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’s typical. I commend you on your restraint and courtesy.
When Jesus ascended into heaven ..1/2 way up a space ship picked him up and took Him to Mars.. I know this because scripture does not tell me otherwise..
Wait. Not Kolob?
Luke 3:23-38. Notice verse 31 in particular.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+3&version=ESV
It differs from the genealogy in Matthew in Matthew 1:1-16
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+1&version=ESV
You may argue that Scripture tells you all you need to know but you cannot postulate that Scripture tells you all there is to know.
"
"Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." - John 21:25
In practical terms, it's a distinction without difference.
Doctrines of men would include claiming something that goes in the belly means something.
Where does Catholicism teach such things are bad in and of themselves?
And He was very clear that He was the head of that church and not some guy in Rome.
If you deny an appointed authority, aren't you denying the authority that did the appointing?
My “doctrines” are strictly found in scripture...
Where's the one on trinitarian theology?
One of the doctrines of the RCC wasn’t “codified” until the 1950s.
RCC doctrines are organic, Protestant doctrines are stagnant. That doesn't make stagnant, correct.
Isn’t that what happened to Elijah?
If you can show me where Scipture says that Mary died I’ll be happy to admit that you are right.
The problem is that you are assuming that what you believe is somehow ‘sola scriptura’, when what you believe isn’t actually found anywhere in the bible.
The bible does not say that Mary died in Jerusalem. It does not say that she was buried in her tomb and rests there still. Now if you can show me actual evidence in favor of your position, I’d be thrilled to see it.
So tell me why I should accept, say, James as ‘inspired’, when you don’t accept Maccabees.
Sunday, October 30, 2011 1:51:43 PM • 127 of 359
There is no contradiction with Scripture with the doctrine of her assumption.
Friday, October 28, 2011 6:17:17 PM • 43 of 361
Where does scripture say that it is the only authority? Maybe in John Calvin 12:34
Friday, October 28, 2011 6:08:57 PM • 41 of 361
Is there anything in scripture to the contrary?
Thursday, October 27, 2011 11:05:05 PM • 27 of 506
well, i suppose you can show me from Scripture the teaching of Mary not bodily assumed into heaven.
And He was very clear that He was the head of that church and not some guy in Rome.
Do the word "vicar" mean anything to you? Describing the Bishop of Rome as the head of the Church does not in any way impugn Christ's headship, since the Pope's headship is vicarious.
It’s also very clear that the doctrines of men include such things as special cups, what not to eat on certain days etc.
Kosher MAY be considered doctrine. Catholic fasting and abstinence are not doctrines but practices. They can change and have changed. So "doctrines of men" does not apply.
I would hope you know the difference between Sola Scriptura and Solo Scriptura.
One would have to resort to a priori concepts to do so since the variety of beliefs among those groups from Anglicans to hard-shell Baptists who share at least the profession of sola scriptura makes empirical evidence difficult to sort.
You are hitting on the dilemma that is Protestantism. To be Protestant one must simultaneously embrace and reject the authority of the Church.
At best it claims to possess the authority to selectively cede authority to the Church in the establishment of Canon, and then to rescind that authority with respect to the Deutercanonical books and the ability to exclude them. It cedes the authority to the Church to rightly manage orthodoxy and deal with heresies up and until their own and then rescinds it. It selectively cedes the Church Fathers to expound on Scripture and Tradition until they make a statement at odds with Protestant doctrine and then they point to the flaws in the Fathers.
Notice in Luke 3 the lineage goes back to Nathan. Mary’s lineage goes back to David’s son Nathan.
Luke 3:31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,
Then notice in Matthew 1 the lineage goes back to David’s son Solomon.
:6 And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;
Both Mary and Joseph go back to David each through a different son of David.
Say what?
Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by scripture alone") is the doctrine that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness. Consequently, sola scriptura demands that only those doctrines are to be admitted or confessed that are found directly within or indirectly by using valid logical deduction or valid deductive reasoning from scripture. However, sola scriptura is not a denial of other authorities governing Christian life and devotion. Rather, it simply demands that all other authorities are subordinate to, and are to be corrected by, the written word of God. [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Sola_scriptura]
You apparently have misread my post.
Mary is not mentioned in either Luke 3 or Matthew 1. The only way to bring Mary into the lineage discussion is to assume that one of the two different men identified as Joesph's father (Jacob in Matthew and Heli in Luke) is actually Mary's father and therefore Joseph's father-in-law.
This poses an insoluble dilemma for Protestants who choose to rely only on Scripture when presented with a question that cannot be answered from "Scripture Alone".
Couldn't see that one coming....
But here, for the skeptics and unbelievers......
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2571185/posts?page=173#173 .
Also post 180, 181.
And this.....http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2649950/posts?page=25#25, and also post 62.
And this thread..... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2649950/posts?page=25#25 , and also posts 193, 283, 334, 556, and no doubt more.
And last but not least this very thread itself in post 27, post 55 (yours pt).
At worst, you've been told "Biblical silence is not denial."
Because some people seem to think that that gives them license to make up stuff they want to hear and claim it's *truth* based on *tradition* rather than any solid evidence.
Ping to post 367. I said I’d let you know when it happened again.
No appointing evident. Christ is the only “authority”.
>>Where's the one on trinitarian theology?<<
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
>> RCC doctrines are organic, Protestant doctrines are stagnant. That doesn't make stagnant, correct.<<
Yeah, that’s what we here from Mormons, Muslims, and all those other religions that claim they have information that the Apostles forgot to write down.
Ooh. Cool. More folks to join the party. :)
Anyways, feel free to show me what evidence you have that Mary died in Jerusalem, that she was buried and that she lies there still.
You can take whatever it is you want. I don’t tell you what you can and can’t accept. If it disagrees with the 66 books I accept I won’t.
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.