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.
Where?
If memory serves, one protestant has accused *most* others of pagan practicses... ring, criss, Christmas, etc..
Yes, to some they are both a “living, breathing” document. Which I guess means anyone living and breathing gets to decide for themselves what it means.
2 Tim.3:16,17. Paul declares through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that Scripture was given for "doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, AND that the Bible itself makes that man of God "perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."
The Bible contains all the doctrine, correction, and instruction in righteousness that is needed for those who are in Christ.
This means that Scripture gives us ALL we need to be ALL that God desires us to be. The Bible needs no supplementation from tradition, doctrines of men, or any other sourse. According to the Holy Spirit, Who inspired Paul to write these words to Timothy.
Paul goes on to say that the man of God is, by the Scriptures THEMSELVES, "THOROUGHLY PREPARED UNTO EVERY GOOD WORK."
Sola Scriptura in all its GLORY. The Reformation did not invent Sola Scriptura, they derived it from Scripture. 2 Tim. 3:16,17. Unless you want to argue with what the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write, I'd say the subject of Sola Scriptura is sufficiently proven in Scripture.
***ROFL And we all know how stories told over and over again among different people are always the same when it goes through a few. If that’s how you view scripture there’s no wonder we have a hard time communicating and why you don’t take scripture seriously.***
Isn’t it true that the OT was not written contemporaneously to the events it details? I mean, Adam and Eve didn’t write anything, did they?
And isn’t it also true that the Jewish people took great pains to pass their history on orally so that it was accurate from generation to generation?
Of course he was talking about those who will always believe. True faith and receiving him as the only God and savior WILL mean he indwells us and we will NOT want to, nor, need to stop believing. Why would we, how could we? To speak about a "passing whim" is not the kind of faith I'm talking about nor is it the kind that saves us. True faith endures TO THE END. As far as what others may believe about the Deity of Jesus, etc., I think that certainly comes later as we grow in faith and mature in our knowledge of God. Did no one get saved until the Council of Nicea came out with the "official" doctrine? Did not people like the "thief on the cross" go to be with the Lord when they died even though they didn't know everything said in the creeds? I'm sure glad God knows our hearts and whether or not our faith is real.
Reread the parable of the talents and you may re-evaluate this paragraph.
Jesus will cast aside nobody. It is the ones who reject Him, who do not do as He commands, who believe that they can make it all up as they go along that lose their salvation. Does the parable of the wise and foolish virgins not make any sense?
If God inspired the writers of Holy Scripture to speak about the doctrine of eternal security of the believer, how or why would he then contradict himself by saying the opposite? Again, God knows if our faith is genuine and it is that faith that saves us through the grace of God. Rather than "interpret" parables with a preconceived idea of what they are saying, why not follow the correct method of interpretation and try to understand what exactly he was saying and why. Look at other Scriptures and judge it by them. The parables of the talents, the sower and the seed, the ten virgins all have a context and they would NOT destroy whatever Jesus said before. These parables have been discussed on this forum many times. But they do NOT contradict Jesus' own teachings.
An inheritance and a seal and an earnest is a promise by God to us. It is fickle man who chooses otherwise. Paul tells us of running the race and walking the Via of Christ. If you refuse to run the race and sit down beside the Via, you do not get to enter into the narrow gate. You do not get saved unless you do as Jesus commands, and that is not simply the verses that you choose to comply with and ugnire the rest.
I agree, God does make a promise, a guarantee, to us that requires something of us in order to put that promise into effect. That is faith. The "works" of God, Jesus said, are to believe in him. It's not a "fickle" man, but a foolish man who refuses the gift of God. Sadly, there will be more people who are foolish than those who are wise and believe God. The road is narrow and few there be that find it. Whereas the road to hell is wide and many there be that go along it blithely believing in false gods or relying on their own merit or chucking it all in favor of the go it themselves route thinking there is no such thing as God and no hell to worry about. Quite sad.
John writes in chapter 1:11-13, "He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."
There are too many verses of Scripture that prove repeatedly that to "get" saved you must believe, receive him and trust that what God has promised he WILL do. Running the race, walking the way of Christ, are all ways of talking about the life we live as new creations in the family of God. Some walk, some run, some rest awhile, but all those who are his own ARE living in Christ. Not all are meant for worldly acclaim, accolades and awards, but we all will face the judgment seat of Christ and we will receive rewards based upon who much we submitted ourselves to God's will. But the judgment for our sins has been pronounced already and when god looks upon us, he sees the righteousness of Christ - we are clothed in HIS and not our own. We are acquitted of the penalty of death for our sin because Jesus made the payment with his own blood. I agree, though, that anyone who bypasses that kind of grace, is a fool and I thank God every day that he opened my eyes to the truth of the Gospel.
Yes.
1 Cor 12:7 Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. 8 To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, 10 to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues,[a] and to still another the interpretation of tongues.[b] 11 All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he distributes them to each one, just as he determines.
The same Holy Spirit which gives to each of us different gifts to build up Christ’s Church.
Do you believe that one can believe in Jesus and know of His sacrifice without ever having read a line of Scripture?
Do you know that millions and millions of Christians lived and died without ever having read Scripture, studied upon it or interpreted it for themselves?
That includes those who did so before the full canon of Scripture was decided upon by the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Neither do I.
I do see it here though.
1 Tim 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.
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.
Just as happened at the Council in Jerusalem. Debate and through the guidance of the Holy Spirit a “sentence” that is then delivered to all the believers.
God is good, INDEED.
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.
Meant to add that different translations use different words....
bullwark
ground
foundation
Yes, the pillar and ground of the truth. The truth that all those in the Church the body of Christ possess. That is found in the Scriptures, given to the church for preaching, doctrine, reproof, rebuking, with all longsuffering and doctrine. Which comes from Scripture. And is grounded in truth.
***That is found in the Scriptures, given to the church***
Where does Scripture say that?
Here’s the thing, when Paul and James and Peter were writing the letters to the various Christian communities, were those letters read to the community who then decided what the Apostles meant? Was each Christian allowed to read it for themselves and interpret it as they felt the Holy Spirit had led them to do?
Or were they read to the communities by the leaders whom the Apostle chose to teach and rebuke and encourage the communities after they had moved on to other places?
To what Scripture did they turn when they searched them daily to see whether those things were so?
One of the reasons that some of the Jewish people rejected Jesus was because His message was so different than what they were/are expecting from their Messiah.
“And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape. You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.
The Jewish people had the Scripture yet they rejected Jesus.
The Gentiles had no Scripture but they became Christians.
Were the letters discussed by the community of believers to determine what was truth?
Or did they accept what the Apostles said because they accepted that Jesus had chosen them to “impart” the truth to them?
In only one place is any of the epistles referred to as scripture and that is by Peter speaking of Paul.
The only Scripture that existed at the time was the OT, therefore, in all other references to Scripture they could only have been speaking of the OT.
And in those instances, just as Jesus explained all of Scripture which foretold of Him to the two on the road to Emmaus, the Apostles use it to “prove” that Jesus is the Messiah, Lord of Lords and King of Kings. For if Jesus was not the Messiah, their words carried no truth or authority.
So, when Scripture speaks of Scripture it is so that the hearers of the Apostles would believe in Jesus and in believing in Him, they could believe in the good news they were hearing.
That is what I mean when I say that we can trust the Church in the same way we trust Jesus.
Jesus told us to trust them as we trust Him.
“As the Father has sent me, so I send you.”
“He who hears you, hears me. And he who rejects you, rejects me, and he who rejects me, rejects the One who sent me.”
“Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.”
Pilate asked, “What is truth?”
Ah, such a big question.
Mark 15:26
The written notice of the charge against him read: THE KING OF THE JEWS.
Luke 23:38
There was a written notice above him, which read: THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
John 19:19
Pilate had a notice prepared and fastened to the cross. It read: JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS.
John 19:20-22
"This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin. Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews. Pilate answered, What I have written I have written."
I agree with Natural Law about this, the Gospel writers wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit and as he brought to their remembrance all those things Jesus taught them. That the description of the inscription over the cross isn't precisely, EXACTLY the same, only proves that they didn't huddle together so they could “get their stories straight” but spoke as God led them and also that this doesn't prove that Scripture has errors in it. Each of the accounts still say the same thing. Too often, enemies of the Christian faith seek to find whatever little pebble or stone they can find to toss at our divinely inspired Scriptures to try to chip away at any of our foundations for the faith. God's word will never pass away. His truth endures forever and he has given us a great gift whereby we can be assured of the authority of the revealed truths that uphold us.
And let’s not forget that the Jews didn’t want it to say that He was the King of the Jews, they wanted a qualifier.
They wanted it to say that “He said” he was the King of the Jews.
But, the truth was there for all to see.
Beautiful
LOL!!! Who is ‘on call’?
Where does Scripture say that the Holy Spirit is our Teacher?
He is an Advocate, a Comforter and a Guide to all truth.
The truth the Holy Spirit guides us to is that we have salvation in Jesus.
The only teachers that Scripture speaks of are men.
Protestants believe they have the truth. Catholics believe they have the fullness of truth.
Whose truth is THE TRUTH?
Jesus, and His Church guided by the Holy Spirit.
That is MY truth.
How is that any less valid than that of a protestant.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
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.