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.
Then show me where they wrote into scripture the bodily assumption of Mary.
The RCC is nothing more than a compilation of most of the pagan practices and rituals of Babylonian times.
That's not a teaching or belief of the Church.
The church, the body comprised of all believers, is the bride of Christ, not our mother. Nor is an organization which protects homosexual and child molesting priests very holy.
Galatians 4:21-26 21Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law? 22For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. 23But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. 24Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. 25Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.
1 Corinthians 5 1It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father’s wife. 2And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you.
3For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing. 4When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.
6 Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? 7Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 8Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
9I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. 12For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? 13God judges those outside. "Purge the evil person from among you."
So, maybe you can answer a simple question.
Why hasn't the RCC addressed the problem of sexual immorality within itself as is addressed in the Bible that IT claims it wrote itself?
Is "valid" anything like "God-breathed"?
It has to be. Mark told me that when the Bible says that “many were being saved” it meant that they were in a process of being saved and wouldn’t really know until they died. So I figure when people are “being added to the church” it took a long time and they wouldn’t know till they died.
Maybe if they read scripture they would realize the RCC lies to them.
Galatians 4:26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother.
If the Catholic Church wrote the Bible I wonder why they forgot that and now tell people it’s the church who is their mother?
And there are more being saved every day. When people hear about what Christ did and the Holy Spirit calls them they will be saved. There’s a lot of people being asked who they will vote for too.
>>Were being saved, not are saved.<<
Hebrews 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: 12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; 13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. 14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. 1 Corinthians 6:11 11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
Hebrews 10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
Some of you.
You seem to be confusing the foreknowledge of God with predestination. You further seem to be claiming the mantle of salvation without validation.
Certainly those who will be saved are saved forever, as they enter into Eternity. But there is a difference between you claiming to know your final end now and finding out what the Judge tells you at your Judgement.
Why don’t you and Natural Law get together and decide if you have a personal relationship with Christ in you and get back to us.
My relationship with God has nothing to do with Natural Law, nor anyone else, be he Christian or pagan.
Yeah, metmom -- we wouldn't look nearly as spiffy in pointy hats, dresses, and red shoes.
:D Hoss
A man (or a horse) has got to know his limitations. The rabble of the Reformation didn't.
Mark, what does “salvation without validation” mean?
Really?
Really.
Matthew 11:18-19 18For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, 'He has a demon.' 19The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!' Yet wisdom is justified by her deeds."
And Luke 7:33-35
Matthew 9:10-12 10And as Jesus reclined at table in the house, behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and were reclining with Jesus and his disciples. 11And when the Pharisees saw this, they said to his disciples, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?"
Mark 2:15-17 15And as he reclined at table in his house, many tax collectors and sinners were reclining with Jesus and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. 16And the scribes of the Pharisees, when they saw that he was eating with sinners and tax collectors, said to his disciples, "Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?"
Luke 5:29-31 29And Levi made him a great feast in his house, and there was a large company of tax collectors and others reclining at table with them. 30And the Pharisees and their scribes grumbled at his disciples, saying, "Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?"
Funny, I don't see anywhere in those passages where Jesus denied drinking with the tax collectors and sinners at their homes.
A king eats with his subjects. A king commands (my last post). The subjects obey. Unless you don't believe that you are subject to God...
Besides, it doesn't say that Jesus didn't swap beers in each other's garage, so we can presume that He did. Now prove he didn't.
Interesting demand. It certainly fits with many of your posts.
There seems to be discrepancy among Catholics about the personal relationship thing. Some make fun of the Protestants for that claim and some seem to state they also have a personal relationship. It may even be the same people but I don’t remember.
Some think that the truth will be determined on these threads or if they can manage to drive the Catholics from the Forum. They couldn't be more wrong. As I reminded one of them earlier on this thread: 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 dog-piles, 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.
We all shall. This is the same bunch that hangs on Harold Camping's every word one day, Comet Elenin the next, Joel Osteen the next, Benny Hinn the next...
They are all searching; they know that they are missing something. But their pride precludes them from acknowledging that Christ provided for their salvation with His mighty gifts, so they spurn some or all of them in their hubris. They know 'better'.
They prooftext snippets from Scripture and derive novel and esoteric beliefs (see, it's all in the Bible) on a regular basis.
Phillipians 2: 10 That in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those that are in heaven, on earth, and under the earth:
I do this every day, and so do most Catholics. When was the last time that any of these people actually knelt at the name of Jesus?
Easily the same claim is made about the Roman Catholic Church.
Hoss
Appreciate the ping. I have not had much time lately to post. You are doing your usual fine job and I thank you for it.
Acts 2:47 - And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.
CB - Those who are saved are part of the church.
Of course they don't. I cannot even imagine how many instances of Paul worshipers here who get Paul wrong all the time, that I have corrected with the plain meaning of what Paul wrote, for instance.
Reading an attempt to explain Catholic Christian theology by Protestants is like reading a manual translated from the Japanese to the English by someone who only speaks Urdu. I can't even begin to describe the levels of fail displayed in your post.
If you're going to talk about Mark, you should ping him.
So I figure
That's the source of your error.
"Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life,, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life." (John 5:24)
I have heard his words and I believe in Jesus. If Catholics keep denying what scripture says it’s to their detriment. Not mine. Catholics would do well to read scripture without succumbing to the polluting influence of the RCC and understand what it says.
Gal. 2:16, "nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified."
Gal. 2:21, I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.
Phil. 3:9, "and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith."
That works based stuff promoted by the RCC is against what scripture clearly states. And those “priests” they have do the Catholics no good whatsoever.
Hebrews 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: 12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; 13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. 14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
YOPIOS???
Hoss
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.