Posted on 08/16/2006 7:47:20 PM PDT by Teófilo
Folks, I want to add some further, yet brief reflections that I think are connected to those I did about the Holy Trinity last week (here and here). I belief there are a few connections between the process which resulted in the Trinitarian settlement in the 5th century AD, the settlement of the Canon of Scripture, and the Protestant idea of sola scriptura. First, let's define a few key terms:
Once again, I don't delude myself into thinking that the few words of this essay will solve 500 years of Protestant controversy or over 1,000 years of anti-Trinitarian objections. All I can do is to witness to the soundness of Catholic teaching and to hope that someone, somewhere, would be moved by grace to accept this teaching and be thus empowered to attain eternal life.
- Sola scriptura is a Latin phrase meaning "Scripture Alone" and refers to the foundational Protestant tenets that the Bible, and the Bible alone is to be the sole rule of faith, belief, and discipline for the Church and that the traditional Catholic hermeneutical dialogue that existed between the reading of the Bible, the celebration of the Liturgy, and the living Magisterium of the Apostle's Successors in communion with the Successor of Peter, had to be deemphasized or rejected altogether.
- Tradition is the entire "set" of God's revelation or "self-disclosure," some of which was written down in Scripture, some of which was preserved in the liturgical and sacramental action of the early Church, and some of which was preserved in the hermeneutical method preserved by the Fathers and Doctors of the Church down to the present age.
- Hermeneutics is the name given to the science and art of textual interpretation, in other words, the study of all those elements found in any piece of literature that makes it intelligible to the reader. These elements include language, the messenger, the audience, literary devices, culture, worldview, etc.
- The Canon of Scripture refers to the authoritative list of books constituting the Christian Bible's Old and New Testament. The study of the Canon is the study of the Bible, but also the study of how the Bible came to be in its present form.
- The Holy Trinity is the foundational belief, still held by Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and most Protestant Christians, stating that Three Persons, co-equal in dignity, share one single divine life or nature within the single, One God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
Protestant apologists go to great lengths to defend Sola Scriptura, which is, after all, central to their conception of Christianity. Posts such as this one found in the Free Republic Religion board (Can traditions contradict God's completed Word? - Is the Doctrine of Sola Scriptura Really Biblical?) offer a case in point.
In fact, what struck me about this post is the circular reasoning of its author. The author assumes the validity of sola scriptura and then proceeds to "prove" it through Scripture, while seeking to "debunk" Tradition—rather, the author's own understanding of what Tradition is, which is another fallacy, a straw man argument. Implied the author own argumentation is the assumption that Scripture is a text book containing propositional arguments which can be lifted out of its literary context, stringed to other such "propositions" to build, or support, the Protestant conclusions in matters of faith and discipline.
The author falls in what I refer to as the problem of the interpreter. For Protestants, or at least to traditional Protestants who hold to the magisterial consensus of the classical Reformers (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Knox, Melanchthon, etc.), the individual believer is to approach the Bible alone, alone. If the interpreter is docile to the promptings of the Holy Spirit—they reason—the believer will attain a working knowledge of the Truth that will lead him or her to Salvation, quite apart from the teachings of the Roman Church—in this they all agreed. This is what is referred to in Protestantism as free examen.
In this scheme, the interpreter, prompted by the Holy Spirit and rightly guided by the Protestant foundational axioms, becomes an "honest broker" of salvific information to other believers and to the unbelieving masses, with no other agenda than self-perfection and the salvation of other fellow souls. In this purported state of grace and election, the Protestant believer becomes a true interpreter and prophet of God's Word. That's what Protestant apologists argue in principle. The reality has been quite another.
History shows that Protestantism has been unable to produce an interpreter free from bias, prejudice, and completely aloof from the historical process that could serve as a transparent prism for the Holy Spirit's communications. Most defenses I've seen of the classical Protestant tenets fail to examine the scope, focus, and limitations of the interpreter as he or she approaches alone Scripture Alone.
The ability and authority of the individual Protestant interpreter to bind his conscience and that of others to his interpretation of Scripture remains largely unexamined by Protestant apologists. It seems that in their rush to define themselves against the historical Church, the Reformers—and their apologists—exacerbated the problem of interpretation by unwittingly multiplying authorities, believing their stance would facilitate the work of the Holy Spirit to explain and the individual interpreter's ability to receive from the Spirit binding interpretations of Scripture in matters of faith, morals, and discipline. Protestantism, in its revolt, compounded the problem without solving it. The immediate consequence could be seen in Protestantism' rich tendency to fracture and divide into sects that compete with each other for the souls of men.
In the end, the appeal that a Protestant interpreter of Scripture makes is not to Scripture alone, but to his ability to interpret Scripture rightly based upon questionable suppositions, strawmen, and circular reasoning.
The Canon of Scripture
Another matter contradicting the Protestant notion of Sola Scriptura is the origin of the Canon of the Bible. How do we know that the Bible is, well, the Bible? How do we know that the books we see in the Bible belong to it? How do we know that …all Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17, NASB)?
The Canon of Scripture is not in the Bible. We don't know from the Bible which books belong to it and which do not. That information comes from outside the Bible, hence, the Bible cannot be the sole rule of faith, morals, and discipline for the Church. There is a preceding, discerning, and selective authority of the canon of Scripture: the Holy Spirit acting through a visible, historical, very human instrument—the Church.
We know which books are inspired because of the Church. Lovingly, carefully, exactingly, the Church examined, listed, debated, and listed again the list of books through which God spoke to men. Hence, the Church's discernment and teaching power—her magisterium—form a more proximate rule of faith, so to speak, than Scripture.
So there is more than one rule of faith, one depending on the other to be certain, but both impossible to separate without ruining the other. The relationship between the Church and Scripture is symbiotic; though is true that Scripture judges the Church it is also true that the Church rightly interprets Scripture. Scripture can't stand separate from the Church.
How often are we confronted by Protestant apologists who are keen to separate us from the Catholic Church with the claim that Scripture judges the Church? Because they do not consider, as we have seen, the role of the interpreter, what they really mean in practice is that they, the interpreters, judge the Church.
Has Public Revelation Ended?
Similarly, Holy Scripture never unequivocally states that public Revelation from God, binding on the consciences of all His children, has ever ended. How do we know that Revelation, that is, God's self-disclosure in Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit, came to an end with the death of the last Apostle? We know because the Church tells us, because our ancestors in the faith believe it and the successors to the Apostles so declared it.
Based on Sola Scriptura, Protestants cannot close the canon! Oh, they can accept convention or the words of the Reformers to that effect, but the Reformers were sticking to the classical Catholic canon with little explanation as to the exact end of public revelation.
The fact that Sola Scriptura allows for open-ended revelation has not been ignored by myriads of sects, from Montanism way back in Tertullian's time to the ecstatic sects of the Middle Ages to Seventh-day Adventism and Mormonism—this last one even has three more books of "sacred scriptures" besides the Bible! But the contradiction has been passed in silence by Protestant apologists.
A Protestant, if he or she is consistent, can't criticize others who add their revelations to the Bible simply because the Bible is silent on the subject. The answer to this dilemma comes from outside the Bible, from the all-encompassing Tradition maintained, treasured, and explained in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
Stay tuned for the conclusion!
Honour thy father and thy mother, which is the first commandment with a promise (Ephesian 6:2).
Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? (James 2:21)
You are missing the context...That's why you have to compare scripture with scripture...Of course your male parent is your father...Abraham was the first of the seed to be rewarded the 'inheritance'...Henry Ford was the father of mass production...
The context is has to do with spiritual matters...
Joh 8:41 You do the works of your father. They said therefore to him: We are not born of fornication: we have one Father, even God.
Joh 8:42 Jesus therefore said to them: If God were your Father, you would indeed love me. For from God I proceeded and came. For I came not of myself: but he sent me.
The commandment is to "call no man your father in spiritual matters because you have only 1 spiritual Father...And that is God...In other words, do not call priests, Father...
Where do you get this stuff from??? All Protestant churches have bible classes just as your church does...And a lot of them are just as wrong as your church is...
It's a conclusion based upon observation, study, and painful experience.
For I once left the Catholic Church, beguiled by the "reasonable" Protestant explanations, only to find them empty, circular, and dead.
You may choose to disregard my "authority" if you wish, but the fact remains that I made a good argument, based upon Scripture itself and lots of common sense.
If "only Scripture" is "sufficient," then the canon of the Scripture and the notion that revelation still continues remains an open option, for Scripture does not contain a list of the inspired books nor does it say anywhere that revelation has been completed. IOW, the logical consequence of sola Scriptura is an open canon and continuing revelation.
Deal with that.
-Theo
I don't have to deal with that...My bible came out of Antioch, Syria...The last book of my bible warns not to add anything to the book...
I realize I didn't ask anyone to interpret that for me but I'll take my chanches that I understood it correctly...
"Do not add to this book, or you will die"...I know that can mean something different to someone else but I'm going to interpret that as meaning the book is finished...The Canon is finished...Works for me...
Depends on what one means by "barely." Luke devotes two whole chapters to Mary, and in what connection? With the incarnation. Look at the histoic creeds: THE GOD is incarnate by the Virgin Mary. Note it does not say "born of A virgin." . The cult of Mary is not a concoction of the Middle Ages but can be traced to the early Church Fathers, such as Ignatious who proves the divinity of Jesus by reference to the Virgin. The claim--a claim not made by the way by Luther or Calvin--that Mary was a virgin at the time of the conception but not thereafter, tends to diminish not only Mary but Jesus. Contrarily, the exaltation of Mary elevates Jesus. The term Theotokos arises out of the Arian and Nestorian controversies and are part of the definition of the Trinity. Muslims have an inkling of this, assumed, one gathers from heretical sects in Syria which DID make Mary one of the Trinity. The worst that some Marianists in the Catholic Church have done is to raise Mary to demi-god status. But the modern day Protestants go so far in the opposite direction as to put here on the same level as Elizabeth or a Old Testament prototype like Hannah or Sarah. Her originally virginity reduced to a sign and Mary's role in the event a purely passive one. This, IMO. disregards the intent of St. Luke.
No one is their own Pope in any Christian environment. However, all are solely responsible for their own salvation.
This requires personal understanding, starting with the simplest faith BUT NOT ENDING THERE. From there, we must grow in our walk, our faith, and our understanding. We can't rely on another for any of that and we shouldn't when we have the letters of the New Testament available to us.
With the Pope being as infallible as the rest of us simply because he is human, then we are as damned to Hell if we follow Him as if we follow Satan.
We are not to follow ANY MAN BUT CHRIST in His example. That said, wise men and women can help us along on our way.
One can only grant absolution (forgiveness and restoration) of sins in which they were directly a part.
In that way, we all are called to forgive our brothers and sisters when they repent. For those who are not our brothers and sisters, well, they are going to Hell anyway.
The reference you give is otherwise specific to the Apostles on behalf of Jesus and God.
I beg to differ. You all seem to think that you read the Bible infallibly, but I don't see that you do. If you did, there wouldn't be so many sects of non-Catholics all disagreeing with what the Bible says.
With the Pope being as infallible as the rest of us simply because he is human, then we are as damned to Hell if we follow Him as if we follow Satan.
Oh please! Come on now, get serious. How many of you follow what your preachers say and do? Going to hell over that are you? Are you following Satan when you sit in the pews on Sunday morning nodding your head in agreement with your pastor? Man, what an analogy!
We are not to follow ANY MAN BUT CHRIST in His example. That said, wise men and women can help us along on our way.
Well, you just contradicted yourself there didn't you? If wise men and women can help you along the way, but you aren't to follow anyone but Christ, you better not listen to them either.
Disagree with the Papacy all you want. At least it has kept the Catholic Church going for 2,000+ years now while the non-Catholic churches continue to splinter and fall apart theologically.
OTOH, the absence of structural unity among Protestants does not necessarily imply significant theological differences. For example, the Presbyterian Church in America and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, both conservative Reformed denominations, are in agreement as to a strict adherence to the Westminster Standards. Smaller conservative Reformed denominations, such as the United Reformed Church are in substantial doctrinal agreement with the conservative Presbyterian bodies, even if their doctrinal statements draw from Continental, rather than British, confessions of faith. Reformed and Calvinistic Baptists may disagree with their Presbyterian brethren on the administration of baptism and church governance, but would agree on issues of Biblical interpretation in most other areas. The theological differences between the Calvinistic Baptist Albert Mohler and the conservative Presbyterian R.C. Sproul are smaller than those between the the leaders of the Society of St. Pius X and the Pope Benedict XVI, both of whom are considered part of Roman Catholicism's conservative wing.
Roman Catholicism does have structural unity, but in terms of theological disputation, it is as fractured as are the churches that are in the tradition of the Reformation.
I shouldn't laugh, but I can't help it. These intra-Catholic fights on FR seldom rise to the same level as the intra-non-Catholic fights. In fact, I think I see a lot more unity among the Catholic posters.
You say we are just as fractured as those in the Reformation? Hardly.
Mainline Protestant churches no longer dominate NCC Yearbook’s list of top 25 U.S. religious bodies
Three of the largest 25 churches in the U.S. are Pentecostal and six are African American, the yearbook reports.
The list includes the rapidly growing Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Greek Orthodox Church, the Orthodox Church in America, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and – largest of all – the Roman Catholic Church.
Take a look a that list and that doesn't even mention every splinter group that is out there among non-Catholics.
As for church growth, you fail to mention that the annual growth rate for the Southern Baptist Convention, a predominantly conservative evangelical denomination, is only slightly smaller than that of the Roman Catholic Church. Keep in mind too that the large majority of Latin American immigrants, who are at the core of the illegal alien problem, are at least nominal Catholics. Of course, both the Southern Baptists and the Assemblies of God (another conservative evangelical denomination) have aggressive outreach programs among Hispanics, and their growth could also be partially due to immigrants. OTOH, there is a drift of liberal Roman Catholics to Episcopalianism, which may explain the growth of that denomination in contrast with the losses experienced by other mainline bodies, and a movement of conservative Episcopalians to Roman Catholicism. The growth of the Orthodox Churches and Mormonism are probably the result of conversions of native born Americans rather than ethnic mission work.
Gotta get back to work, but wanted to say that what should be stated here is not Luther's breakaway, but Luther's rebellion and Henry XII's lusts being satisified.
The Popes have been very consistent in doctrine, so I disagree with you on that one. Perverse? Well, I can show you some perverse ones in non-Catholics sects.
For your viewing enjoyment.
Robert Tilton's Performing Poodles
Pastor Theo Faith Healing Exposed
It's getting a old hearing that we're "perverse." Look in the mirror.
They aren't the Pope so that they don't speak for the Church. What they have to say is of little consequence in the grand scheme of things. There will always be some that disagree and think they know better than the Pope. I will say this, some of the concerns by the Traditional Catholics are valid. IMO, ecumenism has gone way overboard with some of the Catholic clerics.
As for church growth, you fail to mention that the annual growth rate for the Southern Baptist Convention, a predominantly conservative evangelical denomination, is only slightly smaller than that of the Roman Catholic Church.
Slightly smaller? Hmm...the Roman Catholic Church has now slightly over 67 million and the Southern Baptist Convention has 16,439,603? What math are you using to come up with that?
OTOH, there is a drift of liberal Roman Catholics to Episcopalianism, which may explain the growth of that denomination in contrast with the losses experienced by other mainline bodies, and a movement of conservative Episcopalians to Roman Catholicism.
I know nothing of this "drift" of liberal Roman Catholics to the Episcopal church. Can you show documentation supporting that claim? If true, then I'm glad they left and went to where they belong. We don't need naysaying liberals in the Church trying to corrupt it with liberalism. I will, of course, pray for conversion of their hearts back to the Church.
Can you please tell me why Paul would give 2 chapters on speaking in toungues when they would be gone?
Can you tell me where in scripture the perfect has been defined from 1 Cor 13:10?
If speaking in tongues was a known language, why did Paul do it more than anyone he knew?
What does it mean in Eph 6 when we are commanded to pray in the Holy Spirit?
I used to teach Baptists baptist theology. Then I actually read what the bible says and stopped listening to the Baptist theology. Perhaps you will aslo.
Acts 2:11 shows that the tongues used by the early Church were words in legitimate human languages--ones that those people otherwise were never taught. It was not babbling nonsense.
Can someone who rejects the Catholic church and yet believes in Jesus be saved?
With regard to growth of different church bodies, please note that I was speaking about annual growth percentages, not raw numbers. The article you previously cited dealt with annual growth rate among the 25 largest Christian bodies. With a base of 67 million vs. 17 million, the raw numbers of Catholic increase will be about fourfold that of the Southern Baptists, though the growth rate is similar. Additionally, over half of the megachurches listed in a recent survey of the most influential congregations in America were either non-denominational, such as The Potter's House in Dallas, Texas, or associated with a small denomination, such as Coral Ridge Church in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, affiliated with the conservative Presbyterian Church in America, with denominational membership at about 350K. A lot of church growth exists beyond the range of the larger Christian bodies.
As for the drift of liberal Catholics to Episcopalianism, this observation is based on statements of current liberal Episcopalians as to their faith background and why they left Roman Catholicism, often because of Catholic opposition to homosexuality, abortion, etc. The reverse flow of conservative Episcopalians is based on personal observation, including old family friends who "swam the Tiber" 20 years ago when the liberalism in that denomination was too flagrant, as well as the existence of an Anglican usages group within the Roman Rite.
***Scripture is holy because God says so, yes, but this only becomes meaningful when the Church proclaims it so.***
The scripture of the God of the universe is only meaningful when a lowly church says so? I think you had better rethink that. It is meaningful because GOD says so. It is meaningful when the Holy Spirit makes it so in your heart. The church is only a minor player in things.
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.