Reformation Day – and What Led Me To Back to Catholicism

The Catholic Thing ^ | 10/28/11 | Francis J. Beckwith

[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.

[CynicalBear]

>>You mean it was supposed to be written by the brother that Jesus didn't have?<<

Well, it was Jesus brother but it really wasn’t Jesus brother because it was really his cousin but he was Joseph’s other son from his other marriage before Mary which nobody really knows about but the Catholics and besides that not what they really said. What they said was it was really Jesus cousin who was really his brother from his father Joseph from another marriage but it could have been anybody from the town because they all called each other brother or if they were of the same group they could have all been brothers who really weren’t brothers also. See how easy that is?

[metmom]

Yeah.

I get it.

[metmom]

Hebrews 9:11-15 11But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent ( not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) 12he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. 13For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, 14how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.

15Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant.

Hebrews 10:11-14 11And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. 14For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

Romans 8:1-4 1There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. 3For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

Romans 8:10-11 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.

We are forgiven for our sinfulness and are the children of God. We have life in Him, not because of our perfection but because of His perfection being credited to our account because of our trust in Him.

[D-fendr]

I am forgiven, period.

For sins you haven't repented?

I have repented of my sins

For the ones you haven't committed yet? Once repented covers any new sin you can imagine?

Nobody is capable of repenting of each and every individual sin

We can sure try. An examination of conscience is required and, at the very least, an attempt made. Thinking "I already repented for previous sins and once is enough," is hardly an honest try.

It’s a blanket legal pardon of ALL sin.

Sounds like Luther's "Sin boldly…" doctrine.

Once saved, always saved; once repented, always repented. No matter what you do.

You asked me once "who thinks that they are forgiven for sins they have not repented?" I think we know one in that group.

I can't imagine reading Christ's and the Apostle's words and coming up with this theology; but I'm sure you can.

[caww]

Christ's church is composed of members, not churches .... Being composed of members, one must think of the "brotherhood,"... not a "churchhood"

Ref:(Rom. 12:4-5; 1 Cor. 12:12-27) (1 Pet. 2:17). "Brotherhood not churchhood"... says it very well CB. as with... "Christianity not churchianity."

[Natural Law]

"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 have already likened it to discussing the beauty of a sunset with the colorblind. They see what they see and don't have the ability to visualize the vibrant colors. From their limited perspective a sunset really is nothing more than shades of gray, and similarly Catholic theology is what they believe it to be. In neither case does their perception match reality to anyone other than themselves.

[Natural Law]

"They prooftext snippets from Scripture and derive novel and esoteric beliefs (see, it's all in the Bible) on a regular basis."

The funny thing is that every heresy and a lot of bizarre cults all do the same. Jonestown, Charles Manson, and, heck, I even read some German propaganda from WWII in which the Nazi fully substantiated their ambitions with prooftexted snippets from the Bible fully authenticated by the Reichskirche.

The sad thing is that decent people hang their eternity on these canards.

[metmom]

So, what happens to Catholics if they miss repenting of something?

Hell? To bad for you?

Or is it the baptism of desire thing where if the intent is there, you're covered anyway even if you miss it?

Romans 8:10 But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

For the believer, our eternal life is a done deal, and yes, regardless of whether we sin after we turned to Christ or not and remembered to repent of it or not. We have been given a legal and positional pardon. Christ's righteousness is enough to cover all my sin, past, present, and future, regardless of whether someone else thinks I dealt with it the way they think I should have.

Does that give someone license to sin? Of course not and not even Paul taught that.

Romans 6 1What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? 2By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? 3Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

5For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. 7For one who has died has been set free from sin. 8Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. 10For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. 11So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.

12Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions. 13 Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness. 14For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.

15What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! 16Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, 18and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness. 19 I am speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations. For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification.

20 For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. 21 But what fruit were you getting at that time from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. 22But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life. 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

For freedom Christ has set us free.

[smvoice]

There is just so much there in your post that is so very wrong. It would be easier to list the things that are right. But there are none. So I'll leave you with one simple verse, instead of numerous Scriptures that would only add to your seemingly complete and total deception.

"In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel." Rom. 2:16.

You may ask yourself: What day? What secrets? And who is this "my" gospel?

You and I and everyone will be judged by this gospel one day. I pray you find out what it is before it's too late. Hint: According to all the posts I've read from RCC posters, I don't believe it's found in the RCC. Or believed.

[Jvette]

I believe Luther called that one repentance “snow”. One guess what it covered. LOL

[Jvette]

“In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.” Rom. 2:16.

You and I and everyone will be judged by this gospel one day.

Please explain something to me.

If we are to be judged “one day” by God, the day of our death or the day of the Lord, for what will we be judged?

If we have been once and for always saved by our faith in Jesus, why will we face judgement either upon our death or when the Lord returns?

I am truly curious to hear your answer not trying to be snide.

[smvoice]

Well, first of all, do you know the "my gospel" Paul was referring to? It was the gospel committed to him by Jesus Christ. That's why he calls it "my gospel". That gospel answers your questions.

What does "our faith in Jesus" mean to you, exactly? Faith in what?

And I am not trying to be snide, either. It's important that we are talking about the same things. Like when "grace" is discussed. It CERTAINLY means different things to RCCs than to non-RCCs. Definitions are important here.

[Jvette]

That is not an answer, it is a dodge.

What will we stand in judgement for when we stand before Jesus?

And, why will we be judged then, if we have already attained eternal life through our faith?

And, what does Jesus mean here?

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. John 5:29

[smvoice]

It most certainly was NOT a dodge. I told you that definitions must be agreed on, as they mean different things to different religions. I could be talking about one thing that means something completely different to the RCC. Don't you get that?

Now, as far as "my gospel", are you saying you believe that John 5:29 is the gospel Paul was referring to? That that is the gospel that all men will be judged on? And I'll ask you one more time, what does "faith in Christ" mean? Faith that He showed us how to live? Faith that He is there to guide us to be like Him? Faith that He gave Peter the keys to the Kingdom? Faith that He established a line of successors to Peter and a Catholic Church that the gates of Hell would not prevail against? What? All of these, none of these, more than these? Just what is that FAITH that gives us eternal life?

Look, if you think I'm dodging your questions, don't bother to answer this post. I'm just not going to get into a match of RCC language versus the Bible. It's that simple. If you truly want to know, I'll be happy to show you.

[Jvette]

I am well aware that you believe there are two different gospels. The one Jesus gave to the original twelve for the Jew and the one He gave to Paul for the Gentile. I do not agree they are different.

As for faith, this is my faith....

That Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the second person of the Trinity who became man and was crucified for the expiation of sin.

That it is only by the grace of God, through the sacrifice of His Son, Jesus that we can even hope to have eternal life in heaven.

It’s a simple question, with no semantics or word games.

For what will we be judged upon on Judgement Day?

[Jvette]

I shall look for your answer later as I am leaving for work and won’t be home until late.

[smvoice]

We will be judged on whether we accepted the finished work of Christ for our salvation. Our righteousness. Period. If we did not, we will be judged by our works for righteousness, which will automatically be burned up, because our works cannot match Christ's finished work for us. THis judgement comes after Christ's second coming. This is the "my gospel" that condemns those who rejected it. Those who are saved won't be part of this judgement. We've already been judged, declared ourselves guilty, thrown ourselves on the mercy of Christ's death in our stead, and declared freely saved, because Christ paid the penalty for our sins. This is the "my gospel" that saves those who accept it. We are either alive because we have accepted the atoning blood of Christ, or we are dead in our sins. THe judgement seat of Christ is for believer's works. As workmen for Christ. See 2 Tim. 2:15, and 2 Cor. 5:14-21. It is not for our salvation. That has already been settled, when a person accepts Christ's payment for their sins. It happens once, while we are alive. Once we die, it is too late to accept it.

If a person has to HOPE to have eternal life in heaven, then that person has NOT accepted the finished work of Christ. And is depending on his own works for righteousness. Or his plus Christ. Which will get that person exactly nowhere before God.

It's like showing up with with a diary of all you've done, and Christ standing on the other side of the scale. The scale will never even come close to balancing.

So, what is the "my gospel" that Paul says God will use to judge men's secrets by Jesus Christ?

"Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you THE GOSPEL which I PREACHED unto you, which also YE HAVE RECEIVED, and wherein YE STAND; by which also YE ARE SAVED, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that CHRIST DIED FOR OUR SINS according to the scriptures; and that HE WAS BURIED, and that HE ROSE AGAIN the third day according to the scriptures." 1 Cor. 15:1-4.

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast." Eph. 2:8,9.

There is no "hoping" to it. A person is either saved or they aren't. Not hope to be, am. Not because of what I did, didn't do, or hope to do, but what He did.

[MarkBsnr]

>>But there is a difference between you claiming to know your final end now and finding out what the Judge tells you at your Judgment.<<

"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.

Christianity has always operated with the mathematical operand 'and'. Jesus says this, assuredly, but He also tells us (as does Paul, extensively, that we may believe now, but go astray. And what does He tell us about that?

Luke 8: 11g “This is the meaning of the parable. The seed is the word of God.h 12Those on the path are the ones who have heard, but the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts that they may not believe and be saved. 13Those on rocky ground are the ones who, when they hear, receive the word with joy, but they have no root; they believe only for a time and fall away in time of trial. 14As for the seed that fell among thorns, they are the ones who have heard, but as they go along, they are choked by the anxieties and riches and pleasures of life, and they fail to produce mature fruit. 15But as for the seed that fell on rich soil, they are the ones who, when they have heard the word, embrace it with a generous and good heart, and bear fruit through perseverance.

The 'rocky ground' people believed, but Jesus tells us that they 'fall away'. Therefore a 'one time belief' as a basis for salvation is false by Christ's word.

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.

You may wish to use another translation. Verse 14 tells of those who are being sanctified, not those that are. If you cease to be sanctified, in other words, to become a disbeliever, then you are not perfected, are you?

[MarkBsnr]

that I have corrected with the plain meaning of what Paul wrote, for instance.

YOPIOS???

The teachings of the Church going back to the Apostles.

[MarkBsnr]

Maybe you can explain the "plain meaning of what Paul wrote" HERE, for instance..

"Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that IN ME FIRST Jesus Christ might SHEW FORTH all longsuffering, for A PATTERN TO THEM which should HEREAFTER BELIEVE ON HIM to life everlasting." 1 Tim. 1:16.

The keywords are 'might' and 'should'.