Reformation Day – and What Led Me To Back to Catholicism

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.

When non-Catholics look at Catholics all they see is what divides them. As Christ followers, Catholic look at what unites us.

Wait... what?

A Catholic who admits that there is NOT unity in Catholicism? How'd that happen?

But anyway, thanks.....

The graphic is for sliding away from the main point of the discussion: "I am Church."

You listed five names of denominations that *you* consider part of the Body of Christ. Wow. One is a Pentecostal. Do you include Oneness Pentecostals? Do you consider them part of the Body of Christ? Do they consider you part of the Body of Christ? How about Unitarian Christians? Or sola scriptura Unitarian Universalists?

As Christ followers, we look at what unites us.

Don't look too close or you may see a Paul follower close by. Another on here not long ago posted an opinion that includes most Protestants as engaged in pagan practices. United in that are you?

What really unites you is you're not Catholic. The rest you don't ask, don't tell. You only look at what unites you: antiCatholicism. This thread is all the evidence you need. If you look at it.

That's bondage, not freedom in Christ.

Boy is it! I just wish some would put real thought into this rather than swallow whatever their "higher-ups" deem is true. I wonder why they even think God bothered with creating Holy Scripture if all we need to know comes from "Tradition" handed down verbally? Yes, there IS freedom in Christ and it is not only logical but necessary to fully live a victorious Christian life. Knowing that God loves me, has forgiven me all my trespasses, redeemed me from the curse of the law and has clothed me in the righteousness of Christ fills me with purpose to serve him out of love and gratitude. That old sense of God making a check mark after my name every time I messed up. That dread that when I died I would see a huge scale set in front of me and all my good deeds measured and weighed against all my sins and whatever was more determined my ETERNITY in Heaven or Hell. I will NEVER go back to that kind of bondage again. And I know I don't have to because Christ has set me free and I am free INDEED.

I know there are those who will read my words and, no matter how many times I state I am NOT depending on my merits to save me, will STILL condemn me as presumptuous or thinking I'm all that. I pray every day that those huge scales will be removed from their eyes and they come to understand what grace is really all about. I try to be clear on this, present verses from Scripture and not back down from proclaiming the truth of the Gospel of Grace every chance I get. That's all we really can do, isn't it?

He got a new body? Not the one that he had before he died, which is resurrected and glorified after judgement?

If God intends to give us all new bodies, not the body we lived in that has been glorified, why then do we believe in resurrection?

That sounds a little like reincarnation to me.

Do you believe in reincarnation?

OK, I'm yelling. Maybe you can hear it.......

Denominations are NOT the body of Christ!!!! PEOPLE ARE!!!!

Any person who has put their faith in Christ alone for their salvation BECOMES the church. What denominational affiliation they make does NOT make them part of the church (the body of Christ) because no denomination is the church, the body of Christ and no church died for them or can offer them salvation. Only Christ can.

Denominations are just organizations with a defined set of beliefs that it owns and the local churches are just buildings in which any one, believer or not, can go to worship.

I am not the member of a denomination. I am a member of the body of Christ, a spiritual stone being built up in Him.

1 Peter 2:4-5 4As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, 5 you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

He got a new body? Not the one that he had before he died, which is resurrected and glorified after judgement?

If he old body was resurrected then it isn't new. If it's been justified, then it isn't old.

When this corruption becomes incorruption, then it is new. It has to be in order to survive any environment outside this earth.

Are you a Dispensationalist, BB? Or do you just rely on a Dispensationalist website to assure you it's nothing new and perfectly ok with your beliefs and that of the rest of the Christian faith? Just move along, nothing to look at here.

And which version of Dispensationalism are you referring to?

'Dispensationalism' points out that some Christians have actually called Dispensationalism heretical.

Don't look now, but Dispensationalists have called other Dispensationalism heretical. One, the popular dispensationalist Harry A. Ironside, wrote about the version called Ultra-Dispensationalism (also known as Bullingerism) in Wrongly Diving the Word of Truth

"Having had most intimate acquaintance with Bullingerism as taught by many for the last forty years, I have no hesitancy in saying that its fruits are evil. It has produced a tremendous crop of heresies throughout the length and breadth of this and other lands, it has divided Christians and wrecked churches and assemblies without number; it has lifted up its votaries in intellectual and spiritual pride to an appalling extent, so that they look with supreme contempt upon Christians who do not accept their peculiar views; and in most instances where it has been long tolerated, it has absolutely throttled Gospel effort at home and sown discord on missionary fields abroad. So true are these things of this system that I have no hesitancy in saying it is an absolutely Satanic perversion of the truth."

Kumbaya, one big happy unified Body in agreement on the Christian Faith.

And, correct me if I'm wrong, smvoice, but your posts have the flavor of UltraDipensationalism, the "Pauline Distinctive."

But I'm sure

Just wow...... Olympic grade deflection and topic changing. How about just answering the question?

I think certain people have "cheap grace". That God only gives us a gift if we first work for it, but he can take it back anytime we're "bad". Kinda like a toy you'd give to a child and then take it away when they're grounded.

But that isn't the kind of gift God gives us. His cost a great deal, a "pearl" of great price, and he freely gives it to us if we will receive it. How then can something be given freely, offered by grace, but then taken away for any and all reasons? Tell you what, they can keep their cheap grace. I'll hold dear the one that is so precious that I will never want to lose it, so wonderful that I cannot lose it. That is REAL grace, not the counterfeit, pretended one.

****If he old body was resurrected then it isn’t new. If it’s been justified, then it isn’t old.

When this corruption becomes incorruption, then it is new. It has to be in order to survive any environment outside this earth.****

So the body of Moses seen by the Apostles with Jesus at the Transfiguration was the body of Moses which died and was buried and then was made new by God?

Did God then take the body that was buried and make it new?

And if God did, then wouldn’t that mean that God would have to have assumed the body which was buried?

Or did God create a whole new body for Moses?

Where is this written of in Scripture?

And again, why then believe in resurrection? And what exactly does resurrection mean to you?

Denominations are just organizations with a defined set of beliefs

Yes, like independent little religions, and those beliefs can be quite different.

Any person who believes [what you believe] BECOMES the church.

"I am the Church" again. Ok.

And, as the Church, you have the authority decide who else can be the Church. That's a great setup for rebels. Sort of the Corinthian model. I think scripture is pretty clear though that every single individual doesn't have the authority to make decisions on faith and morals for the whole Church.

I am not the member of a denomination.

We share something. At last. Cool.

He got a new body?

I thought most protestants were still taught the creeds, at least the parts that don't specifically refer to the Church. My appreciation for the value of the councils is increased on these threads almost daily. This really can be a great way to learn and appreciate the Church, in the areas we sometimes take for granted and don't even notice.

Do you believe that the body of the resurrected Jesus was the same body that died on the cross? Was that body made new, or was a new body made for Him?

If His body was made new, rather than resurrected and glorified, then why did He still bear the wounds in His hands, feet and side? Same question for if it was a whole new body.

Hey, I’m learning something totally new here.

I never knew Scripture says that Moses’ soul went to heaven and then he was given a new body so he could return to earth.

Maybe that movie “Heaven Can Wait” is based on his life or death, or life, or death or......

What really unites you is you're not Catholic. The rest you don't ask, don't tell. You only look at what unites you: antiCatholicism. This thread is all the evidence you need. If you look at it.

Just stop! Most of the discord on this thread comes from your side simply because anyone who disagrees with the RCs is called only an "anti". The person who started this thread posted an article about a former Protestant who converted to Catholicism and the very purpose of posting it was to exactly start a hostile argument. Now you condemn us if we disagree with the premise and have the nerve to say why? We have stated more than a few times we are former Catholics but is that accepted and our views and explanations respected? HARDLY! We are called liars, bigots, haters, and all manner of crude things because we dared reject the concept that Roman Catholicism is the answer to everything and try to say why we don't believe it is. If this thread has gotten so intolerable that you join in on the mocking and ridiculing instead of respectfully explaining your view, then why are you still here? You complain that Metmom is only here to persecute you Catholics, what are you doing if not the same thing towards us?

We aren't here to decide who is or isn't in the Body of Christ. THAT'S God's job! He knows those that are his. Tares among wheat, remember? Here's a thought! Don't keep posting on the thread if you can't stand to hear an opposing view. We all have the same right to be heard. Don't read it if you can't take it. Being a bully is NOT the way to attract others to your viewpoint.

Well, BB, you know I’m going to disagree with your assessment in this post particularly as to whom is attacking and whom is defending and what is being pro versus what is being anti.

I think there’s a very simple way to settle the disagreement and find out.

I’ll stop criticizing your church if you stop criticizing mine.

Same offer to everyone else on here.

Deal?

It is my earnest prayer that most Protestants don’t believe what I read of them here.

I agree that on these forums, the Wisdom of God to give to His Church the authority to decide on such matters of grave concern is vividly evident and very much a thing for which I am grateful.

As in the parable Jesus told us in the reading of this past week, Matthew 25:23 “His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’

If God intends to give us all new bodies, not the body we lived in that has been glorified, why then do we believe in resurrection?

Didn't the Catholic Church forbid cremation at one time? That the "body" would be resurrected and could not be destroyed? Did they go back into a coffin after a few decades and see that, like God said, unto dust we are and dust we will return? And what about people reduced to ashes when killed from bombs, houses burned down, lost at sea? Perhaps like Jesus' glorified body, so will we have - Scripture clearly says such. His disciples didn't recognize him at first, so he obviously looked different. This corrupted body will one day put on in-corruption. This mortal frame will put on immortality. Our human flesh is corrupted and will most definitely not be the body we will have for eternity. So, yes, all will have new bodies and with them we will enjoy the presence of our God and Savior for eternity.

We certainly learned about in Bible college and I agree with how it was stated in that article I linked. I did not find what it said to be wrong. Why, do you reject everything it said? Is not at least some of it acceptable and logical? Do you agree with every website that calls itself Catholic? As far as Ironsides, I agree that, like most things Christian, some people take things to extremes. You should be familiar with those in Catholicism that do the same. Yet you don't throw out everything Catholic, do you? Just as the link I posted, the subject of Dispensations is a way of explaining the different ways God has dealt with man through the ages. It is NOT a whole new religion and definitely NOT to be taken to the extent of causing division. Although, it sure seems like that may be your plan here.

They did not recognize Jesus because He did not wish for them to, but His body was the same and still bore the wounds of His crucifixion. You have not answered why you think that was.

As for the Church’s teaching against cremation and why, this offers a good explanation. http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/CREMATE.HTM

What you propose with the return to dust, negates that each of us are individuals uniquely created in the image and likeness of God, with an individual soul.

Regardless of our condition at death or following death, as God created us will be bodily resurrected. It will the glorified body in which we were born.

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.