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.
Since Jesus demonstrated his ability to heal, to feed, etc. why didn't he heal all the sick in the land, feed all the hungry, raise all the dead?
But I'm not a mind reader. If Tex says it's an olive branch, I'll be happy to accept her belief that it's an olive branch. But Tex, if you were waiting for someone to receive your outreach, you can understand why no one answered. We didn't KNOW it was an olive branch you were extending..
The Bible tells us what happened to Moses and the God buried him himself in Moab where no one knows the spot to this day.
Deu 34:5 So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD.
Deu 34:6 And he buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Bethpeor: but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day.
Jude tells us ....
Jud 1:9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.
Looks like Satan wanted his body after he died .
Could it be he wanted it to tempt the people of Israel to worship it as in relics ?
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
I believe the body will be glorified and there will be no more pain. We will be completely made whole in Christ.
Pain, disease and death are the result of sin and in heaven there is no sin, and so no pain or disease or handicap.
That’s fine. I can concede that. By the way, I am a male. My point back then was that we ALL are guilty of behaving in an unchristian manner. The funny thing about all this is that I was raised Southern Baptist, and so I am Very familiar with your beliefs. My belief in the Ancient Catholic Faith was brought about by research, study, and prayer. It was a long journey, but one that was fulfilling and that brought me to a closer understanding of our Lord, and why the most basic beliefs are what they are! Naturally, I want others to experience the same revelations.......
I think give the limited information we really have we can only speculate but it will surely be greater than any of us can even imagine. Its fun to speculate and I’m sure most of us do on occasion but in the end we trust that God has more in store than our feeble minds can conjure up. For sure we will know no sorrow.
***Double standard much?***
Merely holding protestants to the standard by which they bash Catholicism.
I have no problem with you thinking that Moses’ soul went to heaven and then he got a new body to return to earth, but Scripture does not SAY that, therefore, how is it you came to that belief?
That would be the only logical conclusion to be made especially since Scripture CLEARLY says that Moses died and was buried.
Why is your conclusion more logical or credible than mine?
God took Elijah into heaven, body and soul so it obviously is something He has done and could do for others. To believe that is no less valid than believing that Moses was given a new body to return to earth.
****It’s too easy to lead to deception going into areas that cannot be clearly supported by Scripture.****
You mean like thinking Moses’ soul went to heaven and he was given a new body so he could return to earth?
***You mean like when Jesus told Peter to “get behind me Satan” or when He knew Peter would deny Him three times? ***
I responded to your original post bringing this up and got no response regarding it.
Why?
Not a feigned kindness, but a true debate of God's Word. We all have our good points and our bad, I think. "Longsuffering" is NOT my strong point, as I'm sure you've seen. But the preaching of God's Word, and God's reconciliation toward man through Christ's finished work is the most important topics we will ever undertake in this world.
We will begin the conversation again, your opinion, my opinion, God's Word, other's opinions, and it won't always be pretty, of that I'm certain. But truth sometimes isn't pretty, and eternity is a long time to be wrong.
Let's see what God has in store for those He loves and has called according to His purpose. We cannot go wrong if we follow Him.
BTW: MR. Tex ;)
Regards, smvoice
LOL, you know what I meant even if I chose the wrong word.
It is the same body, but perfected by Christ, as our souls are perfected, but we still have the same soul.
Yet, there was Moses standing by the Transfigured Jesus.
14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
Let's not be under any impression that what we see on these threads is representative of all of Protestantism. As I know you are well aware there are many good and decent Protestants. Similarly I know full well there are those who present themselves as Catholics that fall well short of perfection.
However, the proof of anyone's Christianity is not found in their words, talk is cheap. As stated in the Confiteor it is to be found in their actions, what they have done and what they have failed to do. Simply look through the posting histories of all associated with these threads and see whose words and actions suggest love manifest in the fruits of grace. If anyone tries to tell you that they can achieve salvation without ever leaving the comfort of their den pray for them because they need it.
#2040 on *this same* thread?
That’s nothing, friend. There’s posters on this forum with whom our last completely courteous exchange was months – or years – ago.
You just haven’t been around these threads long enough.
:)
"For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies. Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread." 2 Thess. 3:11,12.
There are truly poor, and there are lazy poor, who have enough time on their hands to stir up trouble and dissent, and yet not enough time to make their own living. Discernment helps.
Not at all.
>>>>>Don’t worry. Catholics surely wouldn’t profane Mother Teresa.
Who said anything about Catholics profaning her
Maybe a little kindness from the two of you could make me change my belief that Evangelical Protestants are bigoted and hateful. BUT .....I am quite sure you will have a snide remark.........
You mean like.... *What? No courtesy ping?*
Or is that too hateful?
That's funny. Non-Catholics are chastised for being followers of Paul instead of Christ. Now we're supposed to be followers of martyrs?
Wait a minute.... Wasn't Paul martyred for his faith?
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.