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.
#3464
****Leading to the ultimate rebellion against all authority and retreating to the false security of complete self authority.****
Ah, the sin that caused the fall.
The gift from the Father of Lies that keeps on giving.
****I find it very interesting that Catholics consider people Christian or not Christian based on whether they reject the church or not. Christians consider people Christian or not Christian based on whether they reject Christ or not.****
That statement is false.
C’mon Mark, they can’t remember what was posted to them in this thread, much less the historical early church.
Either that or they just ignore both as neither square up with their man made faith.
That anyone could read the NT and not see an organized church with a hierarchy is beyond me.
Pardon?
What I gather from your past posts, is you do not believe the Bible is inerrant nor that it contains literal truths. This, I think, is your loss.
I think that the Bible is infallible Revelation of God written down by fallible men. Until Protestants accept that, they will continue to invent increasing novelties and try to substitute them for Christianity.
Who came first - man or the animals? Proofs from chapter 1 and 2 both, please.
What I gather from your past posts, is you do not believe the Bible is inerrant nor that it contains literal truths. This, I think, is your loss.Here is a truth for you to follow then:
“Jesus said to them again, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.’ “You do go to confession regularly, right?
You mean like the photo of Paris Hilton's fridge with the giant size container of Valtrex?
That's because it doesn't agree with what the image in the mirror said this morning.
Genesis 1 specifically states on which day things were created.
Fish and fowl on the fifth day Genesis 1:20-23. All animals and man on the sixth day, Genesis 1:24-31 with animals first then man.
Genesis 2 has no chronological order given. There can be no “proof” shown from Genesis 2 other than to “prove” that Adam was on the earth for some time before Eve. Adam had already named all the animals before Eve was formed.
Now I have a question of you. Why, according to the RCC, did a perfect God create a total mess as His first act of creation?
Genesis 1 specifically states on which day things were created.
Fish and fowl on the fifth day Genesis 1:20-23. All animals and man on the sixth day, Genesis 1:24-31 with animals first then man.
Genesis 2 has no chronological order given. There can be no “proof” shown from Genesis 2 other than to “prove” that Adam was on the earth for some time before Eve. Adam had already named all the animals before Eve was formed.
Genesis 2: 15The LORD God then took the man and settled him in the garden of Eden, to cultivate and care for it.h 16The LORD God gave the man this order: You are free to eat from any of the trees of the gardeni 17except the tree of knowledge of good and evil. From that tree you shall not eat; when you eat from it you shall die.* j
18The LORD God said: It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suited to him.* k 19So the LORD God formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds of the air, and he brought them to the man to see what he would call them; whatever the man called each living creature was then its name.
Verse 15 shows that the man was already created. The animals were not created until verse 19. Verse 15 happens prior to verse 19. Even in the topsy turvy world of the Reformation, there must be an understanding of order and precedence.
Now I have a question of you. Why, according to the RCC, did a perfect God create a total mess as His first act of creation?
Since the Church doesn't claim that, I must simply put your question aside.
Genesis 2:15 does not say “then”. There is no indication in Genesis 2 that would denote in what order things happened. That is contained in Genesis 1.
Genesis 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
>>Since the Church doesn't claim that, I must simply put your question aside.<<
And the earth was “without form and voide”. A total mess.
It is from shortly upthread, from an long excerpt posted to you concerning an excerpt you posted. I'd also posted it before upthread with slightly more of the paragraph, thus.
"A Protestant believes in no infallible authority; he is an authority unto himself, which authority he does not claim to be infallible, if he is sober and sane. He is after truth; and whatever he finds, and wherever he finds it, he subjects it to his own private judgment. He is free to accept or reject, as he pleases. He is not, cannot be, absolutely certain that what he holds is true; he thinks it is. He may discover to-day that yesterday's truths are not truths at all."I really like this author, Stapleton, very grateful to have found him on this thread, thanks to you. The more we see from him, the greater the context, the more impressive his insights, and more good sense is made of the snippets posted to denigrate him or the Church.
As determined by and interpreted according to your authority. That's what you have been doing continuously on this thread: according to your authority.
Again, your reminder: You are a fallible man.
Yeah right. Anyone who hasn’t even backed up what they say with scripture since back on the 3rd of this month shouldn’t be taken too seriously. Lot’s and lots of trash talk but not much substance.
I hope you are not holding your breath
It may play well to the home crowd, but it's a tacit admission of a weak or no real argument.
Even though the men who wrote God's word were sinful and fallible, when they spoke as they were moved along by the Holy Spirit, their every word is God's word and God's word IS infallible. Until Roman Catholics accept THAT, they will continue to invent increasing novelties and try to substitute their own assumed infallibly defined infallibility for God's OWN infallible word.
"For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures." - Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures, 4:17)
Yet again you post the opinion of a fallible man.
Last reminder today. Enjoy!
Glad to be of service. The only thing is, Stapleton was not excerpted to denigrate the Catholic Church but to give an example of the idea that Catholics do indeed have to leave "reason at the door like a lantern". In case you have forgotten, the point was made that in numerous documents issued by the Church such "blind obedience" and relinquishment of personal discovery is expected and those who dare to question their "leaders" are admonished.
Now if you are comfortable with that kind of oversight and control, then by all means stay there, just don't presume anyone is fooled by the silly descriptions of "Protestants" and how they come to the knowledge of the truth. That is as God said it would be, by illumination of the Holy Spirit through the word of God. To state, "A Protestant believes in no infallible authority; he is an authority unto himself", is as false as it is risible. Holy Scripture IS the infallible authority - the ONLY one - that God has given to his own so that we can know truth from error. This ancient truth was known and acknowledged by even your own church "Fathers" so it is a shame that centuries later this true and noble doctrine is mocked and ridiculed as a "new" invention. We are to search the Scriptures to see if things are so, just as the noble Bereans were commended for doing.
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.