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.
I used think that was high, but with the "I am the church" posts lately, I'm thinking it could be way low.
All you have to do is open up a phone directory for an indication.
do I actually have to go back and find all the times on this thread alone that the statement was made that the CC WROTE the Bible? Oh, and I’ll stand by those dates.
Non sequitur, Mark, you of all people should know that. Where does it say Peter was saved, or Paul, or John?
That's a very good question. We believe that they were saved.
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 keep interchanging faith and knowledge. I don't say that God cannot be trusted. He is not fallible. You and I are.
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.
Every time I make my point on this matter, the retreat begins. You may read dread; but I think that my faith is every bit as strong as yours. You also have repeated the fallacy that only declared saints make it to Heaven.
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 have not merely said that you have accepted it, you have declared that you know of your salvation. Do not conflate faith and knowledge and we will post more evenly to each other.
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.
I do not conflate faith and knowledge; and I reserve the right to upbraid those who do.
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.
Before you blow a gasket, let me repost from 2195:
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?
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).
I did not say that I didn't see it before; I said twice in two succeeding posts that I did not recall seeing the argument made that each Gospel writer wrote in a different language. I also posted to CB why I thought that his choice of languages attributed to each Gospel write made no sense.
Sigh,,,,,,,do you not read my posts?
Luke 23:38 And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew
I’m not sure why you have such a hard time with this. Is it because you so desperately want there to be a contradiction?
As I’ve told you before. Jesus put that veneration in perspective and I will stick with His words on it.
Luke 11:27-28 27 And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked. 28 But he said, Nay rather, (Greek Menounge: nay surely, nay rather) blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.
If you don’t know any better than that maybe I should find an adult to debate.
I asked is it ALL about JESUS for 'you'.
Not very clearly. The answer however, is that it is all about the Triune God, who consists of God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.
the legacy of the Reformation is that it is not for the children of the Reformation.
Those who believe God's Word is THE FINAL AUTHORITY are God's children and NO ONE can snatch them for HIS HAND. They would never bow, believe, follow man made teachings/traditions. They are 'HIS' for eternity and ALL His promises to them are 'yes' and 'amen'. Thank You, JESUS!
Hebrews 6: . 4For it is impossible in the case of those who have once been enlightened and tasted the heavenly gift* and shared in the holy Spiritc 5and tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come,* 6and then have fallen away, to bring them to repentance again, since they are recrucifying the Son of God for themselves* and holding him up to contempt.d
And Paul goes on to say:
7Ground that has absorbed the rain falling upon it repeatedly and brings forth crops useful to those for whom it is cultivated receives a blessing from God.e 8But if it produces thorns and thistles, it is rejected; it will soon be cursed and finally burned.f 9But we are sure in your regard, beloved, of better things related to salvation, even though we speak in this way. 10For God is not unjust so as to overlook your work and the love you have demonstrated for his name by having served and continuing to serve the holy ones. 11We earnestly desire each of you to demonstrate the same eagerness for the fulfillment of hope until the end,g 12so that you may not become sluggish, but imitators of those who, through faith and patience,h are inheriting the promises. So if you believe in God and do works, and don't fall away, this is tied to your salvation.
Matthew 22: 1a Jesus again in reply spoke to them in parables, saying, 2“The kingdom of heaven may be likened to a king who gave a wedding feast* for his son. 3* He dispatched his servants to summon the invited guests to the feast, but they refused to come.
4A second time he sent other servants, saying, ‘Tell those invited: “Behold, I have prepared my banquet, my calves and fattened cattle are killed, and everything is ready; come to the feast.”’ 5Some ignored the invitation and went away, one to his farm, another to his business. 6b The rest laid hold of his servants, mistreated them, and killed them.
7* The king was enraged and sent his troops, destroyed those murderers, and burned their city. 8Then he said to his servants, ‘The feast is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy to come. 9Go out, therefore, into the main roads and invite to the feast whomever you find.’ 10The servants went out into the streets and gathered all they found, bad and good alike,* and the hall was filled with guests.
11* But when the king came in to meet the guests he saw a man there not dressed in a wedding garment. 12He said to him, ‘My friend, how is it that you came in here without a wedding garment?’ But he was reduced to silence. 13* c Then the king said to his attendants, ‘Bind his hands and feet, and cast him into the darkness outside, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth.’ 14Many are invited, but few are chosen.”
If we do not do His Will, He will Judge us.
LOL The accolades the CC gives him show they still venerate him. He doesn’t appear to have been denigrated too much.
Can you show me veneration of Hippolytus?
Excellent. Good examples, too. I brought up the example of Tertullian, but I missed Origen.
How many paramecia live in the ocean? Krill? No doubt to one krill, others are different.
Oho. Another good one. One has to be perfect in order to be Judged. Matthew 22 and 25 don't count? The great white throne Judgement is for the pure?
do I actually have to go back and find all the times on this thread alone that the statement was made that the CC WROTE the Bible? Oh, and I’ll stand by those dates.
Please do. I stand by my statement and will be vindicated by my posts. Please read carefully lest you be embarrassed.
Sigh,,,,,,,do you not read my posts?
Luke 23:38 And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew
I’m not sure why you have such a hard time with this. Is it because you so desperately want there to be a contradiction?
You specified what inscription each Gospel writer wrote in what language. Where does it say that they wrote in any other language than Greek? Scripture, please.
I’m reminded of the illustration Jesus gave in Matthew chapter 21 of the the landowner that let out his vineyard to cultivators while he traveled abroad.
Well the conclusion of the illustration was that the kingdom was to be taken away from that nation, Israel, and given to a nation producing the fruits of the kingdom. (vs 43).
Great age, having sacred rites and rituals, being in a favored status would not prevent that kingdom from being taken away from them and being given to another.
We can note that it wasn’t a few bad apples and that those who abandoned that corrupt nation saved their lives.
I’ll ask it again. So if you believe that Christ is in you what happens upon your death? Does He just abandon you at that point then?
As I’ve told you before. Jesus put that veneration in perspective and I will stick with His words on it.
Luke 11:27-28 27 And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked. 28 But he said, Nay rather, (Greek Menounge: nay surely, nay rather) blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.
Wtihin the context of Jesus teaching, of course, He wanted them to pay attention to Him at the moment, rather than disturb His teachings to the crowd.
However we still have the elaborate verses in Luke 1. And never forget the Wedding in Cana, where He tells the steward to do whatever she tells him to do. Wait, what? Almighty God telling a human being to do whatever another human being tells him to do? Sounds just a little special to me.
If you don’t know any better than that maybe I should find an adult to debate.
You already have. Tell you what; why not make a small survey. Pick out a short list of mallfront churches blind from the phone book and visit one each week. Perhaps you might be surprised. I know that in my prodigal years, that I was repeatedly surprised...
Since you have abandoned Christ (another term for sinning), He will send you to the fate you have chosen. If you refuse Christ, what does He say about you?
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.