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.
So your previous post on the Lord’s Prayer really had nothing to do with the discussion, just another off tangent.
Round and round and round...
The point is, CB, how do you even know which books are books that do not contradict each other and therefore are “Scripture”?
This knowledge has come to you from a man or men, unless it is your claim that God has spoken directly to you and told you which books are inspired Scripture. This is not the same as claiming that one is led to the truth by the Holy Spirit, because we all claim the Holy Spirit as our guide.
Since neither you nor I nor anyone else is in possession of the originals, we must all rely on second or third or fourth hand copies.
We both trust that God has preserved the works He wishes for us to have to know Him and love Him and live a life of faith, but in the end, it is through men that we have come to this trust.
We Catholics trust that the Holy Spirit has led the Church to define for us what is canon. Without it, we would not have what we, and I include protestants in that we, have today.
It is basically saying that God sanctioned the Church for that purpose alone and none other. That God allowed the Church to flourish so that we might know what is canon, but then allowed that same Church to fall into apostasy and lead millions to eternal separation from Him. That just does not fit with Jesus’ promise.
You claim that God can use evil men for His good purpose.
I find that to be a bit of a cop out, which is the same charge made about Catholics when we contend that the Church is made up of sinners if/when a protestant points to those sinners who were popes or bishops or priests.
You cannot have it both ways.
My reaction to many of the proof texts is 'So, it's like Christ never happened?'
They are laying down smoke between us and the original assertion, as though distraction were a valid dialectical technique.
Occasionally a linear cogent debate is enjoined for a brief while, until it gets close to some resolution when a new 'distraction' is thrown out, then boilerplate assertions usually with a nice dollop of slander.
A few days later the same issue is approached, as if the previous debate never happened. Memory hole. Rinse and repeat.
Perhaps some new information is gained by lurkers and readers, but the handful repeating the same answered or refuted accusations over and over... doubtful, at least from the evidence here.
I could accept that explanation, except for the fact that Scripture in both lists specifically mention Joseph as the descendent and not Mary.
Was Joseph not chosen for her spouse and the “father” of Jesus so that the prophecy could be fulfilled?
If it must come through both, then why is Mary not listed as a descendent?
In Isaiah we see that it’s only those who refused to listen to Him were the ones who listened the people who spoke to the dead.
Isaiah 8:19 And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead? 20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
In the phrase “when they shall say unto you” it wasn’t talking about the good guys. They were asking why shouldn’t they seek help from their pagan gods.
Ecclesiastes 9:5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. 6 Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun.
If you don’t see that as advice about not following those who speak to the dead that’s something you need to decide. As for me, I see it as a warning and advice.
You must be confused. The Truth is, it cannot be declared by you or your "church" (or what ever the gang you meet with on Sunday's calls itself), it is not determined by rules of evidence, convincing rhetoric, lame excuses, gotcha questions, ping-list dogpiles, precedent, moderators or errors in argument by Catholics. It simply is and is immutable. It doesn't require a psychic to predict that sometime in the next 50 years you will know the Truth.
Feel free to do so, be as hyper diligent as you wish.
I rarely post things others have written, preferring to use my own words and Scripture.
Exactly as I have done previously on more than one occasion regarding doctrines about Mary.
Feel free to search them out and perform your due diligence on them.
Romans 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
Ephesians 3:17-18: Referring to the "inner man," Paul mentions that he prays "that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith."
Galatians 2:20: Paul speaks of himself and all true Christians: "I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me."
Romans 8:10: Paul tells us, "If Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin."
2 Corinthians 1:22 Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.
Denying that we have Christ seems to me to be denying the very words of scripture.
You don’t see that Jesus instructions about who to pray to is pertinent to this conversation?
We have discussed this before, CB.
You reject what I believe and the reasons I believe it.
The arguments always come full circle, with your challenging my understanding of Scripture and me challenging yours.
Funny that the Holy Spirit would lead us to such differing beliefs.
Of course, you would have to deny that the Holy Spirit actually led me to that belief, which then begs the question, by what authority could you say such?
Scripture you say.
And, thus begins the argument anew as to whence came Scripture, who is to be trusted as the authority?
You concede God may have used the Church to preserve Scripture and define it, however incorrectly regarding the books rejected by protestants.
Thus, the Holy Spirit guided the church, but not to all truth, just to some truth with the rest to be revealed at a later date, and then, stopped guiding the church altogether letting Christians everywhere fall into error until the “reformation”.
Wrong! It’s through the Holy Spirit we have come to trust.
>> Without it, we would not have what we, and I include protestants in that we, have today.<<
Wrong! Without the CC we would still have God’s word in print. The Old Testament has been preserved by the Jews, all of the New Testament have been preserved by other people and even if not God would have used someone to get it to us. God’s will is not dependent on man.
>> That God allowed the Church to flourish so that we might know what is canon, but then allowed that same Church to fall into apostasy and lead millions to eternal separation from Him.<<
Did or did not that exact thing happen to the Jews?
>> That just does not fit with Jesus’ promise.<<
Jesus did not say the RCC or any other organized church on earth. He said those who believed on Him were the church, His body on earth. Believe it or not there are those who “believe on Him” who are not enrolled in the RCC. I can also assure you that there are those who are enrolled in the RCC who are NOT part of His church.
>> You claim that God can use evil men for His good purpose.<<
Ezekiel 38:4 And I will turn thee back, and put hooks into thy jaws, and I will bring thee forth, and all thine army, horses and horsemen, all of them clothed with all sorts of armour, even a great company with bucklers and shields, all of them handling swords:
And why did He do it?
Ezekiel 38:23 Thus will I magnify myself, and sanctify myself; and I will be known in the eyes of many nations, and they shall know that I am the LORD.
>> I find that to be a bit of a cop out, which is the same charge made about Catholics when we contend that the Church is made up of sinners if/when a protestant points to those sinners who were popes or bishops or priests.<<
The only contention I have seen made is about how the CC handles or deals with those pedophiles.
It's what I call "St. Ground Hog's Day".
A reminder: I still follow your advice not to rely on the opinions of fallible man, as it applies to you here.
I’ll give you prior notice that I’m gonna steal that in the future.
:)
The argument seems to be from the OT as though Christ never happened, death never defeated, the dead know nothing, etc.
Of course somewhere close by will be the same posters proclaiming whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life, etc.
Oh well..
No, it had everything to do with the post.
When His disciples asked Jesus to teach them to pray, Jesus instructed them (and us) to pray to the FATHER, not anyone else.
Show me anywhere in Scripture where we are instructed to pray to Mary or any other entity not living here on this earth no matter what technicalities Catholics try to throw in there.
This is like listening to an ultra-Orthodox Jew lecture on the necessity of Glatt Kosher. The necessity to maintain two completely different sets of plates and cooking utensils is not because God instructed it, it is because God forbade participating in the feast of Baal in which a calf was cooked in its mothers milk. The Ultra Orthodox have extended this from a calf and its mothers milk to a calf and any dairy, to any meat with any dairy to a requirement that there must never be an opportunity for the two to have ever come into contact anywhere food is prepared for them.
In Matthew 6 Jesus did not say that the ONLY way to pray was to recite the Our Father (which Protestants have added to, by the way), or only to God the Father. He gave an example that is culturally rich. By using the word Abba, He said we all have an intimate and personal relationship with God, something that had previously been restricted to the nation of Israel and to the elite and the temple priests. The petitions He gave as examples followed an adulation and addressed the two greatest commandments. He then followed it by extolling us live our prayer, not just speak it.
Nowhere is it stated or even implied that we are not to pray to Jesus or the Holy Spirit or to petition saints and each other. Nowhere does it say we should not make prayers of thanksgiving or expiation.
That would actually make Joseph and Mary distant cousins. Heli had no sons, According to Numbers 36, Mary had to have a husband from the tribe of Judah to protect her fathers estate. Jesus also needed to have a lineage from to Solomon to establish Jesus claim to the throne of David since Nathan’s descendants were not of the Royal line.
Joseph was that descendent of Solomon. Because of the blood curse on descendants of Solomon any blood descendant or biological descendant could not be King of the Jews. Since Joseph is not Jesus biological father he was not under that curse but by Joseph adopting Jesus which qualified Jesus to be King of the Jews.
Thus, because of the virgin birth, Jesus became the only one in Israel qualified to sit on David’s throne, and remains so to this day.
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.