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.
****And there are some who claim they know Him but say His Word isn’t necessary****
Are you trying to trip me up?
****Jesus said hear and obey My Word.****
Again, Jesus said HEAR, nor read and obey my Word.
Not everyone is capable of reading it for themselves, are they then condemned for not being able to read it, or are they saved because they are able to HEAR it.
No one has said that Scripture is not necessary. My point is that Scripture has not been written so that each and every person can read it and decide for themselves what it says and means.
John said, “But these were written so that you might believe”.
We can believe by hearing only.
****18”And when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself in a book a copy of this law, approved by the Levitical priests. 19And it shall be with him, and he shall read in it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the LORD his God by keeping all the words of this law and these statutes, and doing them, 20that his heart may not be lifted up above his brothers, and that he may not turn aside from the commandment, either to the right hand or to the left, so that he may continue long in his kingdom, he and his children, in Israel. ****
This is speaking about the king they have set over themselves. It is the king who is to read the law that is written so that he will be faithful to it as he leads Israel.
****11when all Israel comes to appear before the LORD your God at the place that he will choose, you shall read this law before all Israel in their hearing.****
The written word was given to the ELDERS so that THEY could read it to the people.
12 Assemble the people, men, women, and little ones, and the sojourner within your towns, that they may HEAR and LEARN to fear the LORD your God, and be careful to do all the words of this law,
The people needed only to HEAR what was written, they did not all read it for themselves. The ELDERS read it to them and thus they HEARD it and obeyed.
Moses wrote the Torah, which are the first five books of the OT. Was he alive and present at all the events which happened?
He wrote down what had been passed on orally.
We can trust though that God did not allow him to write anything which was errant from the truth.
We do not have the original writings of the NT, so we can conclude and trust that what is written there contains oral teachings as well as what was copied of the originals.
Furthermore, we can trust that the Holy Spirit led the Church to know what was Scriptural and preserve it for us.
Not so that we can READ what is written, but that we may HEAR and obey.
This is not to say that reading Scripture is not profitable for all the things Paul says in his letter to Timothy, but the Christian does not need to read Scripture to have salvation in Christ.
CB:
It warms my heart (NOT) that you think that in your wisdom that you know more than the Fathers of the Church, who suffered persecution under the Romans, etc. There were REASONS that things were not written down, because Christians were afraid of the information falling into Roman hands.
Obviously the Fathers of the Church didn’t see things your way.
However, until the middle ages, the Mishna, (not the Tora) was never written down. Some things can be very accurate when passed down.
****Nor do I see a pillar of smoke by day and a pillar of fire by night to guide the pope.****
Nor do I see the pillar of smoke by day and a pillar of fire by night to guide you or anyone else here. What is your point?
Of course he wouldn’t know what the truth was.
Not even with Truth standing before him.
But, something moved Pilate to know that Jesus was an innocent man.
Amen.
****Some perhaps, but I’m not even sure of that. However, *many* is highly suspect.****
Do you deny that millions of Christians believed having never read Scripture or interpreted it for themselves?
****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)? ****
Yes, it has. That we can read Scripture is a blessing we have that others before us didn’t. But, we must guard against thinking we are perfect in our understanding.
Scripture has been used by the Devil who knows it very well. That is why the Holy Spirit safeguards us by giving us an authority by which we can read it.
****The Bible is EASY to understand compared to the CCC.***
The TRUTH is easy to understand. Many have been led astray by charlatans who confuse people with their knowledge of Scripture and the ability to twist what it means to suit their agenda.
Reply of Patriarch Jeremiah to the Lutheran Theologians
(Concerning Traditions of the Church)
Therefore, brethren, let us stand on the rock of faith and on the tradition of the Church, and not remove the boundaries which our Holy Fathers have set. Thus, we will not give the opportunity to those who wish to innovate and destroy the edifice of the holy, catholic and apostolic Church of God. For if permission is granted to everyone who wants it, little by little the whole body of the Church will be destroyed. Do not, brethren, do not, oh Christ-loving children of the Church of God; rather let us worship and adore the founder and creator, God, who due to His nature alone is to be worshipped. Let us venerate the Holy Theotokos not as God, but as the Mother of God, according to the flesh. And let us also venerate the saints as the chosen friends of God who have greater access to Him [God]. For if men venerate mortal kinds who frequently are impious as well as sinners, also rulers and others, and according to the Divine Apostle: “Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient” [Tit 3:1], “pay all of them their dues,” etc. [Rom 13:7], how much more is it necessary to worship the King of Kings who alone is master over nature and also over the passions of His servants and kings? David, also, in Ps 44 says: “Thou didst make [me] them head of nations” [17:43; cf. Ps 18:43 RSV]. They [the saints] were given power over demons and sicknesses, and they shall reign together with Christ. Even their shadow alone drove away demons and sicknesses [cf. Acts 5:l5-16]. Therefore, we should not consider the icon weaker and less honored than the shadow. For [the icon] truly is a sketch of the original. Brethren, the Christian is a person of faith. He who comes in faith gains much. But he who separates himself [from faith] is like a raging sea churned by the wind and blown about and who will receive nothing. All the saints by faith have pleased God: they who confirm it [faith] and prove it to everyone by good works.
Ir seems that the reformers are convinced that if the Holy Father has any spiritual authority at all, they have none. That’s kind of curious, to me. I’ve read a number of posts by a number of people that deny any Church authority, but which arrogate to them their own authority.
This they base on scraps of scripture, preserved by the authority of the Church they revile. Additionally, they give those scraps of scripture supreme authority, but only when quoted by they, themselves. Any other quotation of scripture, especially by a Catholic, is ridiculed as not “in the Spirit” or of the wrong dispensation, or wrongly interpreted, or of symbolic and not literal meaning, in contrast to their own literalist interpretations.
In other words, if you do not knuckle under and renounce the Church, you are wrong in everything you say and do. That’s really laughable, yet they persist, and with such offensiveness that anyone who reads these contentious threads can see it.
****One of the reasons the founding fathers of this great country wanted people to have an education is so that they could read the Bible.**** Jvette——#2955
****And the main reason for education in America at least, was because of the importance of being able to read Scripture.****
We agree:)
****People are less literate today than they were in the not so distant past.****
There must have been a concern about illiteracy by the founding fathers if they cared that people learn to read. Most people could not read at the time of the founding of this country.
If you are talking about the last 100 or so years, I agree.
The point is that it’s the WORD, not the mode of entry into the mind.
Of course people can believe whether they personally read themselves or hear from another. But what they have to read or hear is the word of God. It’s Scripture.
All Scripture points to Christ, the one who fulfilled all Scripture. That’s how we know about Jesus.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
But your point was that the Jews were depending on oral tradition. That verse shows that to not be the case. They were literate and wrote things down.
God obviously saw the need and importance of writing things down. HE wrote the Ten Commandments on tablets of stone for goodness sake. Twice.
How much more permanent can you get?
Here’s a good reference for a starting point. Jeremiah 44
Oh, then do some research on Nimrod and Simeramis to see where the whole “queen of heaven” thing started.
On the contrary, that denigrates Scripture and diminishes it to secondary importance. The author of the OT is not the man who held pen in hand putting to paper the oral traditions held to by his forebearers.
If someone thinks nothing more of Scripture than that it is a compilation of oral tradition then of course it's not going to be considered authoritative.
If someone considers it the work of the Holy Spirit, the very words of God Himself, it sheds a whole different light on how one considers it and the importance of it in our lives.
2 Peter 1: 16-21 16For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased," 18we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain.
19And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, 20knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. 21For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
The Bible IS truth.
>>*****the whole of Scripture itself is meaningless to the natural man,****<<
The whole of Scripture is the story of Jesus and to those who reject Him, that story is meaningless.
****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”?
No
Are you “led of the Spirit” or is that only the magesterium?****
I believe the Holy Spirit gives each of us different gifts. I am led of the Spirit to believe in Jesus Christ as the source of my salvation and to trust in the Church He founded.
I am a child of God, his daughter adopted through Jesus, my brother.
****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.****
What is freely given to us of God, is the message of the grace which flows from the cross upon which Jesus died so that we might have everlasting life.
**** 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.****
The Holy Spirit leads us to the truth of Jesus, Scripture is merely a means by which we know that truth thousands of years after the fact.
Education in Colonial America
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/education-in-colonial-america/
American Elementary Schools in the 1700s
http://library.thinkquest.org/J002606/1700s.html
History of education in the United States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_education_in_the_United_States
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.