It’s enough to cause a short circuit between a fallible man’s keyboard and chair.
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.
And I won't bother you with actually typing 2 Tim. 3:15-17, as I know you simply must know it already, being the theologian that you claim to be.
So evidently you don't know as much scripture OR theology than you OR I think you know...
Please, attempt to "tear me up" with your knowledge. It would be a fun night.
That is totally INSANE. So I guess that for the 350 years before there was a Bible, we should disregard the Martyrs and Saints who gave their lives for Christ?!! Right.
you discovered Dispensationalism® and some old dead nineteenth-century dudes are getting all the credit for it.
In Sola Scriptura-World, history stopped at the end of the Book of Acts.
The Bible was created for the Church, not the Church for the Bible. Apart from the guidance of the Holy Church, the scripture is useless. The two were never meant to be separate.
Good luck on your journey. Prayerfully you will find you've been holding the map upside down and change directions before the final exit comes up.
Yes. Looney Tune world as well....(HUMOR)
I was hoping to hear about the precise moment of your discovery of Dispensationalism®. Just you and Scripture, none of that tradition stuff, no writings of fallible men. I pictured maybe a fire in the fireplace a little organ music…
Ah, well.
Hebrew was the language spoken by the ancient Israelites, and in which were composed nearly all of the books of the Old Testament. The name Hebrew as applied to the language is quite recent in Biblical usage, occurring for the first time in the Greek prologue of Ecclesiasticus, about 130 B.C.
In New-Testament usage the current Aramaic of the time is frequently called Hebrew (hebrais dialektos, Acts 21:40; 22:2; 26:14), not in the strict sense of the word, but because it was the dialect in use among the Jews of Palestine. [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07176a.htm]
Bottom line is that there were three different languages used on the plague above Jesus. There is no disagreement between the Matthew, Luke, and John. It was that each was giving what was written in three different languages.
Every time I am asked that question it arises from a faulty perception that the three disagree in what was written. The do not. You can try to obfuscate any which way you want but the fact remains that I know what the reason for asking the question was.
However, you may wish to try Tertullian.
Thank you, too, I'm glad to hear you don't hate. I fully understand that in the "heat" of an argument it can be easy to blast away. I try to not post when I feel like that.
I came from a cradle Roman Catholic background and found myself praying that God would show me "if there is any such thing as truth". He answered that prayer when a few months later we were back in the U.S. and went to my grandparents' Southern Baptist Church. There in Sunday School, a teacher showed me John 10:27-30 and I knew that was the truth I was seeking. God says he is a rewarder of those who diligently seek him. We all must answer to him on how we respond to the light he reveals to us.
As far as your RC brethren and bringing them back into the fold, I would have to say that will only be possible if the Eastern Rite gives in to what the Latin one asserts. That means it's THEIR way or no way on the primacy of the Pope, his infallibility, the Filioque (their way) and any other areas where you differ with them. The same thing with the Anglicans or any other faith tradition that wants to "reunite". Unless the Eastern Orthodox gives in, there won't be any bringing "them" back into your fold.
I don’t pray the Rosary. And the Scripture that Paul was referring to in his letter to Timothy was the Old Testament.
Also, Since Paul WAS a part of the Church, his instruction to Timothy was correct. He doesn’t say interpret scripture any way you want. He also doesnt say reject the teachings of the Church either.
Since the Incarnation is so tied to Mary, we don't see a problem with recognizing her as an important part of the revelation to mankind.
So you are saying that all the Protestants here are “those people”? Have any here stated those positions? Are you claiming that all here adhere to some web site that you have found? Should I find all the sites that adhere to a “queen of heaven” and equate you to them? There are many out there.
Where did you get this little ditty from? I merely asked the good posters if they would be willing to enlighten from their own perspectives.
Once again you attempt to obfuscate by going outside of the group here that you have accused of such but not shown any here who have said anything like that. So, NO I am not convinced that you have shown me anyone that you have accused here of making that statement.
You said 'any Protestant'. Surely the AV1611 group is Protestant. If any of these nice people happen to confirm it, then I will consider a retraction from your august self forthcoming and sincere. If not, then there are enough examples to bring forth.
How quickly they forget! Didn't we have this dicussion a mere few months ago! The Gospel of Luke explains EXACTLY what Cynical Bear has stated - and I posted the same to you: Luke 23:38 And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
I don't recall you making the claim that each Gospel wrote the inscription in a different language (except for Mark who wrote in Esperanto or something).
Talking to yourself again? Tsk, tsk.
It’s enough to cause a short circuit between a fallible man’s keyboard and chair.
Matthew – 37AD written by Matthew, called Levi, son of Alphaeus and brother of James
Mark – 57-63AD written by John Mark
Luke – 58-63AD written by Luke
John – 90AD written by John
Acts - 63AD written by Luke, the beloved physician
Romans – 58-60AD the 6th of Pauls letters written in Crinth and sent to Rome by Phebe
1 Corinthians – 59AD written by Paul at Ephesus
2 Corinthians – 60AD written by Paul
Galatians – 69AD written by Paul
Ephesians – 64AD written by Paul
Philippians – 64AD written by Paul
Colossians – 64AD written by Paul
1 Thessalonians – 54AD written by Paul
2 Thessalonians – 54-55AD written by Paul
1Timothy – 67AD written by Paul
2 Timothy – 68AD written by Paul
Titus – 67AD written by Paul
Philemon – 64AD written by Paul
Hebrews – 68AD written by Paul
James – 45AD written by James the brother of Jesus
1Peter – 60AD written by Peter
2 Peter – 61-65AD written by Peter
1-3 John – 90AD written by John the Apostle
Jude – 66AD written by Jude
Revelation – 96AD written by John the Apostle
Now, when was it again the RCC thinks they wrote the Bible?
Esperanto!
It was the DESIRE to know God's word that led me to study God's word. And it was the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, as a believer, who led me. No fireplace, no organ music, no incense, no pretty art on the ceilings, no stained glass windows, no wafers and wine. Just seeking God and His word with all my heart. You should try it sometime. It will set you free from the bondage of "religion". And being dead in your sins.
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.