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.
To try make a point it did not make.
The body of Christ is NOT just one member or organ.
Thus is proven the fallacy of "I am the Church."
The different churches can just be considered different parts of the one body
And each different protestant church comprised of individuals who are each a church on their own. Joining and leaving as churches with all sorts of teaching running the gamut from Trinitarian to Unitarian, Calvinism to Arminianism, Oneness Pentecostals to Paulist Dispensationalism, etc.
parts of the one body
Protestantism? You have to be kidding. It's not even one religion.
What? "He" tells the steward to do whatever "she" tells him to do? This, to you, is Almighty God telling a human being to do whatever another human tells him to do? Are you getting your pronouns mixed up for effect? I'm not getting the joke, if you are. According to John 2:5-11:
His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.
And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece.
Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim.
And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it.
When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom,
And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now.
This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.
Thanks for pointing this out, mm. Satan has his times and seasons and ages, too. He knows his time is short and has much to do before his "But Now" comes to a screeching halt.
It’s the rose colored glasses thing. Totally lying about what a verse says however gets a little beyond that doesn’t it.
Still high fiving in your kumbaya of antiCatholicism.
The challenge is do you two share pro-Dispensationalism®.
Yes, I think we do. We both agree that Satan’s dispensation of the Catholic Church as Spiritual Israel is alive and well. And being enlarged daily.
I think for some people you can be a "sheep" one day and then a "goat" the next, then a sheep, then a goat, all depending upon your behavior from one moment to the next. No wonder they have no assurance of their salvation and mock and ridicule those who dare to say they are sheep. The wonderful truth of God's word is that we know he knows his sheep and we know we know he is our shepherd and he will never lose us or cast us out of his sheepfold. We trust in HIS promises.
Cop out. Just another version of we share antiCatholicism.
Far from the full Dispensational™ treatment. You can refer back to your posts to me if you need to.
You are still deflecting from the question.
Obviously, Moses was buried. So was Jesus.
Yet, at the Transfiguration, Jesus appears with Moses, the Apostles SEE him so he is not spirit, they see his body.
Therefore, either what they saw was a ghost, which I do not believe, or Moses is bodily with Jesus in heaven.
It is a simple logical deduction based on what we know of God.
And, if you believe as I do that Moses is in heaven, how do you suppose he got there other than he was assumed by God?
I think not, D-fendr, since you still haven’t answered the Isaiah/Luke Scripture OR the Acts Scripture. Until you can wrap your mind around SOME form of sense, I consider you nothing more than a person not interested in truth, but interested in attempting to play games with God’s Word of truth. Peddle your non-argument arguments elsewhere. Perhaps there is a blind, deaf pagan you can lead to your church. Show him the beauty of your “religion”. Talk to him about your “truths.” Maybe he can be your first convert.
MM, my previous reply to smvoice was meant to include you:
Cop out. Just another version of “we share antiCatholicism.”
Far from the full Dispensational™ treatment. You can refer back to your posts to me if you need to.
To be clear, I mean that smvoice can post to you, metmom, the full Dispensational treatment, not to me. I already got most of it.
More trolling for antiCatholics?
I’ve already taken myself off your list of prospective converts. You know this, your post says it. I’ve told you quite plainly. Yet you continue your attempt.
Your post indicates you would still rather bash my beliefs than promote your own to much more hopeful prospects right here in our midst.
This posting behaviour indicates to me someone who is more engergized by what he is against than what he is for.
Well, the problem is in looking at Protestant denominations as *religions* and not just denominations.
The basis is/was salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.
Now there are some minor differences in some theology in areas not directly related to salvation, such as tongues, infant baptism, dancing, drinking, etc, but I can still go in any church which preaches Christ crucified and salvation through faith alone and worship and have fellowship with other Christ followers be they Baptist, OPC, AoG, Elim Fellowship, CMA, Methodist, etc, because the unifying factor is salvation by faith in Christ.
When Catholics look at non-Catholics all they see is what divides them. As Christ followers, we look at what unites us.
Well, then, you need to explain what you do mean by it then, because *dispensation* is just the $20 word for God operating under the new covenant established by Jesus and His death on the cross.
If you have a special Catholic only to make Protestants look bad definition that you're using, then it would behoove you to tell us what you DO mean by dispensation then.
When non-Catholics look at Catholics all they see is what divides them. As Christ followers, Catholic look at what unites us.
Wait what?
This sounds a little too much like the personal pronoun problem the Catholic church had in translating Genesis 3:15
http://bible.cc/genesis/3-15.htm
Young's Literal Translation and enmity I put between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; he doth bruise thee -- the head, and thou dost bruise him -- the heel.'
Douay-Rheims Bible I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.
MB: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?
Just wow......
Olympic grade deflection and topic changing.
How about just answering the question?
Which does not mean an assumption by default.His soul went to paradise and he got a new body so he could return to earth.
Definition
A Dispensation - The system by which anything is administered. In Christian terms, looking back, it refers to a period in history whereby God dealt with man in a specific way. (Conscience, Law, Grace)
Dispensationalism - A system of theology that sees God working with man in different ways during different dispensations. While 'Dispensations' are not ages, but stewardships, or administrations, we tend to see them now as ages since we look back on specific time periods when they were in force.
Dispensationalism is distinguished by three key principles.
1 - A clear distinction between God's program for Israel and God's program for the Church.
2 - A consistent and regular use of a literal principle of interpretation
3 - The understanding of the purpose of God as His own glory rather than the salvation of mankind.
The key to Dispensationalism is not in the definition or recognition of a specific number of dispensations. This is a misunderstanding of the opponents of Dispensationalism. Almost all theologians will recognize that God worked differently through the Law than He did through Grace. That is not to say that salvation was attained in a different manner, but that the responsibilities given to man by God were different during the period of the giving of the Law up to the cross, just as they were different for Adam and Eve. The Jews were to show their true faith by doing what God had commanded, even though they couldn't keep the moral Law. That's what the sacrifices were for. When the apostle Paul said that as to the Law he was blameless, he didn't mean that he never sinned, but that he obeyed God by following the guidelines of the Law when he did sin, and animal sacrifices were offered for his sins by the priests in the temple. Salvation came not by keeping the law, but by seeing it's true purpose in exposing sin, and turning to God for salvation. The Jews weren't saved based on how well they kept the law, (as many of them thought) as that would be salvation by works. They were saved through faith in God, and the work of Christ on the cross was counted for them, even though it hadn't happened yet.
While not everyone needs to agree on this breakdown, the point from the Dispensationalists view is that God is working with man in a progressive way. At each stage man has failed to be obedient to the responsibilities set forth by God. The method of salvation, justification by faith alone, never changes through the dispensations. The responsibilities God gives to man does change however. The Jews were to be obedient to the Law if they wished God's blessing of Land. If they were disobedient, they would be scattered. However, God promises to always bring them back to the land promised to Abraham in the Abrahamic Covenant. After the cross, believers no longer need the Law, which pointed to Christ as the one that would take away sin through his perfect sacrifice. (Heb 10) We are under a new Law, the Law of Grace. We have more revelation about God, and are no longer required to keep ceremonial laws given to the Jews. The moral law is always in effect as a guide, but we are no longer condemned by it, since we have a savior that has overcome for us.
Remember that making a distinction between these time periods is not what makes someone Dispensational. Recognizing the progressive nature, and seeing the church as part of Plan A and not Plan B is what makes someone Dispensational. Dispensationalists see a clear distinction between God's program for Israel and God's program for the church. God is not finished with Israel. The church didn't take Israel's place. They have been set aside temporarily, but in the Endtimes will be brought back to the promised land, cleansed, and given a new heart. (Gen 12, Deut 30, 2 Sam 7, Jer 31)
Just to clarify what I mean by Plan A and Plan B, I can see how some would say that the church is God's Plan B. However, God knew that the Jews would reject their Messiah. Daniel 9 tells us that the Messiah would be cut off, or killed, and Isaiah 53 speaks of the suffering servant. To call the church Plan B sounds too much like it was his second best plan, as if his efforts were thwarted. God has one redemptive plan for all mankind that was foretold in Genesis 3. The Messiah would come and defeat Satan and death. Now, this doesn't mean that his plan for Israel, and the promises/covenants made with the forefathers are null and void. They are not.
Charles Ryrie in his book 'Dispensationalism' points out that some Christians have actually called Dispensationalism heretical. Actually it is people that use words like 'heretical' for non essential doctrinal beliefs that are the ones that cause division in the Church. Whether a person believes in a literal future Millennial Kingdom is not essential Christian doctrine. It doesn't rank up there with the Deity of Christ, the Trinity, the Atonement, etc. A house divided against itself will not stand. When we get to heaven, or the Millennial Kingdom, whichever will come first, we will understand the truth of all the word of God, but until then there are essential doctrines of the faith that are worth going to battle over. Others are not, since we don't want to be found going to battle with each other, and therefore, with Jesus Christ Himself.
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.