting freedom from the Holy Roman Emperor, Charles. And in the case of Luther, freedom to use exlax!!! (Humor).......lol
We’re still dealing with a tiny subset of protestants here, but I believe some in that group would be former–Any Church That Has Authority.
Perhaps some have gone through several churches that tried to tell them they were wrong on this–or–that point of the Christian Faith in order to arrive at the ultimate rebel destination where no one can tell them anything: The Church of Me.
That isn’t what it says......(mr. SOLA SCRIPTURAL) ......humor
Or the Church of the Holy Living Room/garage!......lol
Or The Church of My Holy Monitor...
Walk into ANY Southern Baptist Church. I WAS RAISED HEARING ABOUT ONCE SAVED ALWAYS SAVED!
Because of who they were and who they were writing to. Good grief man, Luke says there were three languages used. Latin was the official government language of Rome, Greek was the language of the culture and Hebrew the language of the Jews. John even records who wrote it.
John 19:19 “And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross”. He was quoting Pilate who would have started with Latin as it was the Roman language.
Luke was writing to Theophilus who was Greek so would have used the Greek.
Matthew was writing to the Jews so used the Hebrew.
>> I don't discredit Scripture. I do discredit pagans who make believe that they are true Christians and the real Christians are in fact, not.<<
And I suppose you were not also trying to trap me thinking I would have to agree that other parts of scripture have errors just like the books left out of scripture by Protestants. Give me a break. That tactic has been used on me by Atheists, Catholics, and Pagans. Like I said before. It only indicates that the person using that ill conceived tactic hasn’t really read and studied scripture.
That’s exactly what it says.
In Matthew 16 Jesus is talking to all of the Apostles. They were all asked the question of who they thought He was. Though Peter was the one who answered for the group Jesus was talking to them all. When Peter said that they believed He was “Christ the Son of the Living God” Jesus replied and said that it was not flesh and blood that had revealed that to Peter but that it was “my Father which is in heaven”. He then says to Peter “and thou art Peter”, acknowledging that He knew who Peter was just as Peter knew who Jesus was. Then Jesus, referring back to “my Father which is in heaven”, says, “upon this rock I will build my church”.
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.