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.
FOTFLOL!!!
GMTA.
Tell you what, try to convert some non–Catholics on this thread to Dispensationalism and see what they say.
Luke 22:24 And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest. (obviously the Apostles themselves had no idea that any one of them was superior to the others.)
25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. (Jesus begins by making a negative comment about authority)
26 But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve. (“But ye shall not be” looks like more of a command not to have a hierarchy then anything else.)
Jesus obviously didn’t explain to them that He had made Peter the leader or anything else. He also clearly told them that it was not to be with the Apostles.
There then arises the problem of interpreting the interpretation.
The CCC also needs interpretation, just like Scripture does, just like ANYTHING does.
If Scripture can be misinterpreted, then the Catechism of the Catholic church can likewise be misinterpreted. It can be poorly translated, as we've seen that made in some cases, and there can be disagreements amongst Catholics about some of the points of the CCC.
The very same criticism that Catholics lob against Proddies and their interpretation of Scripture can be lobbed against Catholics interpreting the CCC.
So if Proddies have YOPIOS, then Catholics have YOPIOCCC.
Amen. Thank you. The LORD knows those that are his.
And they wonder why we insist on staying with scripture. At least we always have the unchanging word of God to rely on.
ABSOLUTELY INDEED TO THE MAX! LOL.
"But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached OF ME is NOT AFTER MAN. For I NEITHER RECEIVED IT OF MAN, NEITHER WAS I TAUGHT IT, BUT BY REVELATION OF JESUS CHRIST."
Get it? Peter didn't teach him. John didn't teach him. None of the 12 Apostles taught him. JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF TAUGHT HIM THE GOSPEL HE PREACHED.
It cannot be any simpler. You would have to purposely choose to disregard what he said to not get it. Disregard away, it's your choice. But it doesn't change the truth. You tell Christ one day that the revelation He gave Paul concerning the gospel Paul preached was a comedy skit to you. That it wasn't Christ's teaching. And you know it wasn't because that's not Christianity to you..good luck
"My religion is older than you think. Since around 63 A.D."
You would be surprised, D-fendr.
Paul's teaching IS Christ's teaching
Not in your version. You have Christ teaching Paul differently than he taught his disciples and other Apostles.
That's different, not the same. You wouldn't have your religion beginning around 63 A.D. if it were the same teaching.
The whole point of your religion is that Paul teaches something different than Christ's ministry.
Christians follow Christ, period. Dispensationalism is absurd from the git – go.
" All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." 2 Tim. 3:16,17.
Call it dispensation if you wish, but it's the same thing. I suppose that it's just easier to mock than trying to mock the very words of Jesus.
Matthew 26:27-29 27And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you, 28for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom."
Mark 14:23-25 23And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. 24And he said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. 25Truly, I say to you, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God."
Luke 22:19-20 19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me." 20And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.
1 Corinthians 11:25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me."
2 Corinthians 3:4-17 Such is the confidence that we have through Christ toward God. 5 Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God, 6who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
7Now if the ministry of death, carved in letters on stone, came with such glory that the Israelites could not gaze at Moses’ face because of its glory, which was being brought to an end, 8will not the ministry of the Spirit have even more glory? 9For if there was glory in the ministry of condemnation, the ministry of righteousness must far exceed it in glory. 10Indeed, in this case, what once had glory has come to have no glory at all, because of the glory that surpasses it. 11For if what was being brought to an end came with glory, much more will what is permanent have glory.
12Since we have such a hope, we are very bold, 13not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face so that the Israelites might not gaze at the outcome of what was being brought to an end. 14But their minds were hardened. For to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away. 15Yes, to this day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their hearts. 16But when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed. 17Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.
Gee, you mean if I were to actually read it, I’ll be a Dispensationalist like the other cool kids?
I’ve read the entire NT several times, slowly.
Did your religion start in 63 A.D. too mom?
You might want to examine the wagon a bit closer before you jump aboard.
Why not?
It’s the very line that Catholics use to try to convince/convert non-Catholics to Catholicism. It’s the appeal to longevity.
Here’s your first chance at a convert. Give us the whole picture.
Converting to non–Catholic doesn’t count; that’s a done deal. Gotta go whole–hog Dispensationalism®.
Mere anti–Catholic doesn’t count here.
Gotta go for the whole dispense–with–Christ’s–ministry–and–Kingdom–of–Heaven teaching thing.
Are you really down with Dispensationalism?
Thanks for your personal opinion
PS the "special" cracker is not for any of those who cannot discern the body of Christ. So don't worry about it, just stick to your cheap, crumbled Saltines.
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.