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.
Was it your “ right to interpret God’s word” that you used to come up with Dispensationalism®?
I’ll stay with what God says.
Psalm 18:31, "And who is a rock, except our God."
Isaiah 44:8, "Is there any God besides Me, or is there any other Rock? I know of none."
1 Cor. 3:11, "For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ,"
1 Cor. 10:4, "and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock (petras) which followed them; and the rock (petra) was Christ."
Christ is in you, I think, and I believe that he is in me. That does not ensure my salvation.
"If ye have heard of the Dispensation of the grace of God which IS GIVEN ME TO YOU-WARD.." Eph. 3:2,3,5,6,9.
"...A Dispensation of the Gospel is committed unto me." 1 Cor. 9:17.
"Wherefore I am made a minister, according to the Dispensation of God which is given me for you, to fulfill the word of God." Col. 1:25.
"That in the Dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ..." Eph. 1:10.
As you can clearly see, Paul wrote of dispensations. You can deny it, but it doesn't change that fact.
If you would study your Bible, you would not be embarrassing yourself by claiming I came up with it. Jesus Christ came up with it. And revealed it to Paul. Who revealed it to the Church the Body of Christ.
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?
So Jesus stopped in mid passage. Do you take it on yourself to do the same on other passages? Do you proclaim Scripture as well as Jesus?
Jesus made His point. It does not negate the rest of the passage, does it? Are you saying that the second half is now rendered invalid?
The German princes preferred being large fish in a small pond to being small fish in a big one.
Yes, of course, Dispensationalism® was born when St. Paul said “dispensation.”
Meaning of course, “Forget about all that Kingdom of God stuff Jesus said, it no longer applies.”
Makes so much sense that it’s odd that it took nineteenth-century evangelicals and the Brethren Movement to rediscover it.
Amazing.
And then you got the very same theology all on your own reading scripture. No other ‘tradition’ – nineteenth-century evangelical, Brethren Movement or otherwise – needed.
Incredible.
So does the verse I gave you.
So...are you claiming that it doesn’t say Peter is a Rock, or is this your own interpretation? Should I make some Koolaid? (HUMOR)
Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
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.
Let us examine that notion in some depth.
Matthew wrote his Gospel in Greek. He did write it for the Jews, but very few Jews of the area knew Hebrew - they spoke Aramaic. Why would he write a Gospel entirely in Greek and the inscription in Hebrew? Where does it say that, by the way?
Mark wrote to the Romans, but in Greek. If anyone would have written it in Latin it would have been him, but he did not.
Luke wrote to the Greeks, in Greek. Therefore it makes sense that he would have used Greek.
John wrote to the second generation of believers. Most of them were still Jewish, although an increasing number of them were Greek speaking. It makes no sense that he would write in Latin.
I think that looking for traps in my posts has kinda influenced the content of yours.
And this thread is positively lousy with “all my sins, past, present and future are forgiven” posts. It really kinda follows logically. In the Church of Me, I’m the judge of me.
The god in the mirror is quite engaging to some.
Gee, thanks for the ping, but I’m way over my quota of opinions of fallible men for today..
See, I'm not getting that impression at all. In fact, it sounds like "you" (the we) mistake assurance and trust in the promises of God as "self-declaration" of ones own salvation. Not a one of "us" believes we merit this salvation or deserves it in ANY way. No, it is falling upon the mercy seat of God's grace and taking him at his word that he WILL save us if we receive Christ and trust in his sacrifice for our sins. The only way we can be sure of our salvation is because God DID say we can. In John's epistle I John, he says in chapter 5 verse 13, "These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life." So, it is NOT presumption nor pride in our merit that we say we know we are saved, but simply believing God. He WILL do as he says he will do.
When you can point to Scripture that says that you boatbums are saved, then I will cheer and carry you about on my shoulders. However, what this is, is the declaration of self to the ranks of the saved. The Judgement of Christ is not about what seat you get watching heavenly football on Sundays.
“Every believer has the God-given ability and right to interpret God’s word.” Says who? I don’t recall a scripture that gives that right. Ah. The Gospel according to Luther perhaps? Do you have the right to read it while on the “Throne”....LOL! Don’t think for a minute I couldn’t tear YOU up as well. I know more scripture and theology than you will ever know. Also more history of it all. As you apparently don’t read, I will also point out that the “Pope” isn’t my master. Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia is my Bishop. Then the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople.
"Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." 2 Tim. 2:15.
Now if you would care to show me where "belong to the Catholic Church, and follow the sacraments, pray the rosary, participate as often as possible in the Mass, pray to Mary to intercede, and also pray to the only saints that exist, those who have been named Saints by the RCC, then by all means, show me. And I'll be happy to highlight those in my Bible and study them with care. Otherwise, I'll consider it not a part of God's word, not a part of God's plan for man, and not a part of salvation. Just a part of man striving to get to God on man's terms.
Hebrews 10:16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; 17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. 18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin. 19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, 20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; 21 And having an high priest over the house of God; 22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.
We haven't arrived; we are still on the journey, the Via of Christ. We are still running the race that Paul described. Salvation is not a one time deal, where you can kick back and sin at will because your salvation is assured.
Even St. Peter acknowledged Paul's writing as Scripture and that clearly means they are NOT simply words of a human being.
We've been through this before. Christians do not accept the words of a man over the words of Christ, especially when meant to correct or replace the words of Christ. The words in Scripture are what we are meant to have. But the pinnacle of Revelation to us is Christ. Not Paul.
Here is the truth of the matter.
So, are you convinced that everyone who "says" these words - even on their knees in church - truly means them in the way God says all one day will? There is a huge difference between them, you know.
No, but I am convinced that those who sincerely pray them are carrying out the will of Jesus.
That was God talking in that scripture, not me.
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.