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.
Okay, I read the paramecia paranoia posts. If they truly offended you, please report them to the RM. Frankly, I think SOMEONE is taking one-celled organisms a little too seriously.
They didn't "offend" me because, to tell you the truth, I've gotten used to the regular insults and personal snideness. But, don't forget it was you who asked for proof of such and your words were, "I don't believe you", as if I had imagined them or was lying about reading them here. It started as your comments to mine that I had made to another poster who asked for more demonstrations of Christian love. This seems to be a pattern, though. Accuse someone of lying, demand defensive proof and when shown proof, blow it off or mock it.
I wish I had a dollar for every time you said you weren't going to post to me, yet you keep on doing it - even when you haven't been pinged to a specific post. I wish you would make up your mind. What I find most interesting, and which I hope objective observers notice, is that when "we" make critical comments we rarely to never make them about the person but we stick to whatever the topic is that is being discussed.
I get it that hearing our dearly held beliefs criticized isn't easy but we shouldn't be on open Religion Forum threads if we are incapable of dealing with others of different beliefs than ours in a respectful manner. The Moderator rightly warns against disrupting threads by making things personal or making the thread "about" someone else. This rule is for all our benefit and it helps to keep dialog moving and fruitful. But it isn't for sissies, that's for sure.
Seeing as this thread started on October 23, almost a month ago, I wonder how our "new" friend even found this since it wouldn't show up in a list of Religion Forum threads until at least a few dozen screens. Maybe our FRiend as been following along all this time. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad to see a reminder to always exhibit love in our discourses, but I question why only now this exhortation to love suddenly shows up. We sure could have used it back when non-Catholics were being compared to single-celled scum dwellers or our contributions likened to human waste. Which brings to the forefront that we don't seek to, nor want to, think of our opponents in such derogatory ways but would prefer to, rather, respectfully, as best we are able, speak the truths that we are convinced comes from God.
You doubted that anyone had said such things and implied it was a false claim. Metmom and I linked the posts that DID say such things - though there are more - and now here we are where you mock them. I doubt, though, that if any of us had directed such terms to you or your group, that we would have been excused so lightly.
Look, if you don’t like my posts, ignore them. If you don’t want to read my replies, don’t post to me.
This thread is a waste of everyone’s time. Mark Bsnr is the one who posted about paramecia, not me. Go complain to him, or the
RM, or whoever. Because I have no interest in this whole topic of who has offended you today,
For edification.....
Psalm 119:9-16 9How can a young man keep his way pure? By guarding it according to your word. 10 With my whole heart I seek you; let me not wander from your commandments! 11I have stored up your word in my heart, that I might not sin against you.
12Blessed are you, O LORD; teach me your statutes! 13With my lips I declare all the rules of your mouth. 14In the way of your testimonies I delight as much as in all riches.
15I will meditate on your precepts and fix my eyes on your ways. 16I will delight in your statutes; I will not forget your word.
I didn't say I didn't like your posts, in fact you have repeatedly said you did not wish to discuss anything with me. But then you make comments directed AT me, post comments ONLY to me and challenge me specifically about things I have said. When I respond to whatever you say to me, like showing you the proof you demanded, then you come back with "ignore my posts", "don't read them" and so on. It has nothing to do with me or who offended me but I simply thought you expected an answer from me or you wouldn't have asked. Is that so hard to understand?
Here's a deal...you don't ping me, or make comments to my posts and I won't direct posts back to you. Then you can ignore what I say anytime you want. Just be warned, though, if you should comment on anything I post, expect I will comment back at you if I think it is warranted. Will that work for you?
Imagine how things would be if "the church" did that concerning who their members are or are not!
Whatever floats your boat I don’t make deals.
Excellent point, MM; and also indicative of the apostasy of the Roman Catholic Church in that it is teaching "another gospel."
Hoss
Why would I need to do that? No one has proven any errors in the 66 books we have now.
If we start at the beginning, let's look at Genesis. I posted a comparison of Genesis 1 and Genesis 3. Shall we begin there?
>> Would you not admit that the Comma Johanneum, added later, changed things considerably?<<
No, I wouldn’t admit that. There are enough corroborating passages that support it. John 10:30 and many others support those verses so I see no change or contradiction from other scripture.
Would you say that that the later addition was a correction, hundreds of years later, rather than a new implementation?
>> How about the baptismal formula in Matthew 28?<<
What about it?
>> The earliest copies do not contain the Trinitarian formula. Does that mean error?
Like I said, “in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God”. I don’t think you understood my post earlier. I said take the current 66 books which have never been proven to have any errors or inconsistencies and compare all other information to those 66 books.
That is ducking the issue. If Matthew was originally written with the non Trinitarian formula, and the Trinitarian formula, as with the Comma Johanneum, and the long form of Mark 16 et al, were added hundreds of years later by the Church, what is your take on that? Were the authors wrong and the Church right? If so, that appears to be at odds with your current position vis a vis the Catholic Church. How do you reconcile that?
So how do you decide when God is speaking and when men are speaking?
I don't. I don't have to.
>>Witness the disaster of the Reformation, with increasing splintering, increasing nonChristian beliefs <<
What “nonChristian” belief came out of the Reformation?
Where to start... I would suggest that you select a particular church and look at their beliefs as advertised, and then move on to the next one. They should be rather obvious.
“97% of primitive societies’ population were existence agrarians or artisans. They had no time or money to be educated.”
But you have many examples before you that contradict the above. Do you see them and say “no, it can't be because I've always thought this or that”?
No. You have posted some rather good examples of good literacy, but that does not indicate widespread literacy. And, as I said, almost all of the population were existence agrarians or artisans, so there is no way that they or their offspring, unless pulled into the priestly or upper class, would be able to afford either the time or the money to be educated.
“The leap to literacy was spurred on by Gutenberg's press, sure.”
must surely be an attempt at sarcastic humor so I'll say no more for now.
Not sure that I understand this statement. All historians that I know of link the surge in literacy in the West to Gutenberg's press.
Genesis 1 gives what happened on each day doesn’t it? I don’t know what Bible you use but Genesis 3 reads way different in my Bible. But even in your Genesis 3 version there are no days mentioned.
So? Why are the orders different if Biblical literacy is so important?
I don't deny that they are included in what are called "canons", but I would deny that they have ever held the same status as other mutually-agreed divinely inspired Scripture. From the link http://www.orthodoxanswers.org/orthodoxbibles?noredir=1:, the Orthodox Church seems to view these differently than the Roman Catholics do:
In terms of "canon," the Orthodox Old Testament includes the 39 universally received ("canonical") books as well as the books found in the Septuagint which have always been read, used or explicitely quoted by the early Christians (Letter to the Hebrews, St. Polycarp of Smyrna. These books are part of the Orthodox Bible and lectionary but not with full canonical status; they are often called "deuterocanonical" or "to be read" (Anagignoskomena (αναγιγνωσκόμενα)). As a result, it can be said that the canon of the Old Testament is somewhat "open" with degrees of witnessing authority.
The East has always viewed the Apocalypse of John to be, well, lesser, as well. That does not mean that they do not consider them Scripture. That means that they consider them 'deutero', or 'second', versus 'proto', or 'first'.
Scripture is Scripture. However, there are varying degrees of Scripture, with the Gospels remaining first amongst the rest. That is the way of Christianity from the beginning. And that is the way that Kosta and I first started understanding each other when I first arrived on FR lo these many years ago.
Is this a general statement to inform Bible literalists that they may dispense with that idiotic notion?
No doubt to a paramecium, other paramecia appear different.
Naw, we just teach the Gospel taught by Jesus to the Apostles, and not anything we discovered in our bellybutton lint, or scraped out from under our toenails this morning.
Abdicating personal responsibility could cost you greatly.
John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
>>I would suggest that you select a particular church and look at their beliefs as advertised, and then move on to the next one.<<
I already did that. The Catholic Church was the worst. Why do you think I’m not affiliated with any organized religious organization?
Romans 12:18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.
Matthew 5:9 "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
You have done what you could, bb, and discharged your responsibility before God.
You are not responsible for the other person's response. God bless you for your efforts.
Sure. Keep believing that if it makes you feel better. Your church still some issues like Mariolatry, Indulgences... you know, some extra-biblical stuff like that to deal with.
If your church could just stick to what Jesus taught, then you all would be okay. It's all the other man-made offal that your church adds that causes the issues.
Happy Thanksgiving!
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.