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.
People who have the Holy Spirit living in them = spiritual persons.
1 Corinthians 2:13-16 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.
Paul clearly didn't have any problem with the thought that the average believer could have spiritual insight and understanding and discernment.
Ephesians 1:15-22 15For this reason, because I have heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love toward all the saints, 16I do not cease to give thanks for you, remembering you in my prayers, 17that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him, 18 having the eyes of your hearts enlightened, that you may know what is the hope to which he has called you, what are the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, 19and what is the immeasurable greatness of his power toward us who believe, according to the working of his great might 20that he worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. 22And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, 23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all.
Colossians 1:9-14 9And so, from the day we heard, we have not ceased to pray for you, asking that you may be filled with the knowledge of his will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, 10so as to walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God. 11 May you be strengthened with all power, according to his glorious might, for all endurance and patience with joy, 12 giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in light. 13He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
Or as some translations like to translate *a* instead of *the* since articles are not in the original Greek and must be added. The difference between the two makes a difference in meaning in English.
That truth is contained in the body of Christ, in which resides the Holy Spirit.
It says nothing about an ecclesiastical organization which calls itself the Catholic church, or any other denomination.
2 Corinthians 15:16-21 16From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer. 17Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. 18All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; 19that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. 20Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
Jesus in His high priestly prayer.....
John 17:17 Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.
Ah, such a big question.
Asked by an unbeliever.
Of course he wouldn't know what the truth was.
Thanks, A-G.
Who and how?
Romans 10:17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.
Some perhaps, but I'm not even sure of that. However, *many* is highly suspect.
Back to the enlightening of the Holy Spirit when reading Scripture......
Has it not ever happened to you that you were reading something in the Bible and all of a sudden you see a verse in a new light and sit back and say, *Wow! I never saw that before* (or Never saw it like that before)?
That is the enlightening of the Holy Spirit.
So, even if the Holy Spirit's enlightenment is only for a select few men to interpret for us what God said, who or what interprets their interpretation to us so that we understand what THEY said correctly. What they said needs correct interpretation as well, and after reading much of the CCC, even more so than Scripture.
The Bible is EASY to understand compared to the CCC.
People are less literate today than they were in the not so distant past.
And the main reason for education in America at least, was because of the importance of being able to read Scripture.
Nor is reading it personally with your own eyes the criteria for believing. One can believe because of hearing the words of God as well. The mode of entry into the mind, either by eyes or ears, is irrelevant.
The work of the Holy Spirit of convicting of sin and righteousness and judgment, and the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit in the heart and mind and life, is not dependent on whether someone read or heard the word of God.
I expect that literacy in nation of Israel was more common than most of us would think.
How else does one explain a lowly shepherd boy, David, writing Psalms with the skill that he did. Or the prophet Elijah writing letters or the mention of a “book” of Adam’s history at Ge. 5:1.
I believe Him, too. I just don't necessarily believe your interpretation. And I do not arrogantly proclaim my own salvation. He will do the Judging, not me.
Let us not forget 2 Timothy 1:13-14 and 2:1-2. And 1 Timothy 4:11 and 6:20. And there are others.
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.
Wrong. There are many more. And, if one creates an office, one ensures succession. Paul very adequately demonstrated succession throughout his epistles.
You can't even get this right?
There is a particular individual who is critical of Nicea and its pronouncements.
Yes.
One only needs to look at what the liberals teach in schools about history to understand how important it is to rely on what was written when things first happened rather than what gets told orally over the centuries. The same people who would condemn liberals for not upholding the original intent of the founders of this country think nothing of placing their eternal future on the accuracy of word of mouth story telling.
I for one would not trust my eternal future to word of mouth story telling over centuries.
Colossians 1:27 To them God chose to make known how great among the Gentiles are the riches of the glory of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.
Colossians 3:16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God.
Romans 8:14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.
So do you believe that only the magesterium is “led by the Spirit of God”? And would that mean that only the magesterium are “sons of God”?
Are you “led of the Spirit” or is that only the magesterium?
Galatians 5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
Galatians 5:24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. 25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.
So are you not living in the Spirit but only in the “natural man”?
1 Corinthians 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
Scripture tells us that “we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God”. Does the RCC tell you that you have not received that “spirit of God”? If so, I would get out of there ASAP because they have lied to you.
Nor do I see a pillar of smoke by day and a pillar of fire by night to guide the pope.
Give us this day our daily bread. – Matt 6:11
I am that bread of life. – John 6:48
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life. – John 6:63
To put it another way, a person's claim to love God is belied when he didn't bother to read His correspondence.
This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with [their] lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men. - Matthew 15:8-9
None of the verses you gave me have references to "tradition" or "traditions" in them. But they DO have something that will give you an "Ah-HAH..Of COURSE" moment if you THINK about it.
1 Tim.4:11 and 6:20: He was exhorting Tim. and giving him instructions IN THIS LETTER. It's the letter that is giving Timothy the "THESE THINGS COMMAND" of v.11 and "Keep that which is committed to thy trust" of 6:20. There was no tradition to be referenced.
As to 2 Tim. 1:13-14; and 2:1-2: We know that Timothy had more than just the Old Testament. 2 Tim. was written about 66 AD. This is Paul's SECOND epistle to him. So he has at least two epistles from Paul in addition to the OT. Paul states in 2 Tim. 4:6-8 that he is about to be martyred, making 2 Tim. the last epistle Paul wrote. So Timothy, OBVIOUSLY, has ALL of Paul's epistles. Because the date of this last epistle is about 66 AD, he also has the first three Gospels and most of the rest of the New Testament.
Whatever oral traditions were handed down, were WRITTEN DOWN by then. Don't forget 2 Peter 3:15-16, where he is speaking of Paul, in ALL his epistles. And saying that those epistles, like OTHER SCRIPTURES, are wrest by unlearned and unstable people unto their own destruction.
FOFL!
I answered your question, which was irrelevant to the discussion.
Do you disagree that millions of people have lived and died believing in and loving Jesus without ever having “known” Scripture because they could not read it nor study it daily as we do?
How about the martyrs of the first few centuries under the persecution of the Romans for their faith?
Did they “know” Scripture? Or did they believe because of the Word that was preached to them?
Your post was a deflection off the point.
You first said “Hear and obey”
I said it did not say “Read and obey” and said that millions of people could not read Scripture and yet they HEARD it and obeyed.
It makes no sense that we need the Holy Spirit to teach teach or guide each of us to interpret Scripture in order to have salvation when so many millions were never able to even read Scripture because, they could not read, they could not read Latin and they did not have the written word in their homes in order to do so.
***Well thank God Martin Luther could read and HEAR and OBEY God.***
Is it your contention that all of the Christians who lived before Martin Luther did not believe in Jesus and were not saved because they did not have Scripture to read and interpret for themselves?
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.