Why am I not surprised?
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 asked where in Scripture that was shown.
Your references to the OT are apposite at least. But while the references to the NT are about another question.
And the OT statements about the dead are about the dead before the harrowing of Hell and the first Easter. It can be argued that things are different now.
In particular,our argument is that the saints(not just the 'biggies') who have 'crossed the Jordan' are still united with us in the one resurrected Body of Christ -- which, we hold, has no dead parts. We find nothing in Paul to say the union wrought in the Spirit is weaker than death. So we hold that Eccl9:5 no longer obtains and that we are not summoning spirits from Sheol as the pagan necromancers of old did.
Our teaching is not about Victorian and Edwardian Spiritualism. It is about the unity of Spirit in the bond of peace. It is about a unity in the Love of God in Christ that neither life nor death nor angels nor principalities nor powers nor things present nor things to come nor height nor depth nor any other creature can shatter.
I will concede that it is not a slam dunk. But neither is your contention.
And in any event when I asked for scripture to the those who have died cannot pray for others I was met with arguments against OUR praying to the dead (or FOR the dead) but I have yet to see conclusive New Testament evidence that they are unable to pray for us such that this blanket proposition is proved.
You know, this is not like game of rugby or a military battle. To strike a blow on another part of the field ... if Lee had been able to overcome Chamberlain's holding of the flank, why then Gettysburg might have come out quite differently.
But here, any number of arguments against the intercession of the saints or whatever will neither bolster nor weaken the proposition that the saints in heaven CANNOT pray for us. They may distract us,and they might even create a semblance of victory for one side over the other. But the issue itself, and the truth thereof, will remain unresolved.
So then you do not believe that Jesus is the God of living? You do not believe that those in Heaven are alive in Christ? Interesting. Your "Christianity" is even more novel than I had believed. Would you care to expound on it?
Necromancy is an abomination. Besides, without Christ within you, as you stated, there would be a problem anyway.
I did not say that Christ was not within me. Why are you repeating this fabrication?
However, my mother was a saint, and understood the Great Commission. My statement and my efforts on your behalf stand.
So when the assertion of that inability was made, I thought it would bear examining. But in response to my request mostly what I have received is answers to some other questions or references to the state of the dead before Christ rose and mounted on high taking captivity captive.
I don't know what the problem is, but I DO know that there IS a problem here. They are laying down smoke between us and the original assertion, as though distraction were a valid dialectical technique.
Well, this is encouraging. It's a start that you are able to recognize the difference. Now, you guys need to learn what it means to have Christ.
Philippians 2:9-11 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
However, not every knee that bows belongs to a believer. Some will only bend the knee and confess that Jesus is Lord under duress. It will be too late then, even when they reach the point where they acknowledge what they've refused to admit for so long.
As far as having the Son.....
1 John 5:11-13 11And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12 Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life. 13I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life.
Galatians 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.
Well, then, let's toss out our Bible and lean rather heavily on:
That's the problem with the Catholic church. They've already done that and it's gotten them nowhere but into a lot of unsupportable doctrines and teachings. You toss Scripture at your own peril.
John 5:37-40 37And the Father who sent me has himself borne witness about me. His voice you have never heard, his form you have never seen, 38and you do not have his word abiding in you, for you do not believe the one whom he has sent. 39 You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, 40yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.
Well, at least you've included one Gospel passage. You might be getting it.
The whole thing is that Catholics believe that God lives within their being, and that He has them. You guys, by the very proclamations that you bleat, claim that you 'have God', which is a very different matter.
We do not mix up who is the Creator and who is created. That is a novelty of the Reformation.
Those who argue against us seem to maintain that the death of the body is the controlling reality and that it imposes inability to pray on the ζωη of the Spirit. This they call "good news."
Those who argue against us seem to maintain that the death of the body is the controlling reality and that it imposes inability to pray on the ζωη of the Spirit. This they call "good news."
Just the evil within the church.
So to your mind, the creation of man made churches is justified by the evil of a few men within the Church?
Fascinating. What other theological ends justify your man made means?
They will do the same thing that Paul exhorts, make prayers and supplications and give thanks for all men.
It means nothing but it is amusing to watch those who got a reality check try to deal with it without admitting their discernment didn't even cut it for something so simple..
Simple? This is an online forum. I don't pay that much attention to the alleged sex of most of the participants, since it doesn't matter to me. The only thing that matters is the content of their posts.
The theological Black Death.
Why am I not surprised?
As opposed to me, who is a real Mark?
Show me where I said man made churches were justified. Don’t twist my words like the RCC has twisted scripture.
The only scriptural reference to a queen of heaven is pagan. It’s always been pagan and still is pagan. The point of that post was to show that the RCC uses lack of denial in scripture to make up doctrine. The question was asked to show where anyone used the excuse that if scripture didn’t say it didn’t happen then the doctrine is possible and therefore valid. We showed that indeed people used lack of denial in scripture as justification for doctrine.
John 16:7
αλλ' εγω την αληθειαν λεγω υμιν, συμφερει υμιν ινα εγω απελθω. εαν γαρ μη απελθω ο ΠΑΡΑΚΛΗΤΟΣ ου μη ελθη προς υμας·εαν δε πορευθω, πεμψω αθτον προς υμας.
But I tell you the truth, it is better for you that I go away. For if I do not go away, the PARACLETE will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.
αθτον (near the end)should be αυτον = "him" "the same".
FOR all men. Not TO all men.
Maybe they are. Maybe they aren’t. We don’t know cause Scripture doesn’t tell us.
In either case, that in no way justifies praying TO them for anything and there’s no point in praying FOR them since they are complete in Christ and don’t need anything any more.
The trinity is not named by name according to modern English terminology. Big deal.
Romans 8:9-11 9You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. 10But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 11If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.
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.