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.
OK.
Nobody is claiming that Luther is or was infallible.
One thing that seems to be beyond the comprehension of most Catholics is that we DON’T follow men, but Scripture.
We don’t follow Luther’s teachings, any more than we follow Calvin’s or the pope’s because we don’t follow men. Our salvation is through faith in Christ, not affiliation with a denomination or following the teachings of men long dead, especially if they don’t line up with Scripture.
Anything that doesn’t conform to the plain and clear teachings of Scripture is WRONG, no matter who said it. Scripture is the standard by which all things are to be measured to see if they are truth or not. If something cannot be verified by Scripture, then it is suspect and nobody has license to declare it true with any degree of certainty.
Opinion pieces of others are interesting to some degree in some cases, but do NOT rise to the level of authority or veracity of the Word of God itself.
Its right there after the verse that establishes Sola Scriptura and just before the Trinity.
You claim the right to presume based upon extra-Scriptural sources when it suits you, but deny Catholics the right to similarly deduce the Assumption from Scripture.
Are you a Sadducee, who says there is no resurrection of the dead or do you believe that there will be a bodily resurrection of the dead?
Do you believe that no one will be taken up as were both Elijah and Enoch?
Do you believe that there will be a final judgment, but the one called Blessed will not pass the test?
Do you think the Biblical proposition that the mother of the King (Bathsheba) acted with the full authority of the King?
Do you believe that God is bound by the limitations of time and space or deny that He had the power to Assume Mary body and soul?
Why the hang up on Luther canon, Catholic canon or whatever. I might also remind you that the Apostles predated Luther. The Apostles used personal knowledge then wrote that knowledge down with the help of the Holy Spirit. I can’t get closer to the original then that. I don’t care what Luther thought. I don’t care what the Catholic Church says. I trust that God has preserved the words He inspired the Apostles to write through whatever means He saw fit. I don’t follow men.
1 Corinthians 1:11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. 12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. 13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
Denials coming in 3..2…
“Nobody is claiming that Luther is or was infallible.”
So it’s possible for him to be wrong in the books that he decided should be part of your canon?
“One thing that seems to be beyond the comprehension of most Catholics is that we DON’T follow men, but Scripture.”
The point that has been made and will continue to be made, is that yes, yes, indeed you are following men. You are all following Luther, because you use the books that he used, and you use his arguments verbatim. These are not arguments you will find in scripture, but tradition.
As for me not comprehending, I am a convert. So it’s rather presumptuous to claim that I don’t understand your position when I have argued it myself. I used to be a Protestant. They were very good to me and I am thankful for my time with them.
However, every single one that I knew who was serious about his faith had a bible and a concordance in their library. Scriopture and Tradition.
“We don’t follow Luther’s teachings”
WRT the canon, you follow Luther’s list and his arguments. That is the point at hand right now, and you are trusting that he, and one man, was correct and that the Church, and all the other men were wrong.
“Our salvation is through faith in Christ, not affiliation with a denomination or following the teachings of men long dead, especially if they don’t line up with Scripture.”
Yes, your salvation is by the Grace of God, through Faith in Jesus Christ. As is mine. There is no difference. That is what you do not see. We do not put our faith in men, any more so than you put your faith in men. You have your traditions which you uphold faithfully in how you live and conduct yourself. This is not a bad thing.
But it is still tradition. There is no dichotomy between faith and tradition, you need both of them. In using Luther’s books, you are using his arguments and his tradition. You cannot have the bible apart from tradition of one sort or another.
“Anything that doesn’t conform to the plain and clear teachings of Scripture is WRONG”
Agreed. But the key word here is conform. There is nothing in scripture that states that Maccabees should be included and Hebrews should not, or vice-versa. You cannot get there from here.
“Scripture is the standard by which all things are to be measured to see if they are truth or not”
But how do you decide what is and what is not scripture? You cannot measure a rope with itself. You need a measure that is not the rope to test the rope to determine how long it is. You cannot take scripture and then state that scripture measures itself, because your scripture and ours are not the same thing. You have taken books out. This is a problem, if you are a sola scripturist, because not you are arguing that some scripture isn’t really scripture, based on the tradition of men, of Luther.
“If something cannot be verified by Scripture, then it is suspect and nobody has license to declare it true with any degree of certainty.”
Absolutely. Why then are you accepting Luther’s claim that some parts of scripture are not scripture? How would you argue against someone who wants to toss out Romans for being ‘anti Gay’, when we know that God loves everyone? It is coming.
“Opinion pieces of others are interesting to some degree in some cases, but do NOT rise to the level of authority or veracity of the Word of God itself.”
Then what do you make of Luther’s statement and opinion that some scripture is not scripture?
“The Apostles used personal knowledge then wrote that knowledge down with the help of the Holy Spirit.”
Did the Apostles make a list of books that are or are not inspired? If they did I would like to see the list.
"ALL SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for DOCTRINE, for REPROOF, for CORRECTION, for INSTRUCTION IN RIGHTEOUSNESS: That the man of GOd may be PERFECT, THOROUGHLY FURNISHED unto all good works." 2 Tim. 3:16-17
. 1 Corinthians 6:11 11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are >b>sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
Now can you tell me that if scripture gives us enough that we aresanctified and we are justified by the Spirit of our God why I would need to risk the words of mortal man?
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.
John 10:30 I and my Father are one.
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 became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.
Now for the bodily assumption of Mary. I can’t seem to find any scripture to prove that. I’m sure you would be so kind as to point to book, chapter and verse as I have done with the other two.
You tell me.
For the hundredth time that verse does NOT establish any basis for Sola Scriptura. You have the interpretation completely wrong. The next time you feel like trotting that out, don't bother.
This is your claim, is it not, that the canon you used was put forth by the Apostles?
“Now for the bodily assumption of Mary. I can’t seem to find any scripture to prove that. I’m sure you would be so kind as to point to book, chapter and verse as I have done with the other two.”
Have you found confirmation for your assertion that she died? No.
Scripture is entirely silent on her and her life after Pentecost. You cannot argue that the assumption of mary contradicts scripture in any way shape or form.
Jesus himself set the standard by measuring tradition against the Scriptures. Some traditions were acceptable, others contradicted or “set aside” God's Word and therefore had to be rejected.
On occasion tradition has a useful role but when it does it is the cart not the horse.
I don’t claim “canon”. I trust that God preserved what the Apostles wrote and that’s what I use.
Hey metmom, we got another one!
Then you trust that God selected and empowered the Catholic Church to preserve what a few of the Apostles wrote and reject what other Apostles wrote in the establishment of Canon.
So let’s go back.
You believe that the list of books that the Apostles wrote have been preserved, despite the fact that no such list exists.
You also said something about the Catholic church lying, and having their lies exposed by Luther, correct?
I do not see how one can believe that Scripture has been preserved by the same body that you believe is deceiving you. If in fact the Church is lying, than what Luther is working off of is a lie too. If in fact the Church is telling the truth, then, and only then, does Luther have reliable documents to work off. In order for you to get to the point where Luther is correct, you must first assume that the Catholic church preserved the bible.
Let me let you in on a secret. Luther was a proponent of Erasmus’s translation. Erasmus was a Catholic. Luther was a Catholic himself and a priest for many years. This means that he was educated by the Catholic church, trained in theology by the Catholic church.
You are trusting this one man to get it right and everyone else in the Church has gotten it wrong?
In history, it’s really simple. You trust the oldest sources because they are closer to the date. All else being equal. We know that the Vulgate, which dates back to the late 4th century uses the full canon. Ergo, unless we have evidence that the books they selected were the ones not used by the Apostles, than, and only than, can we go against the prior record.
If we go back further, we see that the earliest manuscripts (including the Codex Vaticanus), do include these disputed books. This is solid evidence in favor of the position that the Apostles did in fact consider them to be scripture.
Are you asserting that you believe that Luther was incorrect in the books that he selected as inspired works?
Where does it say only that which is in scripture is permissible?
Luther never said that.
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.