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 here I thought I was going to make it the whole day without a ping to the opinion of a fallible man.
"Here's your first chance at a convert. Give us the whole picture. Converting to non-Catholics doesn't count, that's a done deal. Gotta go whole-hog Dispensationalism."
See, you rang MY doorbell and bothered me with your useless waste of my time.
sqeak, squeak, the Catholic Cart of Knowledge rambles on down the road, wobbling wheels and dusty Bibles buried under worn out doctrines and early Church Father's invented history. And Mary refrigerator magnets or Keys to the Kingdom keychains for anyone who takes the 2 years necessary to begin try to understand Catholic teachings.
Exactly what I was talking about, CB. But please do not attempt to sully this thread with TRUTH. It’s easier to let a pig wear lipstick than explain why it shouldn’t.
No, that wasn’t the post you replied which my reply resulted in your complaint.
The path from your complaint, 2343, is to 2262 to 2277 to 2307 which concludes with “SmVoice can tell you all about it, right smvoice?”
Luke 1:28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
Judges 5:24 Blessed above women shall Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite be,
Those words were also spoken of Noah, Moses, and David.
The Greek word charitoó is used by Catholics to try to point to Mary being “full of grace” or “highly favored. The word charitoo according to Greek concordances is: From charis; to grace, i.e. Indue with special honor -- make accepted, be highly favoured. [http://concordances.org/greek/5487.htm]
The word is used twice in the New Testament. Once in Luke 1 and the other in Ephesians 1.
Ephesians 1:6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.
Don’t attempt to tell me what I was referring to. I am telling you I was referring to your post 2237. It’s yours. Own it. And if you don’t want to own it, then stop ringing my doorbell.
And don’t forget about the secret stuff they don’t get to here about until they have paid the entry fee.
My goodness, a second opinion of a fallible man so quickly, and just to me only.
Sorry, Charlie... your rules.
"Therefore, to resume, I establish: (1) That Jesus has given to His apostles the same power that He gave to St. Peter. (2) That the apostles never recognized in St. Peter the vicar of Jesus Christ and the infallible doctor of the church. (3) That St. Peter never thought of being pope, and never acted as if he were pope...I conclude victoriously, with history, with reason, with logic, with good sense, and with a Christian conscience, that Jesus Christ did not confer any supremacy on St. Peter and that the bishops of Rome did not become sovereigns of the church, but only confiscating one by one all the rights of the episcopate." (Bishop Joseph Strossmayer in his speech before the Vatican Council in 1870).
Maybe in human terms, but NOT under God's. He marks us as his own, seals us for eternity, indwells us as the EARNEST of our inheritance. You always seem to come back to this argument as the reason why you will not ever express assurance in your salvation and mock those who do. Do you not really believe God? Have you not really trusted in Christ as savior? Do you not believe God GIFTS you eternal life by his grace through YOUR faith? What IDIOT would reject such a gift anyway? Sure people refuse to accept Jesus Christ as Lord and savior, but once one HAS and the Holy Spirit takes up residence creating a NEW NATURE within, how could anyone "spurn" it later? WHY?
No, these "reasons" you give are highly suspect and I have to question someone who claims to believe in Christ, believe that God gives to us eternal life through Christ, yet rejects the right to be called a child of God, rejects the right to claim the promises of God BECAUSE he IS God and rejects the assurance God desires for us to know so that we truly have the freedom that is in Christ Jesus to live holy and abundant lives for the glory of God.
Some of the worst laws we have came about because of "exceptions" rather than the rule. Roe v. Wade was approved because a woman (falsely) claimed to be pregnant as a result of rape. Therefore the Supreme Court passed a law that, in essence, has made abortion legal at any time and for any reason. You say you reject that a person can state that they are saved by the grace of God through faith in Christ solely because someone might in the future "spurn" the gift of God and turn into an unbeliever. That sounds like one of those rare exceptions. But you know, even more, if a person genuinely rejects Jesus Christ after he has placed his faith in him, only two things are possible. One, he did not come to faith in Christ but only pretended it and, in that case, never really ever was saved. Or, he is confused and going through a valley of despair and has not yet overcome doubt. In that case, if he sincerely did accept Christ, then he is still saved because God knows his heart - he knows if faith was real - and is waiting for him to realize God has never left him or forsaken him. Many people go through times of doubt and even fall into sin. God disciplines us as a good father does and he is always faithful to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. Jesus said he will lose none of us and that means, if we are his, we will always be his. So which are you?
If ever a place needed exorcism...but the faithful get bent out of shape over non-Catholics. That is their fear. And hatred.
When Rev. 17 and 18 begin, it's going to be one HUGE pile of steaming stench blowing in the winds over Rome. THere is going to be an exorcism there real soon. Straight from Heaven.
Sorry, but, much as some may wish otherwise, history is history.
If you click "Post Reply" to a particular post one assumes that is what one is doing: replying to that post. In fact, we use this method to determine context of discussion. Unless of course the reply indicates otherwise. That's been the way of the interwebs as far back as 36k modems.
At the very least, if one clicks reply to a post, we can assume one has read it.
Now, you are correct, I cannot know what you thought you were replying to; however, I can say that if you have deduced from my posts that I'm am sincerely interested in learning more about your religion, you thought wrong, incredibly off base logically.
However I did, and still do, encourage you to try out the special decodes of your religion on other nonCatholics here, nay proselytize away with the same irresistible force of all caps and bold fonts you used on me when you (mistakenly) thought I was a sincere seeker of all things Dispensational.
And then paint it with a new brush and call it Christian. That’s how they ended up with the whole “queen of heaven” thing.
In effect, Catholics believe that there is a different dispensation as well.
They do not follow the Law as prescribed in the OT and they consider themselves the new Israel.
That would be a new dispensation of another flavor.
Upbraid all you want, it will not cause me to disbelieve that God wants us to KNOW we have eternal life. Why did he direct the writers of Scripture to say exactly that if he didn't want us to have assurance? If God wants us to constantly beg for his mercy, never knowing from moment to moment if we'll "make it", then tell me why he inspired John, for example, to write "These things have I written unto you, that ye may know that ye have eternal life, even unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God." (I John 5:13) or for Jesus to say "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth him that sent me, hath eternal life, and cometh not into judgment, but hath passed out of death into life." (John 5:24) or "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth hath eternal life." (John 6:47)?
And I doubt you realize it but that is Scripture, God breathed by the Holy Spirit.
I just copied and pasted the whole chapter.
The body of Christ is NOT just one member or organ. The criticism of Protestantism and the number of denominations then carries no weight. The different churches can just be considered different parts of the one body with their different functions, all working together in the unity of the Spirit.
Sorry, Charlie... your rules.
And this is the loving Father of the Bible, according to Catholicism? One who makes His followers beg and grovel, and live in fear and apprehension that after doing all that, they still won't be sure about where they end up and have to wait until they die to find out?
That's bondage, not freedom in Christ.
The challenge was do you two share pro-Dispensationalism®.
Metmom, if you're not clear on what Dispensationalism teaches, I think smvoice will be happy to tell you.
[And, no, metmom, by dispensation I do NOT mean the new covenant.]
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.