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 you studied what? How preposterous. The word of God is useless without the church? Are you sure you’re dealing with the one true God?
“Undoubtably, within Protestantism there are many opinions and contrary beliefs, but they all base their religion ultimately in a rejection of external authority as needed for salvation. What Rome began with rejection of all authority save that of the Pope, Protestantism finished by rejecting the authority of the Pope as well. This results in an indifference to and a severance from the Body of Christ, the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, the sole Church founded by Him and His Apostles.
Among the innumerable heresies found among Protestants (the number of ‘denominations’ in the world currently exceeds 26,000), there are: denial of the priesthood and all mysteries (baptism, eucharist, etc.), denial of the saints and their ability to intercede for us, assertion that the character of one’s life is a matter indifferent for salvation - only confession or lack of confession that Jesus is your Savior affects one’s salvation, rejection of Apostolic tradition and the Church as authorities, predestination or the arbitrary election and damnation of men by nothing but a divine whim, millenialism or chiliasm, and many others.”
That's just it, if Christ is in you, then he will never leave you or forsake you. He will not cast you out OR lose you. You are his when you receive him as Lord and Savior and the Holy Spirit indwells you as the "earnest of your inheritance". If that doesn't "ensure" your salvation, what else could?
"And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according TO THE WISDOM GIVEN UNTO HIM HATH WRITTEN UNTO YOU; As also IN ALL HIS EPISTLES, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do ALSO THE OTHER SCRIPTURES, unto their own destruction."
Peter considered Paul's writings to be Scripture. And yes, there are some things hard to be understood. Wonder why that is? He doesn't say that about James, or John, or Jude or anyone else. Just Paul's words of Scripture.
He doesn't say to reject the teachings of the Church? What Church? The Church the Body of Christ? He was writing the teachings of the Church the Body of Christ, from direct revelations of the risen Christ. It would be ridiculous to tell others to reject the teachings that Christ gave him to give to the Body of Christ.
You must be talking about the Church, as in the Catholic Church. Of course he said to reject the teachings of false doctrines that would deceive and destroy. He said if anyone preaches any other gospel than the one of grace that was delivered to the Galatians unto another gospel, one that would pervert the gospel of Christ, let him be accursed. A REAL anathema. From Christ to Paul to anyone who would pervert the gospel of the grace of God. Which would include adding works to the finished work of Christ for our salvation.
Yeah, we’ve noticed. Not only not condoned by scripture but is condemned.
You never find it a bit odd that the Holy Spirit led you to interpret scripture according to Dispensationalism®, led another to Calvinism, another to Arminianism, another to Pentecostalism, another to Unitarianism…?
If Jesus weren’t dispensed with, I think some might begin to see that each person being “the” Church, led in different directions while claiming the same guide, is not what He would intend for His Church.
No, the un–dispensed with Christ did not task each individual with determining his or her own version of Christianity.
Thanks for your concern and appeal to conversion. Your religion is more modern, starting around the mid–1800s. Also, I’ll grant you that it has the attractive secret decoder vibe going on, and it’s got that carefree, “Paul says don’t worry so much ‘bout the sin thing” going for it.
But, I’ll stick with the original, Jesus Christ.
I used think that was high, but with the "I am the church" posts lately, I'm thinking it could be way low.
Exactly what Scriptures are you so knowledgeable in? I'm really getting curious about that.
Pretty much all the old one I think. Maybe a new combination here and there. Makes me appreciate the work and dedication of the councils on the creeds even more.
On these threads, a lot of what we see comes from the loss of the meaning of the Communion of Saints as in the creeds combined with confusion on intercessory prayer.
Those roads led to the gospel of your salvation. It begins with Christ. It ends with Christ.
My religion is older than you think. Since around 63 A.D. And actually it's not a religion. It's a belief. It's God reaching out to man. Religion is man reaching out to God. With all the goodness and works and righteousness he can muster. To no avail.
****are you claiming that it doesn’t say Peter is a Rock****
The real question is why does Jesus change Simon’s name to rock? Why does Jesus call Simon rock if the rock Jesus meant is that of Himself or of Peter’s faith?
Friend, I have to conclude you actually think I’m going to believe St. Paul taught that Dispensationalist mumbo–jumbo ginned up in the 1800s.
AND, that I’m gonna believe Christian doesn’t mean a follower of Christ.
Sorry, not gonna happen.
This secret decoding stuff is all fun and games for a while, but when it tosses out the ministry of my Saviour and lectures me about it?
I think it deserves a stiff dose of reality. And then being ignored all the way to the dustbin.
Non sequitur, Mark, you of all people should know that. Where does it say Peter was saved, or Paul, or John? How asserting faith in the promises of God equates to a "declaration of self to ranks of the saved" is beyond me. I am trusting in the EXACT same words Jesus spoke to the multitudes, to his disciples, they to their followers and from them to us through Holy Scripture. Whats more, God knows my name, and he is the ONLY one who counts. Why is it so impossible to accept that God can be trusted?
You say "The Judgment of Christ is not about what seat you get watching heavenly football on Sundays" as if that is what I think or believe. Reading that only confirms my fear that the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, who died to make us free, is lost on you. It sounds as if you have no faith in Christ to save you at all but must live in constant fear that any minor failure on your part has the power to condemn you for eternity. I don't read trust or love or surrender or faith in your words but only dread. That someone has to formally be named a "saint" to know they have made it to Heaven at all is a disconnect with what God has already said.
I don't want you to proclaim me or carry me on your shoulders because it isn't about that. It is each person one-on-one, between them and God, accepting or rejecting his GIFT of eternal life. What do you do with this gift? Why mock anyone who steps out and says they have accepted it? Why doubt that God truly gives assurance and comforts his children with his presence, answers their prayers, provides all their needs, forgives and cleanses them from all their sins and is, right now, preparing a place for us? Why doubt that the Holy Spirit is within each of us who are his, working within us to conform us to the image of Jesus, teaching us the way to walk in holiness and growing our faith?
You must choose whether or not you will believe Jesus, believe what he clearly has said and rest in his precious promises. Nobody can do that for you and no place or person can grant to you what only God can give. I KNOW I have eternal life because I have received the gift of eternal life through Jesus Christ. I believe he died on the cross to pay for my sins - a debt I could NEVER have satisfied. Because of him, I am redeemed and for eternity I will dwell with him and it is all because of HIM, not me. Grace is not something to mock, it is the ultimate sin to do so, and unless it is repented of, it will send one to Hell for eternity. Don't mock grace, please, and don't mock those who live by faith in the grace of God.
Even more ridiculous is that some of these guys have taken to recycling their own garbage posts. I am now being challenged to refute citations from the "Anti Nicene" Fathers. The "Ante Nicene Fathers" is a series of books written in the 19th century by Protestant apologists. The funny thing is that these books are available for download on the internet into a searchable PDF format and DO NOT say that St. Peter was not the first Bishop of Rome. What they do say in multiple places is that St. Peter was in Rome, and was crucified by Nero.
What is verifiable in many sources ignored by our semi-literate anti-Catholics is that St. Clement, St. Irenaeus, St. Cyprian, Eusebius, and even Nestorius identify Peter as the First Bishop of Rome.
That, Friend, is a stiff dose of reality. This is what Christ did after He ascended into Heaven. This is what He is doing during this time of His absence. Forming the Body of Christ. So you see, Paul followed Christ as Christ directed him to follow him. And we follow the pattern that Christ gave to Paul to give to us.
Put it in the dustbin if you wish. It's your choice. But know this, it either saves, or it damns. Because it was given by the risen Saviour. My Saviour.
Amen! Glory to God! Thankyou Lord Jesus!
Then they that feared the LORD spake often one to another: and the LORD hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared the LORD, and that thought upon his name.And they shall be mine, saith the LORD of hosts, in that day when I make up my jewels; and I will spare them, as a man spareth his own son that serveth him. (Malachi 3:16-17)
You don't seem to remember a lot of things we have hashed out over the years. It's one thing to disagree, but an entirely different thing to say you've NEVER seen it before. And I have to agree with CB here, on this kind of argument being used a lot by atheists and agnostics. I even remember you and Kosta50 going at the same thing with me when he was still on FR.
Christ’s teaching is that you are to follow Paul’s teaching which is different than Christ’s teaching.
That’s Christianity to you.
Ok.
I am constantly amazed at the kaleidoscope of religions folks can create given a Bible and enough time.
Friend, sincerely, Dispensationalism reads like a comedy skit to me.
You really deserve better teachers than the one’s you’ve had thus far.
So says WHO? Source, please?
What a joke. If that's the best Catholics can do to support their contention that Peter was the first pope, that is so pathetic.
It sounds just like the argument about the assumption of Mary. Well, it doesn't say she wasn't so we can claim she was.
Where'd all the Catholic Bible literalists go again?
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.