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.
We have a condition within much of the Protestantism displayed in this thread in which individualism trumps the communal roots of Christianity. I'm not talking about communism or socialism, but the communion that is the Church. Catholics believe that we are each a small part of a bigger synergy.
Pope Benedict XVI advises us to "live life as a pilgrimage keeping our gaze fixed on the destination for which God has created us. Since He made us for himself (cf. St Augustine, Confessions 1, 1), he is our ultimate destination and the meaning of our existence. Death, followed by the Last Judgment, is an obligatory gate to pass through in order to reach this definitive place."
We will each have to stand this judgment alone but our pilgrimage needn't be without the communion of saints is our
It needs to go further than that BB
"That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation" (Romans 10:9-10)
and yet......."The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?"(Jeremiah 17:9)...the heart needs a bomb dropped into it.
This needs to sink into our heart,I believe it is the very work of God.
God tells us He has given us His Holy Spirit,that Spirit that is complete and whole,lacking nothing and He has given us that Spirit from the start,it's up to us to 'work out our salvation' to 'labour to enter that rest' to 'be diligent to make our election and calling sure' to get this to 'sink in' so that we would "understand and comrehend" what is the depth of love that God has for us.God has promised us that IF we do these things we shall never fall!
If all this remains in the mind it gives place for our deceitfull and desperately wicked heart to play havoc with us.Much the same way as a fearfull heart will have the mind thinking fearfull thoughts.
Personally,I think that verses such as John 5:13 "These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God." are God's way of bludgeoning through our cluttered minds to hit right at the heart.....and when it finally does sink in,ye shall be free indeed,he who has intered into that rest has ceased from his own works.
Thanks for letting me rant.
God bless all.
The "anti-everyone BUT Roman Catholics" are, yet again, speaking untruths about us. No one said there was no tradition nor "organized" church. I think they like to pretend they are so much more "intellectual" and we ignorant hicks and gullible hayseeds are no match for their brilliance. Few, it seems, bother to read much of their so-called "Church" fathers especially those within the first two centuries after Christ, for if they did, they would know that nearly to a man they insisted that if what they taught was not verifiable from Holy Scripture, then they were not to be heard. Our RC friends seem to imagine we are incapable of reading source documents and sites such as this that quote these early men of faith and their views on the sufficiency of Holy Scripture. No student of the Bible would discount the traditions of the early church because they are just as much OURS as the Roman Catholics'. But no logical student would presume to accept blindly whatever any of these men said and would, instead, read them in the light of their times, culture, relationships and, of course, measure their words against Scripture as they so clearly requested. They KNEW they were fallible, but God's word was infallible. The only "organizing" that was done back then was in regard to assuring the faith was presented accurately and heresy was refuted with the truths Jesus taught the disciples and which they passed onto their followers and then, through divinely-inspired Scripture, still available to us today. The eckklesia was a called-out assembly and referred to various kinds of groups such as a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly, the assembly of the Israelites, any gathering or throng of men assembled by chance, tumultuously. Even a mob was called by that word a few times (like in Acts 19:32).
It also appears that these "anties" presume all MUST adhere to whatever their collective organization deems as truth regardless of Scriptural warrant all because they judge themselves ABOVE God's word. Something God NEVER granted to the Jewish religious leaders before them nor has he done so since for them. Scripture has been given to us by God in order that we might know truth and he promised the Holy Spirit indwelling to lead us into all truth - something some either deny to all God's children or allot to selected leaders exclusively leaving the rest of "us" dependent upon to know anything. And those of us who refuse to follow along are counted as less than germs, garbage, animals and unable to be sensitive to the same Holy Spirit's leading and illumination. It sounds as if some are so fragile in their faith that they MUST degrade all others in order to maintain their assumed elevation.
What is most amusing - if not sadly so - is they continue to engage in these open forums, but react with revulsion when another states differences and they reject any and all arguments no matter how verifiable the viewpoints. It's almost as if they consider such an exercise counts towards their daily "penance" and, the way some go on, to endure opposing thoughts is a form of self-mortification that MUST please God in the same way martyrs endured persecution in the early centuries. While they sit in their warm, clean homes, well fed and content, they seem to view confrontation on the Religion Forum as their contribution to the Treasury of Merits of the Saints. But the only thing is, those martyrs didn't curse and degrade, they didn't mock and deride. They spoke the truth and allowed the Spirit of God to touch the hearts of those who were against them. It was when the church of Christ was most under stress, that more and more souls were added and hearts were won to Christ because he said by their love the world would know them.
Here's the link: http://www.trueorthodoxy.org/heretics_protestants.shtml Go back and read it yourself, I pasted several passages that said exactly that. Just 'cuz I'm a nice person, here are the first three paragraphs from it:
The term ‘Protestant’ signifies the amorphous mass of non-Roman Catholic heresies formed since the 16th century in the West in contradiction or retaliation to the Roman Catholic Church.
Whereas the one dogma that binds all Roman Catholics past and present together is submission to the Pope as sole authority (thereby abolishing every other authority), the one dogma that all Protestants have in common is the rejection of the need for submission to any rule for salvation, other than one’s own private opinion (about everything).
Undoubtably, within Protestantism there are many opinions and contrary beliefs, but they all base their religion ultimately in a rejection of external authority as needed for salvation. What Rome began with rejection of all authority save that of the Pope, Protestantism finished by rejecting the authority of the Pope as well. This results in an indifference to and a severance from the Body of Christ, the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, the sole Church founded by Him and His Apostles.
Good point!
You are right, it DOES have to sink into the heart. Having it only in our “heads” is not the same thing. God wants total surrender, a complete giving of ourselves to him to be our SAVIOR. Jesus is not just another guy, just another prophet, just another good person. No, he is GOD WITH US and only God can save us from the awful condition of our souls. We rest in his mercy, fall into his hands, confident that what he has promised he WILL accomplish. Thanks for your input!
Good try.
Maybe somebody somewhere will get it some time.
EO do not accept the authority of the pope in the same way as the RC’s do.
Therefore, by definition, they must be Protestant (heretics).
Just for the purpose of clarity....
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2799123/posts?page=2338#2338
MB post 2338: “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. “
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2799123/posts?page=2397#2397
mm (aka - “the poster”) post 2397:
“Wait what?
This sounds a little too much like the personal pronoun problem the Catholic church had in translating Genesis 3:15”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2799123/posts?page=2468#2468
MB post 2468: “The original Hebrew text reads “they”. The Septuagint and Jerome both interpreted it differently. The KJV went with the Septuagint here. “
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2799123/posts?page=2483#2483
MB post 2483: “I told the poster, as well as you (CynicalBear) that I had inadvertently reverse the order of the pronouns. I am not the one posting ridiculous personal extra Scriptural posts and surprised when caught. “
*************************************************************************
Well, MB, it looks like bb is correct in her assessment of your post. She said.....”Excuse me, but you did far more than get a few pronouns mixed up, you based an argument from it - that of Mary being “special” in her ministry for God. “
We all see it and saw it. You’re not fooling anyone with the backpedaling and excuse making.
You’d do your credibility far more good just owning the comment than continuing to deny what you meant in full light of the evidence contrary.
His Grace, the Bishop was speaking of what the ROMAN Catholics believe. NOT that he or the Eastern Orthodox believe.
We have never accepted the doctrine of Papal Supremecy.
Thank you metmom and boatbums. We obviously need to stay with scripture which is the only unchanging reference we have to God’s word. Correctly using scripture as a base for our understanding is becoming even more important in these days. All of us need to be especially careful that we are not so entrenched in beliefs we have been taught that we try to manipulate scripture to somehow justify beliefs that are not contained in scripture. Extra Biblical teachings must all be held suspect. “Searching the scriptures daily to see if it is so” must be the background thought when formulating anything we believe and understand re our faith. More so in these last days.
****Scripture is VERY clear about Enoch and Elijah. But silent about Moses. So we have to assume that he was assumed for other reasons?****
I do assume, I have a belief based on Scripture which VERY clearly says that Jesus was with Moses and Elijah, two of the greatest prophets of the OT and one of whom Scripture tells us was taken up to heaven.
So based on Scripture, knowing that Jesus would not conjure up the ghost of Moses, that God has already assumed Elijah, and knowing that Moses was with Him at the Transfiguration, I have come to believe that Moses is in heaven body and soul.
****Where is it written in Scripture that Moses’ body was assumed?****
Also, I am not one who thinks that if it isn’t written of in Scripture it didn’t happen or isn’t possible. That is a Sola Scriptura belief.
Do you believe that Moses’ soul went to heaven and God gave him a new body to return to earth? And if you do, where is that in Scripture?
Did metmom add to Scripture when she said that Moses; soul went to heaven and God gave him a new body to return to earth?
And for the record....
I did not add to Scripture since I did not make the claim or say that Scripture specifically tells us what happened to Moses’ body after he was buried.
I came to a belief about it based on what Scripture says, i.e. God has assumed at least two others into heaven, God would not conjure up a ghost and Moses appears with Jesus at the Transfiguration along with Elijah, who is one that we know God has taken into heaven.
Basing a belief on what Scripture tells us in a specific case and then seeing how that belief and understanding applies to ourselves personally and humanity in general is not adding to Scripture.
****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?****
Catholics do not grovel in fear, nor do we do works so that God can chalk up our “good works” column and then compare it to our “bad Christian” column.
A Catholic does good out of love and gratitude for the grace God has given us, we do this freely, as God has done so freely for us.
The point of “good works” and going to Mass and making confession is so we “remain in Him” and thus “He will remain in us”.
People fall away when they do not keep themselves close to Jesus through prayer and doing what He commanded. That is how people feel comfortable enough in their sin to call good evil and evil good believing that by merely professing or confessing a belief in Jesus they are saved.
I do not beg and grovel and live in fear. I live to remain in grace by following Christ and doing as He commanded.
Sola scriptura is itself an addition to scriptura. Those who adhere to that belief are following a tradition of man.
All the while proclaiming sola scriptura and no traditions of men.
They have read into Scripture what isn’t there and formed a doctrine based on the implicit rather than the explicit.
IOW, they have gleaned a doctrine from Scripture which they cannot say is in Scripture explicitly because it isn’t.
They have one or two passages in which they base their belief, neither of which say anything about Scripture Alone.
Does it really matter what it or anyone actually says when the behavior on these threads is so unChristian? A reporter once asked Ghandi why he had never become a Christian. He replied; "If I ever met one I would have become one."
This was a statement that too many Christians believe that we need only proclaim our Christianity and point to a few verses of Scripture to assure our Salvation and that our works somehow sully the purity of our faith like some kind of bribe offered to the gatekeepers of Heaven.
I have seen Mother Teresa criticized on these threads for not demanding the conversion of dying Hindus as a condition of mercy. I do indeed pity those who choose to be judged as goats, who did nothing in this life for the "least of His Brethren" and forgave not any trespasses. I am certain that where there are no fruits of Grace there is no Grace.
"Preach the Gospel at all times and when necessary use words".
I think it’s making a virtue of necessity.
If you take Her book and leave the Church... that’s all you have.
If sola scriptura isn’t true, you made a biiiig mistake.
Ergo Sola Scriptura!
What would you call the resurrected body? No “flesh and blood” can enter into heaven. Would you say the resurrected body is still the same body as it was or is it in effect a “new body” just as we are a “new person” upon being born again?
You may also have noted that God did not want Peter and the other Apostles talking with Moses and Elijah also. Ie no talking to or venerating those who have left this earth. Moses and Elijah represented the old law and were removed leaving only Jesus.
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.