Fascinating. When children pretend to do what the adults do, without understanding it, this is the result.
We must ask if they are any closer to Christianity than these children are to actually keeping and preparing food.
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.
i have only read to #5, but it is not true that holding to the canon is contrary to Scripture being supreme and materially sufficient (formally awaited its completion), as by holding Scripture to be supreme we can sanction the church, and also principles of how scripture was established as being such. Most of which was before there was a Roman church, and without an assuredly infallible magisterium as per Rome.
Instead of the latter magisterium establishing Scripture by an “infallible decree,” which took Rome over 1400 years after the last book was written to do, it an be seen that Scripture was progressively established (and it is obvious there was a recognized body of Scriptures by the time of Christ) due to its heavenly qualities and effects and other supernatural attestation, and conflation with that which was prior established as being from God. And which today also confirms the Word, (Mk. 16:20) esp by manifest regeneration.
And it is by objective examination of Scriptural evidences that one may have confidence they presently have eternal life. (1Jn. 5:13)
This allows for challenges, but it is by “the manifestation of the truth” that souls are persuaded by true men of God, (2Cor. 4:2) and the rest can follow the evil which good overcomes. Wisdom is justified of her children.
RCAs argue that we lack an infallible interpreter for our supreme authority, but so do they, as the infallible magisterium itself is subject to some fallible interpretation.
Moreover, the canon was overall settled quickly for Prots, they can have more confidence in it than RCs can about a canon of all the infallible teachings of their supreme authority. And they also can and have many disagreements about doctrine, including what really is authentic teaching.
I’d say isn’t that just your private interpretation. Besides what authority decided that say Revelation belonged in the Bible considering a lot of early Christians refused to recognize it as inspired?
The Byzantine Church doesn’t use readings from Revelation because of its late addition.
And Luther advocated declaring that Revelation was apocryphal.
What makes Luther wrong objectively speaking
?
It’s a translation.
No kidding. Don’t even have to go to other threads to find it.
Here is a partial list of early Christian writings, both inspired and uninspired, fallible and infallible that I have compiled. If nothing else they give a glimpse of the magnitude of the task the Church undertood to establish the Canon and provide a very good glimpse into the times:
Passion Narrative
Lost Sayings Gospel Q
1 Thessalonians
Philippians
Galatians
1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians
Romans
Philemon
Colossians
Signs Gospel
Book of Hebrews
Didache
Gospel of Thomas
Oxyrhynchus 1224 Gospel
Sophia of Jesus Christ
Gospel of Mark
Epistle of James
Egerton Gospel
Gospel of Peter
Secret Mark
Fayyum Fragment
Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
Mara Bar Serapion
2 Thessalonians
Ephesians
Gospel of Matthew
1 Peter
Epistle of Barnabas
Gospel of Luke
Acts of the Apostles
1 Clement
Gospel of the Egyptians
Gospel of the Hebrews
Christian Sibyllines
Apocalypse of John
Gospel of John
1 John
2 John
3 John
Epistle of Jude
Flavius Josephus
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
Titus
Apocalypse of Peter
Secret Book of James
Preaching of Peter
Gospel of the Ebionites
Gospel of the Nazoreans
Shepherd of Hermas
2 Peter
Odes of Solomon
Book of Elchasai
Ignatius of Antioch
Polycarp to the Philippians
Papias
Oxyrhynchus 840 Gospel
Traditions of Matthias
Pliny the Younger
Suetonius
Tacitus
Quadratus of Athens
Apology of Aristides
Basilides
Naassene Fragment
Valentinus
Apocryphon of John
Gospel of Mary
Dialogue of the Savior
Gospel of the Savior
2nd Apocalypse of James
Trimorphic Protennoia
Marcion
Aristo of Pella
Epiphanes On Righteousness
Ophite Diagrams
2 Clement
Gospel of Judas
Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus
Epistula Apostolorum
Ptolemy
Isidore
Fronto
Infancy Gospel of James
Infancy Gospel of Thomas
Gospel of Truth
Martyrdom of Polycarp
Justin Martyr
Excerpts of Theodotus
Heracleon
Ascension of Isaiah
Acts of Peter
Acts of John
Acts of Paul
Acts of Andrew
Acts of Peter and the Twelve
Book of Thomas the Contender
Fifth and Sixth Books of Esra
Authoritative Teaching
Coptic Apocalypse of Paul
Discourse on the Eighth and Ninth
Melchizedek
Acts of Pilate
Anti-Marcionite Prologues
Tatian's Address to the Greeks
Claudius Apollinaris
Apelles
Julius Cassianus
Octavius of Minucius Felix
Acts of Carpus
Melito of Sardis
Hegesippus
Dionysius of Corinth
Lucian of Samosata
Marcus Aurelius
Diatessaron
Dura-Europos Gospel Harmony
Muratorian Canon
Treatise on the Resurrection
Letter of Peter to Philip
Athenagoras of Athens
Irenaeus of Lyons
Rhodon
Theophilus of Caesarea
Galen
Celsus
Letter from Vienna and Lyons
Passion of the Scillitan Martyrs
Theophilus of Antioch
Acts of Apollonius
Bardesanes
Kerygmata Petrou
Hippolytus of Rome
1st Apocalypse of James
Gospel of Philip
Clement of Alexandria
Maximus of Jerusalem
Polycrates of Ephesus
Talmud
Victor I
Pantaenus
Anonymous Anti-Montanist
Inscription of Abercius
Tertullian
Serapion of Antioch
Apollonius
Caius
Philostratus
Acts of Thomas
Didascalia
Books of Jeu
Pistis Sophia
Coptic Apocalypse of Peter
Acts of Perpetua and Felicitas
Origen
God is able afterall to use evil men to show His greatness and glory.
2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Not the private interpretation of man.
You didn’t finish the passage again. He say that those who know what to watch for. He said in verse 16 that those who have a hard time understanding are unlearned and unstable. Then in verse 17 he warns not to get caught up in what the unlearned say.
2 Peter 3:17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. 18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.
He says if we listen to those who are unlearned and unstable we will fall from our own stedfastness. We must have been in a state of “learned” and steadfastness for us to fall from it right? Which would mean that we already understand and don’t find it hard to understand.
Fascinating. When children pretend to do what the adults do, without understanding it, this is the result.
We must ask if they are any closer to Christianity than these children are to actually keeping and preparing food.
I’m sorry, I don’t follow..when did I say Luther was infallible?
When your whole religious being is predicated on who you are not, without focusing on who you are, what does that suggest?
That’s easy. When they were commissioned to translate they took the original manuscripts in the original language and found significant errors in the Latin translations that the CC had done. The CC had gotten by with it because of the lack of wide spread availability of written word. They had preserved but not disseminated the correct translation until the time of the Reformation.
>> If in fact the Church is lying, than what Luther is working off of is a lie too.<<
Nope, the CC was using it’s own translations in Latin. The reformers were using the original language documents directly into German.
>> In order for you to get to the point where Luther is correct, you must first assume that the Catholic church preserved the bible.<<
Nope, see above.
>> Luther was a Catholic himself and a priest for many years.<<
Yep, that’s why he was given access to the original language documents. That’s when they found all the errors in the Latin translations.
>> You are trusting this one man to get it right and everyone else in the Church has gotten it wrong?<<
Nope, trusted God to bring us what He wanted. Now that we have available to all the original language documents we find that he did it right.
The CC still today insists that the Catholics use their “approved” version.
Where did you ever get the idea that I follow Luther?
The Church did tend to let believers be believers until a bunch of them headed off to heretical land and then called a Council to try to define things. The charge comes up against the Church, but I think that it reflects more on human nature and the deviations that humans can invent.
“That’s easy. When they were commissioned to translate”
Who’s they? Who was commissioned by whom to translate the bible?
“they took the original manuscripts in the original language”
What “original manuscripts” did the translators use? There are no original manuscripts of scripture in existence. They are no longer extant.
They couldn’t have used the Codex Vaticanus because that wasn’t publicly available until the latter half of the 19th century. Same with Sinaiticus. Prior to then, the Vatican had access to Codex Vaticanus. It happens to be the oldest, and most complete Greek NT manuscript.
“and found significant errors in the Latin translations that the CC had done.”
We have better and older sources today that show no such significant errors.
“The CC had gotten by with it because of the lack of wide spread availability of written word.”
Sounds like a myth to me. The most widely distributed book in those times was the Bible. We can trace the changes over time, from the older Vulgates that we do possess.
“They had preserved but not disseminated the correct translation until the time of the Reformation.”
Nonsense. They preserved the Vulgate, which btw, uses sources that are non-extant and dates back to the early 4th century. Not as old as Codex Vaticanus, but much older than anything else available to translate from.
“Nope, the CC was using it’s own translations in Latin.”
It’s called the Vulgate.
“The reformers were using the original language documents directly into German.”
And the documents that they used were?
“Yep, that’s why he was given access to the original language documents. That’s when they found all the errors in the Latin translations.”
Then why was it him and not the other priests who ‘found’ these ‘errors’? Do you know that Luther used Erasmus’s translation, and certainly not the originals?
“Nope, trusted God to bring us what He wanted. Now that we have available to all the original language documents we find that he did it right.”
Uh, no we don’t have all the original documents. The oldest full bible we do have is the Codex Vaticanus which is the early 4th century. We have some fragments that are older than this, but we do not have all the original language documents.
We don’t even have an original LXX, let alone an original Gospel.
“The CC still today insists that the Catholics use their “approved” version.”
Absolutely, because the Vulgate uses sources that are no longer extant today, that are far older than anything else that we do have.
So you think you still have a shot?
BTW you discerners of all truth: I am a she. Not a he.
The understanding of both Daniel’s prophesy and Revelation were sealed until the “time of the end”. God is and was in control and Revelation and the understanding of Daniels prophesies are beginning. I would say God controlled when Revelation was included.
I see.
What mechanism did God use to decide that Revelation was canonical after all?
What made Luther wrong about Revelation and right about dropping books from the Old Testament?
Does that mean that you are able to tell the difference between evil and good? Can you understand the mind of God?
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.