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.
That means *anybody*. Even if God had put my own name in, if there were someone else with my name, I couldn’t be sure if it were the other person. *Whosoever* covers everyone.
The Judge does not care about your interpretation. He only cares about His Judgement.
Nobody has ever said any differently.
As a matter of fact, Scripture itself says that everything we need to know for faith and salvation can be found in it, even more specifically, the book of John.
John 20:30-31 30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
John himself admits that not everything that Jesus did was recorded, BUT the things that were chosen to be written down were done so so that someone could believe on Jesus for salvation.
It never says sola. Nowhere, nohow, no way. It does not say it here, and it does not say it anywhere in Scripture. It never says that only what is here is relevant and nothing else is.
Please stop pecking me about the ankles. There are serious things to discuss here. Why don’t you go find Natural Law and see if he has anything you can post by proxy for him?
Thank you for that answer.
It is subjects such as this that make me realize how much we don’t know. Jesus said we could not know what God has planned for us.
As for Moses and Elijah, I really don’t know as Scripture is not clear about it.
But, your thoughts are interesting.
Amen to that:)
I believe Him. That's what faith is, you know. Taking God at His word. Believing what He said.
"Tradition" or "Traditions" occur 14 times in the NT. Eight of those are Christ's statements in the Gospels.(Mat. 25:2,3,6; Mark 7:3,5,8,9,13). ALL of these are derogatory of Jewish traditions.
Paul makes five of those 14 references. Two of those are clearly derogatory. (Col. 2:8, Gal. 1:14).
That would leave three by Paul that are favorable references to "tradition". Those would be 1 Cor. 11:2, and 2 Thess. 2:15; and 3:6.
Peter brings up the rear with his one reference to traditions. 1 Peter 1:18. It is ALSO derogatory.
The RCC entire case for tradition therefore lies in Paul's three favorable references. Only one problem: Paul was obviously speaking of things that either he or the other apostles had already PERSONALLY taught. He was not referring to traditions that might develop and influence some unknown church leaders at some unknown time in the future. He was forming the Church the Body of Christ and was laying the foundation for that Body, not some future unknown group of men who would attempt to create tradition out of thin air.
So the proof lies with the RCC that present RCC tradition was FIRST taught by the apostles AND has remained PURE to this very day. Show us the proof that tradition, as first taught by the apostles, has remained PURE from the beginning of the Church and has not developed as time went on. Otherwise, not even the three favorable verses of tradition can be supported by the RCC.
How so?
The Great Schism, as it was called occured in 1054 AD.
The only “churches operating” were the Nestorian and Arian schismatics, that denied the dual nature of Christ, and refused to ratify the Holy Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon.
The Great Schism: Is that when the Bishop of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople excommunicated each other?
And I don’t see anywhere in Scripture where it says that the Holy Spirit will give individual persons the ability to understand it.
But Scripture does say this...
Acts 8:26-40
21st Century King James Version (KJ21)
26And the angel of the Lord spoke unto Philip, saying, “Arise and go toward the south unto the road that goeth down from Jerusalem into Gaza, which is desert.”
27And he arose and went. And behold, a man of Ethiopia, a eunuch of great authority under Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who had charge of all her treasure and had come to Jerusalem to worship,
28was returning; and sitting in his chariot, he was reading Isaiah the prophet.
29Then the Spirit said unto Philip, “Go near and join thyself to this chariot.”
30And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him reading the prophet Isaiah, and said, “Understandest thou what thou readest?”
31And he said, “How can I, unless some man should guide me?” And he besought Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
32The place of the Scripture from which he read was this: “He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb before his shearer is dumb, so opened He not His mouth.
33In His humiliation, His judgment was taken away. And who shall declare His generation? For His life is taken from the earth.”
34And the eunuch answered Philip and said, “I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? Of himself, or of some other man?”
35Then Philip opened his mouth and began at the same Scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.
36And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water; and the eunuch said, “See, here is water! What doth hinder me from being baptized?”
37And Philip said, “If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”
38And he commanded the chariot to stand still, and they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.
39And when they had come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip. And the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing.
And this....
2 Peter 1:20 (KJV). “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation” -
And this....
1 Timothy 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
And Jesus promised the Holy Spirit will guide to all truth.
Forget for a moment that Jesus was speaking to His Apostles when He said this, Paul is emphatic that within the church there are different gifts and therefore, different roles for each of us. 1 Cor 12 is all about how the different parts make up the body and that each part is necessary and should work together to be one. And, yet it is the same Spirit, the Holy Spirit working within the church.
Scriptures nowhere says that all who believe will understand Scripture much less do it so perfectly as to be able to say that their understanding is right and others are wrong.
10these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. 11For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. 13And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.
14The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. 15The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. 16 “For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.
These versus say nothing of Scripture. Rather they are about knowing there is a God, who is Almighty and One. The natural man or the “fool” says there is no God and because they think only of the natural world, they cannot understand the things of the “supernatural” world.
1 Corinthians 1:18-25 18For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”
*****the whole of Scripture itself is meaningless to the natural man,****
The word of the cross is Jesus, not Scripture.
1 Corinthians 2:6-16 6Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away. 7But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. 8None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
Notice Paul says here, “WE IMPART” as in he and the other apostles. Not the Scriptures, but the men who were entrusted to do so by Jesus.
They claim Peter headed up the Council in Jerusalem and HE was the first Bishop.
Shame it even needed to be said.
1 Corinthians 2:9-16 9But, as it is written, "What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him"— 10these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. p> For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. 11For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.
12Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. 13And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.
14The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. 15The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. 16 "For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ.
Do all believers have the Holy Spirit?
****God is not a respecter of persons****
This is true, God loves all of us, each personally and as an individual, but that does not mean that He doesn’t have different missions and paths for us.
***and there is nothing about the positions that they attained that makes them any more special or special to God than any one of us.****
Again, it is not that God has more love or shows partiality, but that there are those whom God has chosen for special things. What made Jesus choose the men He chose as His Apostles? We don’t know why God uses those He does to fulfill His will.
**** He can enlighten us just the same as He can enlighten them. And we don’t need a degree in theology from a seminary for it to happen.****
We don’t need a degree in theology to believe in Jesus and love Him.
****ALL of it must be compared to Scripture for evaluation.****
And Scripture says this where?
It is not that the Church feels a need to “fill in the blanks” but that heresies have abounded from the beginning.
If the Holy Spirit is leading us all simply by virtue of the fact that we are believers in Jesus, then there would be no heresies, for the same Holy Spirit that leads us to the truth would not lead some to one truth and others to another.
When their is contradictory or contrary doctrines or theologies, who says which is truth and what isn’t?
Scripture?
Scripture says that the church is the pillar and bullwark of truth.
I don't see "the church" mentioned ONE TIME.
Of course it does...Anything that is outside of scripture is irrelevant...
Bring whatever you want to the potluck...Start a Sunday school if you'd like...Maybe even a baseball team...
Have all the kids wear the same clothes if it makes you feel better...Buy a bus to haul people back and forth to church...
But doctrine??? You can't touch it...Salvation??? It's a done deal...Mary as the queen of heaven??? Ridiculous...A pope??? Hogwash...Atonement??? You're dead meat without the bible version...
Tradition??? Have all the tradition you want as long as it doesn't go against the written words of God...
He also said, "12Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. "
All believers have the Spirit.
Additionally, the antecedent is not specified so it's only an assumption that Paul is talking about only the church leaders.
Here John tells us to test the spirits to see if they're from God or not. No one can do that and discern that without the Spirit of God in them. It's spiritually discerned and only when the Holy Spirit guides us into all truth can we make that determination.
1 John 4:1-6 1Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already. 4Little children, you are from God and have overcome them, for he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world. 5 They are from the world; therefore they speak from the world, and the world listens to them. 6We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error.
FWIW, if everyone was completely and fully led by the Spirit of God, then theoretically, there would be no doctrinal differences.
But we aren't so there are.
Not even the Catholic church is exempt from that as, to the best of my understanding, never any unanimous consent on any issue, but rather majority rules.
So, if we're incapable of interpreting Scripture, who's going to interpret the interpretation of Scripture for everyone? Couldn't the interpretation by the magisterium be misinterpreted as well?
Then we'd need to interpret the interpretation, and so it goes, turtles all the way down.
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.